Fabricut, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 1196 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fabricut, Inc. and United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-7462
December 13, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and
approved by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 16 on April 14, 1977, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on June 1, 1977, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 16 among the employees in the stipulated
unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that,
of approximately 148 eligible voters, 144 cast ballots,
of which 69 were for, and 64 against, the Petitioner.
There were 11 challenged ballots. The challenged
ballots are sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on August 9, 1977, issued and duly served on
the parties his Report on Objections. In his report,
the Regional Director recommended that Objection
I be sustained, Objections 2, 3, and 4 be overruled,
and the election herein be set aside. Thereafter,
Petitioner filed exceptions and a supporting brief
limited to the Regional Director's recommendations
that Objection I be sustained and the election be set
aside based thereon.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
I In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Regional Director's
recommendations that Objections 2, 3, and 4 be overruled.
233 NLRB No. 173
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
including lead employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its plant in Pryor, Oklahoma, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional
and technical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Direc-
tor's report, Petitioner's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations
only to the extent consistent herewith.'
Objection I alleged in substance that Petitioner led
many of the employees who voted in the election to
believe that the National Labor Relations Board
officially endorsed it in the election by causing its
agents, the in-plant committee, to circulate the
following leaflet in the plant:
- [H ]ow did the In-Plant Committee get started?
We were voted in at one of the Union meetings
by the rest of the people at that meeting. Then our
names were sent to the National Labor Relations
Board which excepted [sic] them. Then the
National Labor Relations Board sent a registered
letter to Fabric [sic] giving our names to them.
The Labor Board has given us permission to bring
information in and out of Fabric [sic] for you.
Now that our names have been posted you know
who we all are.
More specifically, the Employer contended that the
references to the Board in the leaflet led the
employees to believe that the Board officially
sanctioned and was working with the in-plant
committee.
The investigation revealed that the leaflet was
produced, and approximately 30 copies thereof were
distributed, on or about March 24, 1977, by one
member of the in-plant committee, employee Norma
Stephens. The Regional Director found that Petition-
er had no advance knowledge of the production and
distribution of the leaflet and that Stephens acted on
her own and not as an agent of the Petitioner. He
also found it undisputed that Petitioner's agent,
Organizer Hearn, in a meeting with some 37
employees on or about March 28, 1977, stated that
Petitioner, rather than the Board, had sent the letter
to the Employer identifying its in-plant committee
members, and further found this same information
was also communicated to employees by Stephens
1196
FABRICUT, INC.
and other employees. The Regional Director there-
fore concluded that Petitioner had effectively disa-
vowed the statement in the leaflet that the Board had
advised the Employer of the names of the members
of the in-plant committee.
The Regional Director further concluded that the
portion of the leaflet stating that the Board had given
permission to the in-plant committee to bring
information in and out of the Employer's plant
implied that the Board endorsed the Petitioner. He,
however, found no evidence showing that this
portion of the leaflet had been disavowed by
Petitioner. Accordingly, he recommended that Ob-
jection I be sustained and the election be set aside
based solely on this latter portion of the leaflet. 2
Contrary to the Regional Director, we conclude
that the facts herein are insufficient to warrant the
setting aside of the election. Thus, while the
statement that the in-plant committee had been given
permission by the Board to bring information in and
out of the Employer's plant is not precisely accurate,
employees under Section 7 of the Act in fact have the
fundamental right, subject to certain limitations, to
distribute literature and otherwise to communicate
with each other on their employer's premises con-
cerning their organizational rights.3 Additionally, the
Regional Director found, and we agree, that Steph-
ens was acting on her own and not as the Petitioner's
agent, and it is well established that the Board
2 No exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director's findings and
conclusions with respect to that portion of the leaflet stating that the Board
had advised the Employer of the names of the members of the in-plant
committee.
affords less weight to the conduct of employees than
to that of the parties to an election in considering
objections to an election. 4 Furthermore, we note that
the leaflet was distributed some 2-1/2 months prior
to the election and that, despite the ample opportuni-
ty to do so, the Employer at no time responded to the
leaflet. Moreover, given the fact that the Petitioner
effectively disavowed one portion of the leaflet, its
failure to specifically disavow another portion strikes
us as a far too artificial distinction on which to
support a conclusion that the setting aside of the
election is warranted.
In view of the particular circumstances of this case,
we are of the opinion that the choice of words used
by the in-plant committee in its leaflet did not place
the Board's neutrality in question and had no impact
on the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule
Objection I in its entirety. We therefore shall remand
this proceeding to the Regional Director for the
purpose of taking appropriate action with respect to
the determinative challenged ballots herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that Case 16-RC-7462 be, and
it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 16 for the purpose of taking further appropri-
ate action with respect to the challenged ballots
herein.
3 Sroddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962).
4 Orleans Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 630, 633 (1958).
1197