Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 28 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acceptance of the clearance card presented to it by the member involved , as provided
in the constitution or by the issuance of the temporary permit hereinafter described.
If the member involved does not present a clearance card to such other Local Union,
or the Local Union to which the clearance card is presented fails to act thereon,
or the Local Union to which the clearance card is presented acts thereon and refuses
to affiliate such member, and the Business Representative of such other Local Union,
in such cases , shall thereupon consent to the issuance of the temporary permit
(described herein ) then the member involved shall be entitled to receive and required
to secure successively , during the period within which said consent be granted and
his work continue , such number of weekly journeymen engineers ' temporary permits
if he is a hoisting and portable engineer , or monthly journeymen engineers ' tempo-
rary permits if he is a stationary engineer , as shall be issued to him by the said
Business Representative under the regulations established by the General Executive
Board . Such permits shall , for the period issued , allow the holder thereof to seek,
accept, and hold employment within the territorial jurisdiction of such other Local
Union out of which said temporary permits shall be issued , but subject always to
such regulations as shall be imposed thereon by the General Executive Board.
Art. XV. Sec. 3(c)
No member of this organization shall be permitted to remain at work at the craft
in the territorial jurisdiction of any other Local Union than the one to which he
shall belong for a longer period of time than that covered by the temporary permit
issued to him, nor shall any such member working under the authority conferred by
a temporary permit be removed from said work or replaced by a member of the
Local Union issuing the said temporary permit until the expiration of the period for
which the said temporary permit was issued , unless such removal be for a good and
sufficient cause.
Art. XV. Sec. 3 (d)
Each Local Union issuing or required to issue the temporary permits described
in this Article shall charge to and collect from all those Engineers , Apprentices and
Junior Engineers within its territorial jurisdiction to whom this article shall apply,
minimum weekly permit dues of $2 each , and shall thereupon issue to each such
member the temporary permit involved.
Art. XXIII
Subdiv. 3 Section (a)
Members of Local Unions shall conform to and abide by the Constitution, Laws,
Rules, Obligation and Ritual , and the decisions , rulings, orders and directions of any
authority of the International Union empowered by this Constitution to make
them . . . . Each member shall hire none but those in good standing with a Union
hawing jurisdiction over the work to be done nor purchase commodities without the
union label thereon when otherwise possible... .
Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc. and Furniture and Veneer
Workers Local Union #331, Upholsterers ' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-
1490. March 4,1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election , issued by the
National Labor Relations Board on November 14,1957 ,1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted on December 6, 1957, among certain em-
1 Unpublished.
123 NLRB No. 9.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS CO., INC. 29
ployees of the Employer under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Upon conclusion of the elec-
tion, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The
tally showed that, of the approximately 208 eligible voters, 68 voted
for the Petitioner, 124 voted against the Petitioner, and 7 ballots were
challenged, a number insufficient to affect the results of the election.
There was one void ballot.
On December 12, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
conduct of the election. On November 18, 1958, following an investi-
gation, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties
his report on objections in which he found that two of the objections
raised substantial and material issues, and recommended that the elec-
tion be set aside and a new election held 2 Thereafter, the Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
Employer's exceptions, and upon the entire record in this case finds:
The Petitioner alleges in its remaining objections that the Employer
called its employees individually and in small groups to the general
manager's office shortly before the election for the purpose of discuss-
ing the election and, through supervisors, interrogated certain em-
ployees as to how they intended to vote. The Regional Director found
that during the 2-week period preceding the election and after the
issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election herein, the general
manager systematically called numerous employees, individually and
in small groups, into his office, where, after initiating a discussion of
the election, he stated the Employer's concern about it and campaigned
against the Union. He further found that employees were called into
a foreman's office in the core department where a superintendent talked
to them about the election. The Regional Director also found that a
foreman had questioned two employees concerning their voting inten-
tions and concluded that the Employer, by the foregoing questioning
of employees and calling them individually into the general manager's
office and urging them to reject the Union, interfered with their free-
dom of choice of a bargaining representative.
In its exceptions, the Employer, although not challenging the
Regional Director's finding that the interviews occurred, contends.
that the employees were not systematically called into the general
manager's office and that the interviews were mere spontaneous
discussions.' Even so, it is the isolation of individuals or of small
2 As no exceptions were taken to the recommendations that the other 1-3 objections be
overruled, we hereby adopt them.
3 The Employer also asserts in its exceptions that only one isolated incident of a fore-
man questioning an employee as to his voting intention occurred, which is an insufficient
basis for setting aside the election.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
groups of employees from their fellow employees in the locus of
managerial authority which supports the inference that employer
expressions of antiunion sentiment in such circumstances border too
close upon coercive influence upon the choice of the employees later
expressed in the election. Moreover, the Employer does not dispute
the Regional Director's finding that numerous employees were called
individually by the superintendent into an office of a foreman where
they were interrogated about their voting intentions and were solic-
ited to vote against the Petitioner. The Employer contends only that
the office was used because it was more convenient than the production
floor. However, the impact on the employees interviewed is the same
regardless of the reason for the selection of the place of the interviews.
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director that the Employer,
by its technique of interviewing a substantial number of its employees,
individually or in small groups, in the general manager's office and
the foreman's office several days prior to the election and urging them
to reject the Union, and in the case of the superintendent, interrogat-
ing them about their voting intentions, interfered with the exercise
of a free choice by the employees in the selection of a bargaining
representative and warrants setting aside the election, regardless
of the non coercive tenor of the actual remarks. In reaching our deter-
inination, we have relied upon the conduct relating to the interviews
and not upon the Regional Director's finding concerning the question-
ing of employees by foremen. We shall, therefore, direct that the
election be set aside, and a second election be conducted.'
[The Board set aside the election held on December 6, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
* See General Cable Corporation , 117 NLRB 573; Qacaliton, 115 NLRB 65.
-Globe Motors, Inc. and International Association of Machinists,
. AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4?45. March 4, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on November 25, 1958, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, among the employees in the appropriate unit. Following the
election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of
123 NLRB No. 6.