Bordo Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 79
Bordo Products Company and International Union of United
Brewery, Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-12. Octo-
ber 2,0,19b7
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION
On February 5, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election,' directing an election in this case. Thereafter, the Regional
Director permitted the Petitioner to withdraw from the election leav-
ing the Intervenor, Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehouse-
men and Allied Employees, Local 60, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the only participating labor organization. Immediately prior
to the date of the election scheduled pursuant to the Board's Decision,
the Employer filed a motion for rehearing, requesting reconsideration
and dismissal of the proceedings. On February 25, 1957, the Board
directed the Regional Director to conduct the election as scheduled
and impound the ballots. The election was held on February 26,
1957. The Board, on April 9, 1957, issued a Supplemental Decision
and Direction 2 denying the Employer's motion for rehearing and
directing that the ballots be opened and counted. Pursuant to the
Board's direction, the ballots were counted on April 18,' 1957. The
tally of ballots issued at that time showed that of approximately 1,256
eligible voters, 658 votes were cast for and 175 votes were cast against
the Intervenor. There were 4 void ballots and 12 challenged ballots.
On April 23, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec-
tion and conduct affecting the election, alleging that such conduct
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees who
voted in the election. Thereafter, on May 10, 1957, the Regional Di-
rector, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, issued and duly
served on the parties a report on objections, in which he found that
insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the allegations
of interference, restraint, or coercion and recommended that the Board
overrule the objections and certify the Intervenor. On May 20, 1957,
the Employer filed exceptions to the report on objections. Thereafter,
the Regional Director issued a supplemental report on objections in
which he answered certain of the Employer's exceptions and again
recommended that the Board certify the Intervenor.
The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional
Director's reports, and the Employer's exceptions, and hereby adopts
1 117 NLRB 313.
2 117 NLRB 1046.
119 NLRB No. 11.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director's recommendations that the objections be over-
ruled and the Intervenor certified.
In its exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections the
Employer objects to the Regional Director's failure to discuss certain
statements and affidavits submitted during the investigation of ob-
jections. As the Regional Director points out in his supplemental
report, the Employer did not specify the conduct referred to in these
statements in its objections to the election. The Employer also renews
in its exceptions each of its original objections to the election. We
shall discuss them briefly.
The Employer's objections 1 through 5 pertain to alleged improper
activity at the place of balloting or within sight of the polling place.
In particular, the Employer alleges that : Nonemployee union agents
and officers interrogated and solicited employees within sight of the
polling place on company property; union officers were permitted to
act as observers; union observers while performing no official func-
tion were permitted to circulate among the voters, away from the
immediate polling area, wearing official badges; the union president
who was an observer and another union observer circulated among and
talked to employees although they were neither performing official
duties nor working as employees; and a greater number of union ob-
servers than company observers were appointed by the Board and
one performed no official function.
In his investigation, the Regional Director found no evidence that
any electioneering was done by a union representative or a union
observer in the situations objected to by the Employer although two
alternate union observers were permitted to remain in the plant and
talk to the employees while the election was being held. He was of
the opinion that the presence of union representatives outside the
building where the election was conducted is insufficient to require
the setting aside of the election even assuming employees waiting in
line to vote could see and be seen by them and that an official position
with the Union does not disqualify an employee from acting as a
union observer. He reported that the disparity in number of ob-
servers was occasioned by the Employer's failure to designate alter-
nate observers as did the Union, and that no more than 3 union
observers were on duty at any 1 time. We agree with the Regional
Director that absent a showing of electioneering, interference, or
'coercion, the above conduct objected to does not constitute grounds
for setting aside the election-'
Objections 6 and 7 filed by the Employer challenged the Board's
jurisdiction on the basis of the Intervenor's compliance with the filing
See Wood d Smith Shoe Co., 117 NLRB 1760 ; The Rackle Company of Texas, 117
NLRB 462; Dallas City Packing Company, 110 NLRB 8.
BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 81
requirements of the Act ; and objection 16 refers to the Employer's
request on March 11, 1957, that the Regional Director investigate the
Intervenor's compliance status. The same allegations concerning
the Intervenor's compliance were a part of the Employer's motion
for a rehearing and were found by the Board to be without merit.
The motion was specifically denied, insofar as it pertained to ques-
tions of compliance, by telegraphic order of February 25, 1957.
Objections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 relate to the Petitioner's with-
drawal from participation in the election. Substantially, the Em-
ployer contends that Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations whereby authority is granted by the Board to the Re-
gional Director to permit withdrawal of a party from the ballot is
an unlawful delegation of the power of the Board to direct a secret
election and to determine disputed and controversial issues, and that
the Regional Director's acts pursuant thereto are void; that the em-
ployees were not given a choice of representatives as directed by the
Board; and that Federal Local Union No. 24215, as well as the em-
ployees, was prejudiced by the fraudulent action of the Petitioner
approved by the Regional Director.
The Regional Director recommended that these objections be over-
ruled as lacking in merit and pointed out that the Board had con-
sidered substantially the same allegations as contained in the objection
relating to Federal Local Union No. 24215 in its Supplemental De-
cision and found no merit to the contention. The Regional Director
reported that his investigation did not disclose any facts to support
the Employer's contention that the Petitioner's withdrawal was fraud-
ulent. The Board is of the opinion that Section 102.61 of its Rules
and Regulations is a valid delegation of authority and that conduct
of the election herein, after permitting withdrawal of the Petitioner
and with participation by the Intervenor alone, was proper.
Objection 14 pertains to the designation of the Intervenor on the
ballot.
The name of the Intervenor is Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers,
Warehousemen and Allied Employees Local 60, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO. , Inadvertently, the word "of" was inserted after
"Employees" and preceding "Local" and the word "Union" following
"Local" and preceding "60," in the direction of election, notice of
election, and on the ballot. The Employer contends that because of
this error in setting out the Intervenor's name, the ballot failed to
designate a labor organization in that there is no labor organization
or entity with the name which appeared on the ballot. We agree with
the Regional Director that the erroneous insertion of the word "of"
and the word "Union" in the Intervenor's name on the ballot was
476321-58-vol. 119-7
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
insufficient to cause confusion as to the identity of the labor organi-_
zation involved, and we overrule the objection.
Objection 15, filed by the Employer, asserts that prior to the election
the Intervenor circulated a false and misleading leaflet and sample
ballot.
The Regional Director reported that the parties agreed to meet on
February 20 to complete election arrangements for the election to be
held on February 26, but prior to the 20th the Employer advised the
Board agent that it intended to file a motion for a rehearing and
would not be present. The Board agent and the Intervenor met as
planned and arranged for the election to be held off company prop-
erty. Notices of election were issued scheduling the election. The
Intervenor thereupon passed out leaflets to the employees. It is these
leaflets to which the Employer objects. The leaflets circulated by
the Intervenor set out certain information as to the unit, time, and
place of election, and a reproduction of the ballot. The information
presented varied to some extent from that contained in the official
notice of election. At the top of the leaflet was written : "This is a
sample ballot shown to you so you will know what the voting ballot
will look like. Do not mark this sample ballot in any way." The
voting unit was described as on the official notice of election, with
the following sentence added: "Those who were employed during
the week ending Friday midnight, February 15, 1957." The leaflet
showed the hours of election as from 5 a. in. until 6: 30 p. in., while
the hours were designated on the official notice from 5: 30 a. M. to
10 a. M., 11: 30 a. in. to 1 p. in., 3 p. in. to 6 p. m. The official notice of
election stated the place of election as : "Barnetts Trailer Court, 1847
Seventh Street, S. W., Across Street From Seaboard R. R. Depot."
The leaflet described the place as "Across Street from Seaboard R. R.
Depot in the trailer park on 7th Street."
Following the description of the time and place of election, the
Intervenor's leaflet made the following statement : "The Company
has refused to let the N. L. R. B. conduct the election on Company
property, so the N. L. R. B. has made arrangements to hold election
at the above location."
Immediately below the above information was a purported repro-
duction of the official ballot clearly marked "Sample." However,
the sample ballot was altered to the following extent :
1. The official sample ballot showed that the election was for the
employees of "Bordo Products Company, Winter Haven, Florida."
The purported reproduction stated that the election, was for the em-
ployees of "Bordo Products, Inc."
2. There was a discrepancy in the designation of the participating
labor organization. The official ballot showed the name as Cannery,
Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Allied Employees of
BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 83
Local Union 60, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO." The purported
reproduction showed it as "Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Allied Employees Local No. 60, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO."
In summary, the ballot was altered in respect to the name of the
Employer giving it as "Inc." instead of "Company" and omitting the
location of the Company; and in the designation of the participating
union omitting the word "of" between "Employees" and "Local,"
and substituting "No." for "Union" between "Local" and "60," and
showing the local to be "affiliated with" the Teamsters International
organization, a fact that is implied rather than written out on the
official ballot. No marks were placed in the voting squares on the
sample ballot.
On February 25, the Employer requested the Regional Director by
telegram to conduct the election on the Employer's premises, and the
Regional Director agreed. Agents of the Employer on election day
distributed to each voter a printed notice which included the state-
ment, "The Company has requested that this election be held in the
plant for your convenience."
On these facts the Board adopts the Regional Director's recommen-
dation that objection 15 be overruled. The first part of the leaflet
which was circulated, giving information regarding the election which
differed somewhat from that on the official notice of election and
adding the statement concerning the conduct of the election off com-
pany property, is not in the form of the official notice and did not
give the impression of being an official document. Moreover, we do
not think that the material thereon tended to mislead employees or
interfere with their freedom of choice in the election.
The bottom half of the leaflet purported to be a facsimile of the of-
ficial ballot. The Board has previously held that it will not counte-
nance circulation of any document purporting to be a copy of the
Board's official ballot except one unaltered in form and content and
clearly marked "sample" on its face.' The reproduction of the Inter-
venor's leaflet was so marked, and the minor changes in names on the
ballot were insignificant. They did not tend to mislead voters as.to
the choice which was theirs or suggest either directly or indirectly that
the Board endorsed a particular choice. Accordingly, we find that
the circulation of the sample ballot was not a misuse of the Board's
processes for partisan advantage and did not interfere with.the
election.
Under objection 17, the Employer alleges that the polls were not
open as specified on the notices of election. The Regional Director
' See Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270.
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attributes this divergency to the request of the Employer's general
manager the day before the election that the election be held on com-
pany property in the cafeteria, and that the formerly scheduled hours
be changed. It was agreed between all the parties that there would
be no voting during the lunch hour, and employees were released to
vote during company time. We find no merit in this objection.
Objection 18, by the Employer, alleges interference, restraint, and
coercion by the Intervenor in circulating notices of its meeting an-
nouncing that attendance at the meetings entitled one to a ticket which
was a chance on three prizes it was giving away at a meeting at which
one had to be present to win. In view of the fact that no evidence
was submitted showing that the offer of prizes was contingent on
how employees voted in the election or the results of the election,
we find no merit in the Employer's objection.
We have overruled the Employer's objections to the election and
as the Intervenor has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election, we shall certify the Intervenor as the representative of the
employees involved.
The Board certified Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehouse-
men and Allied Employees Local 60, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certification.
May, Stern and Company and Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, Local 1365 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1956.
October 22, 1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted on June 3, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
June 11, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board,
among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election,
the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of
ballots, which shows that all 13 eligible voters cast valid ballots, of
which 7 were cast for, and 6 against, the Petitioner. There were no
void or challenged ballots.
On June 18, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
which it alleged affected the results of the election. After an investi-
119 NLRB No. 12.