Acme Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of ACME BREWING COMPANY , AZTEC BREWING COMPANY,
GRACE BROS. BREWING COMPANY, LTD., Los ANGELES BREWING COM-
PANY, MAZER BREWING COMPANY , RAINIER BREWING COMPANY,
STEWARD MCKEE & COMPANY , BOHEMIAN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY , FLOUR,
CEREAL AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. f1-R-3564 through 01-R-3570 and 21-R-3697
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
June 16, 1947
On March 27, 1947, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Board on February 28, 1947 (72 N. L. R. B. 1005), an
election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los
Angeles, California), among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in said Decision. 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 indicates that of the approximately 1375 eligible voters,
1000 cast valid votes, of which 182 were for the Petitioner, 817 were for
the Intervenor, and 1 was against the participating labor organization.
In addition, 308 ballots were challenged and impounded, and 2 were
declared void.
On April 1, 1947, the Petitioner filed Objections to Conduct Af-
fecting the Results of the Election, alleging in substance that between
February 28, 1947, and March 25, 1947, the Employers executed a
written contract with the Intervenor, to take effect April 1, 1947; that
about March 25, 1947, 2 days before the election, printed copies of this
contract were circulated in the various plants during working hours
by officers and shop stewards of the Intervenor; that the contract con-
ferred valuable benefits to the Intervenor and its members not enjoyed
under their prior agreement, which was to expire April 1, 1.947. The
Petitioner accordingly requested that the election be set aside.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
146
ACME BREWING COMPANY 147
On April 30,1947 , following an investigation , the Regional Director
issued a Report on Objections , in which he found that the Objections
raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election. The
Regional Director , in his investigation , found that on or about March
22, 1947, the Employers and the Intervenor executed a contract , effec-
tive April 1, 1947, to supplant an existing contract between the parties
which was not to expire until May 1, 1947 , and that the new contract
called for a higher wage scale , more liberal vacation allowances, paid
holidays, and various improvements in working conditions . The Re-
gional Director also found that on March 25 and 26, 1947, representa-
tives of the Intervenor distributed copies of the new contract to the
employees of the various Employers during working hours. _
Thereupon, the Intervenor duly filed Exceptions to Report on Ob-
jections, in which it alleged that the California brewing industry, prior
to April 1, 1947, was covered by two master agreements, one covering
the Northern California breweries, and the other covering the Southern
California breweries; that in December 1946 the first step was taken
toward a single contract by the negotiation of a uniform wage increase
in Northern and Southern California, and at the same time it was
agreed *that, in order to write a single agreement for the entire State,
the Northern California agreement be extended 1 month to March 31,
1947, and the Southern California agreement be opened 1 month early,
on March 31, 1947. The Exceptions further alleged that the negotia-
tions continued until March 22, 1947, at which time the agreement
effective April 1, 1947, was executed, covering the entire State of
California, which did not grant a wage increase, inasmuch as the wage
rate set in the December 1946 agreement was carried over into the con-
tract of April 1, 1947.. The Intervenor contends, in its Exceptions,
that the Petitioner knew, in January 1947, of the wage increase, and
that the Petitioner knew, prior to the election, of the new contract and
the negotiations preceding its execution, but did nothing about it.
The California State Brewers Institute, on its own behalf and on
behalf of its member companies, the Employers herein, filed a State-
ment Concerning Report of Acting Regional Director on Objections
to Election, in which it alleges that the contract executed March 22,
1947, supplanted two other contracts, one for Northern California
which had already expired, and one for Southern California, which
was not to expire until May 1, 1947; and that the new contract was
made only after long negotiations and after an agreement between
the Employers and the Intervenor to consolidate the two California
contracts made long before March 22, 1947. The Statement further
contends that the execution of the new contract was in accordance with
normal practice, and the Employers did not fail to adhere to a policy of
strict neutrality.
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT 1
A. Chronology of Events
On February 28, 1947, the Board issued a Decision and =Direction
of Election in this matter, providing that an election be held among
the employees of the Employers to determine whether they desired to
be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Peti-
tioner, the Intervenor, or neither of these labor organizations.. There-
after, on March 11, 1947, the Regional Director, at a conference held
among all parties concerned, set the election for March 27, 1947.
On or about March 22, 1947, the Employers and the Intervenor
executed a contract, to take effect April 1, 1947, supplanting a previous
contract between the parties which was not to expire until May 1, 1947.
The new contract provided for substantial benefits to the employees
which were not enjoyed by them under the previous agreement, in-
cluding more liberal vacation allowances, paid holidays, and various
improvements in working conditions.2 It was executed after a series
of negotiations which commenced in December 1946, and supplanted
a contract between the Northern California breweries and the. Inter-
venor which had expired March 1, 1947, as well as the contract be-
tween the Employers and'the Intervenor. On March 25 and 26, 1947,
copies of this new contract were distributed to the employees of the
Employers, during working hours, by representatives of the Inter-
venor. The Petitioner knew of the execution of the new contract, and
of the negotiations which preceded its execution, before May 27, 1947,
the date of the election.
B. Conclusions
On March 22, 1947, 5 days before an election was to be held pursuant
to the Board's Direction of February 28, 1947, the Employers and the
Intervenor executed a new contract, accelerating their old contract by
a month. In addition, on March 25 and 26, 1947, 2 and 1 days, re-
spectively, before the election, copies of this new contract, which con-
tained many benefits for the employees not embodied in the previous
contract between the parties, were distributed by representatives of
the Intervenor, during working hours, to the employees of the various
Employers.
1 The findings made herein are based on the Regional Director 's Report, the Intervenor's
Exceptions , and the Employers ' Statement . For the purposes of this proceeding only, we
are assuming the truth of all allegations in the Intervenor 's Exceptions and the Employers'
Statement , obviating, in this manner , the need for a hearing to resolve any issues of fact,
and placing the Intervenor and the Employers in their best possible position.
3 Although the Regional Director found, in his investigation , that the new contract also
contained a wage increase , we shall, as previously noted, accept the Employers ' and Inter-
venor 's allegation that the increase had been negotiated and put into effect in December
1946, and was restated in the new contract.
ACME BREWING COMPANY 149
In our opinion, these events on the eve of an election were calculated
to influence the employees' actions with respect to the choice of their
bargaining agent.3 Whether or not the Employers permitted the dis-
tribution of the contract during working hours, and just prior to the
election date, is immaterial here, for the Regional Director's Report
on Objections finds, and neither the Intervenor nor the Employers
deny, that the distribution occurred. Nor are we concerned by the
Petitioner's knowledge, prior to the election, of the execution of the
new contract, for the distribution of the contract 1 and 2 days prior
to the election in itself influenced the free choice of the employees,
and made known to the employees various benefits which were to begin
on April 1, 1947. At that late date the Petitioner had no choice but
to let events run their course and file timely objections after the
election.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the election results may
well not have truly represented the employees' free choice and not
have reflected their untrammeled wishes as to collective bargaining
representation. We, therefore, sustain the Petitioner's Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election and shall set aside the
election held on March 27, 1947. When the Regional Director shall
advise us that the time is appropriate, we shall direct that a new elec-
tion be held among the Employers' employees.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby vacates and sets aside the election held in
this proceeding on March 27, 1947, and the result thereof.
3 See Matter of Roots-Connersville Blower Corp., 64 N. L. R. B. 855; Matter of S. Frieder
f Sons, 62 N. L. R. B. 880; Matter of Wire Rope Corporation of America , Inc, 62 N. L. it. B.
380; Matter of Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 60 N. L. it. B. 1015. In these cases, the
Board held that announcement of wage or other benefits just before an election constitutes
a sufficient interference to require the setting aside of an election . See also Medo Photo
Supply Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 321 U., S. 678, where the Supreme Court stated: "The
action of employees with respect to the choice of their bargaining agents may be induced
by favors bestowed by the employer as well as by his threats or domination."