Consolidated Blenders, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 545 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

CONSOLIDATED BLENDERS ,INC. 545
. 2. Bakery . Sales Drivers Union , Local 344, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Wareh'ctusemen ;and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Consolidated Blenders , Inc. and Robert L. Kinney, et al., Peti-
tioner and American Federation of Grain Millers, Local No.
178, AFL-CIO. Case No.17-RD-136. July 8,195'
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cassidy,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the repre-
sentative of certain employees of the Employer as defined in Section
9 (a) of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed on the
ground that the Employer sponsored this decertification petition.
The Union was certified February 29, 1956. Several months of
fruitless bargaining followed after which no efforts were made at
further negotiations. On or about February 1957 Plant Superin-
tendent Newsome attended a meeting of the Company's board of
directors at which he was asked what was to be done about the Union
and to find out how the employees felt about it. The next day, New-
some called into his office employee Bergerson, the only remaining
union committeeman still employed by the Company, and one other
employee, told them what the directors had asked and stated that
the Company's president had said he would "take care of his boys."
About this time, Petitioner Kinney asked Newsome when the Union's
certification expired. Kinney then contacted Sidner, the Employer's
attorney. Kinney told him that the employees wanted to decertify
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins].
118 NLRB No. 59.
450553-58-vol . 118-86
546 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union and asked him how and when this could be done. Sidner
agreed to help and prepared a petition for the employees' signatures.'
Kinney requested and obtained permission from Newsome to circulate
the petition. Kinney took the petition to the employees in the plant
where they signed it in the presence of Kinney on company property
and, in many cases, on company time. Sidner sent the petition to the
Board's Regional Office, which returned it with suggestions that it be
filed on the Board's official form. Kinney thereupon took the formal
petition to the employees in the plant where it was signed in the same
manner as the first petition 3 Sidner, who filed the petition March,
11, 1957, testified that he intended to make no charge for his services
and that he was doing the work solely as a favor to the employees.
At the original hearing which opened April 3, 1957, Sidner stated
that he was appearing as attorney for the employees. The hearing
officer stated that he could not represent both the Employer and the
employees. As the Employer was not represented and the hearing
could not proceed without the necessary commerce facts for jurisdic-
tional purposes, the hearing was adjourned to April 25. At the
reopened hearing on that date, Sidner declared that he was no longer
representing the employees but was representing the Employer, and
that Cutright, an attorney with offices in the same building, was repre-
senting the employees. Sidner had recommended Cutright to Kinney,
who personally made all the financial arrangements with Cutright and
paid him a retainer of $25 with his personal check. Kinney stated
that he expected to be reimbursed for the legal fees by the employees.
After Cutright took over, he asked Newsome for permission to inter-
view the employees individually in the plant, which permission was
given. When Cutright arrived at the plant, Newsome introduced
him to the first employee who was interviewed by Cutright alone in
the lockerroom adjoining Newsome's office. Cutright then requested
that the employees be called one after another until all the employees
were interviewed. Cutright informed the employees that he had
been retained by Kinney to represent them and he also asked each
worker whether he wished to have an election. In contrast to this
treatment of Cutright, the Union's representative testified that during
bargaining negotiations, he had been prevented from speaking to one
employee at the plant during the lunch hour. Newsome admitted that
he had issued the order prohibiting the Union's representative from
speaking to employees on company property.
2 Kinney stated that at the time he went to Sidner, he did not know that Sidner was
the Company's attorney. He said that he went to him because he appeared to be a busy
lawyer.
3 Although Newsome testified that no supervisors signed the petition, the record shows
that several of the signers were leadmen who exercised some authority to direct and be
responsible for the work of the employees working under them.
SUCESION J. SERRALLES 547
In our opinion, the Employer, by its conduct in this proceeding,
exceeded the bounds of neutrality imposed by the statute and thereby
unlawfully intruded upon its employees' rights independently to file
a decertification petition with the Board. The Employer's attorney
advised the employees as to their rights in decertification proceedings,
supplied the Petitioner with the decertification forms, filed the petition
with the Board,,and recommended another attorney only after the
hearing officer made it clear that an attorney cannot represent both the
Employer and the decertification petitioners. In addition, the plant
superintendent permitted the decertification petition to be circulated
on company time and property and also permitted the attorney for
the decertification petitioners to interview each employee privately at
the plant on company time, while refusing permission to the Union's
representative to have access to employees on company property.
Although the Board has held that certain types of assistance do not
necessarily invalidate a decertification petition,' in view of the fore-
going and the entire record in this proceeding, we are convinced that
the Employer improperly assisted the Petitioner in filing the decertifi-
cation petition and that the rights of the employees to file decertifica-
tion petitions under Section 9 (c) (1) (A) have been thereby
abridged .5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
} See Belden Brick Company, 114 NLRB 52; Clackamas Logging Company, 113 NLRB
229.
6 Bond Stores, Inc., 116 NLRB 1929; Gold Bond, Inc., 107 NLRB 1059, 1060.
Sucesion J . Serralles , Central Mercedita, Inc., and Porto Rico
American Sugar Refinery , Inc. and Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Ponce, P. R., Local 1903 , IBL-AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 24-RC-1011. July 8, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the parties stipulated that the transcript in Case No.
24-RC-974 shall constitute the entire record in this proceeding. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing in Case No. 24-RC-974
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
118 NLRB No. 63.