Moscow Idaho Seed Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MOSCOW IDAHO SEED COMPANY, INC. 107
by certain conduct, more specifically referred to hereinafter,
the Employer had interfered with the employees' free choice
of a bargaining representative in the election of May 9, 1953.
He therefore recommended that the election be set aside.
The Employer has excepted to the hearing officer's credibility
findings and recommendations. Based upon the entire record
in the case, 1 the Board makes the following findings.
The hearing officer found (1) that Plant Engineer Halloway
told employee Wagner, on May 1, 1953, that the Chicopee
Manufacturing Company could not pay the same wage scales
as the Petitioner had obtained at Personal Products Company,
also a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Corporation, and
that "if the union won, they would be forced to move the plant;"
and (2) that Shift 'Foreman Oliveira, in conversations with
employee Baker, stated that the Employer "could move the
plant if they so desired." Assuming that these statements
were in fact made, we find that they do not warrant setting
aside the election. We view these statements, under the cir-
cumstances, as nothing more than predictions of the possible
impact of wage demands upon the Employer's business. A
prophecy that unionization might ultimately lead to loss of
employment is not coercive where there is no threat that the
Employer will use its economic power to make its prophecy
come true.2
In view of the above findings, we hereby overrule the
Petitioner's objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election. As the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots
was not cast for Textile Workers Union of America (CIO)
and that the said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit
stipulated to be appropriate.]
1 The Employer's request for oral argument in support of its exceptions to the hearing
officer's report on objections is hereby denied, because the record, report, briefs, and
exceptions adequately present the positions of the parties.
2See Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc., 78 NLRB 1144; Electric Steel Foundry, 74 NLRB 129.
MOSCOW IDAHO SEED COMPANY, INC. and JOE ADRIANSEN,
Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 551. Case
No. 19-RD-66. November 18, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before E. R.
Ormsbee, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
107 NLRB No. 35.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Petitioners , employees of the Employer, assert that the
Union is no longer the representative , as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act , of the employees designated in the petition.
The Union is the currently recognized representative of the
Employer's employees in a unit which included the employees
designated in the petition.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
Petitioner claims that certain employees of the Employer's
plant, alone , constitute an appropriate unit . The Union moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground that the only appropriate
unit is a multiemployer unit based on an 8-year history of
collective bargaining between the Union and an Association of
employers, including this Employer. Following a notice by the
Union reopening the latest contract , the employees notified
the Employer that they no longer desired to have the Union
represent them and instructed the Employer to enter into no
contract with the Union . Thereupon , the Employer, at the
request of its employees , notified the Association, that in
accordance with the wishes of its employees, it no longer
considered itself a member of the bargaining unit and desired
not to be included in the multiemployer negotiations.
The evidence indicates that the Employer has apparently,
for purposes other than bargaining , retained its membership
in the Association and has withdrawn from multiemployer
negotiations solely at the suggestion and to satisfy the desires
of its employees. The Employer has, nevertheless , indicated
by its affirmative action an intent to abandon group bargaining
and to pursue instead an individual course of action with
respect to its labor relations. Accordingly , for reasons set
forth in the case of Bearing & Rim Supply Co. 107 NLRB No.
101 we find that a single employer unit is appropriate and
therefore deny the Union ' s motion to dismiss.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer employed at its warehouse
and seed - processing plant at Moscow, Idaho, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees , guards , and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Murdock , dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority ' s conclusion in this case
that the facts establish an unequivocal intent by the Employer
CHALET, INC. 109
to abandon group bargaining. Accordingly, fQr the reasons
stated in my dissent in Bearing & Rim Supply Co. 107 NLRB
101, 1 would dismiss the petition.
CHALET, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, AFL, CUTTERS LOCAL NO. 387. Case
No. 16-CA-596. November 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth
in the copy of the intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the General
Counsel and the Union filed supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's,
the Union's, and the Respondent's exceptions, and the General
Counsel's and the Union's supporting briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Ladies` Garment Workers' Union, AFL, Cutters
Local No. 387, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of he National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued his
complaint on May 15, 1953, against the Respondent, Chalet. Inc., alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as enlarged by several amend-
ments made during the hearing, alleges in substance that: (1) Although requested to do so,
since January 13, 1953, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act; (2) by reason of such refusal and by other conduct described in
the complaint, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees,
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; (3) a strike by employees of Respondent, which
was begun on January 14, 1953, was caused by the unfair labor practices of the Respondent;
and (4) by refusing to reinstate the striking employees following their offer to return to work
made on May 29, 1953, the Respondent has discriminated against these employees, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
The Respondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
107 NLRB No. 42.
337593 0 - 55 - 9