Deeco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 990 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

'990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Deeco , Inc. and United Industrial Workers, Local 976, UAW-
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-4382. August 24, 1956
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On May 18, 1956, 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 the Twenty-
-first Region, among the employees in the appropriate unit at the
Employer's plant in Huntington Park, California. Following the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, which showed
that, of approximately 82 eligible voters, 73 cast valid ballots, of
which 53 were for the Petitioner, 15 were against the Petitioner, and 5
ballots were-challenged.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to the conduct
of the election. The Regional Director investigated the matter and,
on June 28, 1956, issued and duly served on the parties his report on
objections, in which he found that the objections did not raise mate-
rial and substantial issues and recommended that they be overruled.
On July 6, 1956, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report.
The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional
• Director's report, the Employer's exceptions, and the entire record in
this case, and makes the following findings of fact :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees 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) and Section 2 (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 production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Hunt-
ington Park, California, plant, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees and truckdrivers, but excluding plant clerical employees, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer's objections allege, in substance, that : (1) One
of the Petitioner's observers talked in. Spanish with a number of
Spanish-speaking employees; (2) the Board agent permitted a person
116 NLRB No. 102.
DEECO, INC. 991
obviously intoxicated to vote; (3) when the Employer's observers
challenged two ballots because the employees were in the voting booth
at the same time, the Board agent tore up the ballot of the one who
had voted and permitted him to vote again, instead of permitting the
challenge to stand; (4) employees who had voted were permitted to
mingle with employees who had not yet voted and discuss the voting
with them; and (5) at 2 p. m., 11/2 hours before voting time, a secret
meeting of employees was conducted by a union official at a cafe
across the street from the plant.
As to objection (1), the Regional Director found that a number of
voters of Mexican origin who spoke little or no English were casting
challenged ballots,' that the Board agent tried to explain the pro-
cedure to them in English, and that one of the Petitioner's observ-
ers spoke briefly to them in a foreign language. The observer claimed
that he merely translated the explanation made by the Board agent.
No evidence to the contrary has been presented by the Employer. In
the absence of any evidence that the Petitioner's observer did any-
thing more than translate the Board agent's instructions, we are not
justified in inferring that during this brief conversation lie engaged
in electioneering?
As to objection (2), the Regional Director found that the employee
alleged to have been intoxicated did behave "in an exceedingly jovial
manner," but that he did not display the degree of intoxication claimed
by the Employer. In any event, it was undisputed that this employee
cast his ballot in a proper manner.
As to objection (3), the Regional Director found that the door to
the office which was being used as a voting booth was curtained by a
canvas cover. According to the two union observers and the Board
agent, one employee waiting to vote lifted the curtain and put his head
in the voting booth while another employee was casting his ballot,
whereas the Employer's observers claim that the employee waiting to
vote actually entered the voting booth while the other was voting. In
any event, the 2 employees were not in the booth together for more
than 1 or 2 seconds when the Board agent noticed what was occurring
and called them out. The Employer's observers challenged the votes
of both of these employees. The Board agent, however, destroyed the
ballot of the one who had already voted, permitted him to cast a new
ballot, and permitted the other employee to vote. Furthermore, both
of the'Employer's observers signed the tally of ballots certifying,
among other things, that the secrecy of the ballots was maintained .3
1 The parties later agreed to the eligibility of these voters , and their ballots were in-
cluded with the other unchallenged ballots and counted.
n See General Electric Company , 115 NLRB 306.
• Cf. Machinery Overhaul Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 1787
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL , LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are satisfied that the Board agent adequately safeguarded the
secrecy of these ballots .4
As to objection (4), the Regional Director found that some employ-
ees who had voted may possibly have mingled with employees who
had not, but that the Board agent at intervals requested that those
who had voted leave the voting place. Furthermore, no proof has
been presented that the Petitioner was campaigning during the ballot-
ing, or that it was engaging in any conduct affecting the secrecy of the
ballot.'
As to objection (5), the Regional Director found that on the day of
the election, during the regular 2-2: 10 p. in. coffee-break, 4 employees,
including the 2 observers for the Petitioner, had coffee together in a
cafe across the street from the plant; that Lombardo, the Employer's
receiving clerk, was seated 2 or 3 feet from them, but did not overhear
any of the conversation; and that the 4 'employees were in the cafe for
only, at most, 7 minutes. The Employer claims in its exceptions that
Lombardo stated that "there were approximately ten employees pres-
ent in the restaurant at the meeting." The Employer does not-indi-
cate whether, according to its information, these employees were as-
sembled together or were having coffee in separate groups at the same
time. It appears unlikely that if this were a meeting of about 10
employees, Lombardo, seated only 2 or 3 feet away, could hear none
of the discussion.
The Employer maintains that the Regional Director's findings as to,
all the objections were at complete variance with statements made to
the Employer by its observers and other employees who were wit-
nesses to the events in question. The Employer urges, therefore, that
a hearing be directed so that it may present its evidence under oath and
cross-examine witnesses. We conclude, however, that the incidents in
question, even if viewed as the Employer claims that they occurred;
were too minor to warrant setting aside the election or prolonging the
proceeding with a hearing. We therefore find, in agreement with the
Regional Director, that the objections do not raise substantial or mate-
rial issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election,
and we hereby overrule them. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots
shows that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast,
* Member Rodgers does not believe that the Board should, in passing upon objections
to the conduct of an election , take into consideration the fact that the party objecting
signed the tally of ballots certifying that the election was properly conducted . To do so,
is to rely upon the subjective judgment of private parties as to matters which are within
the exclusive province of the Board . Moreover, it places the parties to an election in the
unfair position of agreeing to sign the tally of ballots at the risk of having the fact used
against them when they subsequently file objections .'' Under the circumstances , the parties
would be well- advised to refuse to sign the tally until after the Board has disposed of any
objections they may choose to file. .
5 Holmes d Barnes, Ltd., 114 NLRB 630.
PARAMOUNT CAP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 993
in the election, and as the challenged ballots are not sufficient in num-
ber to affect the results of the election, we shall certify the Petitioner
as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
[The Board certified United Industrial Workers, Local 976, UAW-
AFL-CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Huntington
Park, California, plant.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
Paramount Cap Manufacturing Company and United Hatters,
Cap & Millinery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-f805. August 28, 1956
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
August 26, 1955,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on Septem-
ber 23, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Fourteenth Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board. Following the election the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of approxi-
mately 126 eligible voters, 123 cast ballots, of which 27 were for the
Petitioner, 83 against the Petitioner, and 13 were challenged. The
challenged ballots were not sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On September 28,1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director in-
vestigated these objections and on November 2, 1955, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report on objections in which he found
that there were material and substantial credibility issues of fact with
respect to the conduct of the election. Thereafter the Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections and a
supporting memorandum.
On March 9,1956, the Board, finding that the Petitioner's objections
1 and 4 raised issues of fact which might be best resolved at a hearing,
directed a hearing thereon.2
I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
9115 NLRB 747.
116 NLRB No. 118.
405448-57-vol . 116-64