Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 589 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

BUZZA-CARDOZO, A DIV. OF GIBSON
Buzza-Cardozo , a division of Gibson Greeting Cards,
Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Processors,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner . Case 21-RC-11020
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election executed on October 9, 1968, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on
November 8, 1968, under the direction and
supervil;ion of the Regional Director for Region 21,
among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots, which* showed that, of
approximately 366 eligible voters, 350 cast ballots,
of which 118 were cast for, and 187 against, the
Petitioner, 45 were challenged, and none was void.
The challenges were not sufficient to affect the
results of the election. Thereafter, on November 14,
1968, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election, duly
serving a copy thereof on the Employer.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on December 20,
1968, issued his report on objections in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled and
that a Certification of Results of Election issue. The
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report, and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case 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
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the
parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
shipping and receiving employees, warehousemen
589
and truckdrivers at the Employer's Anaheim,
California, plant; but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, salesmen, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the entire record in
this case, including the objections, the Regional
Director's Report, and the Petitioner's exceptions
and brief, and adopts the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations.'
Accordingly, as the votes cast for the Petitioner
were less than a majority of the valid votes cast we
shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes has not been cast for Sales Drivers, Food
Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and that said labor organization is not the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit
found appropriate within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting:
On the day before the election, the Employer
distributed envelopes containing 75 cents in coin,
accompanied by leaflets which explained that the
coins represented the amount of average hourly
fringe benefits received by employees. Several days
later, a drawing for groceries valued at $84
(described as the cost of annual union dues) was
held. All employees who voted in the election were
given raffle tickets. The Employer had announced
the drawing and the prize in a posted advertisement
which urged employees to vote. The Petitioner lost
the election and filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. The Regional
Director found that the gifts were merely election
"gimmicks," whose distribution would not have
impaired the exercise of employee free choice. He
therefore recommended that the Petitioner's
objections be overruled, and the certification of
results of election issue. My colleagues adopt his
recommendation.
To me the combination of the 75-cent gift and the
$84 raffle inject a crass monetary consideration into
the election process that really has no place there,
and I would set aside the election.
I am concerned with any distribution of monetary
gifts by either an employer or a union. In this case,
the 75 cents distributed to each employee had as a
purpose to illustrate the Company's average hourly
fringe benefits in graphic form. This alone, however,
'In our opinion , the Petitioner ' s exceptions raise no material or
substantial issues of fact or law warranting reversal of the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations or a hearing.
In the absence of exceptions thereto , we adopt pro forma the Regional
Director's recommendation that the Petitioner 's objections 3, 6, 7, and 9 be
overruled.
177 NLRB No. 38
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
can scarcely suffice to make a gift of money
unobjectionable, for the Company could as well
have illustrated even more graphically its weekly
fringe benefits, with a gift of $30 instead of 75 cents,
in which case I am sure my colleagues would wish
to set aside this election on that ground alone. Yet
where the amount is very small and it has an
illustrative purpose, it is difficult to conclude that it
was either given with the purpose of bribing the
employee or would be so regarded by the employee
in making his choice. So although I would be
tempted to regard any monetary gift as
objectionable, regardless of "legitimate" purpose, I
do not go so far. I would, however, set aside an
election in which either party gave out cash in any
amount without a tie in of any sort (i.e., "here's 25
cents, vote for [or against] the Union."), for this
could only be regarded as a bribe; it would have no
legitimate purpose.
Nonmonetary gifts present a similar problem. I
am dissenting in another case, Jacqueline Cochran,
Inc., 177 NLRB No. 39, from my colleagues'
refusal to set aside an election where a turkey was
given each employee by the Union, with no purpose
other than as a "gift," not, for example, as an
inducement to attend a meeting. There the gift was
of more than nominal value, it was estimated at
being worth about $5. This to me partakes of a
bribe. Although perhaps without any real logical
basis, but I think in accordance with generally held
concepts of morality and ethics, I do draw some
distinction between a monetary and a nonmonetary
gift. The former to me smack much more of
bribery, and the amount, even with a legitimate
purpose, that I would find bad as to a monetary gift
would be less than it would take to make a
nonmonetary gift objectionable. It is true, of course,
that it is difficult to draw the line to say precisely
what amount is bad, even when used to illustrate a
that it is difficult to draw the line - to say precisely
what amount is bad, even when used to illustrate a
fringe benefit or the like, or conversely, what value
a nonmonetary gift must have before it too should
be viewed as akin to a bribe. Partly for this reason,
I am instinctively inclined to the view that all such
gifts have no place in a Board election.
In my opinion, it would be salutary to adopt a
rule against all gifts, large and small, by the parties
to a Board election to the electorate. Despite the
fact that gifts of relatively small value are not likely
to influence an employee's vote, I see no real
purpose to be served by permitting them, and
therefore no real harm to the parties in forbidding
them. Here, for example, the Employer could as
easily have made his point by the use of scrip or
cardboard coins. It was not necessary to use real
money. But since I am satisfied that the
combination of the small amount and the purpose
here made the use of the 75-cent gift unlikely to
impair the employees' free choice, I think that the
use of the rule-making powers of the Board is the
only feasible way to combat what I do regard as an
intrusion into the Board-election proceedings.
As I have indicated, I would set aside the election
here in all the circumstances, without relying solely
on the 75 cents, as here it was a relatively small
amount and it had an illustrative purpose. The raffle
itself I do regard, by itself, as a sufficient basis for
setting aside the election. A Board-sponsored
election is a serious governmental function,
conducted by agents whose responsibilities are
sufficiently numerous without the additional burden
of policing games-of-chance. The introduction of the
raffle into the election creates a carnival-like
atmosphere, transforming the employee from voter
into contestant, and diverting his attention from the
issue being decided to the possibility of winning a
prize. The decision on whether to have a union or
not is a significant one and should not be intruded
upon by eye-catching propaganda masquerading as a
game of chance.