Alto Plastic Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1458 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alto Plastic Manufacturing Corporation and United Industrial
Workers' Local 976, AIW, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
21-RC-4807. February 5, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated July 31,
1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 21, 1957,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, among the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate in the above-mentioned Decision. Thereafter a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of approximately 152
eligible voters, 143 cast ballots, of which 107 were cast for the Peti-
tioner, 34 were cast against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged
ballots 2
On August 26, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec-
tion alleging that the Petitioner, by its August 20 circular, misled the
employees by denying its connection with the Allied Industrial
WVorkers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner's International, herein called AIW.3
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objections and
on September 16, 1.957, issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on objections, in which he recommended that the objections be
overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
report on objections and requested the Board not to certify the
Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Employer's objections and excep-
tions, the Regional Director's- report and upon the entire record ii;
this case, the Board finds :
The Regional Director's report shows that on August 16, 1957, the
Employer distributed written propaganda in the form of a letter with
attached newspaper articles and pictures. The substance of the prop-
aganda was to advise the employees that the Petitioner was a part
of the AIW and was dominated by gangsters and other notorious
individuals such as Johnny Dio, Anthony Doria, and Angelo Inciso,
whose questionable conduct of the affairs of the AIW were revealed by
the Senate Rackets Committee.
On August 20, 1957, the clay before the election, the Petitioner dis-
tributed a written reply to the Employer's propaganda. The reply
1 Not reported in the printed volumes of Board Deciions and Orders.
' The challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election.
In its original objections the Employer relied also on "numerous personal contacts."
but subsequently by amending its objections, the Employer limited its objections to the
circular of August 20, 1957.
119 NLRB No. 183.
ALTO PLASTIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1459
denied that "Johnny Dio or any other New York local union members
has ever had anything to do with" the Petitioner, and that any officer
or member of the Petitioner "has ever taken the fifth amendment be-
fore any committee of the Government." Further, the Petitioner as-
serted that no proof of wrongdoing had ever been charged against any
member of the Petitioner, and that there had never been any proof
of any wrongdoing in the Petitioner. The Petitioner in its denials at
no time mentioned the AIW in any way.
Because the Petitioner denied that it or its members had engaged in
the misconduct alleged by the Employer and there is no evidence of
such misconduct by the Petitioner and because the Petitioner, who at
all times prior to the election had been affiliated with the AIWW', did
not deny this affiliation with the AIW, we agree with the Regional
Director that the Petitioner's reply of August 20 is legitimate prop-
aganda and did not interefere with the employees' free choice in the
election.' Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's excep-
tions and hereby overrule these objections.
In its exceptions, the Employer also requests that the Petitioner not
be certified because it has disaffiliated from the AIW, whose activities,
as llereina.bove set forth, have been investigated by the Senate Rackets
Committee. The Employer submitted newspaper articles which indi-
cate that, subsequent to the election, the Petitioner's "Joint Board"
announced its disaffiliation from the AIW; that it was now called
"Independent United Industrial Workers"; that the AIW had
appointed a "Special Administrator" for the Petitioner; and that there
was litigation between the Petitioner and the AIW. In these circum-
stances, assuming even that the alleged disaffiliation has actually taken
place, the facts here do not indicate a schism or other internal dispute
within the Petitioner resulting in the establishment of a new union.
Rather they show that the alleged change in character and status of
the Petitioner is merely one of designation and affiliation.5 Accord-
ingly, we find no merit in the Employer's exceptions, and in agree-
ment with the Regional Director, find that the objections do not raise
substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the
results of the election. We therefore overrule the objections.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of the votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner.
[The Board certified United Industrial Workers' Local 976, AIW.
AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
the production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
assembly plant at Los Angeles, California.]
4 See Alli.s-Chalmers llannfactnrinq Co.. 117 NLRB 744. 747-8 : The Tlm City Rroad-
ca.ctina Corporation, 116 NLRB 1670, 1674. See also Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company,
118 NLRB 312.
5 Dryden Rubber Division of Sheller -lmnnfacturing Company, 118 NLRB 369. See also-
Dalmo Victor Company Division of Textron Inc., 119 NLRB 737, and Lloyd A . Fry Roof-
ing Compan jl, supra.