Caressa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1745 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CARESSA, INC. 1745
Caressa, Inc. and General Sales Drivers & Allied Employees
Union, Local 198, an affiliate of Internationl Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 1J2-RC-2366. June 9,1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the
Regional Director for Region 12 on January 28, 1966, among the
employees in the stipulated unit. After the election the Regional
Director served on the parties a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 463 eligible voters, 453 votes were cast, of which
165 were for, and 248 were against, the Petitioner, 1 ballot was void,
and 39 ballots were challenged. The challenges were insufficient in
number to effect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation, and, on March 4, 1966, issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections and recommendations to the
Board, in which he found merit in Petitioner's objection 1(a) and
recommended that the election be set aside and a new election held.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, warehouse employees,
truck drivers and helpers, shipping and receiving employees, and
plant clerical employees employed by the Employer at its Miami
158 NLRB No. 150.
221-731-67-vol. 158-111
1746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Florida, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act
5 The Petitioner's objection relates to a statement distributed to
the employees shortly before the election, allegedly containing a
material misrepresentation which the Petitioner did not have ade-
quate opportunity to iefute The Regional Director's investigation
rei ealed that the election was scheduled on a payday between the
hours of 2 15 and 4 15 p in Between 11 30 am and 12 noon on
that day, the Employer distributed to the employees their pay in
two envelopes-the first envelope contained the normal pay less $6,
the second envelope contained the remaining $6 with the following
mes6tge in both English and Spanish
THIS ENVELOPE CONTAINS $6 00 OF YOUR MONEY
THIS IS THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT THE UNION
WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUT OF YOUR PAY CHECK
EVERY MONTII, TO BE TURNED OVER TO THEM
THE UNION i
The amount of money in this envelope does not include fines,
assessments and other charges that the Union may desire you
to pay
We have given these separate checks to you today so that you
can more fully appreciate one of the issues involved in this
election that Unaors want money amd they expect to be
paid by the employees
This Union cannot help our business What does a truck driver
know iabout making shoes l
VOTE TO KEEP ALL THE MONEY YOU EARN
FOR YOURSELVES AND YOUR FAMILIES I
VOTE NO
The Regional Director , relying on the opinion of Chairman
McCulloch and Member Fanning in Trane Company ' found that
the statement "The amount of money in this envelope does not
include fines, assessments , and other charges that the Union may
desire you to pay," implied that the employees would be required
to join the Petitioner in order to retain their jobs which would be a
material misrepresentation of Florida's "Right4o-Work" law The
Regional Director , while noting that the related statement in Trane
was phrased in terms of coercion 2 by the union while the statement
1137 NLRB 1506 ( 1982 ) Member Brown found it unnecessary to reach the question
and therefore did not rule upon the paycheck matter Members Rodgers and Leedom
dissented
2 The message in that case read "The money in this envelope does not include fines
assessments and other charges that you may be forced to pay to the Union " [Emphasis
supplied ]
CARESSA, INC. 1747
in this case was in terms of the Union's desires, concluded that the
language was not substantially different, especially when coupled
with the Employer'-, further statement in this case "that Unions
want money and they expect to be paid by the employees." Conse-
quently, he concluded that the distribution of this material immedi-
ately before the election, when the Union had no opportunity to
reply to the Employer and to inform the employees that under
Florida's "Right-to-Work" law they did not have to pay any dues,
fines, assessments, or other charges in order to retain their jobs, seri-
ously impeded a determination of the employees' free choice of a
collective-bargaining representative. Accordingly, he recommended
that Petitioner's objection be sustained and the elections be set aside.
We do not agree.
Upon the record in this case, we conclude, contrary to the Regional
Director, that under all the circumstances the Employer's propa-
ganda differed in tone, context, and impact from the type of pre-
election propaganda which would warrant setting aside the elec-
tion.' In our opinion, the Employer's message does not state and could
not be reasonably interpreted as stating, directly or impliedly, that the
employees would be compelled to join the Petitioner and pay dues,
fines, assessments, and other charges contrary to Florida's "Right-to-
Work" law if the Petitioner won the election. As the Employer's
statement was within the permissible limits of campaign propaganda,
we shall overrule the Petitioner's objection and certify the results of
the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for General Sales Drivers & Allied Employees Union, Local
198, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers ,of America, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in
the unit found appropriate.]
'The instant case is distinguishable from Trane in th • tt (a) the Employer uses no
words which imply involuntariness or compulsion in regard to the employees ' paying
money to the Union, and ( b) there was another misrepresentation in Trane, Le, in Trane
the actual amount of the dues was misrepresented whereas in the present case it was not.
Local 638, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO (Rowland Tompkins , Inc.) and Nepco
Terminal Corp . Case No. 29-CC-29. June 9,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 26, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
158 NLRB No. 140.