NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,567, SOUTHERN BAG CORPORATION, LTD. and UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC., (Dec. 14, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 14, 1994)

SOUTHERN BAG CORPORATION, LTD. and UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC.

315 NLRB No. 111.Case No. 26-RC-7632 (formerly 15-RC-7838). December 14, 1994

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Election Objections--Employer Interference--Captive Audience Speech.--An employer’s antiunion speech, given by one of its leadmen within 24 hours of a union representation election, was sufficiently egregious as to warrant the direction of a second election. The leadman had the apparent authority to act as the employer’s agent because unit employees would reasonably believe that he was reflecting company policy and speaking and acting for management. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2791.4635.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The National Labor Relations Board, by a three member panel, has considered objections to an election held on May 19, 1994, and the hearing officer’s report (pertinent portions are attached as an appendix) recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 59 for and 72 against the Petitioner with 1 challenged ballot, a number insufficient to affect the results.

The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, had adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations, [1] and finds that the election must be set aside and a new election held. [2]

We agree with the hearing officer that Leadman Bud Guthrie had apparent authority to act as the Employer’s agent during the meeting held with the sewing line on the morning of the election and that Guthrie’s acts at the meeting are therefore attributable to the Employer. [3] and violated the Board’s prohibition of captive audience speeches within 24 hours of the election.

The Board applies common law principles when examining whether an employee is an agent of the employer. Apparent authority results from a manifestation by the principal to a third party that creates a reasonable basis for the latter to believe that the principal has authorized the alleged agent to perform the acts in question. See generally Great American Products, [1993-94 CCH NLRB ¶15,118] 312 NLRB 962 (1993); Dentech Corp., [1988-89 CCH NLRB ¶15,599] 294 NLRB 924 (1989); Service Employees Local 87 (West Bay) [1988-89 CCH NLRB ¶15,124] 291 NLRB 82 (1988). The test is whether, under all the circumstances the employees “would reasonably believe that the employee in question [the alleged agent] was reflecting company policy and speaking and acting for management.” (Citations omitted.) Waterbed World, [1987-88 CCH NLRB ¶19,064] 286 NLRB 425, 426-427 (1987). As stated in Section 2(13) of the Act, when making the agency determination, “the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subseqeuntly ratified shall not be controlling.”

In this case, one of Guthrie’s duties as a leadman is to have meetings with employees in his department to discuss subjects such as safety, housekeeping, quality control, and similar production matters. The Employer’s plant manager testified not only that the leadmen’s responsibilities include conducting meetings on those subjects, but that the leadmen do not have to obtain permission prior to holding such meetings and that the leadmen can stop or delay production in order to hold them. When an employer has placed a leadman (or other employee) in a position in which the employees in his department look to him as an authoritative communicator of information on behalf of management regarding safety, housekeeping, qualaity control, and production matters, it is clear that the employees would tend to reasonably view the leadman as an agent of the employer on other employment-related matters discussed in a similar context.

On the morning of the election, with the permission of the plant superintendent, Guthrie delayed production for 20 to 25 minutes to conduct a mandatory meeting of the sewing line in the training room. Guthrie stated at the beginning of the meeting that he had a legal right to speak to the employees and proceeded to encourage the employees to vote against the Union. In these circumstances, it is clear that the sewing line employees would reasonably believe that Guthrie was conveying company policy (his antiunion message was consistent with the messages presented by management officials throughout the campaign) and that he was indeed acting for management the morning of the election. [4] We find that Guthrie acted as an agent of the Employer at the meeting in question and that his statements at that meeting were attributable to the Employer and constituted objectionable conduct within the meaning of Peerless Plywood Co., 107 NLRB 427 (1953). Thus, we sustain the Petitioner’s Objection 5 and direct that a second election be held.