Goldblatt Bros., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1711 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

GOLDBLATT BROS, INC. 1711,
The Petitioner would not Include the parts men in the proposed
craft unit. These men work in a separate part of the shop and are
under separate supervision Their function is to stock International
truck parts and sell them There is no interchange with the mechanics
or helpers and they progress through the parts department
We find, on the basis of the uncontradicted record in this case, that
the mechanics herein sought are practitioners of the same craft and
that they are primarily engaged in the performance of tasks requiring
the use of craft skills. We also find that the Petitioner is the organi-
zation which has traditionally represented such craft Therefore, in,
accordance with the principles laid down in American Potash. d,
Chemical Corporation,4 we find that the employees herein sought are
craftsmen and that the Petitioner may represent them as such. We
also find, in accordance with that decision, that the parts men, although
working in association with the craftsmen, are not in direct line of
progression in the craft nor do they exercise craft skills, and we shall,
therefore exclude them from the unit.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that all
automotive mechanics, helpers, and apprentices employed at the-
Employer's Montebello, California, truck branch, excluding all other
employees, all office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, profea-
sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS, concurring :
I am of the opinion that as the unit sought herein is the traditional
unit recognized by the Employer for many years, there is no necessity
for considering the issue of craft status in this proceeding.
4107 NLRB 1418
Goldblatt Bros., Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local 1460, Re-
tail Clerks International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-PC-,
5286. February 25, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued on July 11,,
1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 8, 1957,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the,
1 118 NLRB 643
119 NLRB No 215
1712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate by the Board. Following the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 360
eligible voters, 350 cast ballots, of which 76 were for, and 243 against,
the Petitioner, and there were 31 challenged ballots, a number in-
sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On August 15, 1957, the Petitioner filed objections to election, con-
taining seven numbered objections to conduct of the Employer which
the Petitioner claimed interfered with the election. After an investi-
gation, the Regional Director, on December 17, 1957, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report, in which he found no merit in the
Petitioner's objections, and recommended that they be overruled and
a certificate of results issue. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's report, in which it took issue
with his findings and recommendation with respect only to its Objec-
tion No. 2, and urged that this recommendation be overruled and the
election set aside on the basis of the conduct set forth in this objection.'
The Petitioner's Objection No. 2 is as follows:
2. The employer promulgated and enforced a no-solicitation
rule which prohibited all Union activities by employees in the
store premises with the exception of certain limited areas of the
store, and then only under circumscribed conditions. Notwith-
standing the employer's rule, employer's supervisors openly cam-
paigned against the Union on the selling floor and other sup-
posedly prohibited areas and on Company time. The employer
also permitted rank and file employees to campaign against the
Union in supposedly prohibited areas. The no-solicitation rule
was discriminatively [sic] enforced against the Union.
With regard to this objection, the Regional Director found that the
Petitioner, in November 1956, filed a charge 3 alleging that the Em-
ployer herein had promulgated a rule prohibiting employees from
union solicitation on their free time away from the selling area, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. When the charge was in-
vestigated, the Employer admitted that its attorney notified an em-
ployee, in the fall of 1956, of a company rule against solicitation of
any kind on its premises , and that supervisors had been informed of
this rule. On February 1, 1957, the Petitioner waived its charge and
requested that the Regional Office proceed with the instant case. On
September 3, 1957, almost a month after the election, the parties
executed a settlement agreement , approved by the Regional Director
on September 4, in accordance with which the Employer posted a
2 No exception has been taken to the Regional Director 's recommendations that the
other six objections be overruled , and these recommendations are hereby adopted.
3 Case No. 13-CA-2365.
GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. 1713
notice on September 9 which provided that it would permit employee
organizers to solicit on behalf of the Petitioner or any other union
on nonworking time and in nonpublic areas of the store, with certain
limitations not here material, and that it would not in any manner
interfere with the employees' exercise of their Section 7 rights.
The Petitioner's objection No. 2 was based upon two. incidents,
which it claimed constituted disparate application of the Employer's
no-solicitation rule. The first involved an employee's claim that
her supervisor, on company time and property, said that she did not
see why the employees wanted a union as it could not do anything for
them. The supervisor in question claimed that she merely told em-
ployees they could vote if they wished. She admitted that she spoke
to them on company premises, but was not certain whether it.was
on company time.
As the second incident, the Petitioner claimed that on August 5,
1957, Joel Goldblatt, the company president, held a meeting of all the
employees, at which attendance was compulsory, on company prem-
ises. The Employer admitted, and the Regional Director found on
the basis of the evidence, that the meeting was held in the store
restaurant beginning at 11: 30 a. m., a half-hour before working time,
at which Goldblatt discussed the forthcoming election, completing his
remarks before noon. No contention has been made that the contents
of the speech went beyond the limits of permissible campaigning.
The Regional Director found that, in the 3 working days between
the speech and the election, union proponents made no request to
solicit in the areas in question, and there was no instance of anyone
being stopped from so soliciting. The Regional Director concluded
that the speech did not materially affect the employees' freedom of
choice in the election on the grounds, substantially, of the Petitioner's
waiver as to the no-solicitation rule, the noncoercive contents of the
speech, the fact that 3 clays intervened between the speech and
the election during which no request was made to solicit in the areas
in question on behalf of the Petitioner, and the absence of an "instance
of anyone being stopped from so soliciting." He found further that
the incident involving the supervisor, even assuming it occurred as
alleged by the employee, was isolated. Accordingly, he recommended
that objection No. 2 be overruled.
In 'its exceptions, the Petitioner points out that this objection does
not go to the existence or validity of the rule, as to which it had
executed a waiver, "but rather the company's, disparate enforcement
of the rule." We agree, and shall consider the issue as thus limited.
It is established Board policy that an employer may make noncoercive
campaign speeches to his assembled employees on his premises, in
476321-58-vol. 119-109
1714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disregard of a rule against solicitation, as "an employer's premises are
the natural forum for him just as the union hall is the inviolable forum
for the union to assemble and address employees." 4
The Armstrong Cork case,' on which the Petitioner relies, is dis-
tinguishable in several respects. In the first place, the employer there
took action to enforce its rule prohibiting solicitation during working
hours against employees campaigning in behalf of a union, while per..
mitting another employee to campaign openly against the union.
Such a disparate application of a rule as between rival employee fac-
tions is, of course, discriminatory. The employer, however, is not
precluded by such a rule from utilizing the "natural forum" of his
premises to address his employees.
The case is distinguishable also on the ground that the disparate
application of the rule to the rival employee factions in Armstrong
Cork took place during the critical preelection period.6 In the
present case, however, the attorney's remark to the employee about
the rule was made in the fall of 1956, a period of immunity as far as
this election is concerned, the critical period here running from July
11 to August 8, 19571
The Petitioner, in its exceptions, contends further that : The Re-
gional Director's finding "that there is no evidence of employees being
stopped from soliciting" is immaterial, and asserts, in support of this
contention, that an employee, "an active Union adherent, was threat-
ened with discharge for violation of the rule, and subsequently dis-
charged by the company"; the employees were thereby intimidated
from engaging in union solicitation on store premises; and the
Armstrong Cork case, where the Board found that the employer pro-
hibited employees from prounion solicitation under threat of dis-
charge, is therefore controlling here. The Petitioner, however, failed
to allege such threat or discharge in its objection No. 2, now before
us, in its other six original objections, or in its unfair labor practice
charge, and there is no reference thereto in the Regional Director's
report or in the notice posted by the Employer. We therefore find
that this contention was not timely raised and may not now be con-
sidered by the Board.8 Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner's
objection and exceptions raise no substantial and material issues with
respect to the election. We therefore adopt the recommendations of
the Regional Director and hereby overrule the Petitioner's objection.
As the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast,
we shall certify the results of the election.
4 Livingston Shirt Corporation, 107 NLRB 400, 406.
8 Armstrong Cork Company, 109 NLRB 1341.
9 F. IV. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446.
7 See Personal Products Corporation, 116 NLRB 393, 396.
8 Sears Roebuck and Company , 115 NLRB 266, 270.
AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION .1715
[:The. Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Retail Clerks Union Local 1460, Retail Clerks International
Union, AFL-CIO, and that. said organization is not the "exclusive
representative of the Employer's employees in the unit found appro-
priate.]
MEMBERS JENKINS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of
Election.
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation ,' Pacific
Order Handling Division and Office Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, Rich-
mond Works and Office Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 20-RC-3361 and 20-RC-3391. Feb-
ruary 26, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
M. C. Dempster, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa
-tion of employees.of the Employer within themeaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In Case No. 20-RC-3361, the Petitioner seeks to represent all
office clerical employees at the Employer's Pacific Order Handling
Unit, Richmond, California, excluding confidential employees, man-
agerial employees, professional employees, guards, and all super
visors as. defined in the. Act. In Case No. 20-RC-3391, the Petitioner.
seeks. to.. represent all office clerical employees, including personnel
clerks and timekeepers employed by. the Employer at its Richmond,
California, manufacturing plant, but excluding production and main-
tenance employees, the plant nurse, the laboratory technician, man-
The name of the Employer herein appears as amended at the hearing.
119 NLRB No. 213.