Jewel Paint and Varnish Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 949 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

JEWEL PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY 949
a certification of representatives , be issued in accordance with the provisions of Section
102.61 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 6, as amended.
As provided in the order directing hearing on challenged ballots, any party may, within
10 days from the date of the issuance of the report , file with the Board in Washington, D. C.,
an original and six copies of exceptions thereto . Upon filing such exceptions , the party filing
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file one copy with
the Regional Director . If no objections are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recom-
mendations of the hearing officer
JEWEL PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY, Petitioner and
PAINT, VARNISH, LACQUER & ALLIED PRODUCTS,
LOCAL 950, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS
& PAPERHANGERS and MISCELLANEOUS WAREHOUSE-
MEN, LOCAL 781, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS
OF AMERICA. Case No. 13-RM-142. May 12, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed and pursuant to stipulation for
certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot
was held in this proceeding on November 25, 1952, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a
tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally showed that,
of approximately 50 eligible voters, 15 cast valid ballots for,
and 33 cast valid ballots against, the Union.
On December 1, 1952, the Union filed objections to the
election, alleging, in substance, that the Employer, by its
supervisors and agents, issued leaflets and questioned,
threatened, and promised benefits to its employees, so as to
interfere with their freedom of choice in the election. The
Union requested that the election be set aside and a new
election directed.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director investigated the matters raised by the
objections and, on January 30, 1953, issued and served on the
parties his report on objections, in which he found that
certain alleged acts mentioned above raised material and
substantial issues with respect to the election and therefore
recommended that a hearing be held to resolve the issues.
On February 11, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the
report and recommendation.
On February 17, 1953, the Board,' having considered the
Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions
thereto, found that the objections raised substantial and ma-
terial issues of fact with respect to the election, and ordered
a hearing on the issues . The Board further ordered the hearing
IPursuant 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 [Chairman
Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
104 NLRB No. 112.
283230 0 - 54 - 61
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing
to prepare and cause to be served on the parties a report
containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings
of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the dis-
position of the objections.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 10, 1953,
before Ivan C. McLeod, hearing officer. Both parties ap-
peared and participated. The Board has reviewed the rulings
made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On March 19, 1953, the hearing officer issued and served
on the parties his report containing findings of fact, con-
clusions, and recommendations to the Board. The hearing
officer found, among other things, that although one Paul
Carl Otto was a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of
the Act, a single remark of Otto's,2 made to employee.
Edward Allen Fralick 2 or 3 weeks before the election, had
no perceptible effect upon the employees' freedom of choice
therein. The -hearing officer further found, however, that the
remark, even if coercive, was followed by three company
leaflets, assuring employees of their freedom of choice in the
prospective election, and that the remark, under these cir-
cumstances, was an isolated incident and would not justify
setting aside the election. The hearing officer recommended
that the Union's objections be dismissed and that a certification
of results of election be issued.
On April 1, 1953, the Union filed timely exceptions to the
hearing officer's report and recommendations. The Board,
having considered the hearing officer's report and the Union's
exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case, hereby
overrules the Union's exceptions and adopts the hearing
officer's findings and conclusions and his recommendation with
respect to certification with the following modification:
As noted above, the hearing officer found that although
Otto was a supervisor as defined in the Act, his isolated
remark about the Christmas bonus had no perceptible effect
on the employees' freedom of choice in the election. We
deem it unnecessary, however, to determine Otto's status at
this time. His remark, even if coercive, was, in the circum-
stances of this case, such an isolated incident as not to
warrant setting aside the election. 3
Upon 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. 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:
2 The remark was to the effect that Otto thought that employees would lose their Christmas
bonus "if the union would get in."
3 The American Envelope Co., 97 NLRB 1541, 1552.
PEPPER & POTTER, INC. 951
All production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's paint, varnish, and enamel plant at Chicago, Illinois,
excluding salesmen, office clerical employees, laboratory
employees, professional employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
Because we have overruled the Union's exceptions, and
because the tally of ballots shows that the Union lost the
election, we shall issue a certification of results of election
to this effect.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid
ballots has not been cast for Paint, Varnish, Lacquer &
Allied Products, Local 950, Brotherhood of Painters, Decora-
tors & Paperhangers and Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Local
781, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and that the said
labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the
employees of the Employer, in the unit heretofore found
appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
PEPPER & POTTER, INC. and RALPH DIAMOND, COSMO
BARBIERI, ELIAS DEGESTNOS, JOSEPH LINYEAR,
HAYNES O'NEIL, NATHAN SACHER, JOHN E. McCOVERY,
HARRY TIMMERMANN, AND MARGARET O'LEARY LAN-
DOLFI. Case No. 2-CA-1912. May 13, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes
II issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, and recommending that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in a certain other alleged un-
fair labor practice and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect thereto.' Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire
record in this case, andhereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
U n the absence of exceptions to the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharge of Margaret
O'Leary Landolfi did not constitute a violation of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint
with respect thereto.
104 NLRB No. 126.