NLRB v. DOWELL DIVISION OF DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, 27714.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 27714.,27714. |
| Citation | 420 F.2d 480 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DOWELL DIVISION OF the DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, NLRB, Douglas L. Leslie, Atty., Washington, D. C., Elmer P. Davis, Director, Region 16, NLRB, Fort Worth, Tex., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Robert A. Giannasi, Atty., for petitioner.
J. H. Hanes, Wayne Hancock, Midland, Mich., Max D. Rizley, Tulsa, Okl., Karl H. Mueller, Mueller & Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.
Before WISDOM, THORNBERRY and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In March of 1966, the Union1 made an effort to organize the Company's employees in its Midland, Texas district. The Company employed 147 full time service equipment operating and maintenance employees in the district. The Union obtained over a hundred authorization cards, and requested the Company to recognize it as the employees' bargaining representative. The Company refused. An election was scheduled for June 2, 1966.
During the pre-election campaign the Company sent three different letters to employees at their homes. The first letter contained the assertion that the Union "would not help the individual in terms of pay and benefits * * * and it will definitely cost all employees something — perhaps a great deal." The Board argues that the Company's letter contained unsupported threats to job security and loss of benefits, and that such threats, combined with statements that the Company had the power to control these benefits and suggestions that unionization would be futile, are the kinds of "conscious overstatements" that this Court should condemn.
The Company's second letter warned employees, in the course of a hypothetical question, to "stick together" and vote the Union out, or else employees are "going to be made to suffer because of the actions of a few who have been misled into supporting and working for the union." The letter asserted that if the Union were voted in there would be loss of jobs by virtue of an inevitable strike and a loss of customers.
The third letter referred again to job security and attacked, without explanation, the Union as threatening such security and asserted that the Union would bring "problems."
On June 2 the election was held and the Union lost. The Union filed objections to the election and the Board set aside the election on the grounds that the Company's letters were coercive. The Board found that the Company, through the three letters, threatened reprisals and warned of loss of benefits if the employees chose the Union, all this in violation of section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Board's order directs the Company to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to post appropriate notices and directs the Regional Director to proceed with the second election as previously directed by the Board in its representation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Lenkurt Electric Company, 24035.
...& Pacific Tea Co., 140 N.L.R.B. 133, 134-35. 7 See Santa Fe Drilling Co. v. NLRB, 416 F.2d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Dow Chem. Co., 420 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Mink-Dayton, Inc., 416 F.2d 327, 328-329 (6th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Wylie Mfg. Co., 417 F.2d 192, 194-195 (10t......
-
JP Stevens & Co., Inc., Gulistan Division v. NLRB
...1965, 380 U.S. 263, 274 n. 20, 85 S.Ct. 994, 13 L.Ed.2d 827; NLRB v. Varo, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 293; NLRB v. Dowell Div. of Dow Chemical Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 480; NLRB v. Neuhoff Bros. Packers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 372. Company officials engaged in blatant surveillance o......
-
Mount Pleasant Community School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
...a finding of coercion. A case from the Third Circuit involved three letters which were sent to employees. NLRB v. Dowell Division of Dow Chemical Co., 420 F.2d 480 (5th Cir.1969). The first letter included a statement that the union "would not help the individual in terms of pay and benefit......
-
NLRB v. Varo, Inc.
...Company had reason to believe would mislead its employees, the findings of the Board on this matter must stand. See N.L.R.B. v. Dow Chemical Co., 5th Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 480. The Demotion of Employee It is settled that an employer violates section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act if he transfers......