Pepperell Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, 24955.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 24955.,24955. |
| Citation | 403 F.2d 520 |
| Parties | PEPPERELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank A. Constangy, Constangy & Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Nan Bases, Atty., N. L. R. B., for respondent.
Before BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and GUINN, District Judge.
Rehearing En Banc Denied January 21, 1969.
This is a petition to review and a cross-petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring the Pepperell Manufacturing Company located at Lindale, Georgia, to recognize and bargain with the union, Textile Workers of America. This appeal involves a review of the Board's decision as to two elections in the Pepperell Lindale plant. The issue arises in the context of a violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act1 in refusal to bargain. The Board set aside the first election which the Union had lost and upheld the second election which the Union had won. The petitioner, Pepperell Lindale, maintains that the Board erred in each instance.
On March 8, 1965, a Board election was held at Pepperell's plant in Lindale, Georgia. Of approximately 2,257 eligible voters, 959 voted for the Textile Workers Union of America and 1,155 voted against the Union. On March 12, 1965, the Union filed objections to the election with the Board. Following an investigation, the Regional Director found that union allegations of Pepperell threats of plant shutdown, layoffs, and refusal to sign agreement with the Union raised credibility issues which might best be resolved by recorded testimony at a hearing. At the hearing, held on September 1, 1965, evidence was presented by opposing parties.
From the hearing the following evidence was adduced by the Hearing Officer. About a week before the election, Supervisor Ned Johnson, referring to an Alabama textile mill which had closed down, told a group of employees, "See what happened at this mill, now if the Union comes in, this could happen to us." Johnson also admittedly spoke of the possibility of a plant shutdown to each of the 15 to 18 men he supervised. Supervisor Edward Wood told a group of employees a few days before the election, . Wood admittedly discussed with each of the 30 men under his supervision the management rights clause contained in another company's contract and told them that if the Union should come in, Pepperell would sign a contract similar to this one which reserved the right to close and move the machinery out. Finally, evidence was introduced to prove that the night before the election, Supervisor Haden Smith approached an employee, Joe Lewis, and told him not to vote for the Union because if the Union came in, the Company would close down the plant, take out the machines and ship them somewhere else. The Company also engaged in an intensive electioneering campaign, with materials posted on bulletin boards, as well as speeches and leaflets. A major emphasis was on plant closings following unionization.
On June 13, 1966, the Board ordered that the first election be set aside, affirming the Hearing Officer's findings of threats and adding that "we also rely on the overall impact of such conduct when viewed in the light of the Employer's antiunion campaign, * * *, emphasizing the inevitability of a strike and the certainty of economic loss to the employees if they chose Petitioner as their collective-bargaining representative". The Regional Director scheduled a second election.
The second election was held on August 4, 1966, and 1,139 voted for the Union and 917 against. Pepperell objected to this election on the grounds that the Union had distributed a newspaper article and leaflets which made material misrepresentations to which the Pepperell Manufacturing Company had no opportunity to reply, and which affected the election outcome. The newspaper advertisement was published on July 31, 1966, in the Rome News Tribune which is widely read by the employees of Pepperell. The message of this ad was reprinted in a leaflet which was distributed by the Union to the Pepperell employees on August 3, 1966, the day before the election. These misrepresentations concerned wages in surrounding union companies and were as follows:
Alleged Actual
Company Rate Rate
G. E. $3.21 $2.91
Kraft 3.10 2.86
Inland Container 2.75 2.54
The Regional Director recommended that the Board overrule Pepperell's objections on the grounds that even assuming the figures used by the Union were inaccurate, they were either de minimis or Pepperell had adequate time to reply. The Board agreed with the Regional Director and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative.
About January 10, 1967, the Union requested recognition on the basis of its certification. Upon Pepperell's refusal, a Section 8(a) (5) charge was filed and a complaint was issued. Pepperell in its answer, denied any violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Trial Examiner granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Union. The Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. NLRB
...presented on judicial review is whether the Board has reasonably exercised its discretion in the matter. Pepperell Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 403 F.2d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 238 (1969). Further, "the burden is on the party objecting to th......
-
Home Town Foods, Inc. v. NLRB
...& Moore, Inc. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1963, 324 F.2d 857, 858 with NLRB v. Sidran, 5 Cir. 1950, 181 F.2d 671, 673. See also Pepperell Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 520, 522, cert. denied May 26, 1969, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 4 Since we deny enforcement on the basis of the ......
-
NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company
...N.L. R.B. v. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co., 369 F.2d 859, 864 (5th Cir. 1966). As this Court said in Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 403 F.2d 520 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U. S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 238 (May 26, 1969), "Determination whether union representat......
-
Certainteed Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...of a prior misrepresentation requires that the objecting party have time for an additional response. See Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 403 F.2d 520, 523 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 238 (1969).13 Thus, we cannot agree with the position that "[......