Independent Nail & Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 677 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

INDEPENDENT NAIL & PACKING COMPANY 677
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that all heliarc welders and
their leadmen at the Employer's Long Beach, California, plant, ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act,
may, if they so. desire, constitute an appropriate unit. We shall not,
however, make a final unit determination at this time, but shall direct
that the question concerning representation which exists be resolved
by an election by secret ballot among the employees in such unit. If
a majority. vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Re-
gional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such
unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a ma-
jority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a
part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a cer-
tification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Independent Nail & Packing Company and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC--5089. April
30,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on Janu-
ary 3, 1958 ,1 an election was conducted on January 22, 1958, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Re-
gion, among certain employees of the Employer . The tally of ballots
shows that there were approximately 292 voters; and that 106 valid
votes were cast for the Petitioner , 158 valid votes were cast against the
Petitioner, 24 ballots were challenged , and 1 ballot was declared void.
The challenges were insufficient in number to affect the results of
the election . On January 27, 1958, the Petitioner timely filed objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election . On February 27,
1958, the Regional Director , after investigation, issued his report on
objections, recommending that the objections be overruled in their
entirety.
1 Not published.
120 NLRB No. 79.
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
1. Objection 1 is based on the posting of a notice by the Employer
on the time clock prior to the election, which notice is on the letter-
head of the Employer and bears its printed name at the bottom, and
which, after informing the employees of the Board election to be held,
states "Vote on the Right side . . . Vote No."
The Petitioner does not except to the Regional Director's finding
that this notice does not purport to be a duplication of the Board ballot
or of any other Board literature within the meaning of the Allied
Electric Products case,' but is rather literature of the nature held to
be permissible in the Phelps-Dodge and Lincoln Plastics cases.4 The
Petitioner excepts only to the Regional Director's failure to consider
its allegation that the document which is headed by the word "Notice"
in large letters was "posted on the time clock, in the same manner
which the Company followed with respect to official company notices
regarding company rules," contending that such an official "Notice" is
more than dissemination of information to employees but is in the
nature of an order, and under such circumstances the exhortation to
vote "No" was prejudicial conduct affecting the results of the election.
We disagree with this contention. Although this "Notice" may
have been posted on the time clock in the same manner as official com-
pany notices regarding company rules, we are inclined to the view that
realistically employees would not regard such a notice as an order of
the company-rule type but would rather regard it as simply the pre-
election campaign propaganda which it obviously appeared to be 5
2. Objection 2 is based on the following portion of a pamphlet dis-
tributed to the employees by the Employer prior to the election :
These facts prove one thing-you get TRUE JOB SECU-
RITY from your Company and from your Company alone.
TRUE JOB SECURITY does not come from any union. It
comes only from a company which, like yours, always tries to
give as much work to as many workers as possible, under the best
possible conditions-all for the benefit of the workers and the
Company. A Company can give work only if it has orders-
and a company can compete and get orders only if the workers
back it up 100 Jo.
2 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].
S Allied Electric Products , Inc., 109 NLRB 1270.
4Phelps -Dodge Copper Pgoducta (,brpowattiou, 111 NLIB 950. Lincoln Plalt . cs Corpo-
ration, 112 NLRB 291.
5 See A. S Abell Company (WMAR-TV), 107 NLRB 362, where the employer utilized
a similar method , i. e, use of the office mailboxes or personal delivery by the secretary
of the vice president for the distribution of a preelection letter in which it indicated its
preference for dealing directly with the employees rather than through a union.
INDEPENDENT NAIL & PACKING COMPANY 679
The Petitioner contends that this is tantamount to a statement that
a vote for the Union is disloyalty to the Company and that the
employees could only have job security if they were 100 percent loyal
to the Company, i. e., if you vote for the Union you are disloyal, and
if you are disloyal you cannot have job security with the Company;
and that this was a threat of reprisal and coercive. We disagree with
this interpretation. As we read this statement, it does not contain a
threat but says merely that true job security comes only from the Com-
pany and not from any union, with a further vague reference to the
necessity for the employees to "back up" the Company 100 percent.
Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's finding that this state-
ment is nothing more than the type of election propaganda which the
Board has consistently refused to police or censor but rather leaves to
the good sense of the voters for their appraisal and to the parties for
correction of inaccurate or untruthful statements.'
3. Objection 3 is based on the following portion of the same
pamphlet :
Common sense will tell you that your Company's proven record
means much more than any union propaganda. When it comes
to a question of whether you are going to believe in your Company
or whether you are going to believe in the Steelworkers Union,
the newspapers will give you the answer. It was recently
announced that the Senate Rackets Committee is investigating the
Steelworkers Union. This Rackets Committee is the one which
exposed the Teamsters Union, Dave Beck, Jimmy Hoff a, and all
the rest. The Rackets Committee is now investigating charges
that: (1) the Steelworkers bosses, in violation of the union's con-
stitution, and over the protests of hundreds of thousands of rank-
and-file members, increased the monthly dues from $3.00 to $5.00,
and increased their own salaries at the same time; (2) many rank-
and-file members who protested and formed a Dues Protest Com-
mittee were threatened with expulsion from the union; (3) that
Dave McDonald used millions of dollars of Union funds, not to
mention threats and pressure, to get himself re-elected president
of the union; and (4) the funds of this union have been mis-
handled by the union officials. Is this a democratic union-is it
one you can trust? [Emphasis supplied.]
In its exceptions, the Petitioner alleges, as it did in its objections,
that these statements are misleading, scurrilous, and libelous, and con-
tends that an abnormal situation was created by the senate commit-
tee investigation of the Teamsters and Bakery Workers with a result-
6 Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 21.
,680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing inability of the employees to properly evaluate these statements,
for which reasons such statements should not be dismissed as mere
propaganda. The Regional Director found, and the Petitioner does
not except thereto, that contrary to the allegations in the objections,
the Petitioner did have an opportunity to reply to the Employer's
pamphlet, and did actually reply thereto, prior to the election. We
find that the statements in issue here, while perhaps misleading, were
not such as to influence the employees improperly or prevent their exer-
cise of a free choice as they knew and could evaluate the source of the
information; and in any event, even if the employees were unable to
properly evaluate the statements, the Petitioner had both the knowl-
edge and the opportunity to make such correction so as to provide a
basis for proper employee evaluation? Accordingly, we find no merit
in this objection.
4. As the Petitioner does not except to the Regional Director's
recommendation that objection 4 be overruled, we adopt such recom-
mendation pro forma.
5. Objection 5 is based on the allegation that Night Superintendent
Messaline told two employees on separate occasions prior to the elec-
tion that if the Union won the election the Company would discontinue
the overtime schedule which had been in effect in the plant for a long
period of time. As found by the Regional Director, the Petitioner did
produce 2 employee witnesses who corroborated this allegation in
statements, in substance, that Messaline told them that if the Union
won the election the existing 9-hour shifts would be reduced to 8-hour
shifts. The Regional Director reported further that Messaline, on the
other hand, denied making any such statements, but testified that from
the very start of the election campaign it was common talk and a gen-
eral rumor throughout the plant that an 8-hour shift would be insti-
tuted if the Union were successful.
We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that even if the
coercive statements in issue were made, the fact that they were made
to only 2 employees out of a total of 290 eligible voters renders such
statements too isolated to warrant setting aside the election .8 We find
further, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner in its exceptions,
that in the absence of more specific evidence connecting the Employer
with the "common talk" and "general rumor" testified to by Messaline,
the Employer may not be charged with responsibility therefor.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the exceptions of the
Petitioner raise no material or substantial issues. We therefore adopt
the Regional Director's report and recommendations, and, in accord-
7 See Unity Manufacturing Company, supra.
6 See Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 107 NLRB 1534 ; Goodyear Clear-
water Mill No. 2, 109 NLRB 1017; Crown Drug Company, 110 NLRB 845.
ARMOUR CHES-PEAKE 681
ante therewith, overrule the objections. As the tally shows that the
Petitioner did not win the election, we shall issue a certification of
results of election to that effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast
for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said organi-
zation is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees
in the unit found appropriate.]
Armour Ches-Peake, a joint venture between Armour and Com-
pany, a corporation , and Chesapeake Quality Farms, a corpora-
tion and Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local
876, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Petitioner. Case
No. 5-RC-2308. April 30,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization named below 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 2
I The Employer raises chickens and prepares them for market . In the past year, the
Employer made more than $500 ,000, worth of shipments directly across State lines. We
therefore assert jurisdiction . T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732, 1735.
2 The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that all
the persons sought therein are agricultural laborers excluded from the coverage of the
Act by Section 2 (3). The Employer buys day -old chickens from a hatchery , and raises
about 75 percent of them in its own growing units. The rest are raised by independent
farmers pursuant to contracts . Under such contracts , the Employer retains title to the
chickens , prescribes in minute detail the management practices to be followed by the con-
tract growers, supplies all the feed , and pays a minimum guaranteed price per thousand
chickens and a proportional share of any profits realized by the Employer above expenses.
About 75 percent of the feed fed to all the chickens is mixed in the Employer's feed
plant, located 1 to 18 miles from the various growing units ; the feed plant mixes from
40 to 60 tons of feed a day . Some of the persons in the proposed unit work nearly all
120 NLRB No. 108. -