Butler Specialty Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of his employees in the appropriate unit,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union as the representative of such employees, and if
agreement is reached to embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. All employees of the Respondent at his Athens, Georgia, plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, watchmen and guards, professional employees, and
supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. American Federation of Hosiery Workers at all times on and after October
28, 1949, has been the exclusive bargaining representative within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with American Federation of Hosiery
Workers the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
BUTLER SPECIALTY COMPANY and FURNITURE AND BEDDING WORKERS
UNION, LocAL 18-B, UFWA-CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-BC-
1524. March 2,1951
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed by the Employer and the Petitioner on October 2, 1950, an
election by secret ballot was held on October 20, 1950, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region among the employees of the Employer in the unit stipulated
as appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were
93 NLRB No. 91.
BUTLER SPECIALTY COMPANY 609
furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that there were approxi-
mately 146 eligible voters, and that 146 ballots were cast, of which 70
were for the Petitioner, 72 were against the Petitioner, and 4 were
void. No other labor organization was on the ballot.
On October 25, 1950, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. Following an investigation, the
Regional Director on January 15, 1951, issued his report on objections,
in which he concluded that the objections be overruled and recom-
mended that the petition be dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions thereto.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:'
Objections 1 and 2. The Regional Director concluded that investi-
gation revealed no evidence in support of the Petitioner's allegations
that (a) foremen attempted to vote; and (b) that two foremen, in
fact, did vote. As no exceptions were filed to these conclusions, we
shall adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the objec-
tions be overruled.
Objection 3. The Regional Director further concluded that there
was no evidence to support the Petitioner's allegation that the Em-
ployer, in a prepared preelection speech, sought to influence the
employees to vote against the Petitioner by promises of benefit and
threats of reprisal. We have examined the contents of the speech
and find no merit in the Petitioner's exception to the Regional Direc-
tor's conclusion. We find, in agreement with the Regional Director,
that the speech contained no threats or promises and therefore did
not prevent the employees from exercising a free choice in the
election 2
As we have found that the objections to election are without merit,
we hereby overrule the Petitioner's objections and adopt the Regional
Director's conclusions and recommendation. Accordingly, as the
tally of ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative
has been chosen, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
- 2 The Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577.
943732-51-40