Marinette Knitting MIlls

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 365 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MARINETTE KNITTING MILLS 365
MARINETTE KNITTING MILLS and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC--878. Feb-
ruary 20,1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
On October 24, 1950, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted among
the employees of the stipulated unit under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region. Upon the
completion df the election, a tally of ballots was issued and duly served
by the Regional Director upon the parties concerned.
The tally shows that the vote was distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------- 220
Void ballots---------------------------------------------------
Votes cast for International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
1
AFL-------------------------------------------------------- 116
Votes cast against International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-------------------------------------------------------- 89
Valid votes counted----- --------------------------------------- 205
Challenged ballots--- ------------------------------------------- 11
On October 27, 1950, the Employer filed objections to the conduct
of election and conduct affecting the results of election. Following
investigation, the Regional Director on December 19, 1950, issued a
report on objections in which he found that none of the objections
raised substantial issues and recommended that they be overruled.
On December 26, 1950, the Employer duly filed exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
Upon the basis of 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. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL, claims to
represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer's objections do not raise material or substantial
issues with respect to the election for the following reasons :
In its objections the Employer alleges, in substance, that the Peti-
tioner wilfully violated the Board's rule against electioneering at or
93 NLRB No. 53.
0
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
near the polling place by distributing handbills in front of the en-
trance to the plant premises on October 24, 1950, particularly from
1: 15 p. m. until 1: 45 p. in., approximately one-half hour after ballot-
ing of the employees had begun. We have carefully considered the
content of the handbills, as well as the time and place of their distri-
bution. The handbills consisted of a sample ballot attached to a
circular advocating the right of employees to-organize. The ballot
contained the question, "Do you wish to be represented for purposes
of collective bargaining by the International Ladies Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL" which was marked with a cross (X) on the "Yes,"'
and an instruction "VOTE YES" printed in large red ink letters at
the top. The circular set forth the following :
What is the history of the right to organize ? ? ?
Everyone knows that, from the beginning of our industrial
history, employers almost without exception have fought organi-
zation of their workers at every turn. What is organization for?
It is to give each worker the strength and protection of united
effort. It is to clothe the nakedness of the unorganized worker
who is otherwise forced to stand single-handed and alone. No
bona-fide unions, free from company domination and Russian
domination, want trouble. THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
COMES FROM ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF.
-CATHOLIC BISHOP FRANCIS J. HAAS-
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
P. S.-DON'T BE FOOLED BY COMPANY PROPAGANDA.
There is no contention that the sample ballot contained matter
which might have misled employees into believing it had been au-
thorized by the Regional Director or that it was otherwise so worded
and prepared as to improperly influence them in their choice of a
bargaining representative.' Although the Employer alleges "upon
information and belief" that a large number of its employees are of
the Catholic faith and presumably were influenced by the statement
of Bishop Haas, the statement itself is clearly noncoercive campaign
propaganda which the Board will not censor.2 We do not regard its
use by the Petitioner as conduct outside the legitimate bounds of cam-
paign propaganda. We therefore find that neither the sample ballot
nor the circular to which it was attached constituted per se improper
interference in the Board election procedure.
1 Standard -Coosa-Thatcher Company, 74 NLRB 245 ; see also Gate City Table Co., Inc.,
87 NLRB 1120. Cf. Sears Roebuck and Company, 47 NLRB 291, and The Am C-Krome
Company, 92 NLRB 893, where sample ballots used included the name of the Board's
Regional Director and the elections were accordingly set aside.
7 Red Wing Potteries , Inc., 88 NLRB 1234.
MARINETTE KNITTING MILLS 367
We also find no merit in the Employer's contention that the time
and place of the Petitioner's distribution of the handbills was a wilful
interference with the employees' voting rights. The facts disclose that
the election was held in the basement of the Employer's plant from
1: 15 p. m. to 2: 45 p. M.3 The Board agent conducting the election
had ruled that there was to be no electioneering within the plant
proper. There is no contention that the Petitioner violated this rule
or, indeed, that any of its representatives possessed handbills or ap-
proached employees on duty within the plant. The Employer con-
tends, however, that the election should be set aside because the Peti-
tioner stationed an automobile and distributed handbills in front of
the entrance to the plant from 1: 15 until 1: 45 p. m. Although there
is some dispute as to the distance between the place of alleged election-
eering and the location of the voting booths, it is clear that the dis-
tribution of handbills did not take place in a "no electioneering zone."
Moreover, it appears that when two election observers, having con-
ferred with the Board agent conducting the election, spoke to those
distributing the handbills, representatives of the Petitioner promptly
removed the automobile to another location and ceased the distribu-
tion of handbills.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Peti-
tioner's conduct in distributing the handbills was neither wilful nor
such a deviation from the Board's rules for the conduct of elections
as to warrant setting this election aside.'
5. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Marinette, Michigan, plant, excluding office and clerical personnel,
guards, foremen and foreladies, professional employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act .5
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has secured a
majority of the ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the Peti-
tioner as the bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS IIEREBY CERTIFIED that the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority
3 The Employer operates on a two-shift basis The first shift ends and the second begins
at 2 p. m. In order to accommodate employees of both shifts the polls were open from
1:15p . m.to2.45p in
4 Artcraft Hosiery Company , 73 NLRB 808 ; G . H Hess, Incorporated , 82 NLRB 463
(election set aside on other grounds ), and J I Case Company, 85 NLRB 576. Cf Detroit
Creamery Company, 60 NLRB 178 , and Continental Can Company, 80 NLRB 785, where
the election was set aside because there was a wilful violation of the Board ' s rules.
B The unit is thus described in the stipulation for certification upon consent election.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees of the Marinette Knitting Mills, in the unit hereinabove
found appropriate as the representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive bargaining agent of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
THE CORNELIUS COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE No. 77 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER and CORNELIUS
COMPANY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION. Case No. 18-RC-890. Feb-
ruary 20, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Erwin A. Peterson,- hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a supplemental
contract executed by them on October 24, 1950, constitutes a bar to this
proceeding.
On February 1, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a
contract covering employees at the Employer's plant effective from
that date to and including January 31, 1951, and from year to year
thereafter unless and until either of the parties notified the other in
writing of an intent to terminate the contract not less than 60 days be-
fore the close of any contract year. The contract provided for re-
opening of wage negotiations on August 1, 1950. Pursuant to the
reopening clause, the parties entered into further negotiations, and
on October 24, 1950, executed a supplemental contract providing for
wage changes. However, they also extended the term of the contract
to January 31, 1952.
Meanwhile, on October 2, 1950, the Petitioner mailed a letter to the
Employer, requesting recognition as a bargaining representative of
93 NLRB No. 65.