F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 992 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or modification of several specific terms and conditions of employment
of the Smelter Division employees. Article III, clause C of the 1949
contract, which we have found covered the Smelter Division employees
as of July 20, permitted, among other things, "interim negotiations on
a specific proposal for modification." We have frequently held that
negotiations for modifications pursuant to such a clause do not remove
a contract as a bar to an immediate election, where the parties do not
attempt "to renew or extend the term of the contract." 3 Here, nego-
tiation of a change in the termination date of the contract was not
proposed.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, we shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
3 S. & W. Fine Foods, Inc., 74 NLRB 1316, 1319, and cases cited.
F . W. WOOLWORTH Co. and RETAIL CLERKS ' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION, LOCAL UNION No. 324, PETITIONER . Case No. 01-UA-3098.
March 27,1951.
Decision and Order
On November 30, 1950, pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act,
an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region to
determine whether the employees at the Employer's Compton, Cali-
fornia, store wished to authorize Retail Clerks' International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 324, herein called the Petitioner, to enter into
an agreement with the Employer which requires membership in the
Union as a condition of continued employment. At the close of the
election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows
that there were 50 eligible voters, and that there were 15 votes cast.
Of these 15 votes, 13 were cast in favor of authorizing the Petitioner
and the Employer to enter into a union-security agreement, and 2 votes
were cast against the proposition. Thus the Petitioner did not receive
a majority of the eligible votes, which is required for a 9 (e) election.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the
Employer's store manager called most of his employees into his office
on the day before the election, and informed them that the Employer
would never agree to a union-security provision in the contract.
93 NLRB No. 173.
F. W. WOOLWORTH Co. 993,
On January 26, 1951, after an investigation, the Regional Director
issued, and duly served upon the parties, his report on objections, in
which he found that the objections did not raise substantial and
material issues, and recommended that all the objections be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report on objections.
The Regional Director's investigation disclosed that the employees
met with the Employer's store manager and the Employer's labor
relations consultant in two groups in the employees' lounge the day
before the election, and were advised that the Employer would not
agree to a union-shop provision in any contract. The store manager
stated that he "repeatedly told his employees when the subject was.
raised that he was unwilling to be a party to any arrangement whereby
his employees would be required to join the Union as a condition of
holding a position in the store." The manager also posted the fol-
lowing notice in the store the day before the election :
SPECIAL NOTICE. To my Employees : I can say without
qualifications that this store will not sign or enter into any agree-
ment, oral or. written, with a Union requiring you to join the
Union. Further, I will not enter into or sign any agreement
with any Union requiring you to pay dues, assessments, fines or
money for any reason whatsoever. If someone has told you or
tells you anything to the contrary, he is mistaken or is misrepre-
senting the facts. You are now free of such things and I trust
that you shall remain so.
The Regional Director found that because the Employer is not re-
quired to agree to a union-shop contract provision, this objection
does not raise any material or substantial issue and recommended that
the Board overrule it.
The Petitioner, in its exceptions, contends that a free and ' fair
election could not be held in the face of 'such conduct on the part
of the Employer. In support of its position, the Petitioner points
to the small number of votes cast in this election as contrasted with
the number of eligible employees who voted in the earlier represen-
tation election'
We do not agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that
the Petitioner's objection does not raise any material or substantial
issue. As the very purpose of this union-authorization election was
to determine whether the employees favored authorizing the Peti-
tioner and the Employer "to make an agreement . . . requiring mem-
1 On October 10, 1950 , pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election was held among these same employees The tally of ballots for that repre-
sentation election showed that there were approximately 38 eligible voters and that there
were 35 votes cast.
943732-51-64
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bership in [the Petitioner] as a. condition of employment," the Em-
ployer's conduct could very well have been the cause of the small
number of votes cast at the union-authorization election. Thus, the
employees, having been informed by the Employer, without qualifi-
cation, that he would not agree to any union-security contract pro-
visions, may have considered it a futile act to vote at the election.
We believe that the Employer, by the conduct set forth above,
made improbable a free and untrammeled choice by the employees
as to whether or not they wished the Petitioner to enter into an agree-
ment with the Employer which requires membership in the Petitioner
as a condition of continued employment. We therefore find that the
Employer interfered with the election, and that the employees were
prevented from exercising a free choice in the election 2
Accordingly, we shall sustain the Petitioner's objection in this re-
spect, and shall set the election aside.3 When the Regional Direc-
tor advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice by
the employees, we shall direct that a new election be held among the
employees at the Employer's Compton, California, store.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on November 30, 1950,
among the employees of F. W. Woolworth Co., at its Compton, Cali-
fornia, store, be, and'it hereby is, set aside. -
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 Cf. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 90 NLRB 935, where the Board found that
the employer 's announcement that it would not bargain with the union because it was not
in compliance with the Act , "was reasonably calculated to impress upon the employees the
futility of voting for [the union ]," and interfered with the election.
3 As we regard the above -noted incident sufficient to warrant setting aside the election,
we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other objections treated by the Regional Director.
(PEACE DALE MILLS) M. T. STEVENS & SONS COMPANY and DANIEL
PUCELLA, PETITIONER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 288, CIO. Case No. 1-RD-77. March 27, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a decertification petition'duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph
Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 150.