International Stamping Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

INTERNATIONAL STAMPING CO., INC. 921
tem. While it appears that general labor policies apply to all em-
ployees throughout the system, there is no evidence of integration
and practically no interchange between the divisions. Accordingly,
because the requested unit of employees in the Owensboro Division
of the Employer's operations comprises a readily distinguishable and
homogeneous group of employees, we believe that there exists under
the circumstances sufficient basis for finding such unit appropriate.18
We find that all employees of the Employer in its Owensboro, Ken-
tucky, Division, including laborers, helpers, service men, pipefitters,
meter readers, meter repairmen, welders, and ditching machine op-
erators, but excluding office and clerical employees,10 professional em-
ployees, seasonal employees 20 and all supervisors,21 as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 9-RC-1298
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
18 Southwestern Electric Service Company, supra; The Wichita Water Company, supra;
Standard Oil Company of Texas, 88 NLRB 224; Continental Pipe Line Company, et al.,
78 NLRB 379.
19 As the evidence indicates that the office clerical employees have no contacts with the
field employees herein requested and are under separate Immediate supervision, we have, in
accordance with our usual practice, excluded them from the unit. Appalachian Electric
Cooperative, 93 NLRB 1348.
20 The Employer hires a number of college students who work during vacations but seldom
remain as permanent employees after their graduation. We find that these are seasonal
employees and in accordance with our usual practice they are ineligible to vote in the
election hereinafter directed. The Heekin Can Company, 88 NLRB 726.
21 The Employer takes no position on the status of the service supervisor and the Union
does not contend that lie is a supervisor. As the evidence indicates that this service man
does not exercise the powers and duties of a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, he is
included in the unit.
INTERNATIONAL STAMPING CO., INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-2063. De-
cember 29,1951
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
On October 26, 1951, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Direction 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, overruling
the challenge to the ballot of Louis Brumm, and directing that the
Regional Director open and count this ballot, and thereafter prepare
196 NLRB No. 167.
97 NLRB No. 101.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and cause to be served on the parties a revised tally of ballots, in-
cluding therein the count of this ballot. The Board deferred its con-
sideration of the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the election
until after the final results of the balloting should have been dis-
closed.
On November 5,1951, the Regional Director, in accordance with the
Board's instructions, issued and served on the parties a revised tally
of ballots, which shows that, of eligible voters, 39 cast ballots against
the Petitioner and 38 cast ballots for the Petitioner. Under these
circumstances, it now becomes necessary to determine the issues raised
by the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the election.
Upon the basis of the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the
election, the Regional Director's report on challenges and objections,
the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case,
the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The Regional Director, in his report on objections, made the fol-
lowing findings : The Employer appointed as its observers at the
election the son, Keith Marx, and the sister-in-law, Mrs. Brault, of
the president of the Company, both of whom, as the Regional Di-
rector found, were identified with the Company because of their close
relationship to the president. We note in this connection that the
plant was a relatively small one , so this relationship must have been
well known to the employees . The Regional Director also found that
Marx, during the election, went through the plant with an eligibility
list of voters, called the names of the prospective voters from the
list, and checked each voter's name off the list as he left to vote. The
parties do not dispute the accuracy of the Regional Director's factual
findings, which we hereby adopt.
The Regional Director correctly recognized that because of both
of these circumstances the election was conducted in a manner which
deviates from the Board's usual standards. In the interest of free
elections it has long been the Board's policy to prohibit persons
closely identified with an employer from acting as observers 2 It
has likewise been the policy of the Board to prohibit anyone from
keeping any list of persons who have voted, aside from the official
eligibility list used to check off the voters as they receive their ballots.3
However, the Regional Director concluded that because there was no
showing of actual interference with the free choice of the employees
s Peabody Engineering Company, 95 NLRB 952 , and cases cited therein at footnote 3.
Thus, for example , NLRB Form 722, entitled "Instruction to Election Observers" directs
observers not to "keep a list of those who have and those who have not voted."
INTERNATIONAL STAMPING CO., INC. 923
voting in the election, neither incident warranted setting 'aside the
election. - We do not agree with this conclusion.
In two distinct and separate ways the Board's established rules for
the conduct of elections were violated in this case. The rules in
question are fundamental to free elections; and the deviations in this
case were material'and substantial. As such, the fact that there is no
showing of actual interference with the free choice of any voter, or
that no objection was raised at the time of the election,4 is of no
moment. As this Board said in a closely related situation, "confidence
in, and respect for, established Board election procedures cannot be
promoted by permitting the kind of conduct involved herein to
stand." b Election rules which are designed to guarantee free choice
must be strictly enforced against material breaches in every case, or
they may as well be abandoned. We believe that the purposes of the
Act will best be served by setting aside the instant election and direct-
ing a new one.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of July 27, 1951, conducted
among the employees of International Stamping Co., Inc., Hartford,
Wisconsin, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from .publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
Contrary to the position of my colleagues, I agree with the Regional
Director's conclusion that neither the appointment of the son and
sister-in-law of the Employer's president as observers nor the alleged
electioneering by Keith Marx warrants setting aside the election. It
is well settled that the principal reason for invalidating an election is
the Board's finding that the conduct of one of the parties tended to
interfere with the employees' free and untrammeled choice of a bar-
gaining, representative.0 In my opinion, there is nothing in the
instant case to support such a determination.
It is clear -that the president's son and sister-in-law were not officials
of the Employer, stockholders, or supervisors. Nor, as the Regional
d As found by the Regional Director , it was only a few minutes before the election when
the Compi ny notified Petitioner and the Board agent as to who its observers were and that
Marx was to go through the plant releasing the voters.
6 Peabody Engineering Company, supra . Our dissenting colleague would find that the
deviations from the Board ' s rules and practices set forth above not only did not interfere
with freedom of choice, but also had no tendency to interfere therewith . However, these
rules were adopted by the Board because of its belief, based on experience, that any material
breach thereof, as in the present case, would tend to prevent free choice in the selection of
a representative,
6 See, for example , General Shoe Corporation , 77 NLRB 124.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director indicates, did they possess any other powers or authority by
virtue of their relationship to the president which might have a
restraining influence upon the employees. I do not believe the mere
fact that relatives of the Employer's president participated in the
election as observers, standing alone, created an atmosphere contrary
to that required for an impartial election or in any way impaired the
secrecy of the ballot. Thereafter, I cannot agree with the action taken
by my colleagues in this matter.
Regarding the alleged electioneering by Keith Marx, the Regional
Director in his report points out that at the joint conference where
details of the election were arranged, the field examiner suggested, and
all parties agreed, that each of the parties have two observers, one of
whom would walk through the plant releasing employees to vote; that
the Petitioner's observers, who stated that they did not receive instruc-
tions as to the arrangements, as well as the Board agent, were advised
by one of the Employer's observers that Keith Marx was to go through
the plant releasing the voters, and that the Petitioner's observers did
not raise any objections. As there was no evidence that Marx had
any other purpose in checking the list of employees than to ascertain
that all eligible voters were released to vote, that he learned if they,
in fact, voted, or that his conduct tended to interfere with the em-
ployees' free choice of a bargaining representative, I am convinced, as
was the Regional Director, that this activity likewise affords no
satisfactory basis for setting aside the election in this case.
In view of the foregoing, I would adopt the Regional Director's
recommendations and dismiss the petition.
MEMBER HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
NATIONAL SHIRT SHOPS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND NATIONAL SHIRT SHOPS
OF MIAMI, INC. and DEPARTMENT AND SPECIALTY STORE EMPLOYEES
UNION, LOCAL No. 1666, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1595. December 29,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a 'hearing was held before Jerald B. Sindler,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motions to dismiss the petition
on the grounds (1) that the Petitioner had not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the Act, and (2) that the Employer was not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
97 NLRB No. 99.