Concrete Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1348 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
found that the statement was not fully accurate as a matter of law,
but regarded whatever misrepresentation there was as insubstantial
and not of such a nature as to warrant invalidating the election.
It is clear that the statement merely expressed the legal opinion of
the Petitioner and was devoid of any threats or other elements of
intimidation or gross and deliberate misrepresentation peculiarly
within the knowledge of the Petitioner. We therefore find that the
statement was not of the type which interfered with the employee's
free choice in the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the Em-
ployer's objection s
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast
in the election, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Office Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
s Dartmouth Finishing Corporation , 120 NLRB 262 ; Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company,
119 NLRB 661.
Concrete Products , Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3817.
June 6,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued June 20,
1957, an• election by secret ballot was conducted on July 12, 1957,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate
by the Board. Following the election, the parties were furnished with
a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of approximately 90 voters,
82 cast ballots, of which 52 were for the Petitioner, 28 were against
the Petitioner, 1 was void, and 1 was challenged.
On July 19,1957, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, alleging, in material part,2 that its super-
visors, without its knowledge, assisted the Petitioner in organizing
its employees and in fraudulently securing its showing of interest;
that its supervisors threatened and coerced employees to attend union
meetings and generally support the Petitioner; and that such activity
continued up to the time of the election. After an investigation, the
1 Not published.
f The Employer also alleges that the Petitioner had improperly marked the Board's
sample ballot. The Regional Director found no evidence to support this allegation, and
the Employer did not except to the finding:
120 NLRB No. 177.
CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. 1349
Regional Director, on September 10, 1957, issued his report on objec-
tions in which he found that, without the Employer's knowledge,
several supervisors had participated in activities on behalf of the Peti-
tioner and solicited union authorization cards, and that these activities
and their association with the Petitioner ceased on March 19, 1957.
Accordingly, he recommended that the election be set aside and the
Petition be dismissed.'
On October 1, 1957, the Petitioner duly filed and served on the
parties exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recommenda-
tions. Because factual issues were thus raised, the Board on October 1,
1957, referred the case to the Regional Director for a hearing before
a hearing officer with direction to prepare and cause to be served upon
the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility issues, find-
ings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition
of the objections and exceptions, and providing that within 10 days
from the date of the issuance of the hearing officer's report any party
may file exceptions thereto.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a 'notice of hearing thereafter was
duly issued by the Regional Director. A hearing was held on Novem-
ber 26 and 27, 1957, and December 11 and 12, 1957, before Harrison
C. Thompson, Jr., hearing officer. On March 14, 1958, the hearing
officer issued his report and recommendations. He found, among other
things, that the individuals in question were supervisors at all times
material herein; that some of them had participated in the organiza-
tional campaign of the Petitioner; that they had neither threatened
nor coerced employees into joining the' Petitioner,' or into signing
authorization cards; that the supervisory activity had ceased after
March 19, 1957; and that the Employer had acquired knowledge of
the activity of at least one supervisor on behalf of the Petitioner some-
time before the election on July 12,1957. As these activities, some of
which were known to the Employer, occurred about 3 months before
the Decision and Direction herein, the hearing officer concluded,
among other things, that under the Woolworth, doctrine 4 they could
not serve as a basis for setting aside the election.
The Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and
a supporting brief. It challenges the hearing officer's finding that it
had knowledge of supervisory activity prior to the election and argues,
in substance, that the hearing officer erred in failing to find that the
undisavowed activities of the supervisors were of a type which inter-
fere with an election and render a free choice impossible.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The'rulings are
3 The Regional Director did not find that the Petitioner had fraudulently secured its
showing of interest
• F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby -affirmed. The Board has, considered the hearing officer's re-
port, the Employer's exceptions and -supporting brief, and the -entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the hearing officer only to the extent necessary
for our determination herein.
In agreement with the hearing officer, we find no merit in the
Employer's objections. We base our finding on the fact that the
alleged interference of the -supervisory employees antedated the
Board's Decision and Direction of Election. Under the Woolworth
rule, the Board has held that it will not consider objections based on
interference occurring prior to the' issuance of the Board's Decision
and Direction of Election. In making this policy determination, the,
Board did not qualify the principle by making it dependent upon
the objecting party's knowledge of the alleged acts of misconduct.
Therefore, while we have no- reason to disagree with the hearing
officer's finding that the Employer had some knowledge of supervisory
activity before the election, the Employer's claim that it had no such
knowledge is immaterial to our determination -herein. Accordingly,
as there is no evidence of any interference with the election occurring
within the critical period, we overrule the Employer's objections. As
the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of all the valid votes cast and as the challenged ballot is insufficient
to affect the outcome of the election, we shall certify the Petitioner.
[The Board certified United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Brunswick, Georgia, concrete products manufacturing plant,
in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBERS RoDGEIts and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
Foothill Electric Corporation and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-EC-3258. June 9,1958
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 Harry D. Campodonico,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' -
1 Local -Union No. 968 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, was
permitted to intervene on the liasis of'its contractual interest'in the employees involved.
The request of the Intervenor and the Employer for oral argument is denied . The record,
120 NLRB No. 170.