G. F. Lasater

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 802 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, 16; General Electric
Crpa",105 NLRB 921, 922-923,
We find the following unit to be 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 Nash-
ville, Tennessee, plant, including inspectors, load board operators,
schedulers and followup men, and plant accounting clerks, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. By August or September 1957, the Employer expects to increase
its working force by 10 percent and to set up a new department.
Since the present personnel complement is a substantial proportion of
the anticipated working force, and since there is no evidence that the
employees to be hired will possess any new skills, in accordance with
our usual practice we shall direct an immediate election. Packard-
Bell Company, Service Division, 102 NLRB 1399.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
G. F. Lasater and Local 47, Chauffeurs , Teamsters & Helpers, Af-
filiate of International Brotherhood 'of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 16-RC-1991. July 23,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
February 11, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was-conducted on
March 2, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board. Following the election a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approxi-
mately 23 eligible voters, 12 voted for the Petitioner, and 11 voted
against the Petitioner. No ballots were challenged, and there were
no void ballots.
Thereafter, the Employer timely filed four objections to the elec-
tion. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the issues
raised by the objections, and on March 25, 1957, issued and served on
the parties his report on objections to the election, in which he recom-
mended that all the Employer's objections be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining representative of
1117 NLRB 348.
118 NLRB No. 96.
G. F. LASATER 803
the employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter , the Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director 's report. On April
26, 1957 , the Board found that the Employer 's objection No. 4 and
its exception No. 3 in support thereof raised substantial and material
issues of fact. The Board therefore directed that a Trial Examiner
be designated to conduct a. hearing on those issues , and that the Trial
Examiner submit to the Board a report containing resolutions of
credibility , findings of fact, and recommendations . Thereafter, a
hearing was held before Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton on May
14, 1957, at which the Employer and the Petitioner appeared and
participated . All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues . On May 29 , 1957 , the Trial Examiner issued
and served upon the parties his report and recommendations, a copy
of which is attached hereto, in which he recommended that objection
No. 4, and exception No. 3 in support thereof, be overruled . There-
after, the Employer filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's report
and recommendation.
The Board 2 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the entire
record in this case , including the objections , the Regional Director's
report, the Trial Examiner's report and recommendations , and the
exceptions , and makes the following findings :
In objection No. 4 the Employer alleged that the Petitioner
threatened employees by saying that if they did not join the Petitioner,
Petitioner would resort to an illegal secondary boycott and force them
out of their jobs . On the basis of the facts as found by the Trial
Examiner, which are fully supported by the record ,3 we find that no
such threat was made by the Petitioner.
Accordingly , for the reasons set forth in the Trial Examiner's
report and recommendations,' we find no merit in objection No. 4, and
shall overrule it.
In objections Nos. 1 and 2 the Employer alleged that employees and
others who were adherents of the Petitioner were: permitted to loiter
near the ballot box and engage the voters and election officials in con-
' 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 Murdock and Rodgers].
3 At the request of the Employer , and in the absence of objections , we hereby correct
the transcript of the hearing by inserting the word "did " after the words "Miss so and
so" on page 49, line 5. This correction does not materially affect the Trial Examiner's
findings of fact or conclusions , or our agreement therewith.
4 As the Employer 's allegations with respect to conduct at the polls were outside the
scope of this hearing , which was limited by the Board's direction to objection No. 4, we
do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's comments concerning the Employer 's failure to adduce
evidence in support thereof , or his recommendation that for that reason alone the other
objections be overruled.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
versation while 'balloting was taking place. The Regional Director
found that 3 employees remained in the room in which the election was
held after they voted, and that 2 nonemployees entered the room and
remained until the Board agent asked them to leave. However, none
of these people attempted to speak to the voters about the election,
violated the secrecy of the ballot in any way, or had any other than
casual conversation with election officials. The Employer does not dis-
pute the correctness of the Regional Director's factual findings, but
asserts that the Regional Director did not consider all the facts; it
does not, however, point to any specific facts which the Regional
Director assertedly failed to consider, and the only allegation in the
Employer's objections and exceptions not specifically reflected in the
Regional Director's findings is the allegation that those who remained
in the voting area were strong union adherents. Even assuming the
truth of this allegation, we agree with the Regional Director that the
mere presence of these people near the polling place did not prevent a
free election, and we shall therefore overrule objections Nos. 1 and 2.6
In objection No. 3, the Employer alleged that some voters marked
their ballots outside the officially designated voting place, and for this
reason alone their ballots should be declared void. The Regional Di-
rector found that some voters may have marked their ballots in a
small unoccupied windowless area between the outer office where the
ballot box .and election officials were located and an inner office which
was designated as the voting place. As all employees closed the door
between the windowless area and the outer office while they voted, the
Regional Director found that the secrecy of the ballot had not been
violated. The Employer does not take issue with the Regional Di-
rector's factual findings. We therefore find no merit in objection
No. 3, and shall overrule it.6
On the basis of the foregoing, we are satisfied, and agree with the
Regional Director and the Trial Examiner, that a fair election was
conducted in this case, and that the voters were given an opportunity
to express a free and untrammeled choice. We therefore hereby over-
rule the the Employer's objections and exceptions.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of the ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 47, Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers,
Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, as the designated
collective-bargaining representative of the employees of G. E. Lasater,
Fort Worth, Texas, in the unit'. found appropriate.]
Furniture City Upholstery Company, 115 NLRB 1433, at 1435-1436.
6 Ibid.