Armour Food Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

ARMOUR FOOD CO. 1
Armour Food Company, a Division of Conagra, Inc.,
and Local 31P, United Food & Commercial
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 18-RC-
14052
March 2, 1988
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held February 26, 1987, and the hearing
officer's report recommending disposition of them.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows
157 for and 122 against the Petitioner, with 7 chal-
lenged ballots, an insufficient 'number to affect the
results. •
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief, has adopted the hearing
officer's findings' and recommendations, and finds
that a certification of representative should be
issued.
The hearing officer concluded that certain anon-
ymous threats made by telephone to employee
Merlin Schaefer not only were not attributable to
the Union, but did not relate to the Union's cam-
paign at all. In its exceptions to the hearing offi-
cer's report, the Employer argues, among other
things, that in two of the calls to Schaefer, the call-
ers expressly referred to Schaefer's failure to attend
a union meeting and that therefore the hearing offi-
cer erred in finding no link with the campaign. We
agree that the hearing officer's finding in that
regard was in error, and we also acknowledge that
reports about the telephone calls to Schaefer were
disseminated in the unit of approximately 300 em-
ployees. We nevertheless conclude that neither
these calls nor any of the other third-party conduct
relied on by the Employer warrants our setting
aside the election.
The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil-
ity findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule a hearing
officer's credibility resolutions unlws the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stretch-Tex Co.,
118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis for reversing the findings.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing officer's
recommendation to overrule the Employer's Objections 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, and
12 and his recommendation that the Employer's request to withdraw Ob-
jection 1 be approved.
On March 27, 1987, the Regional Director approved the Employer's
request to withdraw Objection 4.
Although Schaefer was known for his antiunion
views, he had also long been known throughout
the plant as a "company man" or a "snitch," who
would either turn in his fellow employees for
"little diddly stuff" or threaten to do so. In a
number of the calls to Schaefer (which began
before the critical period), the anonymous caller
accused Schaefer of being a "snitch." Indeed, his
reputation as someone "who can get you terminat-
ed at Armour for little or no reason, regardless of
your employment status" was alluded to in a union
campaign leaflet (which contained no threats).
Given Schaefer's reputation as not just an oppo-
nent of the Union but also an informer, other em-
ployees in the plant who did not have such a repu-
tation were unlikely to conclude that they would
be the target of similar threats or harassment
simply by virtue of not favoring the Union. (It is
also noteworthy that another employee, Rick Kin-
gery, who had received harassing telephone calls
that did not include references to the campaign and
that were not disseminated within the unit, testified
that "a lot of people called me a rat, said I ratted
on people.")
In sum, we do not find that the anonymous
threats to Schaefer or any of the other third-party
conduct on which the Employer relies, created a
general atmosphere of fear and coercion that
would preclude a fair election—the applicable
standard for determining whether to set aside the
election in this case. Marmon Group, 275 NLRB
652 (1985). We therefore affirm the hearing offi-
cer's recommendation to overrule the Employer's
Objection 2.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have been cast for Local 31P, United Food
and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO and that it is
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All hourly-paid production workers and sala-
ried maintenance mechanics, including ware-
house, shipping and receiving employees em-
ployed at the Employer's 1401 S. Eisenhower,
Mason City, Iowa plant; but excluding all
office clerical employees, temporary employ-
ees, casual employees, salaried quality control
personnel, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
288 NLRB No. 1