Jewett & Sherman Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a schism which warrants the holding of an election despite a contract
existing between the local and the employer.' Accordingly, for this
reason we find that the contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor, UE, does not bar the instant proceeding.'
4. The parties stipulate and we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
plants in Sidney, Ohio, including truckdrivers and group leaders, but
excluding office and clerical employees, nurses, draftsmen, designing
engineers, development engineers, timekeepers, shipping and receiv-
ing clerks, watchmen, superintendents, general foremen, foremen, as-
sistant foremen, chief inspectors, chief of stock control, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 A C. Lawrence Leather Company, 108 NLRB 546; General Electric Apparatus if Serv-
ice Shop, 110 NLRB 1054.
4 Member Rodgers concurs in the direction of election herein, but finds it unnecessary
to decide whether there has been a schism Instead, he would refuse to recognize the
contract of the Intervenor as a bar for reasons of broad public policy. Local 776's parent
organization, the UE, was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations because
of Communist domination. Under these circumstances, the availability of the Board's
processes to the Intervenor would not, in Member Rodgers' opinion, effectuate the policies
of the Act nor properly serve the interests of national security
JEWETT & SIIERMAN CO ., PETITIONER and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION No. 570, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 5-RM-9268. February 7, 1955
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
November 8, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted herein
on November 16, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the elec-
tron, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots. The tally
showed that of approximately 102 eligible voters, 91 valid ballots were
counted, of which 33 were for the Union and 58 against. In addition,
9 ballots were challenged.
On November 22, 1954, the Union filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the
objections and on December 8, 1954, issued his report on objections in
1110 NLRB 806.
111 NLRB No. 80.
JEWETT & SHERMAN CO. 535
which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that a
certification of results of election be issued.
The-Union objected to the election on the ground that, on the day
prior to the election, the Employer addressed the employees on com-
pany time and property calling upon them to vote against the Union,
and that this was in violation of the Board's rules. The Regional
Director found that, although the speech in question was delivered
November 15, 1954, between the hours of 8 a. in. and 8:15 a. in. on
the day prior to the election, it was in fact made more than 24 hours
before the scheduled start of the election on November 16 at 9: 30
a. in. The Regional Director therefore found that the speech did
not come in conflict with the applicable rule as laid down by the Board
in the Peerless Plywood case.' He concluded that the Union's objec-
tions raised no substantial and material issues. Although in agree-
ment with the principle of the Peerless Plywood rule, the Union, in
excepting to the Regional Director's recommendations, argues, in
effect, that the Employer's speech made on the day prior to the day
of the election, violated the "spirit of the law" even though it was
made before the beginning of the proscribed 24-hour period.
When the Board established the Peerless Plywood rule, it indicated
that implicit in the rule was its judgment that noncoercive speeches
made prior to the proscribed period will not interfere with the free
election as sufficient time was allowed for the effect of the speeches to
be neutralized by the impact of other media of employee persuasion.'
In view of this judgment, we find no merit in the Union's contention
that there exist equitable considerations which warrant a departure
from the rule. Accordingly, we find that, as the Employer's speech
was made more than 24 hours prior to the scheduled time of the elec-
tion herein, such speech did not interfere with the election and that
the Union's objections therefore do not raise substantial and material
issues with respect to the election. We therefore adopt the Regional
Director's recommendations that the Union's objections be overruled
and that a certification of results of election issue.
As the Union failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast,
we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Warehouse Employees Local Union No. 570, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of the Employer's employees in the appropriate unit.]
2 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
3Indeed, the Board explicitly stated that the rule "does [not] prohibit an employer from
making ( without granting the union an opportunity to reply) campaign speeches on com-
pany time prior to the 24-hour period . .