Cupples-Hesse Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1288 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondents other than Local 707 have not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The Respondent Hickey has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Cupples-Hesse Corporation and Independent Union of Paper
Workers, Petitioner and Warehouse & Distribution Workers
Union, Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica.' Case No. 14-RC-3229. January 10, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 2 an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted on September 16, 1957, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the
,employees in the unit therein found appropriate. Following the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 364 eligible voters, 169 cast ballots for the
Petitioner, 163 cast ballots for the Intervenor, 2 cast ballots for
neither, and 1 ballot was challenged.
On September 20, 1957, the Intervenor filed timely objections to
the election, and requested that the September 16 election be set aside
and a new election directed. In accordance with the Rules and Regu-
lations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion of the objections and, on November 6, 1957, issued his report on
objections to election in which he found the objections to be without
merit and recommended that they be overruled. On November 18,
1957, the Intervenor filed timely exceptions in which it does not make
,exception to the facts set forth in the report but only to the Regional
Director's conclusions and recommendations.
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 Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
In its first objection, the Intervenor contends that the Regional
Director's refusal to hold the election off company premises was
prejudicial to the Intervenor and prevented the employees casting
1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
.amended.
.1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 152.
CUPPLES-HESSE CORPORATION 1289 ,
free, uncoerced ballots. The election was held in the Employer's plant
cafeteria, where two previous Board elections, which the Intervenor
won, had been held. The Regional Director considered the prac-
ticability of holding the election elsewhere, and concluded that other
locations were either not available or were otherwise undesirable.
The Intervenor has clearly failed to show that the secrecy of the elec-
tion was in fact lost or that it was in fact prejudiced by the elections
being held in the cafeteria. At most it tries to show prejudice to
itself in that the cafeteria is located near certain company offices,
unoccupied during the period of the election, and that management
was hostile to it. We do not believe that these matters raise any
substantial question with respect to the conduct affecting the election
results. Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, we
find this objection to be without merit.
In its second objection the Intervenor contends that contrary to
Board rules the Petitioner distributed a marked facsimile ballot. We
have examined a copy of the Petitioner's throwaway here involved.
It contains, aside from pro-Petitioner propaganda, 3 squares such
as appear on the ballots with an X in 1 square. There is no attempt
to reproduce an official Board ballot and no such reproduction ap-
pears. Clearly, we cannot agree with the Intervenor that any reason-
able person would believe the three voting squares constituted an
official ballot and that this Board was approving its distributions
Accordingly, we find this objection to be without merit.
In its third objection, the Intervenor contends that the Employer
engaged in propaganda adverse to it and in favor of the Petitioner,
thereby creating an atmosphere which prevented a free, uncoerced
choice by the employees. The Board has long held that an employer's
expression of preference between two competing unions unaccom-
panied by threats or promises of benefit does not warrant setting aside
an election.4 The Intervenor requests that the Board reconsider this
policy and require an employer to remain neutral in election cam-
paigning. We have considered the Intervenor's request, and have
concluded that at this time no reasons exist warranting an extensive
reconsideration of, or change in, that policy. However, the Inter-
venor seeks to show that the Employer did engage in coercive conduct.
In this regard it notes that the Employer stated to its employees in an
open letter that it could not financially meet the Intervenor's current
bargaining demands 5 while it failed to state at any time that it also
could not meet the cost increases the Petitioner claimed in its propa-
s See Houston Shell and Concrete Division, McDonough Co., 118 NLRB 1511.
4 The De Vilbiss Company, 115 NLRB 1164, 1167, and case cited in footnote 10.
5In the letter the Employer pointed out to the employees that there had been five bar-
gaining sessions at which the demands of the Intervenor had been discussed, that it
understood the proposals had been submitted to the employees, and that because of its.
financial picture it could not meet the cost items in the demands.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganda it would obtain for the employees. The Intervenor contends
that the Employer's remaining silent in the face of these claims was
in effect a concession on its part that it would grant them. We cannot
agree. The fact that the Employer reported to the employees the
.position it had taken at the bargaining table with respect to the Inter-
venor's actual contract demands imposed no obligation to answer the
general campaign propaganda of the -Petitioner. As the Intervenor
.has failed to show that. the Employer made threats or promises of
benefit in its campaign material, we find no merit in the Intervenor's
third objection.
We have, in agreement with the Regional Director, found all of the
Employer's objections to be without merit and they are hereby over-
ruled. As the Petitioner received a majority of the votes cast in the
election we shall certify the Petitioner as representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Independent Union of Paper Workers as the
'designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees "in
the appropriate unit of all production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's' St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding.-office
,clerical employees, truckdrivers, professional employees, guards, 'and
supervisors as defined in the Act.]
Bullard Industries , Inc. and Helical Tube Corporation and Sheet
Metal Workers International Association , AFL-CIO: Cases
Nos. 10-CA-2827 and 10-CA-2871. January 13, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 16, 1957, Trial Examiner Max M.. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
-Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor.practices and recommending; that they cease and desist therefrom
.and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondents 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record,
119 NLRB No. 153.