Barber Colman Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 3, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barber Colman Company and International Union , United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-4778. July 3, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
On February 15, 1956, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued in the above-entitled proceeding,' an election by secret
ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in
the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 2,366 eligible voters, 2,237 cast ballots, of which
849 were for and 1,358 were against the Petitioner and 30 ballots were
challenged.
On February 21, 1956, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the
conduct of the election. On February 28, 1956, the Employer filed a
"Motion to Strike and Dismiss," contending that the Petitioner's
objections did not conform to the Board's requirements for specificity.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on April 26,
1956, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objec-
tions, recommending that the Employer's motion be denied, that the
Petitioner's objections be overruled, and that the results of the elec-
tion be certified. Thereafter the Board granted an extension of time
for filing exceptions and, on May 14, 1956, the Petitioner timely filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Peti-
tioner's objections conform with the requirements of specificity set
forth in the Board's Rules and Regulations and warranted investi-
gation thereof by the Regional Director.2 Accordingly, we deny the
Employer's motion to dismiss the objections and shall consider their
merits.
Objection No. 1 involved the employees in the Employer's heat
treat department. Unlike the employees in all other departments
of the Employer's plant, the approximately 20 heat treat workers
take 15 to 20 minute breaks for lunch-whenever their work per-
mits-and are paid for that time. The Petitioner presented evidence
that Foreman Dykstra told the heat treat employees that they were
not permitted to engage in union talk during their paid lunch hour.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that during 1 lunch
hour 3 heat treat workers were reading an issue of the "Kohler of
3 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
' See Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet , Inc., 113 NLRB 879.
116 NLRB No. 4.
BARBER COLMAN COMPANY 25
Kohler" magazine the Employer had distributed to convince employees
to vote against the Petitioner. One employee claimed that shortly
after the lunch break Dykstra said that employees could not "talk
Union on Company time" but, upon being advised that the workers
were reading the "Kohler of Kohler" magazine, Dykstra stated, "Oh
no, that's all right. That's what it's in here for." Another employee
present at the time reported that, on an earlier occasion, Dykstra had
said, "You . . . will have to stop talking about the Union or I'll
have to fire you."
Dykstra denied threatening to fire anyone for union talk on com-
pany time and averred that he had merely told employees not to solicit
for the Petitioner on company time. With regard to the "Kohler
of Kohler" magazine, Dykstra stated he may have told the employees
to break up their discussion and admitted giving the employees his
impression of the magazine on at least three occasions. Dykstra con-
sidered the paid lunch hour in the heat treat department as company
time for the purpose of applying the Employer's no-solicitation rule.
Assuming the facts are as reported by the employees, we agree
with the Regional Director that Dykstra's statements did not inter-
fere with the holding of a free election. If made, Dykstra's remarks
cut off discussion about the Union by 3 out of a total of more than
2,300 eligible voters. Such an isolated deviation from the Board's
standards governing representation elections does not constitute suffi-
cient ground for setting aside the election .s
One employee reported that a supervisor in the Employer's cafe-
teria stated, "I feel sorry for young married couples with children if
the Union gets in." The supervisor denied making the statement. The
• Regional Director found that, if the supervisor made the remark,
it did not constitute interference. We agree.'
In support of objection No. 2, the Petitioner presented evidence
that, in January 1956, Shipping Room Foreman Thomas prepared
a list of shipping room employees containing addresses, telephone
numbers, number of dependents, and information as to whether the
employees rented, were about to buy, or owned their homes. The
Petitioner also reported that Thomas asked an employee, "How would
you pay for your home and car if there's a strike?" I The Regional
Director's investigation showed only that Thomas was gathering in-
3 Western Table Company, 110 NLRB 17; Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company,
et at., 107 NLRB 1534, 1537-38; cf., Armstrong Cork Company, 109 NLRB 1341, 1342.
Contrary to the Petitioner, we do not consider significant the Regional Director's comment
in his report that under some circumstances the conduct engaged in by Dykstra might
constitute interference with a Board election.
' See Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 106, wherein the Board held, "a
prophecy that unionization might ultimately lead to loss of employment is not coercive
where there is no threat that the Employer will use its economic power to make its
prophecy come true."
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formation relative to employees' homes without revealing the purpose
of the data. Thomas denied gathering the information and making
the statement attributed to him. The Regional Director assumed
Thomas made the remark but found, as we do, that it did not inter-
fere with the election.'
Objection No. 3 involved evidence that the Employer gave some em-
ployees wage increases shortly before the election. The Petitioner
contends that the granting of increases during the week before the
election constituted interference. The Regional Director found that
for a year and a half the Employer had a procedure of giving merit
increases three times a year-on the 15th of January, May, and Sep-
tember. The Employer asserted that the wage raises in issue were
granted pursuant to its normal merit increase procedure and occurred
around the time of the election only because it had changed from the
system of three rating periods annually to a semiannual rating system.
The Regional Director found that the increases to three employees
did not interfere with the election. We find that the wage increases
were given in the normal course of the Employer's business, and ac-
cordingly, adopt the Regional Director's finding.'
Objection No. 4 is based upon the Petitioner's contention that the
Employer distributed false, misleading, and defamatory material to
induce the employees to vote against the Petitioner. The Regional
Director's investigation disclosed that the Employer distributed a
letter, dated January 30, 1956, to its employees setting forth data on
strikes that had occurred in the Rockford area since 1950. Respon-
sibility for the calling of the 2 longest strikes listed-of 231/2 and
131/2 weeks, respectively-was incorrectly attributed to the Petitioner.
The Employer distributed another letter, dated February 13, 1956,
to the employees which the Petitioner claims misrepresented a dues
assessment of its members in the previous year, but the Petitioner has
failed to identify the nature of the misrepresentation. The Employer
distributed to interested employees 10 days or so before the election
copies of the "Kohler of Kohler" magazine referred to above. The
magazine presents the Kohler Company viewpoint of the strike at
its plant at Kohler, Wisconsin, a strike in which the Petitioner was
involved. Finally the Petitioner attributed to the Employer respon-
sibility for the printing and distribution of a newspaper article which
placed the Petitioner in an unfavorable light; however, the Petitioner
did not set forth its reasons for connecting the Employer with respon-
sibility for publication or distribution of the article. Even assuming
that the Employer was responsible for the distribution of all four
8 See F. W. Woolworth Co., 111 NLRB 766, 768; Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation,
supra.
6 Stanley Aviation Corporation, 112 NLRB 461; Sprague Electric Company of Wisconsin,
Inc, 112 NLRB 165.
LOCAL 675 27
of the publications, we find, as did the Regional Director, that the ma-
terial contained therein was not of such nature as to justify setting
aside the election.'
Upon the entire record we find that the Petitioner's objections con-
cerning the Employer's conduct do not raise substantial and material
issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings and recommendations of the Re-
gional Director and hereby overrule all the Petitioner's objections.
As no basis exists for directing a hearing on the issues raised by the
Petitioner, its request for such hearing is hereby denied. The Peti-
tioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast in the elec-
tion. Accordingly, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said organ-
ization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees
in the appropriate unit.]
MEMBER MLRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
7 Mason C,an' Conm.pany, 115 NLRB 1408; see The Gummed Products Company, 112
NLRB 1092.
Local 675, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, and its International Representative, D. B. Hudson and
International Longshoremen 's Association and Local Union
No. 1526, ILA, and its President, H. W. Simmons and South
Atlantic and Gulf Coast District , International Longshore-
men's Association , Independent , and its President, Ralph
Massey and Port Everglades Terminal Company, Inc. Cases
Nos. 10-CD-18,10-OD-19,10-CD-20, and 10-CD-21. July 5,1956
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
of the Act, the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen...."
Between October 17 and 21, 1955, Port Everglades Terminal Com-
pany, Inc., herein called the Company, filed with the Regional Di-
116 NLRB No. 2.