Opinion ID: 291421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Poll

Text: 20 On May 31, 1967, the Union filed a request with the NLRB to proceed with a representation election. On June 1, 1967, Southwire received a typical union authorization card majority recognition demand. On June 2, 1967, the Company engaged in a poll of its employees. In each instance, the Company official would read from a prepared text. 5 21 The Company argues that the Master erred in finding that the poll was in violation of the Act because the Master improperly relied on Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB No. 102 (1967). See N. L. R. B. v. J. M. Machinery Corp., 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 587, 589, n. 30. Struksnes sets out five requisites for a poll 6 one of which is a poll by secret ballot (admittedly not used in the present case). The Company argues that Struksnes was decided after the conducting of the poll here and should not have been applied to the present case. 22 This Court need not become immersed in the morass of an of an argument as to retroactivity, assuming that the doctrine has applicability in labor contempt cases. The poll was clearly violative of even pre- Struksnes standards. The poll did not test the correctness of the union's majority claim. It was not designed to discover who favored the union and who opposed it, the basis of the majority claim. Rather the poll, conducted in a stark anti-union atmosphere, first merely sought a show of hands (connected to faces) of those who favored recognizing the union without an election. The unclear choice of the second alternative call for a show of hands is best demonstrated by recopying here for emphasis the language used, with numbers inserted to indicate the various categories called upon to vote in the same way at the same time: 23 Now, I ask all of you (1) who are undecided and (2) want the question settled by a secret-ballot election, and (3) all of you who do not want a union here at Southwire to raise your hands. 24 In sum, the Master's finding that the poll constituted an unlawful interrogation is supported by clear and convincing evidence.