J. Spevak & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the essentially local nature of its business2 We shall, therefore,
dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
f Wilson Oldsmobile Co., 110 NLRB 534.
J. SPEVAK & CO., INC., SPEVAK-STINSON CO., INC. AND DUKELAND
PACKING Co., INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
WORKMEN of N. A., LOCAL No. 149, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
5-RC-1517. November 22, 1954
Decision and Certification of Representatives
On August 20, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Re-
gion among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following
the election, the Regional Director served on the parties a tally of bal-
lots, which showed that of approximately 180 eligible voters 178 cast
ballots, of which 96 were cast for the Petitioner; 54 were cast for
Spevak-Dukeland Employees' Local No. 1, herein called the Inter-
venor; 4 were cast against the participating labor organizations; and
24 were challenged. The challenged ballots were not determinative
of the results of the election.
On August 25, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the election,
alleging that threats of bodily harm and intimidation of employees
made by the Petitioner interfered with the election. On September
22, 1954, the Regional Director filed his report on objections, in which
he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Peti-
tioner be certified as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit. On October 1, 1954, the Employer filed excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objec-
tions, the Regional Director's report on objections, and the Employer's
exceptions thereto.
Upon the entire record in the 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 organizations involved claim 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.
110 NLRB No. 156.
J. SPEVAK & CO., - INC. 955
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 production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, meat processing
plant, including truckdrivers, but excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. As noted above, the tally of ballots shows that of the valid bal-
lots cast, a majority were cast for the Petitioner.
The Employer, in his objections to the election, alleges that the Pe-
titioner threatened employees with bodily harm and otherwise coerced
them in order to induce them to vote for the Petitioner. The Em-
ployer presented no evidence to the Regional Director in support of
its allegation that employees were threatened with bodily harm. A
number of employees filed affidavits alleging that they were told, in
substance, by unidentified persons or by fellow employees that em-
ployees who did not join the Petitioner would lose their jobs if the
Petitioner won the election, and that they were asked outside the
polling places how they were going to vote. There was no evidence
submitted that the statements recited were made by union representa-
tives or by persons who might be presumed to be acting on behalf of
the Petitioner, and the Petitioner denies that any of its agents ques-
tioned any voter outside the polling places. The Petitioner's at-
torney, however, stated that, while he was in the Regional Office in
connection with the case, he was asked by a voter whether or not
the voter would have to pay dues to a local of the Petitioner; and
that he had answered that he would discuss the matter outside the
building with the voter after the latter had cast his ballot. The Re-
gional Director concluded that the evidence submitted did not estab-
lish coercion or intimidation and that the isolated question addressed
to the Petitioner's attorney and his answer did not constitute inter-
ference or electioneering near the polls. The Regional Director there-
fore found that the objections did not raise substantial and material
issues with respect to the conduct of the election and recommended
that they be overruled.
In its exceptions to the Regional Director's report, the Employer
states (1) that a number of witnesses had subsequently informed the
Employer that, because of threats of physical violence, bodily harm,
and loss of jobs, they were unwilling to make statements in writing
to the Regional Director, and would be willing to testify to this effect
under oath before a hearing officer; and (2) that, since filing its objec-
tions, more than 75 percent of its employees have signed a -petition
indicating that they do not desire the Petitioner to represent them.
On these allegations, the Employer asks that its objections be sus-
tained and a new election ordered.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to (1), the Board does not consider objections not supported by
affidavits or otherwise. As to (2), the Employer's allegation does
not relate to conduct affecting the results of the election, nor to the
Regional Director's report on objections. Therefore, in accordance
with the recommendation of the Regional Director, we overrule the
Employer's objections, and certify the Petitioner as the bargaining
representative of the employees concerned.
[The Board certified Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work-
men of N. A., Local No. 149, AFL, as the designated collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees of J. Spevak & Co., Inc.,
Spevak-Stinson Co., Inc., and Dukeland Packing Co., Inc., in the unit
found appropriate above.]
ANCHOR ROME MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-903 and 10-CA-1049. November 23, 1954
Decision and Order
On November 25, 1953, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner, relying in effect upon the statutory pro-
scriptions of Section 10 (b) of the Act, found that the Respondent
did not discriminate in violation of the Act against the approximately
341 strikers who applied for employment prior to May 23, 1949. We
agree with the Trial Examiner's results but for different reasons.
The strike which the Board in a companion case 2 had found to be
economic in character ended on January 14, 1949. It was stipulated
that by the end of March 1949 all 341 strikers had applied to the
Respondent for reinstatement to their former or substantially similar
1 The request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied since the record and ex-
ceptions and briefs adequately set forth the positions of the parties.
2 Anchor Rome Mills, Inc., 86 NLRB 1120.
110 NLRB No. 162.