H & P Mining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1436 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Broadview, Illinois, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Regional Director's investigation reveals, with respect to the
Petitioner's objection No. 3, that between August 30 and September 9,
1955, the Employer's president called, on company time, 4 or 5 em-
ployee groups, comprising substantially all of the employees here in-
volved, into his office for 10- to 15-minute periods for the purpose of
conveying to the employees his preference for a "No" vote in the forth-
coming election. In its exceptions, the Employer accepts the state-
ments of evidence made by the Regional Director as to the acts of the
Employer,' but contends that the evidence does not support the Re-
gional Director's recommendations.
The Board has held that the technique of calling employees prior
to an election into an employer's office individually and in small groups
and urging that they reject the union is in itself conduct which in.
terferes with a free choice by the employees and warrants the setting
aside of the election, regardless of the noncbercive tenor of the em-
ployer's actual remarks.2
I Under these circumstances, we find no merit to the Employer's con-
tention, and shall, therefore, order that the election be set aside and
direct that a new election be held.3
[The Board set aside the election held on September 15, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
I Because no issue is raised as to the commission of these acts , we find it unnecessary
to direct a hearing with respect thereto.
2 General Shoe Corporettion, 97 NLRB 499: Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB
947 ; Oregon Frozen Foods Company, 113 NLRB 881.
a we also find without merit the Employer's contention that the Regional Director's
recommendations are based upon findings unrelated to the specific allegations of Peti-
tioner's objection No. 3.
Homer Politte, d/b/a H & P aining Company and Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union , CIO,' Petitioner.
Case No. 14 RC-?412. December 21, 1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into between the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Regional
1 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Union accordingly.
114 NLRB No. 228.
H & P MINING COMPANY 1437
Director for the Fourteenth Region on June 30, 1955, an election by
secret ballot was conducted on August 2, 1955, under the supervision
of the Regional Director among the employees in the appropriate, unit
at the Employer's mine in Potosi, Missouri. Upon completion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 25 eligible voters, 24 cast ballots, 9
cast ballots for, and 14 cast ballots against, the Petitioner, and 1 bal-
lot was void. No ballots were challenged.
On August 4, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election which contained five specifica-
tions of improper conduct by the Employer. Pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the ob-
jections and, on October 11, 1955, issued and duly served upon the
parties his report on objections to election. In this report, the
Regional Director recommended that the Petitioner's objections Nos.
1. through 4 be overruled. He further recommended that objection
No. 5 be sustained, the election be set aside, and a new election be di-
rected. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report on objections to election z
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In agreement with the parties, the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All,
production and maintenance employees of the Employer's plant lo-
cated near Potosi, Missouri, excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Petitioner's Objection No. 5
In its objection No. 5, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer,
through its officers, agents, and representatives, interfered with its
employees' right freely to select or reject their bargaining representa-
tive by making election speeches to them on company time and prop-
2 The Petitioner has filed no exceptions to the Regional Director 's recommendations that
objections Nos. 1 through 4 be overruled . Accordingly , the recommendations are hereby
adopted. I
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erty within 24 hours before the scheduled time of the Board election.
The Regional Director's investigation disclosed that, within the 24-
hour period immediately preceding the election, the Employer,
through its owner Politte, read noncoercive election speeches to the
employees; that the speeches were made on the employees' own time
at the conclusion of their work shifts; and that employee attendance
at the meetings at which the speeches were delivered was required.
Accordingly, the Regional Director concluded that the Employer, by
requiring employee attendance to hear the speeches, violated the
Board's Peerless Plywood rule 3 which prohibits employers and labor
organizations from making campaign speeches to employees during
the 24-hour period preceding an election unless employee attendance
is voluntary and on the employees' own time.
In its exceptions, the Employer contends that employee attendance
was voluntary and that, in any event, the Peerless Plywood rule is in-
applicable to the facts of this case. We do not agree. In an affidavit
submitted to a Board agent, Politte averred that he prefaced the read-
ing of his speeches by a statement that "anyone that don't want to
listen is on their own. It is after quitting time and they are free to go
home." However, all 10 employees interviewed by the Regional Di-
rector either denied that Politte made such prefatory comments or
could not recall hearing him say that attendance was voluntary; 2
employees averred that Politte told them he was going to make a speech
after quitting time and that he wanted them to remain and listen ; a
foreman acknowledged that he informed the day shift employees that
Politte wanted to address them and "I didn't tell any employees when
I said Politte wanted to talk to them that they were free to go home";
and a leadman told 3 employees that "Homer Politte said not to leave
after quitting time, that he wanted to talk to us" and Politte^ "didn't
say for me to tell them they could stay or could go home as they wanted
to." We find, as did the Regional Director, that the Employer's em-
ployees were required to attend the reading of Politte's speeches. In
light of this finding, we further conclude that, as the employees'
attendance at the reading of the speeches was not voluntary, the
Employer violated the Peerless Plywood rule by addressing cam-
paign speeches to employees within the 24-hour period preceding the
election.
The Board, having considered the Regional Director's report on
objections to' election, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the
entire record in this case, hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Regional Director. We shall therefore order
s Peerless Plywood 'Company, 107 NLRB 427, 430.
STANDARD PRINTING & LITHOGRAPHING CO'. 1439
that the election be set aside and direct a new election in this
proceeding.
[The Board set aside the election held herein on August 2, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
Standard Printing & Lithographing Co. and Tulsa Printing
Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 226, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner.
Case No. 16-RC-1732. December 21, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon an amended petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Marvin
L. Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Upon the entire record 3 in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a production unit composed in general of
all pressmen, including letterpressmen and offset pressmen, all other
lithographic employees, and bindery employees. The Intervenor
seeks a separate unit of employees engaged in lithographic production
work which would include offset pressmen (lithographic) but exclude
letterpressmen (nonlithographic). The Employer contends that only
a single production unit is appropriate.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any employees in-
volved here. All production employees have a common supervisor.
The offset pressmen do not work in a separate area; they perform their
''The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions.
=Local 81 , Amalgamated Lithographers of America , CIO, was permitted to intervene on
the basis of a card-showing of interest.
8 Motions of the Petitioner and the Intervenor to correct the transcript of testimony
are hereby denied as the parties have not agreed upon the corrections to be made. The
Employer 's motion for a new hearing , on the ground that the transcript is inaccurate, and
its request for oral argument are also hereby denied as the record as made is sufficiently
clear , reliable, and adequate for present purposes.
114 NLRB No. 221.