Boggs and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 758 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
19. Bleach Plant Supervisor
20. Labor Gang Supervisor
21. Calendar and Rewinder Supervisor
22. Box Shop Supervisor
23. Control Laboratory Supervisor
Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, Plant
1. Tour Foreman, Pulpmill
APPENDIX B
INCLUDED CLASSIFICATIONS
Covington, Virginia, Plant
1. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, Construction
2. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, East Side Maintenance
3. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, West Side Maintenance
4. Assistant Millwright Foreman
5. Assistant Carpenter Foreman
6. Assistant Finishing Foreman, No. 2 Boardmill
7. Labor Foreman
8. Paint Foreman
9. No. 6-7 Finishing Foreman
Luke, Maryland, Plant
1. Millwright Supervisor, Pulpmill
2. Lubrication Inspector
3. Paint Shop Supervisor
4. Bleach Room Supervisor
5. Machinist Supervisor
6. Loading Supervisor, Papermill
Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, Plant
1. Yard Boss
Boggs and Company, Inc. and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local
No. 728, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4191. December 30, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into by the parties on August 29, 1958, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on September 11, 1958, under the supervision
and direction of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among
certain employees of Boggs and Company, Inc. Immediately fol-
122 NLRB No. 82.
BOGGS AND COMPANY, INC. 759
'lowing the election a tally of ballots was served upon each of the
parties which showed that of approximately three eligible voters,
two cast ballots for the Petitioner, one against the Petitioner, and
there were no challenged or void ballots.
On September 11, 1958, the Employer timely filed objections to
the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of
the election, copies of which were duly served on all parties. The
Regional Director investigated the objections and on October 16,
1958, issued his report on objections, recommending that the objec-
tions be overruled. On October' 8, 1958, the Employer filed a
motion to dismiss and on October 23, 1958, the Employer filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board' has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, the motion to dismiss, and the entire record in this case
and finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. 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 truckdrivers and ware-
house employees of the Employer at its Atlanta, Georgia, location,
excluding office clerical employees, professionals, watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act .2
5. The Employer's objections and exceptions relate primarily to
the presence of Supervisor Jones at the polls during the election.
Jones would have been eligible to vote but for the fact that he
became a supervisor after the petition was filed. The Employer
contends that Jones actively supported the Petitioner after he
attained supervisory status. According to the Employer, 3 or 4
days before the election, Jones was present in an automobile with
an individual who was Petitioner's assistant business agent, and
employee Douglass (a former supervisor whom Jones succeeded)
who allegedly was active on the Petitioner's behalf, when a new
employee's support for the Petitioner was being solicited. The
Employer's contention is that Jones' presence in the automobile and
at the polls constituted coercion and intimidation of the new em-
ployee, which, in view of the size of the unit, deprived him of a
free choice in the election.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b)' of the Act the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Bean and Jenkins].
G The unit description is in accord with the stipulation of the parties.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While it is undisputed that Jones was in the immediate vicinity
of the polls during the election, there is neither evidence nor an
allegation by the Employer that Jones himself either then, during
the automobile incident previously mentioned, or at any other time
after he became a supervisor, ever affirmatively solicited support
for Petitioner. Indeed, the Employer's position is that in the
absence of such solicitation by Jones his mere presence both in
the . automobile and at the polls constituted interference sufficient
to set the election aside. The Board has consistently held such
conduct-is insufficient fQr setting aside an election .3
On October 8, 1958, the Employer filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, claiming that : (1) Douglass, at the time in question a
supervisor as defined in the Act, encouraged and assisted Petitioner
in its organizational campaign; and (2) Douglass was present when
all authorization cards were signed and in fact signed such an
authorization card himself. The Employer states that this assist-
ance did not come to its attention until October 2 and 3, 1958.
The petition for certification in the instant case was filed August
18, 1958, and Douglass was replaced as supervisor by Jones on
August 25, 1958. The stipulation was entered into on August 28,
1958, and accepted by the Regional Director on August 29, 1958.
On both of these dates, as well as on the date of the subsequent
election, Douglass was not a supervisor and was admittedly. eligible
to vote. Therefore, the allegations of improper supervisory assist-
ance by Douglass necessarily antedate the stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election and the Board has held that it will not
consider objections based on interference occurring prior to the
execution by the parties of the stipulation for certification upon
consent election.4 Furthermore, that rule applies not only to
objections to conduct affecting the election, but also to objections
to the showing of interest.' The Employer's contentions of lack of
knowledge of the alleged assistance until a later date is immaterial
since the rule expressed above was not qualified by making it
dependent upon knowledge 6 The Employer's motion to dismiss is
therefore hereby denied.
[The Board certified Truckdrivers and Helpers Local No. 728
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers-of America, as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia,
place of business; in the unit found appropriate.]
3 Dixie Broadcasting Company, 120 NLRB 869 ; Brown-Duncan Company, 118 NLRB
1603; Underwood Machinery Company, 80 NLRB 1264; Allen B. Dumont Laboratories,
Inc., 88 NLRB 1296; Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 91 NLRB 470.
IF. W. 'Wooluiorth Comp 'any, 109 NLRB 1446.'
r Concrete Products, Inc., 120 NLRB 1348.
6 Ibid.