Goodyear Clearwater Mill No.2, 1329 (1962)

Docket Number: 10-RM-00093

Linked as:

Extract

Goodyear Clearwater Mill No.2, 1329 (1962)

GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1329

Although the Petitioner stated at the hearing that it would accept any unit found appropriate, its showing of interest in the appropriate unit is not sufficient to warrant holding an election, and the Intervenors stated at the hearing that they did not want an election at this time.

Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.6

Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

E Rosa Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 636.

GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL No. 2, PETITIONER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and UNITED TExi'n i WORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL. Cage No. 10-ISM-93. February 12, 1953

Decision and Order Pursuant to a 'Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 14, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.' The tally shows that of approximately 1,298 eligible voters, 1,158 cast valid ballots, of which 455 were for the CIO, 213 were for the AFL, and 485 were against either participating union.

There were 5 challenged ballots.

On March 21, 1952, the AFL filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on May 15, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections, in which he recommended that the objections based on allegations 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 17 be found to be without merit and that they be overruled, and that, in the event that the Board did not as a matter of law sustain objection 11, the Board direct a hearing on objections with respect to the remaining issues concerning which the Regional Director could not resolve the credibility issues. On May 26, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. On May 29, 1952, the AFL filed a statement in support of the Regional Director's report and recommendations and exceptions thereto.

On June 11, 1952, the Board ordered a hearing on objections numbered 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13, directing that the hearing officer prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report resolving questions ' Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and United Textile Workers of America, AFL, are referred to as CIO and AFL, respectively.

102 NLRB No. 127.

of credibility and containing findings of fact and recommendations.2

Pursuant to this order, a hearing was held before Charles M. Paschal,

Jr., hearing officer.

On November 6, 1952, the hearing officer issued his report, a copy of which is attached hereto, recommending , inter alia, that the election be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report and the AFL filed a statement in support thereof with exceptions to be considered in the event other exceptions were filed.

The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case,' and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings , and the hearing officer's conclusions with respect to objections 2, 10, 12, and 13.

Like the hearing officer, we find merit in objections 2 and 10. We find that Overseer Camp, by the use of the sample ballot and by his statements on the occasion in which he displayed it to employee Langley, did threaten Langley with possible loss of employment.

Similarly, we find that Foreman McGee, in the meetings conducted on March 11 and 13, 1952 , sought to persuade employees to vote against union representation by threating them with the possible loss of employment. By engaging in these acts , we find that the Employer interfered with its employees in the free choice of a bargaining representative.

With respect to objection 1, the hearing officer found that, a few days before the election, Second Hand Head told employee Hammond 'to vote for the Company and that it would make it...

See the full content of this document