Loose Leaf Hardware, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Loose Leaf Hardware, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Teamsters Local Union 667,
Petitioner. Case 26-RC-5990
November 5, 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENEI.O
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion held on June 7, 1979,' and the Regional Direc-
tor's report recommending disposition of same. The
Board has reviewed the record in light of the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Regional Di-
rector's findings and recommendations.2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, Teamsters Local Union 667, and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the foregoing labor organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was: 99 for, and 63 against, the Petitioner:
there were no challenged ballots.
2 The alleged threats of "violent reprisals" on which our dissenting col-
league would set aside the election apparently refer to statements allegedly
made by a union agent at a meeting of unit employees. According to one
employee witness who was present at the meeting, the union representative
told the audience that the Teamsters controls the actions on the picket line,
but not off the picket line. She claimed the union representative further told
the audience that people who crossed the picket line had accidents attributed
to "acts of God." While we find these remarks to be ambiguous, we also find
that they are unrelated to the outcome of the election or to the way the
employees voted in the election and, therefore, provide no basis for setting
the election aside. Hickory Springs Manufacluring Compan. 239 NLRB 641
(1978).
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment:
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding all machine operators, packers, zip press-
ers, platers, machine adjusters, tool and die men,
truckers and weighers, porters, and material han-
dlers employed at the Employer's West Mem-
phis, Arkansas, location; excluding all office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
MEMBER PENE.LlO, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I agree with my colleagues that the misrepresenta-
tion alleged in the Employer's Objection 3 does not
warrant setting aside the election, but I so find for the
reasons set forth in Shopping Kart Food Market, Inc.,3
the principles of which I still adhere to. See my dis-
senting opinion in General Knit of California, Inc.4 I
also agree with my colleagues that the Employer's
Objections 4 and 5 are without merit and should be
overruled.
However, contrary to my colleagues in the major-
ity, I would find merit in the Employer's Objections I
and 2 insofar as they allege that the Petitioner threat-
ened unit employees with violent reprisals should
they attempt to cross any picket lines established by
the Petitioner. For the reasons set forth in my dissent-
ing opinion in Hickory Springs Manufacturing Com-
pany,5 I would find that such threats, if made, consti-
tute objectionable conduct warranting setting aside
the election. I note particularly that the alleged
threats were made in the context of alleged rumors of
such threats circulating through the plant. Further-
more, the facts as set forth by the Regional Director
reveal conflicting testimony, i.e., several employees
stated that they heard such threats made by the Peti-
tioner's representatives, although those representa-
tives denied making any such threats. I would, there-
fore, order that the Employer's Objections I and 2 be
remanded for a hearing to resolve the Employer's
claim that the Petitioner made such threats of picket
line violence.
'228 NLRB 1311 (1977 ).
4239 NLRB 619 (1978).
239 NLRB 641 (1978).
246 NLRB No. 46
350