Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1422 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and shall certify the Petitioner as the collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local'
Union 79 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,.
Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, as the desig-
nated collective -bargaining representative of the Employer 's truck-
drivers , warehousemen , and helpers at Tampa , Florida , in the unit
found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Soft Drink Work-
ers, Waste Paper Handlers, State, County and Municipal
Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 86 , International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help -
ers of America , AFL-CIO. Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2980.
September 19,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On April 3, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election herein.' On May 1 the election was held.- The tally of bal-
lots discloses that, of approximately 108 eligible voters, 46 cast valid
ballots for the Petitioner, 58 cast valid ballots against the Petitioner,,
and 2 cast ballots that were challenged. The Petitioner therefore lost
the election. On May 6, the Petitioner filed six objections to the con-
duct of the election or to conduct affecting the results of the election-
On or about July 25, the Regional Director, after investigating the
issues raised by the objections, issued and served on the parties his
report on objections to election. The Regional Director found that
objection 1 raised substantial and material issues affecting the results
of the election and recommended that this objection be sustained and
the election set aside. He recommended that the other objections be
overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations with respect to ob-
jection 1. As no other exceptions were filed, we 2 shall adopt the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendations concerning the other
objections and accordingly we shall overrule them. We shall con-
sider only objection 1.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the Petitioner's objec-
tions, the. Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions,
the Board finds :
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
s 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 Murdock and Bean].
118 NLRB No. 189.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOUISVILLE 1423'
With respect to objection 1,3 the Regional Director found that a
little more than 24 hours before the election, the Employer's president
read a prepared speech on company premises to the assembled em-
ployees. He further found that the president told employees that the
Petitioner was trying to help one of the Employer's competitors and
that he also stated :
That's how much the union is interested in helping you keep
working and eating. You could not be certain whether you would
still have a job here or if you did have one, whether it would pro-
duce a full paycheck as it has every week in the past. It would
be necessary to lay off people whenever work was slack, instead
of keeping people on the payroll at whatever kind of work we
could find for them. There is nothing about what the union is
doing that shows they give a hoot in hell about your se-
curity. .. .
I won't snake you a lot of promises, but I can promise you this.
I can. promise you a year round job with a year round pay enve-
lope, and you won't have to pay anybody to get it, or to keep your
job.
Your vote tomorrow is a vote for your future but I am also
going to feel that every NO vote is not only a vote against the
union but is a vote for me... .
The Regional Director found, in effect, that the quoted statements
clearly implied that employees would be laid off, in particular when
work became slack, if the Petitioner won the election, and that the
Employer would provide year-round jobs with year-round paychecks
if the Petitioner lost the election. The Regional Director concluded
that these statements interfered with the employees' free choice in the
election and that objection 1 thus raised substantial and material issues
affecting its results.
In its exceptions, the Employer does not deny that its president
made the above statements. However, it alleges in substance that the
first statement was a prediction that the Petitioner's announced poli-
cies would adversely affect the Employer's competitive standing and,
thus, the employees' security; that the second statement was a plea to
3 This objection states as follows :
1. The President , of the Employer , Martin Schmidt , promised in a talk to the
employees that it would be an advantage to them to get rid of the Union.
In its exceptions, the Employer contends that the Regional Director should not have
considered this objection, on the ground that it does not conform to Section 102.61 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations . The relevant part of this section states that objections to
the conduct of an election or to conduct affecting the results of an election "shall con-
tain a short statement of the reasons therefor ." We find that objection 1 Is reasonably
specific in alleging facts which prima facie would warrant setting aside the election and
therefore meets this requirement. Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet , Inc., 113 NLRB 879;
Mission Appliance Corporation , 104 NLRB 361 ; and National Carbon Company, 99 NLRB
774, cited by the Employer in support of its position , are not in point.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
judge the situation by the Employer's past performance,4 rather than
by the Petitioner's promises; and that the last statement was a mere
personal appeal. The Employer takes the position that these state-
ments were permissible under Section 8 (c) of the Act,' and there-,
fore did not constitute unlawful interference with the election.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the first statement of the
Employer was protected. For, even assuming that it was a prediction,
we see no basis for concluding that the second statement was other
than a clear promise of benefit and therefore not privileged. This is
particularly so when the second statement is viewed against the first.
Thus, in marked contrast to the prediction in the first statement as to
the effect upon steady employment of selection of the Petitioner, is the
second statement, made without reservation, that if the employees
reject the Petitioner the Employer "can promise [them] a year round
job with a year round pay envelope." The juxtaposition of these two
thoughts served to emphasize to the employees the substance of the
second statement, namely, that they would benefit by rejecting the
Petitioner. We find that this promise, made to the assembled em-
ployees on the day before the election, interfered with their freedom
of choice.' We shall, therefore, set aside the election and direct a new
election.
[The Board set aside the election held on May 1, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
The Employer asserts in its exceptions that employees failed to receive year-round
paychecks only in 1941 and 1953, when unions called strikes.
' This section provides as follows
The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion , . . . shall not constitute
or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if
such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
4 Cf. Maine Fisheries Corporat ion, 99 NLRB 604.
Foremost Dairies, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Freight Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers, Bakery Salesmen
and Dairy Employees Local Union No. 390, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No.13-RC 147. September N0,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harrison C. Thomp-
son, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed..
118 NLRB No.191.