A. D. Juilliard and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2197 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

A. D. JUILLIARD AND CO. 2197
strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
perform any services for their respective employer, where an ob-
ject thereof is to force or require said employers to cease doing
business with Campbell Coal Company.
SALES DRIVERS, HELPERS & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION 859, OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Union.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
George A. Fuller Construction Company
Southeastern Construction Company
The Flagler Company, Inc.
Barge-Thompson Company
Ira H. Hardin Company
Wesley & Company, Inc.
Thompson and Street Company
A. D. JUILLIARD AND Co. and RICHARD ROSINSKI , PETITIONER, and
LOCAL 1308, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO. Case No.
3-UD-4. December 30,1954
Decision and Order
On August 17, 1954, the Petitioner filed a petition for referendum
with the Regional Director for the Third Region, seeking withdrawal
of the union-shop authority of Local 1308, Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO. On September 15, 1954, the Regional Director con-
ducted a secret ballot election among the employees involved herein.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally shows the following results :
Number of eligible voters--- -------------------------------------- 370
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------- 3
Votes cast in favor of withdrawing the authority of the bargaining repre-
sentative to require , under its agreement with the Employer , that member-
bership in such union be a condition of employment ----------------- 172
Votes cast against the above proposition----------------------------- 99
Valid ballots counted--------------------------------------------- 271
Challenged ballots- ---------------------------------------------- 0
110 NLRB No. 268.
2198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 19, 1954, the Petitioner filed objections to the conduct
of the election alleging: (1) (a) and 1 (b) the Employer suspended
certain employees who were active on Petitioner's behalf; 1 (c) the
Employer, in violation of the agreement between the parties, notified
the employees the day before the election that they were to vote on
their own time, rather than on the Company's time; 1 (d) the Em-
ployer examined the voting eligibility list during the voting time ;
and 2 (a) and 2 (b) the Administrator of the Union coerced the em-
ployees by direct threats and innuendo. On October 18, 1954, the
Petitioner withdrew objections numbered 1 (a) and 1 (b).
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on October 29, 1954,
issued his report on objections to election, in which he found that ob-
jections numbered 2 (a) and 2 (b) were without merit, but that objec-
tions numbered 1 (c) and 1 (d) raised substantial and material issues
with respect to the conduct of the election. Accordingly, the Regional
Director recommended that the Board sustain objections numbered
1 (c) and 1 (d), and that the election be set aside and a new election
be directed at a time to be selected by the Regional Director. On
November 6, 1954, the Petitioner filed his exceptions to the findings
of the Regional Director,' in which he requested the Board to direct a
hearing. On November 22, 1954, the Union filed its Exceptions to the
Report of Regional Director, and the Petitioner filed a telegram in
which he protested the grant of extension of time for the filing of
briefs to the Union.2 On November 24, 1954, the Employer filed its
Statement on Regional Director's report on objections. On November
27, 1954, the Union withdrew its exceptions to the report of the Re-
gional Director and requested that a new election be directed.
As regards the objection numbered 1 (d), it appears from the report
on the objections to the election that the plant superintendent and
foreman in the packing department were allowed to inspect the offi-
cial voting list for several minutes, but did not take a record of the
names or the clock numbers of those who had or had not voted. On
these facts, the Regional Director found that it was reasonable to infer,
'In the exceptions to the findings of the Regional Director, the Petitioner urges that
the recommendations of the Regional Director be set aside and a hearing be directed
because, ranter alia, the investigator was prejudiced and because all the evidence was not
developed by said investigator Sec. 203 . 61 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations
provides that the Board "may" direct a hearing if the exceptions appear to raise sub-
stantial and material issues In the instant proceeding , as the report of the Regional
Director adequately presents all the evidence necessary for this decision and issues in-
volved, we do not deem a hearing to be necessary. Because of the lack of substantiating
evidence, we find the contention that the investigation was not adequate to be without
uieiit. (Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 89 NLRB 938, at footnote 10, 941 ) Likewise,
due to the absence of valid allegations of misconduct we find no merit in Petitioner's claim
that the investigation of the objections was biased because it was conducted by the same
Boni d a,,ent who conducted the election. (Huntsville Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB
89], at 892 )
2 The extension of time for the filing of briefs is within the administrative discretion
of the Board , and we find no abuse of that discretion in this case.
A. D. JUILLIARD AND CO. 2199
based upon the foreman's knowledge of the people working under his
supervision, that the foreman could determine who had not voted.
Although it is the policy of the Board to prohibit the keeping of
any list, apart from the official voting list, of persons who have voted
in a Board-directed election,' in the cases in which this prohibition was
enunciated it was either affirmatively shown or could be inferred from
the circumstances, that the employees knew that their names were
being recorded by the Employer. In the instant proceeding, there is
no such affirmative evidence ; nor may any such be inferred from the
circumstances in the case. In the absence of evidence that the em-
ployees knew their names were being recorded at the time of the elec-
tion,' we find no grounds for setting aside an election.
As regards the objection numbered 1 (c), the Regional Director
found that the employees were told on the day of the election that they
were to vote op their own time. The Regional Director alleges that
this action vioiated an agreement as to election procedures between the
parties which stipulated the employees were to vote on company time.
The Employer contends that there was no such stipulation in the agree-
ment. This allegedly late change in the election agreement was found
by the Regional Director to have tended to create confusion.5 There
is no evidence that this alleged alteration in the election procedure did
in fact cause confusion among the voters. The Board has determined
that an election should be set aside where the working hours were uni-
laterally altered by the Employer on the day of the election with the
result that the employees either had to wait after work or come in
early in order to vote.' The same conclusion was reached in cases where
the voting polls were closed prior to the agreed time.' Disfranchise-
ment of some eligible voters as a result of the change was affirmatively
shown in each of these cases. However, in the present proceeding, as-
suming arguendo the Employer did violate the election agreement as
to whose time was to be utilized by the employees for purposes of vot-
ing, there is no proof of actual prejudice; nor was it affirmatively
shown that any disfranchisement of eligible voters may have resulted
from the asserted withdrawal of the Company's offer to permit voting
at the Employer's expense. Accordingly, as a representative number
3 International Stamping Co , Inc, 97 NLRB 921, at 922 ; Belk's Department Store of
Savannah, Ga, Inc., 98 NLRB 280, at 281
4 Although in his exceptions , the Petitioner does offer to prove by the testimony of two
witnesses that the Employer did take a record at time of inspecting the voting lists, there
is no offer of proof as to whether the employees knew of this alleged recording of their
names. In fact , the Employer contends that there were no employees in the voting area
at the time the list was inspected.
5It is to be noted that the alleged change in the election agreement did not affect the
hours during which the polls were to remain open . Nor does it appear that the employees
were prohibited from taking advantage on their own time of the opportunity to vote at
their convenience.
fi Haskett Tool & Manufacturing Co., 77 NLRB 572, at 573
7 Bonita Ribbon lIslls and Brewton Weaving Company, 87 NLRB 1115 , at 1117 ; Repeal
Brass Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 4.
2200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of eligible employees voted in the election conducted in the present
proceeding and it does not appear that any nonvoter failed to vote
because of the Employer's alleged withdrawal of its permission to vote
during working time, we find no ground for setting aside the election 8
The results of the election held on September 15, 1954, show that the
required majority of eligible voters have not cast ballots in favor of
the union-shop deauthorization. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
8 The Board has repeatedly ruled that, absent unusual circumstances, the failure of
eligible voters to cast ballots in Section 9 (c) representation elections was not cause for
setting aside the results of such elections where a representative number of employees
have voted. Despite the strict statutory requirement in Section 9 (e) (1) elections, that
a majority of those eligible to vote is necessary to support union-shop deauthorizations,
we do not believe the rule should be different in Section 9 (e) (1) elections. See Shell
Oil Company (Bulk Plant), 79 NLRB 1255, at 1256.
BEAUMONT FORGING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS , BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL 587, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-855.
December 30, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Under a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clifford W.
Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer. The Employer refused to stipulate that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization, as it exists for
the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining with the Employer
with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.
3. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
upon the ground that the Petitioner is not qualified to represent em-
ployees of the Employer due to the participation of W. R. Dennis,
an alleged supervisor, in the Petitione'r's affairs.
As regards the supervisory status of Dennis, the record reveals that
Dennis is foreman of the forge shop in the Employer's plant, and is in
complete charge of its operation when both the president and super-
intendent of the plant are absent. As foreman, Dennis assigns the
specific operation each man in the department is to perform. The
110 NLRB No. 275.