Korber Hats, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1000 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make a union -security agreement in behalf of an alleged bargaining
unit of the Employer's truckdrivers. All the Employer 's truckdrivers
are currently covered by a 3-year contract with the Union. The
contract , which contains a union-security clause, is in effect from
February 1, 1958, to January 31 , 1961. The Union contends that the
petition should be dismissed because the unit as to which deauthori-
zation is sought by the Petitioner is not coextensive with the bargain-
ing unit. Although the Employer is not a member of an employer
association , the contract between the Employer and the Union is
identical with the one which was negotiated between various em-
ployer associations and the numerous affiliates of Teamsters in the
Central States Area. The Union contends that the appropriate unit
coincides with the existing coverage of the Central States Area agree-
ment, inasmuch as the grievance procedure in the contract provides
for participation by the - Joint Area Cartage Committee and the Joint
State Cartage Committee . The record shows that the Employer
never took part in the contract negotiations on the areawide basis,
nor did it authorize any employer association or other agent to nego-
tiate in its behalf. The negotiated contract was merely left with
the Employer by the union business agent with a request that it be
signed, and the Employer signed on its independent judgment. The
existence of uniform or master contracts covering a given geographic
area does not ipso facto establish a multiemployer bargaining unit.
Although the Employer has adopted the Central States Area agree-
ment, we find that there is no history of bargaining on a multi-
employer basis such as to preclude a finding that its employees con-
stitute a separate , appropriate unit.'
4. All truckdrivers employed by Texas Cartage Company at its
establishment in Detroit , Michigan, excluding all other employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of an election under Section 9(e) (1)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
I Colonial Cedar Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1613.
Korber Hats, Inc. and Esther Sousa, Mary M. Sullivan and
Georgiana J. Lambert, Petitioners and United Hat, Cap and
Millinery Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-RD-9d74.
January 19, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated October 16,
1958,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 6, 1958,
1 Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 128.
KORBER HATS, INC. 1001
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
First Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate in
the above-mentioned decision. As the Union had filed unfair labor
practice charges against the Employer on November 4, 1958, the
Regional Director impounded the ballots. On November 17, 1958,
the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint based on these
charges and, on November 21, 1958, issued and duly served on the
parties a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 42
eligible voters, 34 cast ballots against the Union, no voters cast bal-
lots for the Union, 1 ballot was challenged, and 1 ballot was void.
On November 24, 1958, the Union filed timely objections to the
election. In accordance with Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on December 2,
1958, issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections,
in which he recommended that the objections be dismissed as lacking
in merit. Thereafter, the Union filed timely exceptions to the report
on objections.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman
Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Union objected to the holding of the election on the Em-
ployer's property at a time when a strike was in progress and the
plant was being picketed.2 The 7 or 8 of the Employer's employees
who were on strike failed to vote in the election. The Union con-
tends that it was unfair, coercive, and humiliating to the employees
on strike to require them to cross the picket line, and that the hold-
ing of the election in these circumstances was not conducive to a free
choice by the voters.
Mere location of the polling place behind a picket line is not of
itself prejudicial to the fair conduct of an election 3 There has been
no showing here that the Union was in fact prejudiced or that the
secrecy of the election was impaired because of the location of the
polling place. Nor is there anything here to indicate that the
strikers failed to vote for any reason other than their own free choice
and, in any event, the fact that the 7 or 8 striking workers failed to
vote could not have any effect on the outcome of the election, since
they were insufficient in number to affect the result. We find, under
all the circumstances, that the Regional Director did not abuse his
discretion in setting the place of the election.
2 Although no discussion as to the place of the election had taken place between the
Regional Director and the Union prior to the Union's receipt of notice of the election, on
November 3, 1958. the Board has held that the choice of the place of the election is
within the discretion of the Regional Director. Consequently, failure to consult with the
parties as to the place of the election is not per as prejudicial. The De Vilbiaa Company,
102 NLRB 942.
3Coffey's Transfer Company, 115 NLRB 888, 889.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union also objected to the holding of the election while the
above-noted charges, filed on November 4, 1958, were pending in the
Regional Office.4 After the filing of these charges, the Regional
Director conducted a preliminary investigation and determined that
the election should proceed as scheduled, on November 6, 1958, and
that the ballots should be impounded until the disposition of the
charges. We find that this constituted a proper exercise of the
Regional Director's discretion in these circumstances, where the
charges were filed almost on the eve of the election. Furthermore,
we find that the Union was not prejudiced by the fact that the elec-
tion took place before the charges were dismissed, since the charges
were subsequently found by the Regional Director to be without
merit .5
We, therefore, adopt the recommendation of the Regional Director
and overrule the objections of the Union to the conduct of the elec-
tion. As the Union failed to receive a majority of the ballots cast,
we shall therefore certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots was not cast
for United Hat, Cap and Millinery Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and that this union is not the exclusive bargaining representative of
the production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Fall River, Massachusetts, plant.]
4 The Union's objection to the holding of the election during the pendency of its appeal
from the dismissal by the Regional Director of unfair labor practice charges filed on
August 5, 1958, is clearly without merit as, apart from any other considerations, the
appeal was dismissed by the General Counsel before the election was held.
5 Dumont Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 94, 95.
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi ' and Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Local Union No. 891, Petitioner a
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Laun-
dry, Cleaning & Linen Workers' International Union, Local
218, Independent, Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 15-RC-1868 and
15-RC-1873. January 00, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 4 hearing was held
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Herein called the Teamsters. This Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the
bearing.
8 Herein called the Laundry Workers. This Petitioner 's name appears as amended at
the hearing.
4 The Regional Director's order consolidating cases and notice of hearing was personally
served on the Employer 1 day prior to the actual date of the hearing . The Employer
122 NLRB No. 123.