Globe Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
groups of employees from their fellow employees in the locus of
managerial authority which supports the inference that employer
expressions of antiunion sentiment in such circumstances border too
close upon coercive influence upon the choice of the employees later
expressed in the election. Moreover, the Employer does not dispute
the Regional Director's finding that numerous employees were called
individually by the superintendent into an office of a foreman where
they were interrogated about their voting intentions and were solic-
ited to vote against the Petitioner. The Employer contends only that
the office was used because it was more convenient than the production
floor . However, the impact on the employees interviewed is the same
regardless of the reason for the selection of the place of the interviews.
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director that the Employer,
by its technique of interviewing a substantial number of its employees,
individually or in small groups, in the general manager's office and
the foreman's office several days prior to the election and urging them
to reject the Union, and in the case of the superintendent, interrogat-
ing them about their voting intentions, interfered with the exercise
of a free choice by the employees in the selection of a bargaining
representative and warrants setting aside the election, regardless
of the noncoercive tenor of the actual remarks. In reaching our deter-
mination, we have relied upon the conduct relating to the interviews
and not upon the Regional Director's finding concerning the question-
ing of employees by foremen. We shall, therefore, direct that the
election be set aside, and a second election be conducted .4
[The Board set aside the election held on December 6, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
4 See General Cable Corporation, 117 NLRB 573; Qualiton, 115 NLRB 65.
-Globe Motors, Inc. and International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4245. March 4, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on November 25, 1958, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, among the employees in the appropriate unit. Following the
election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of
123 NLRB No 6.
GLOBE MOTORS, INC. 31
ballots which showed that of approximately five eligible voters, three
cast valid ballots for, and one cast a valid ballot against, the Peti-
tioner. There were no challenged ballots.
On December 1, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to the
election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on January 12,
1959, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that
the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. The Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report.
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objec-
tions, the Regional Director's report on objections, and the Employ-
er's exceptions. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization here involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees in the garage and/or service and parts departments
at the Employer's Savannah, Georgia, place of business, excluding
office clerical employees, executive employees, salesmen, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. In its objections, the Employer raised two grounds for setting
aside the election : (1) that Petitioner's representatives violated the
Peerless Plywood rule by addressing employees on company premises
within 24 hours before the election; and (2) that Petitioner's repre-
sentatives held a meeting the night before the election at which the
employees were urged to vote for the Union.
According to the Regional Director's report, on November 24, 1958,
the day before the election herein, three of Petitioner's representatives
entered the Employer's premises and talked to about three employees
individually, inviting them to a meeting scheduled for that night.
They also asked the employees to vote for the Petitioner the next day.
Employer officials then asked the union representatives to leave the
32, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
premises, with which request they promptly complied. That evening,
two of. the Employer's employees attended the union meeting, which
was also attended by employees of other employers in the Savannah
area.
The Regional Director concluded that there was no evidence that
the Employer's employees were coerced or intimidated in any way at
the meeting. He also concluded that neither the action of the Peti-
tioner's representatives in coming on the Employer's premises and
talking to employees the day before the election nor the holding of a
union meeting the night before the election fell within the range of
activities proscribed in Peerless Plywood Company.' He therefore
recommended that the objections be overruled and the Petitioner be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit established by the stipulation.
. In its exceptions,2 the Employer relies upon two grounds for assert-
ing that the election should be set aside: (1) that the actions of Peti-
tioner's representatives constituted a violation of the Peerless Plywood
rule; and (2) that the employees were threatened by the Petitioner
with loss of their jobs if they voted against Petitioner at the election.
For the reasons stated hereinafter, we disagree.
(1) The evidence reveals only that, the day before the election,
Petitioner's representatives solicited certain of the employees in-
dividually to attend a union meeting to be held that night and also
asked the employees to vote for the Union. This electioneering, if
such it was, consisted solely of individual interviews with employees
at their place of work. As this activity does not contravene the
Board's Peerless Plywood rule, we shall overrule this objection.'
(2) The Employer contends that the affidavits reveal that, at the
union meeting, Petitioner's representative told the employees that if
the Union won the election, there would be a closed shop and there
would not be any nonunion men working for the Employer, and that
the-employees would not have a job unless they signed. with the Union.
The holding of a union meeting off company time and premises less
than 24 hours before an election does not violate Peerless Plywood.'
As the statements complained of contained neither assertions which
the employees could not evaluate nor threats within the Union's. power
to carry out, we shall also overrule this objection.'
1107 NLRB 427.
In support of its exceptions , the Employer has presented affidavits from two of Its
employees , dealing with alleged electioneering and with statements made by Petitioner's
representatives at the union meeting.
3 Eastern Metal Products Corporation , 114 NLRB 239.
4 See Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB 183.
See Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 120 NLRB 91. See also Kresge-Newark, Inc.,
112 NLRB 869, 871.
MARCUS BROS. 33
As We have overruled the objections to the election and as the tally
of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of valid ballots
cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit.]
Habib Marcus, d/b/a Marcus Bros. and Amalgamated Plastic
Toys & Novelty Workers, Local 44, I.B.P .M.O.E., Ind. Case
No. 2-CA-5888. March 5, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18, 1958, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
thereof.
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed. the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was colmnitted. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, and the brief, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the modifications and additions noted below.'
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by unlawfully refusing to bargain
' We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report, none
of which affects the Trial Examiner's conclusions or our concurrence therein: (1) The
names of Salvatore lannucci , Esq., and Aleja de Leon were misspelled ; ( 2) there is no
evidence that Mr. lannucci asked to compare the union authorization cards with the
Respondent's records; (3) Antonia Morales did not testify that Marcus ' antiunion re-
marks were translated into Spanish at his request ; ( 4) there was no evidence that Maria
Lopez customarily translated work instructions to the other girls in the shop ; ( 5) Victor
Cavallo did not testify at the hearing ; ( 6) Marcus testified that Cavallo , not Zulferino,
gave him a, business card ; and (7 ) Olga Flores Velez was not sure when, she signed the
Respondent 's union repudiation petition.
123 NLRB No. 1.
508889-60-vol. 123-4