Perry County Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 664 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PERRY COUNTY PLYWOOD CORPORATION and UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-793. June 19,
1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September
3, 1952, in the above-entitled proceeding, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region of the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, a
tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which showed that
of 115 ballots cast, 56 were for the Petitioner, 58 against the
Petitioner, and 1 was challenged.
On September 8, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to the
election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, the
Acting Regional Director issued his report on objections on
November 14, 1952. In his report, the Acting Regional Director
found that certain conduct of a supervisor of the Employer
raised substantial and material issues with respect to the
conduct of the election, and recommended that the election be
set aside. On November 22, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions
to the report. Thereafter, on December 15, 1952, the Board
issued an order directing a hearing on the issues raised by the
Employer's exceptions, and remanded the case to the Regional
Director for the purpose of conducting the hearing.
The hearing was held on March 20 and 21, 1953, before
Victor H. Hess, Jr., hearing officer. All the parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. On April 23, 1953, the hearing
officer issued his report on objections. The Employer filed
exceptions to this report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board' makes the
following findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
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 following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its Beaumont, Mississippi, plant, excluding the
woods crew, office and plant clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
IPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board
has delegated its powers m connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Murdock, Styles, and Peterson].
105 NLRB No. 102.
PERRY COUNTY PLYWOOD CORPORATION 665
5. The hearing officer found , and we agree , that McNeese
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that the
Employer was responsible for McNeese ' s conduct.
The hearing officer further found that a few days before the
September 3; 1952, election , McNeese told employee Rayburn
that he had seen Rayburn's name signed on a "card" shown to
him (McNeese ) by one of the employees , and that he had also
seen cards signed by three other employees ( Prentiss , Elder,
and Tingle ); and that thereupon Rayburn denied signing the
card and attempted without success to get McNeese to tell him
who had the card . On these facts , the hearing officer concluded
that McNeese was trying to find out if Rayburn and other
employees were in favor of the Petitioner or had signed cards
for the Petitioner . Although the testimony did not specifically
describe the cards as "union cards ," we agree with the hearing
officer's conclusion that such inference was warranted by the
tenor of the conversation , Rayburn's denial that he had signed
and his request that he be confronted with the person who,
according to McNeese , had the card , the closeness in point of
time of this incident to the election , the fact that the union
campaign was then in progress , and the lack of explanation or
denial by McNeese as to this incident.
The hearing officer also found that on the morning of the
election , McNeese initiated a conversation about the Unionwith
employees Rayburn , Prentiss , Elder , and Tingle by asking them
why they did not form a union among themselves and then go
see Plant Owner Toussaint about a raise; ? that McNeese told
them that Toussaint would give the employees a raise under
these conditions ; that McNeese also told them that if the Union
won, Toussaint would or could shut down the plant, and that if
the Union came in the men could not work on other jobs in the
plant, and , as a consequence, would lose time and money.
On the basis of the foregoing undisputed testimony , which the
hearing officer credited , we conclude, as did the hearing
officer, that the Employer by such conduct, had engaged in
interference , restraint , and coercion of its employees in the
exercise of their free choice of a bargaining representative,
and shall order that the election of September 3, 1952, be set
aside. We shall direct the Regional Director to conduct a new
election at such time as he deems appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of September 3,
1952, be, and it hereby is, set aside. and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard for the purpose of conducting anew election at such time
as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a
bargaining representative.
2 Unlike the hearing officer, we find it unnecessary to, and do not, decide whether the state-
ment suggesting the formation of a labor organization, herein described, violated Section 8
(a) (2) of the Act.