Rockwood Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 30, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ROCKWOOD MILLS 955 got his information as to the raise from the smaller companies with which the Employer does business , and that "we didn't need a union." 2. On or about October 5 , 1952, Lawrence Bahling, night foreman , asked employee William Sheetz and other employees what they thought about the Union. 3. On September 30, 1952 , Phil Geske asked employee Howard Rodd if he knew that passing out union literature or cards was a violation ; told him that "you're most likely to loose everything you have got and you would have to start from scratch" if the Union came in; and cautioned him not to "bite the hand that ' s feeding you." 4. On either September 30 or October 1, 1952, Geske and employee Albert Kessler engaged in a conversation in the boilerroom in which Geske told Kessler " if you guys figure on having a union in here , it's going to be the same as they're doing at Allis Chalmers --that's all you'll be doing is strik- ing, . . . " and , "as far as your overtime, you can kiss that goodbye , you'll be cut down to 40 hours a week." 5. About a week before the election , conducted on October 15, 1952 , Raymond Lasowski , the assistant foreman, told employee Richard Olson " if you get a union in here you'll be standing up on the viaduct looking down here ," and asked Olson if they thought they could make it. Upon the basis of the conduct specified above , we shall set the election aside and 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 held in this proceeding on October 15, 1952 , be, and it hereby is, set aside. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. ROCKWOOD MILLS and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS , LOCAL UNION NO. 579, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-2115 . June 30, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On December 1, 1952 , pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board , an election by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer , in the unit found appro- priate, was conducted under the direction and supervision of 105 NLRB No. 127. 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. The tally of ballots showed that of 498 votes cast, Z61 were for the Petitioner, 220 against the Petitioner, 15 were challenged, and 2 were void. On December Z9, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the election, alleging that one McNeal was an agent of the Petitioner, and as such had engaged in electioneering at and near the polling place, and requesting that the election be set aside. After an investigation, the Regional Director on May 7, 1953, issued a report in which he found that electioneering did not take place, as alleged by the Employer, and recommended that the objec- tions be overruled and the Petitioner be certified as the exclu- sive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit found appropriate. On May 14, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board' has carefully considered the Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions, and finds no merit in the exceptions. The Regional Director conducted a thorough investigation, interviewing everyone employed in the Employer's plant on a day selected at random. Apart from one isolated incident, all the employees manifested a complete lack of knowledge of electioneering on the part of McNeal.' One witness stated that McNeal, while talking to people waiting in line to vote, told an employee to "go on in and vote." A second witness stated that McNeal told him to "vote right." As to the former remark, there is nothing in the circumstances here evidencini inter- ference with free choice by employees in the election. While the latter statement can be interpreted as at least an attempt at electioneering, we agree with the Regional Director that, at the most, it is an isolated instance, which by itself is insuffi- cient to warrant setting aside the election.' Thus, despite McNeal's conclusory statement that he had engaged in "elec- tioneering," we conclude, as did the Regional Director, from all of the evidence in the case and on the basis of the Regional Director's exhaustive investigation, that, other than the fore- going isolated instance, McNeal did not engage in electioneering within the meaning customarily applied by the Board to that term.' 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three member-panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. 2Some of the witnesses stated they had seen McNeal talk to employees either in the vicinity of the polls or at other places. However, with the exception of those incidents set forth above, either , they did not overhear the conversations or the conversations were irrelevant to the issue at hand. $Southwestern Electric Service Company, 90 NLRB 457. Another witness stated that McNeal, when asked how the election was coming, answered, "We are winning " We do not find this statement to be electioneering. 4 United States Gypsum Company, 92 NLRB 1661. 5 The Board has held that mere presence at or near the polls does not constitute "elec- tioneering" within this context. Cities Service Oil Company of Pennsylvania, 87 NLRB 324. EVERETT PLYWOOD & DOOR CORPORATION 957 We find that McNeal's activities did not constitute improper conduct of such character as to have affected the employees' free choice in the election. Accordingly, the Employer's exceptions are hereby overruled. As the tally of ballots shows that a majority of the valid votes have been cast for the Petitioner, and the challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election, the Board shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. IThe Board certified International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local Union No. 579, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found to be appropriate at the Employer's Rockwood, Tennessee, plant.] EVERETT PLYWOOD & DOOR CORPORATION, Petitioner and PLYWOOD AND DOOR EMPLOYEES OF EVERETT, LOCAL NO. 1 and LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 2781, chartered by the UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. EVERETT PLYWOOD & DOOR CORPORATION and PLYWOOD AND DOOR EMPLOYEES OF EVERETT, LOCAL NO. 1, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 19-RM-73 and 19-RC-1187. June 30, 1953 ORDER DENYING MOTION On May 27, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in the above-captioned matter.' On June 15, 1953, one of the parties, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2781, chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., filed a petition for clari- fication and motion to postpone election, contending that the decision in the instant case is in conflict with the Board's decision in Brookings Plywood.2 The Board has considered the motion and finds it to be without merit because the issue in the instant case is entirely distinguishable from that presented in Brookings Plywood. In the latter case the Board held that stockholder employees could not be included in the same bargaining unit with non- stockholder employees. Here, as set forth in the Decision, no nonstockholder employees are involved, and" the Board found the unit to be appropriate for the reason, among others, that 1105 NLRB 17. 2 Brookings Plywood Corporation, 98 NLRB 794. 105 NLRB No. 141.