Avon Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1729 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 1729
'D. Cl`, an original and six copies of exceptions thereto.' Immediately
upon filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve
a copy thereof upon each of the other parties; and shall file a copy
with, the' Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the
Board will adopt the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
IT is ` FURTRER ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it
hereby is, referred to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
for the purpose of arranging such hearing, and that said Regional
Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue early notice thereof.
,Avon,Products, Inc., Petitioner and Local 781, Warehouse Em-
ployees Union, IBT, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-RN-290. Decem-
ber 7, 1956
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
'entered into by the parties on August 20, 1956, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on August 24, 1956, among the employees at the
Employer's Morton Grove, Illinois, plant, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region. At
the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 201 eligible voters, 169
cast ballots, of which 56 were cast for the Union, 113 against the
Union, 10 ballots were challenged and 1 was declared void. A ma-
jority of the valid votes was cast against the Union.
On August 31, 1956, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, copies of which were served upon the
Employer. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on
October 30, 1956, issued his report on objections, in which he found
that the objections were without merit and recommended that the
objections be overruled. On November 9, 1956, the Union filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following findings of fact :
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.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
116 NLRB No. 252.
405448-57-vol. 116-110
1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties stipulated and we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees in the shipping department of the Employer's Morton
Grove, Illinois, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, plant
clerical employees, quality control inspectors, maintenance employees,
administrative employees, professional employees, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The objections to the election :
Objections 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8:1 Objection No. 1 contended that the
Employer granted wage increases after the execution of the stipula-
tion for certification upon consent election; objection No. 2 referred to
certain bulletins issued by the Employer assuring employees that they
would receive group insurance and be covered by a retirement plan; 2
No. 4 claimed that the Employer engaged in surveillance over the
employees on election day; No. 5 claimed that the Employer interfered
with the election by rearranging the lunch schedule and workloads on
election day; No. 6 contended that supervisors questioned employees
as to how they would vote; and No. 8 claimed that while the voting
was being conducted, a supervisor questioned employees as to how
they were going to vote and suggested a "no" vote.
As to objection No. 1, the Regional Director found there was no
evidence that the timing and granting of the wage increase was con-
ditioned upon the outcome of the election, but that it was an auto-
matic increase granted' new employees upon the completion of their
probationary period, in accordance with established policy. As to
the other objections, he found no evidence was adduced showing inter-
ference by supervisors or of threats of economic reprisals, promises
of economic benefits, intimidation, or coercion. He therefore recom-
mended that these objections be overruled.
In its exceptions to these recommendations, the Union presented
no facts in support of its objections, but contended that the burden
of proof in substantiating these objections was on the Regional Di-
rector and not on the objecting party. We find no merit in the
Union's position. The Board has consistently held that a party filing
objections is obligated to furnish evidence in support of such objec-
tions, and that unless such evidence is produced, the Regional Di-
rector is not required to further pursue his investigation 3 Accord-
ingly, objections 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are overruled.
1 Objections 7, 9, and 10 were withdrawn by the Union.
2 The investigation revealed that the Company had both group insurance and a retirement
plan in effect at the time of the election As no exceptions were taken to the Regional
Director's recommendation, that this objection be overruled, we adopt his recommendation.
3 Pacific Mar itime dssoctat,on and Its Member Companies, 112 NLRB 1280, 1282.
AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 1731
Objection No. 3: The Union objected to a company- leaflet dis-
tributed to the employees during their lunch period just prior to
the election,4 on the ground that misrepresentations were made therein
with respect to vacations, paid holidays, and wages prevailing at the
Employer's -Kansas City plant,,which was covered by a contract with
the Union.
On the question of statements concerning vacations and paid holi-
days, the Regional Director's report finds that no misrepresentations
were made. As the Union in its exceptions makes no reference to
these issues , we hereby adopt the Regional Director's factual con-
clusion.
There remains the question whether the statements regarding wages
at the Kansas City plant were so misleading as to warrant setting
the election aside. On this question, the leaflet stated inter alia that
at the Kansas City plant the rate for packers, staplers, and bin
fillers was $1.47 per hour. The Union's president contended that
this was only a half truth in that the Company failed to point out
that under the union contract, such employees, after 6 weeks' em-
ploynient, are raised to $1.52 per hour and that thereafter, they may
be classified at scales higher than this rate, if they are capable of
performing duties in the higher classifications.
On the basis of the investigation, the Regional Director concluded
that the representations were not so misleading that the conduct
exceeded the limits of legitimate propaganda and lowered the stand-
ards of campaigning to a level which would impair the free and un-
trammeled expression of choice by the employees.5 He therefore
recommended that the objection be overruled. We find no merit in
the Union's exception to this finding. The Employer's statement
with respect to wages, indicated above, was essentially correct. More-
over, it does not appear to us that the omission as to the 5-cent in-
crease referred to by the Union was such as to influence the employees
improperly or to prevent their exercise of a free choice. We there-
fore adopt the Regional Director's recommendation.'
In view of the fact that the Union did not receive a majority of
the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified a majority of the valid ballots was not cast
.for Local 781, Warehouse Employees Union, IBT, AFL-CIO, and
that this labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the
employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
4 The Company contended it was necessary to release the leaflet at that time because of
misrepresentations made in a union leaflet issued to the employees the previous day.
5 Herder's, Incorporated, 114 NLRB 751, 753.
e Stewa, t-Warner Cm poratwn, 102 NLRB 1153, 1158 L. G. Everist, Inc., 112 NLRB
810, 812.