Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, No. 22501

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtLEVENTHAL, ROBINSON and ROBB, Circuit
Citation424 F.2d 818
Docket Number22637.,No. 22501
Decision Date02 February 1970
PartiesAMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc., Intervenor. WINFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Intervenor.

424 F.2d 818 (1970)

AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent,
Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc., Intervenor.

WINFIELD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Intervenor.

Nos. 22501, 22637.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1969.

Decided February 2, 1970.


424 F.2d 819

Mr. Robert T. Snyder, New York City, with whom Mr. Jacob Sheinkman, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 22,501 and intervenor in No. 22,637.

Mr. Robert H. Loeb, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner in No. 22,637 and intervenor in No. 22,501.

Mr. Ian Lanoff, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for respondent. Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

ROBB, Circuit Judge:

These cases come to us upon petitions to review by Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc. (the Company) and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (the Union), and a cross application by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of a decision and order of the Board issued against the Company. The Board in its decision found that the Company committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1)) and violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request. The Board's order requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their protected rights. Affirmatively, the Board's order requires the Company to bargain collectively with the Union upon request as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit and to post appropriate notices.

The Company contends that the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The Company contends further that the Board improperly refused to grant the Company a hearing on its objections to the election which resulted in the certification of the Union. The Union argues that the Board erred in failing to grant the Union's request for retroactive compensatory relief in respect of the Section 8(a) (5) violation and in refusing to grant the "J. P. Stevens remedy" requested by the Union

424 F.2d 820
in regard to the Section 8(a) (1) and (5) violations. J. P. Stevens (I) v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 389 U.S. 1005, 88 S.Ct. 564, 19 L.Ed.2d 600 (1967); J. P. Stevens (III) v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1968); J. P. Stevens (IV) v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1968). We affirm the Board's order and grant the cross application for enforcement

The Company manufactures men's trousers at plants located at Winfield, Alabama, and Golden, Mississippi. The Union conducted separate organizational campaigns at each plant. The campaign at the Winfield plant began in the late summer of 1967 and continued until November 9, 1967, when the Board conducted an election at that plant. The Union won the election. The Company filed timely objections, alleging, so far as material here,1 that Union representatives and adherents had engaged in conduct which warranted setting aside the election.

The Union's campaign at the Golden plant followed that at Winfield and does not raise a certification issue.

THE SECTION 8(a) (1) VIOLATIONS

The Board found that the Company committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in that (1) on the day before the election at the Winfield plant the Company passed out a leaflet entitled "FACTS TO REMEMBER: EXCELLENT REASONS FOR VOTING NO IN THURSDAY ELECTION"; (2) the Company distributed a coercive questionnaire to the Winfield employees on the day after the election; and (3) the Company's president Milton Weinsten delivered a coercive and threatening speech to the Golden employees one week after the election at the Winfield plant.

The text of the leaflet distributed to the Winfield employees on the day before the election was:

"1. Who is the Amalgamated Union that is trying to represent you?
ANSWER: The same union that represented the employees of the now closed Carbon Hill Mfg. Co. and the Russellville Garment plant. The union that represents Champ-Guin and Arrow where the people were not given their democratic right to vote for or against the union. The union was forced on them by the parent companies.
"2. Is is true that the Puerto Rico plant and Golden plant are union organized?
ANSWER: Positively not! The union has tried for 8 months to organize the Puerto Rico plant and they have failed miserably. Our Golden people will not even talk to them.
"3. What type of people has the union assigned as their leaders?
ANSWER: Those that were around when Carbon Hill and Russellville closed. The type that used foul profane language in our plant. The type that threatened to beat up one of our employees because she wouldn\'t sign a union card. One who would draw compensation against us while working for the union.
"4. Did you need a union to become the highest paid garment workers in our area?
ANSWER: NO! Mr. Weinsten set all rates so that you earn .10 to .34 per hour more than all other apparel workers in the area.
"5. Did you have to pay a union to get paid vacations and holiday pay?
ANSWER: Positively not! Long before the union came around we promised it to you, and we kept our promise.
424 F.2d 821
"6. Have you ever needed a grievance committee because our plant managers would not discuss problems with you?
ANSWER: NEVER! It is strict company policy to always have our office door open at all times, so that our employees can come in to discuss their work problems with management.
"7. Did you pay a union to get extra break periods as long as production standards were met?
ANSWER: NO!
"8. Have you ever heard of an employer like Mr. Weinsten who would risk so much, or at times intentionally lose money, just to get work for his people?
ANSWER: We doubt that you have.
"9. Do you know of one single garment plant in the state of Alabama that has never to this time, had a lay off or worked short hours?
ANSWER: We know of only one. That is Winfield Mfg. Company.
"10. Has any of our employees ever been treated with disrespect?
ANSWER: Never! It is strict company policy that all employees regardless of race, religion or color be treated humanely — with respect and with dignity.
"11. If the plant became union what would Mr. Weinsten\'s personal attitude be?
ANSWER: He positively would not close the plant as long as profitable business was available. However, how do you think he would feel about assuming uncalled for business risks just to keep the people in work? Under very competitive conditions such as we have now, how do you think he would feel about taking contracts at an intentional loss, or to break even, just to keep people in work? These are big questions.
"12. What happened at Carbon Hill Mfg. Co., and at Russellville Garment Factory that as soon as the union came in, the plants closed?
ANSWER: We don\'t know, but it seems too coincidental that successful companies should go out of business as soon as Amalgamated Workers Union gets in.
"13. Do you think the union has any real interest in you?
ANSWER: POSITIVELY NOT! If they really had your interests at heart, why didn\'t they show their faces in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965? Their interest is in grabbing off $50,000 each year from our employees, to fatten their fantastically rich treasury.
"14. Can a union get increased wages or benefits just because they promised them to you?
ANSWER: Positively not! Unions do not guage sic wage rates or benefits. The success of a business guages sic it. No union or court can make a company agree to anything it doesn\'t want to do, or pay more than it can afford to pay. Any attempt for them to do it, only leads to strikes and lay offs.
"15. Did you employees have to pay union dues in the amounts of $50,000, initiation fees, and various assessments to become the highest paid garment workers in the area, the best working conditions, to be treated with utmost respect, best job security, extra break periods, intelligent problem discussions, paid vacation and holidays, and decent management to work with?
ANSWER: NO! Mr. Weinsten, Bill Martin, Buddy Walker and our Mechanics and Supervisors have secured that for you.
IN CONCLUSION
"I want to state in the most positive, emphatic terms that it is my strong feeling and belief that our company does not need a union to interfere with its running of our business. For this reason, I sincerely ask that each and every one of our employees vote NO on your ballot!
424 F.2d 822
REMEMBER
"If you signed a union card you positively do not have to vote for the union. Most of the cards were signed just to get someone off your back. Remember, you are not obligated to the union. You should vote NO whether a union card was signed or not.
"Ballots are secret — Do not put your name on it.
/s/ Milton Weinsten Milton Weinsten President"

On the day after the election the Company distributed to the employees of the Winfield plant a form containing a number of questions about alleged Union misconduct and misrepresentations during the election campaign. The employees were asked to fill in the blank spaces on the questionnaire and to return it to the company as a signed "personal" letter. Among the questions asked were the following:

"Who talked to you about joining the union or voting for the union?
"Where did he or she talk
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 81-2135
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 11, 1982
    ...See, e.g., Duncan Foundry & Machine Works v. NLRB, 458 F.2d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 1972); Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 827-28 (D.C.Cir.1970). 86 In its only proffer that approached this standard, PATCO suggested that it would call certain FAA officials to estab......
  • N.L.R.B. v. ARA Services, Inc., No. 81-1701
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 27, 1983
    ...which cannot be resolved on the basis of administrative investigation without a hearing." Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 828 (D.C.Cir.1970); see International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. NLRB, 418 F.2d 1191, 1196-97 (D.C.Cir.1969) (the B......
  • United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, No. 73-3194
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 11, 1974
    ...v. White Knight Manufacturing Co., supra, 474 F.2d at 1068; Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. N. L. R. B., 137 U.S.App. D.C. 330, 424 F.2d 818, 828-829 (1970); N. L. R. B. v. Singleton Packing Corp., supra, 418 F.2d at 280; N. L. R. B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., supra, 415 F.2d at......
  • Family Service Agency San Francisco v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 15, 1999
    ...representation election to establish that the election was not fairly conducted. See Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 827 (D.C.Cir.1970) (citing Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. NLRB, 407 F.2d 131, 134 (5th Cir.1969)). A court will overturn the Board's decis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 81-2135
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 11, 1982
    ...See, e.g., Duncan Foundry & Machine Works v. NLRB, 458 F.2d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 1972); Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 827-28 (D.C.Cir.1970). 86 In its only proffer that approached this standard, PATCO suggested that it would call certain FAA officials to estab......
  • N.L.R.B. v. ARA Services, Inc., No. 81-1701
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 27, 1983
    ...which cannot be resolved on the basis of administrative investigation without a hearing." Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 828 (D.C.Cir.1970); see International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. NLRB, 418 F.2d 1191, 1196-97 (D.C.Cir.1969) (the B......
  • United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, No. 73-3194
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 11, 1974
    ...v. White Knight Manufacturing Co., supra, 474 F.2d at 1068; Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. N. L. R. B., 137 U.S.App. D.C. 330, 424 F.2d 818, 828-829 (1970); N. L. R. B. v. Singleton Packing Corp., supra, 418 F.2d at 280; N. L. R. B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., supra, 415 F.2d at......
  • Family Service Agency San Francisco v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 15, 1999
    ...representation election to establish that the election was not fairly conducted. See Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 827 (D.C.Cir.1970) (citing Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. NLRB, 407 F.2d 131, 134 (5th Cir.1969)). A court will overturn the Board's decis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT