Crown Food Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1123 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

CROWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 1123
of Oyster, are to direct the work of, and assign and allocate work to,
groups of from 2 to about 15 relatively unskilled operators according
to schedules provided by Schmidt or Bender; to see that their groups
have an adequate supply of materials; and to instruct new employees.'
They spend a substantial part of their time performing production
work, and receive from 5 to 20 cents more per hour than the employees
whom they direct. Hartwick's duties are to instruct new employees;
to set, up the machines in the plant ; and, after a changeover has been
made, to assign work to the machine operators in accordance with a
schedule provided by Schmidt. Although his hourly rate is about 50
percent above the average hourly rate of the group leaders, it appears
that this differential is based upon his skills as a job setter. Neither
the group leaders nor Hartwick has authority to take or recommend
personnel action, and Hartwick was at one time reprimanded for
attempting to assume such authority.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we are satis-
fied that Hartwick's assignment of work and the group leaders'
direction of employees is routine, and that neither Hartwick nor the
group leaders possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority.
We find, accordingly,,that Hartwick and the group leaders are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore
include them in the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Bellville, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving
department employees, job setter Hartwick, and the group leaders,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
e Haleyville Textile Mills, Inc., 117 NLRB 973.
Crown Food Products, Inc. and Crown Candy Company, Inc. and
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , AFL -CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-
3824. August V, 1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
On April 27, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for tile Tenth
Region, among the employees in an appropriate unit at the Employ-
118 NLRB No. 145.
11.24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er's 1 plant in Atlanta, Georgia. Following the election a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties which showed that of the approxi-
mately 85 eligible voters, 28 cast valid ballots for the Petitioner, 49
cast valid ballots against the Petitioner, and 1 cast a challenged ballot..
There were no void ballots. The challenged ballot, thus was not suf-
ficient to affect the results of the election.
On May 2, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct.
affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi-
gated the matter and, on May 9, 1957, issued and duly served on
the parties his report on the objections, in which he found that the
objections did not raise material and substantial issues and recom-
mended that they be overruled. On May 17, 1957, the Petitioner filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
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 [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and
Bean].
The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional
Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions, and the entire record
in the case, and makes the following findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent.
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accord with the agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes.
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act :
All employees employed at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, plant,.
excluding over-the-road drivers, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner's objections, in substance, are that the Employer
made impossible the holding of a free and uncoerced election by
mailing a letter to its employees in the week preceding the.election
in which it allegedly made promises of benefits conditioned upon
the employees voting against the Petitioner. The specific statements,
contained in the letter to which the Petitioner apparently objects are
as follows :
1. The truth of the matter is that the unions cannot get you
a single thing that you could not get easier and cheaper without
the union.
1 For the purposes of this proceeding and in accord with the agreement of the parties
Crown Food Products, Inc., and Crown Candy Company , Inc., are considered as a single
employer within the meaning of this Act.
0. E. SZEKELY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1125
2. We have been greatly encouraged that so many of you
have voluntarily told us that you had thought this matter over
and had decided that your present and future interests lay with
your company instead of with the union. Your expressions of
friendship and confidence are greatly appreciated and we are
not going to forget about them.
Contrary to the Petitioner's argument we do not interpret either of
the above statements as being promises of benefits to employees to in-
duce them to vote against the Petitioner. We view the first statement
as a privileged statement of the Employer's opinion that no more can
be achieved through a union than can be achieved by direct dealings
with management . Further, we find that the second statement,
although somewhat vague in meaning, cannot be reasonably inter-
preted as containing a promise of benefits to those who vote against
the Petitioner; it cannot be reasonably concluded that because the
Employer will not "forget about" employee expressions of "friendship
and confidence" that the Employer will reward employees for voting
against the Petitioner.
We find, therefore, in agreement with the Regional Director that
the objections do not raise substantial or material issues with respect
to conduct affecting the results of the election, and hereby overrule
them. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots show that the Petitioner
has not secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, and
as the challenged ballots are not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, AFL-CIO, in the election held herein, and that this
organization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's
employees in the appropriate unit.]
0. E. Szekely and Associates , Inc. and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 613
0. E. Szekely and Associates , Inc. and Independent Union of
Szekely Employees and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-RC-3358 and 10-CA-P2672.
August 03, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
011 May 7, 1957, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
118 NLRB No. 155.