Celanese Corporation of America v. NLRB

• Decision Date: 16 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 12857.,12857.
• Parties: CELANESE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

279 F.2d 204 (1960)

CELANESE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 12857.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

June 16, 1960.

Gerard D. Reilly, Joseph C. Wells, Lawrence T. Zimmerman, Washington, D. C., Everett W. Kramer, New York City, for petitioner, Reilly & Wells, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Wells, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, Richard J. Scupi, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before SCHNACKENBERG and CASTLE, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.

GRUBB, District Judge.

On petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board and cross-application of the Board for enforcement of said order.

The order in issue requires the Celanese Corporation of America (hereinafter called the "Company") to bargain collectively with the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the "Union"), on behalf of certain of the Company's employees at its Point Pleasant plant, following Board certification of the Union as the employees' majority representative. The Company based its refusal to bargain on the alleged invalidity of the election and certification arising out of pre-election activities by the Union.

In the election held on March 12, 1958, among the approximately forty-eight employees in the bargaining unit at the Point Pleasant plant, twenty-five votes favored the Union while twenty-two opposed it.

During the pre-election period the Company sent a series of eleven letters, addressed individually to each employee who was involved in the election and signed on behalf of the Company by Paul C. Pearson, Plant Manager, Point Pleasant plant. The first letter, dated February 14, 1958, expressed the Company's view that the employees did not need the Union to speak on their behalf in their relationship with the Company. Subsequent letters in support of this view explained and described Company policies as to employee benefits and working conditions. The Company's final letter, dated March 8, 1958, summarizes the previous correspondence as dealing with policy in respect to job security, working conditions, seniority and promotions, group insurance, vacations, holidays, and job descriptions. It continues to describe changes in the wage program and wage increases since the plant began operations in 1956 and further states that these changes were made through individual progress and "not because a labor organization demanded that they be done."

The Union replied to the Company's communications with two letters, the latter of which, dated March 10, 1958, reads in part as follows:

"Dear Friend:

"The repetitious letters sent to you by the Plant Manager seem to betray an inner sense of guilt. In his letters, Mr. Pearson seems to be taking credit for almost everything but the Declaration of Independence.

"He says that all of the fine fringe benefits show the Company\'s interest in your concern. This could be something less than the truth, for the fact is that Celanese fringes, as well as other plant conditions, were won through collective bargaining and in many instances over the initial opposition of the Company."

The letter was signed by Morris Riger, Regional Director.

It was stipulated that about twenty copies of this letter were delivered by hand to employees at their homes on the afternoon of March 10, 1958, and that the remainder were deposited in the mail box outside the Point Pleasant Post Office about 6:30 P.M. on March 10, 1958. The Company first saw a copy of this letter about 1:30 P.M. on March 11, 1958. The plant manager testified that a number of employees were not readily available at this time or in the interval before the polls opened at 6:30 A.M. on March 12, 1958.

The Company objects to the election on the ground that the above-quoted portion of the Union's letter contained a material misrepresentation of fact, made within twenty-four hours of the election at a time which did not permit the Company to acquaint the employees of the misrepresentation. A hearing was had on this objection in conjunction with the unfair labor practice proceeding based on the Company's refusal to bargain.

The Trial...