Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/02/70 Amalgamated Clothing v. National Labor

February 2, 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 1970.CDC.16



Leventhal, Robinson and Robb, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

APPELLATE PANEL:

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBB

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 in regard to the Section 8(a)(1) and (5) violations. J. P. Stevens v. NLRB, 380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 389 U.S. 1005, 19 L. Ed. 2d 600, 88 S. Ct. 564 (1967); J.P. Stevens v. NLRB, 406 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1968); J. P. Stevens v. NLRB, 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, *fn1 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 N0 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.

" *fn2. Is it 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.

"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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.