Crane Carrier Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 206 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (b) of the Act : 6 All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Knoxville, Tennessee, plant, including employees in the
transportation and shipping departments, and leadmen, but excluding
all office and plant clerical employees, salesmen, buyers, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
6 The appropriate unit was stipulated at the hearing.
7 It was agreed that all employees laid off since May 1, 1957, were temporarily laid off,
and would be eligible to participate in the election.
Crane Carrier Corporation and Local 790, International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-
t266. November 24, 1958
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICA-
TION OF RESULT'S OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated March 24,
1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 17, 1958,
by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows that
of 86 ballots cast, 42 were for the Petitioner, 42 were against the
Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On April 24, 1958, the Petitioner
filed eight objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the challenges and objections,
and on May 26, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and objec-
tions, recommending that only the objection concerning the meetings
in the Employer's conference room be sustained and that the chal-
lenges to the ballots be overruled. The Employer thereafter filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations concerning
the 1 objection and 1 of the challenged ballots.
On August 29, 1958, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision 2
wherein it deferred ruling on the objection but directed the Regional
Director to open and count one challenged ballot. The revised tally
of ballots thereafter prepared by the Regional Director shows that a
majority of ballots-43-were cast against the Petitioner. The ob-
jection which is in issue is now before the Board for ruling.
' Unpublished.
z 121 NLRB 756.
122 NLRB No. 32.
CRANE CARRIER CORPORATION 207
As indicated above, the Regional Director recommended that seven
of the objections be overruled. As no exceptions have been filed
thereto, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendations
pro forma and overrule these objections.
Concerning the remaining objection, the Regional Director's in-
vestigation reveals that the Employer has followed a practice of hold-
ing weekly meetings of its approximately 88 employees in the plant
area to discuss production and other problems. No exception was
filed to the Regional Director's finding that these meetings which were
continued until the day before election were not improper. The Re-
gional Director also states that other meetings are held every 60 to 90
days in a "conference" room on company property to permit a frank
discussion concerning production and personnel problems between the
employees and the Employer's president who is the only management
representative present. During the period from April 2 through
April 11, 1958, shortly before the election, the Employer's president
had 5 such meetings in the conference room with all employees in small
groups of 15 to 20. Attendance was mandatory at the meetings which
lasted about 11/2 hours and employees were paid at the rate of time and
a half therefor. At each of these meetings in early April, the presi-
dent read a list of employees' rights emphasizing the employees' free-
dom of choice with respect to attending union meetings and voting in
the forthcoming election. Although there was no further discussion
of the Union or the election at three of the meetings, employees asked
questions at the other two that led to a discussion and explanation of
the Employer's position on these matters.' Thereafter, the meetings
continued as in the past with a discussion of "personnel or common
problems."
The Regional Director, relying on the principle enunciated in the
Peoples Drug case,4 found that the small group meetings in an area
away from the employees' place of work interfered with the election
and warranted the holding of another. We do not agree.
Unlike the situation in the Peoples Drug case, the meetings here in
question were part of a series of meetings which were regularly and
periodically held in the conference room for the purpose of discussions
between management and employees. Thus, although the meetings
were not held in an open plant area, it is clear that the conference room
was not a locus of managerial authority in which employees normally
do not go. Indeed, it appears that these meetings were no different
from the prior meetings attended by employees in the conference room,
except that they included a privileged discussion concerning the elec-
8 The president and the employees differ on whether the former urged the employees to
vote against the Union at these two meetings. We need not resolve the conflict as there
is no contention that even under the employees ' version, the president 's remarks exceeded
the permissible bounds of free speech.
4 Peoples Drug Stores, Inc., 119 NLRB 634.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion. When employees are gathered to hear views of company rep-
resentatives regarding the election in an area where , as here, they are
accustomed to find themselves, there results free and open discussion
with both management and employees enjoying the confidences and
assurances which are normal aspects of collective and group activities.°
Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the meet
ings in the conference room did not interfere with a free choice of
bargaining representative. We therefore reject the recommendation
of the Regional Director that the election be set aside , and shall issue
the following certification.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast
for Local 790, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
and that this Union is not the exclusive representative of the employees
at the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant, in the unit found appro-
priate by the Board.]
a See Mead-Atlanta Paper Company, 120 NLRB 882.
Hearever Co., Inc. and International Association of, Machinists, .
District Lodge No. 115, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-1341.
November 25, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 25, 1958, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist. therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended dismissal of allegations. of the complaint
concerning such practices. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor.
Relations Act, as amended, the' Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member. panel [Chairman Leedom
and, Members Bean and Jenkins].
,The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error.was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the _
1Because of its disagreement with the Trial Examiner 's findings and recommendations,
the Reapondent charges the Trial Examiner with bias and prejudice. We find no evidence
in the record of any bias and prejudice and no merit in this. contention .. We further
122 NLRB No. 34.