Dixie Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 869 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

DIXIE BROADCASTING COMPANY 869
In these circumstances, we conclude that neither Galdi nor Palombi
informed the Employer's management representatives that they in-
tended to file a petition. In view of the variance in the different
versions as to how Palombi phrased his request for time off and in view
of the Employer's policy of granting time off for "personal business,"
we think it only reasonable to assume that Palombi, like Galdi
requested time off for personal business, thus insuring that his request
would be granted; and that at most, he requested time off to go to the
Labor Board for personal business. This hardly constitutes notice to
the Employer of a claim, or intent to file a petition. Accordingly, in
the absence of such notice of intent and as the August 28 contract was
executed before the Employer had actual notice of the filing of the
petition, we find that it constitutes a bar to an election of representa-
tives at this time, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition .5
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5 Cf. Michigan Bakeries, Inc., supra.
Dixie Broadcasting Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 32-RC--1087.
May 9, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued on Febru-
ary 4, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February
21, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Fifteenth Region, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in the above-mentioned Decision. Upon the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of the approximately 15 eligible voters, 16 cast ballots,
of which 12 were for the Petitioner, 3 were against the Petitioner,
and 1 was challenged. The challenged ballot is insufficient to affect
the results of the election. On February 25, 1958, the Employer filed
timely objections to the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objections and
on March 19, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report
on objections, in which he recommended that the objections be over-
ruled and that the Petitioner be certified as collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter,
the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections.
1 Not published.
120 NLRB No. 119.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case and hereby
adopts the findings and recomendations of the Regional Director.
The Employer's objections and exceptions pertain to activities on
behalf of the Petitioner immediately prior to the election. At that
time a representative of the Petitioner stated to the Employer's repre-
sentative and the Board's agent, in the presence of some employees,
that it had informed 3 individuals, King, Bell, and Williams, whom
the Board expressly excluded from the bargaining unit as supervisors,
that they could vote in the election because of the Petitioner's pending
motion to reconsider the Board's unit finding with respect to the
supervisory status of the 3 individuals. The Employer contends that
the foregoing conduct, including the appearance of 1 of 3 individuals,
namely, King, at the polling place to vote, interfered with the conduct
of the election.
At the hearing, the Petitioner had contended that King, Bell, and
Williams were not supervisors and should be included in the unit. Its
motion to reconsider the Board's Decision of February 4, 1958, was
mailed on February 20, the day before the election was held. The
motion was received by the Board on February 21, and an opposition
to the motion was received from the Employer on February 26. On
February 27, 1958, the Board denied the Petitioner's motion. We
agree with the Regional Director that the desirability of resolving
any unit or eligibility questions as soon as they arise and prior to a
scheduled election is self-evident, and that the Petitioner's delay- in
filing its motion was not conducive to orderly procedure.
The sole issue posed for determination, however, is whether the
Petitioner's action in urging the three individuals to vote and King's
appearance at the polling place interfered with the employees' free-
dom of choice in selecting a bargaining agent. We agree with,the
Regional Director that it did not. The Board customarily permits an
individual whose eligibility status is in question to cast a challenged
ballot. Here, King's ballot was challenged by the Employer's ob-
server. Bell and Williams did not attempt to vote. Neither the
mere urging of a supervisor to vote nor his appearance at the polls for
that purpose without further incident constitutes a basis for setting
aside an election.2 Like the Regional Director, we also find no merit
in the Employer's contention that King, a supervisor, was actively
engaged in promoting the interests of the Petitioner and thereby ex-
2 See Brown-Dunkin Company, 118 NLRB 1603; Rheem Manufacturing Company, 114
NLRB 404, 406.
LATHERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 252 871
ercised improper influence over the Employer's employees. Other
than King's appearance at the polls, the Employer did not allege any
specific activities by King in behalf of the Petitioner.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record,' we hereby over-
rule the Employer's objections and shall certify the Petitioner as the
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the Employer's employees at Station WDXI and Sta-
tion WDXI-TV in Jackson, Tennessee, in the unit heretofore found
appropriate.]
8 As the objections and exceptions do not raise substantial issues of fact, we deny the
Employer's request for a hearing
Lathers' Local Union No. 252 , Wood , Wire and Metal Lathers'
International Union , AFL-CIO and James I. Barnes Construc-
tion Company. Cases Nos. 21-CC-268 and 21-CD-43. May 12,
1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 9, 1958, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, but not within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D), as alleged in the complaint, 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. He also recommended that the complaint- be dis-
missed in part. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions, and a
brief in support thereof. .
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 the case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom
and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions 1 and brief, and the entire record in the
1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the
Board ' s Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of the issuance of his Intermediate
Report required him to recommend the dismissal of the General Counsel ' s complaint herein
insofar as it alleges a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D ) based on conduct inconsistent
with an award by the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.
Cf Wood, Ware and Metal Lathers International Union, et at (Acoustical Contractors
Association of Cleveland ), 119 NLRB 1345 , and the amendments to the Rules and
Regulations , Series 6, as amended, Sections 101.28, 101 30, 101 . 31, 102 73, and 102 75,
120 NLRB No. 123.