Mid-South Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1463 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

MID-SOUTH PACKERS, INC. 1463
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Charlotte, North
Carolina, plant of the Employer, including truckdrivers, shippers,
testers, inspectors, and truck tank mounters, but excluding office cleri-
cal employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MME1i1BER RoDOERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Mid-South Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat B Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union 591, AFL-CIO, Joint Petition-
ers. Cage No. 32-RC--763. December 22, 1955
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction
of Election 1 dated October 28, 1954, an election by secret ballot was
conducted in this proceeding on November 23, 1954, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Re-
gion, among employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally shows that of the 145 votes cast in the election, 66 were for,
and 64 votes were against, the Joint Petitioners, with 15 votes being
challenged.
On November 29, 1954, the Joint Petitioners filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director
thereupon investigated the objections and challenges. On May 27,
1955, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties a
report on challenged ballots and objections. The Employer filed time-
ly exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Inasmuch as certain of
the Regional Director's recommendations as to the challenged ballots
were not excepted to, and the Regional Director had recommended that
these- challenges be overruled and the votes counted, the Board by a
Second Supplemental Decision and Order 2 ordered the counting of
these votes. The latest revised tally of ballots shows that 67 votes
were cast for, and 72 votes cast against, the Petitioners and that there
1110 NLRB 628.
2113 NLRB 910.
114 NLRB No. 230.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remains outstanding 4 unopened challenged ballots. However, the 4
remaining challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election
because the Petitioners have failed, by a total of 6 votes, to obtain a
majority of the valid votes cast in the election. The Petitioners' ob-
jections to the Employer's preelection conduct, therefore, remain for
the Board's consideration.
The Regional Director's report: In his report on the objections, the
Regional Director reported, in substance, as follows :
(a) During 1954, the Employer had considered the merits of a
wiener peeling machine, but decided not to purchase it; such a machine
would presumably replace those employees who presently peel wieners
by hand, and the employees openly discussed this possible turn of
events prior to the election.
Four employees submitted affidavits wherein they stated that on the
day before the election, while they were engaged at work peeling
wieners by hand, Foreman Pierce stated to them that "if the Union
wins the election the Employer is going to install a wiener peeling
machine" and that he (Pierce) might lose his job as a result . The Re-
gional Director further reported that Pierce denied making this state-
ment ; Pierce admitted that he had heard talk among the employees
indicating concern about the advent of the wiener peeling machine;
and that Pierce also admitted he talked against the Union, and told
the employees that they might not be able to get loans from the Em-
ployer and might work less hours if the Union came in, but that he
intended no coercion.
(b) Prior to the election, according to the statement of employee
Davis, Foreman Moran questioned Davis as to how he felt about the
election, and told Davis that he (Moran) had been asked to make the
inquiry. The Regional Director further reported that Moran ad-
mitted questioning Davis, but did it "merely out of curiosity," and
not intending to put any pressure on Davis.
(c) According to an employee (unnamed), Supervisor Mattox told
the employee the day before the election to "stick by me and I will stick
by you," and to tell the other "boys" what he had said. The Regional
Director also reported that Mattox denied making the statement.
The Regional Director found that the remarks attributed to Moran
and Mattox were, in fact, made by them, and that the remarks inter-
fered with the election. With reference to the "wiener peeling ma-
chine" incident, the Regional Director credited the statements of the
employees, and found that Pierce made the remarks described above,
relating to the wiener machine. The Regional Director further found
that such remarks were a clear threat of loss of employment. The
Regional Director did not discuss the effect of the other remarks made
by Pierce. On the basis of these findings, the Regional Director
recommended that the election be set aside.
THE BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY ` 1465
- The Employer's exceptions: In its exceptions the Employer denies
that any threats were made by its supervisors or that there was any
effort to coerce or intimidate the employees, and denies generally that
it interfered with the conduct of a free election. The Employer
emphasizes that Pierce has denied making the "wiener peeling ma-
chine" statement; that Mattox denied making the statement attributed
to him; and that the statement of Moran was "completely miscon-
strued" by the Regional Director. The Employer contends that any
statements made by its supervisors were in the form of privileged
free speech. The Employer requests a hearing on the substantial and
material factual issues it contends have been raised by its exceptions.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
Employer's exceptions thereto, and finds that the exceptions raise
substantial and material issues of fact with respect to the Petitioners'
objections (a). (b), and (c), noted above, which may be best resolved
at a hearing.
[The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for the
purpose of holding a hearing on objections, and ordered that the
hearing officer serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions
of credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of the objections. Within 10 days
from the date of the issuance of such report, any party may file with
the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies of excep-
tions. The party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each
of the other parties, and the Regional Director. If no exceptions are
filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the hear-
ing officer.]
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Third Supplemental Decision and Order.
The Babcock and Wilcox Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO .' Case No. 16-CA-720. December 23,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29, 1955, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
1 The AFL and CIO having merged we are amending the identification of the Union's
affiliation.
114 NLRB No. 231.