Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. 819
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following
voting group: All boilerhouse employees at the Employer's
Vernon, California, operation, excluding office and clerical
employees , guards, all other employees , and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.15
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees
as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority
vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
that they desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote
for the Intervenor, they may continue to be represented as
part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson , dissenting:
Other than their alleged craft status , there appears no other
cogent reason for granting the powerhouse employees sever-
ance from the production and maintenance unit established in
1937.
In view of the 16 years of collective-bargaining history on
a broader basis, and in accord with my dissenting opinion in
W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627, I would dismiss the
petition herein.
15 The Employer appears to contend in its brief that only a unit including employees at its
three Pacific Coast locations is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. This
contention is rejected since each of the locations is separately represented and the degree of
integration among the three plants is not sufficient to bar an otherwise appropriate unit on a
smaller basis.
CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 18,
AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-1041. June 29, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On August 21, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board on July 31, 1952,1 an election by
secret ballot was held under the direction and supervision of
1 The Decision and Direction of Election does not appear in the published volumes of the
Board's Decisions and Orders.
105 NLRB No 112
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for the Fifth Region among employees in
the unit found to be appropriate. The tally of ballots furnished
the parties after the election shows that, of approximately 367
eligible voters, 120 employees cast ballots for the Petitioner
and 130 cast ballots against the Petitioner; 8 ballots were
challenged; and 1 ballot was void. The challenged ballots are
insufficient in number to affect the outcome of the election.
The Petitioner having duly filed timely objections to the
conduct of the election, and the Regional Director having issued
a report on objections, to which no exceptions were taken, the
Board on December 24, 1952, issued an order adopting the
recommendations in the Regional Director's, report, overruling
the Petitioner's objections numbered (2), (4), (5), and (6), and
directing that a hearing be held on the objections numbered (1)
and (3).
Between January 15 and March 3,, 1953, pursuant to the
order of the Board, a hearing was held before John H. Garver,
hearing officer. At the hearing, evidence was taken only with
respect to objection (1), the Petitioner at the hearing having
requested, without objection, leave to withdraw objection (3).
On April 10, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report on
objections, finding that the Employer's conduct, alleged by the
Petitioner as a basis for objection (1), interfered with the
conduct of the election; and recommending that said election
be set aside and a new election be held. The hearing officer
further recommended that the Petitioner's request to with-
draw objection (3) be granted.
On April 29, 1953; the Employer duly filed exceptions to
the hearing officer's report on objections, with a supporting
brief and memorandum, requesting that the Board overrule the
Petitioner's objection (1).
The Board2 has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The hearing officer's rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Petitioner ' s request to withdraw objection ( 3) is granted.
The Board has considered the hearing officer's report and
the Employei's exceptions thereto and, on the basis of the
entire record, makes the following findings:
The Petitioner ' s objection ( 1) raises the only issue remaining
before us for decision. The Petitioner alleges as grounds for
setting aside the election that the Employer compelled all
employees in the unit involved in the election to attend
certain meetings, either on the night before the election or on
the morning of the election, on company time and property,
at which the Employer's president addressed the employees.
The same speech was delivered on each occasion. That the
content of this speech was privileged is not now in issue. The
Employer admits the occurrence of the planned meetings, the
2 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 [Members Murdock, Styles, and
Peterson].
CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC 821
delivery of the speeches, and the fact that at no time did it
inform the Petitioner of the scheduled meetings. In its defense,
however, the Employer urges that, although the Petitioner
must have been aware of the first speech delivered approxi-
mately 151- hours before the commencement of the election, the
Petitioner at no time requested permission of the Employer
to reply; that , had it done so, the Employer was in a position
to permit the Petitioner to reply to substantially all the em-
ployees reached by the Employer ; and that under these cir-
cumstances the Employer ' s conduct does not, under established
Board principles , justify setting aside the election . We do not
agree.
The election among the Employer ' s employees took place
on the Employer ' s premises on August 21, 1952, between the
hours of 2:30 and 5 : 30 p.m. and during a further period that
night from 11:30 p.m. to 12 :15 a.m. At 10 p.m. on August 20,
the night before the election , at a meeting arranged by the
Employer for the employees on this shift involved in the
election , the Employer ' s president read to the assembled
employees a 15-minute speech, assuring them of the secrecy
of the ballot box; stating the Employer ' s oppositionto unionism
at its plant ; discussing the Employer ' s system of employee
benefits ; describing the Petitioner ' s alleged lack of success
in organizing its employees ; and in conclusion , urging the
employees to vote "No" in the forthcoming election. The
same speech was repeated on 3 other occasions : At another
meeting held at 11 p.m. on the same night and a 2 other meet-
ings at 7 : 30 a.m. and at 10 a.m. on the morning following.
The several speeches were conducted on the Employer's
time and property . The employees received notice of the
speeches by word of mouth from foremen or from fellow
employees or by crayon notices placed on bulletin boards by
foremen. So far as the record discloses these were the only
occasions on which the Employer had ever addressed its
employees in this fashion . Substantially all eligible voters
attended the meetings , which were timed to accomodate the
several plant shifts. During the meetings , plant machinery was
shut down at the request of foremen ; work was at a standstill.
Although there is some doubt as to whether the president
of the Petitioner ' s Local was aware of the fact that speeches
had been delivered on the night before the election ,3 it appears
that the Petitioner ' s officials did not learn the contents of
the speeches until after 10 o'clock the following morning. The
Petitioner ' s officials thereupon reported the incident to its
3The president of the Petitiondr;s Local testified that, at about the time the first speech
was delivered , he received from an unidentified employee at the plant a call to the effect that
employees had left work and that something was going on at the Employer ' s cafeteria which
the former should investigate . The president of the Local drove to the plant at about 11 P. m.
but, seeing no one around , went home after a few minutes Although he denied that he had been
told that a speech was going on, he did admit that, in his opinion, the Employer had probably
summoned the employees to make an announcement . His attempts to reach other officials of
the Petitioner that same night were without success.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attorney in New York City by telephone and were advised
by the latter not to make an issue of the speeches at that time,
in view of the imminence of the election and the fact that the
Petitioner had then no copy of the text of the speeches. The
Petitioner at no time requested the Employer' s permission
to reply to the speeches on company time and property, nor
does it appear that reasonable times were available for
adequate replies. It is conceded that the speeches followed
vigorous preelection activity, in the course of which the
Petitioner availed itself of the absence of a no-solicitation rule
in the Employer's plant and the Employer circularized the
employees with numerous pamphlets.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the
Employer's conduct in scheduling its speeches on company
time and property so close to the time of the election, under
the circumstances noted above , effectively denied to the
Petitioner an opportunity to address the employees under
equivalent conditions , thus improperly interfering with the
conduct of the election . In arriving at this result, we do not
ignore the schedule, outlined in the Employer' s exceptions
and in its brief, by means of which it seeks to prove that
sufficient time intervened between the speeches and the
opening of the polls to give to the Petitioner, had it so desired,
opportunity to have addressed substantially all the employees
reached by the Employer.- Whether or not such replies might
have been interposed , it is clear that adherence to the schedule,
belatedly proposed by the Employer in retrospect , would have
entailed great inconvenience to the Petitioner and a burden on
the employees concerned and would have required the Petitioner
to continue its preelection campaign up to a point several hours
after the first scheduled opening of the polls.4 It cannot thus
be affirmed that the course of action suggested by the Em-
ployer would have afforded the Petitioner a reasonable op-
portunity to reply to the Employers We agree with the hearing
officer's conclusions and recommendations to this extent, and
we therefore shall set aside the election 6 and direct that a
new election be held.
4The Employer suggests that the Petitioner could have reached the late night - shift em-
ployees by requesting them to hear a reply speech on the morning of the election , following
their 8 a.m quitting time, and that the Petitioner could have reached those employees
arriving between 3 and 4 p.m on the day of the election by requesting them to defer their
voting until the night voting period , following a reply speech to be delivered during the
recess in the election . We do not agree.
5Shirlington Supermarket , Inc., 102 NLRB 312; Foreman and Clark, 101 NLRB 40; Hills
Brothers Company, 100 NLRB 254
Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99 NLRB 422, on which the Employer relies, has little
bearing on the instant case In that case the issue concerned the question of what constitutes
an appropriate request to reply on the part of a labor organization . The instant case does
not raise that issue.
61n view of our determination herein, it is unnecessary for us to consider severally the
Employer ' s other exceptions to the hearing officer's report.
WILSON & CO., INC. 823
[The Board set aside the election held on August 21,
1952.1
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion. ]
WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 37, UNITED PACKING-
HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 3, UNITED PACKING-
HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 6, UNITED PACKING-
HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 18-CA-
55, 18-CA-56, and 18-CA-60. June 30, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 18, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore
issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act, and recommending that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 ' [Members Houston , Murdock, and
Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions and modifications:
1. We have examined the entire record in this proceeding
and find no merit to the contention that the Trial Examiner
was biased or prejudiced or that any party was denied a fair
hearing.
2. In its answer the Respondent stated that " claims and
charges " of "certain individuals" named in the complaint in
1 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the
Employer's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
105 NLRB No. 128.
2 41555 0 - 54 - 53