Milham Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1544 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1544
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST
INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL 31, AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF
RHODE ISLAND COVERING COMPANY
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT maintain, apply, enforce, interpret, perform, or give effect
to any contract, agreement, arrangement, understanding, or practice with Rhode
Island Covering Company, or any other employer, in such a way as to grant
job preference in insulating work to employees or applicants for employment who
possess or obtain membership in or clearance from the undersigned Union,
except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the said Company, or any other
employer, to discriminate against employees or prospective employees in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or prospective
employees of the said Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL notify the said Company, and furnish copies of such notification to
John Frank and Joseph S. Aguiar, that we withdraw our objection to the re-
assignment of the said John Frank and Joseph S. Aguiar to insulating work on
the Rhode Island Hospital job; or if the said Company's part of the said project
has been completed, or when it is completed, that we have no objection to
the employment of the above-named employees in insulating work on any
other project within the geographical area over which the undersigned Union
claims jurisdiction.
WE WILL make whole John Frank and Joseph S. Aguiar for any loss of earn-
ings suffered by them because of the discrimination against them.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND
FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORK-
ERS, AFL, LOCAL 31,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By--------------------------- -------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated---------------- ----------------------------------------------
(PRESCOTT IENTZEL, Business Representative)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Milham Products Co., Inc . and International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC 3899.
December 29,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated August 3,
1955, and Order Amending- Direction of Election dated August 11;
1955,2 an election was conducted on September 22, 1955, under the di-
1 As the AFL and CIO merged since the election herein, we are taking notice thereof
and are amending the Union 's designation.
9 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 243.
MILHAM PRODUCTS CO., INC. 1545
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
The tally of ballots furnished the parties herein showed that of ap-
proximately 94 eligible voters, 87 cast ballots, of which 39 were for
the Petitioner, 26 were against the Petitioner, 21 were challenged, and
1 was void.
Thereafter, the Employer filed six objections to the election. After
an investigation, the Regional Director issued a report on objections
and challenged ballots in which he recommended that the challenges
of the Board agent to 17 ballots be sustained 8 and that the objections
be overruled and an appropriate certification of representatives be is-
sued by the Board. The Employer filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
The Employer in objections (a), (b), and (e) contends in substance
that subsequent to the settlement agreement entered into on May 23,
1955, between the Petitioner and the Regional Director regarding cer-
tain alleged unfair labor practices of the Petitioner (Case No.
1-CB-305), there was insufficient dissipation of the effects thereof.
The Employer further asserts that on August 3, 1955, the Board di-
rected an election in the mistaken belief that the 60-day period for
the posting of notice had already expired.
The Regional Director states in his report that the Employer re-
quested the General Counsel to review the Regional Director's accept-
ance of the settlement agreement and the latter's refusal to issue a
complaint against the Petitioner. On July 6, 1955, the General Coun-
sel sustained the Regional Director's disposition of the charges and
concluded that the alleged violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act were "adequately remedied by the settlement agreement....
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Union posted the required
notice for a 60-day period ending September 13, 1955. In accordance
with the Board's Order amending the Direction of Election, the elec-
tion was conducted on September 22, 1955, 9 days after the completion
of the posting period.
As the Regional Director points out, it is well settled that the post-
ing of a notice for 60 days constitutes sufficient dissipation of the ef-
fects of unfair labor practices to permit employees thereafter to
express their free and untrammeled desires in the selection of a bar-
gaining representative. As the Regional Director also makes clear,
the fact that the 60-day posting period was not complete at the time
the Board issued its decision was not prejudicial to the Employer
as the election itself was not conducted until after the posting period.
Accordingly, we find that objections (a), (b), and (e) are without
merit.
3 As indicated nif, a, the Regional Director found it unnecessary to resolve the Peti-
tioner ' s challenges to four other ballots because they were insufficient in number to affect
the results of the election.
1546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In objection (c) the Employer contends as it did at the hearing that
the designations filed by the Union in connection with its showing
,of interest were obtained by coercion and violence and that the Board
failed to rule on this issue. Although repeatedly requested by the
Regional Director to submit evidence in support of the allegation
as to coercion, no such evidence has been proffered by the Employer.
Showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and
is not subject to collateral attack by the parties.' Nor was the Em-
ployer prejudiced by the Board's failure to include a statement to this
effect in its original Decision. We therefore find objection (c) with-
out merit.
The Employer contends in objection (d) that the holding of the
election away from the premises of the Employer improperly in-
fluenced the voting of the employees. As the Regional Director states
in his report, the Board has frequently held that the Regional Director
has broad discretion in making arrangements with respect to the con-
duct of elections.5 The Regional Director also states that the Em-
ployer furnished no evidence in support of its contention. We there-
fore find no merit in objection (d).
The Employer's final objection (f) is to the effect that the Board's
release of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report in Case No. 1-
CA-1842 a week before the election precluded a fair and impartial
election. As the Regional Director points out, it has been consistent
Board policy to proceed with elections during the pendency of unfair
labor practices where, as here, such charges are waived by the Charg-
ing Party as the basis for later objections to the results of the elec-
tion. Contrary to the Employer, we do not believe that the pendency
of these charges precludes the holding of a fair election at this time.'
We therefore find no merit in objection (f).
The Employer's exceptions in essence reiterate its objections which
we have found to be without merit. We shall therefore adopt the
Regional Director's recommendations that the Employer's objections
be overruled. As there are no specific issues of fact of a substantial
nature, we also deem it unnecessary to order a hearing in accordance
with the Employer's request.
The Challenged Ballots
As indicated above, the ballots of 17 voters were challenged by
the Board agent because their names did not appear on the eligibility
list submitted by the Employer. The Regional Director found that
these individuals were laid off during May 1955 and at the time of the
election did not have a reasonable expectation of reemployment with
4 The Colorado Mrolling and Elevator Company , 108 NLRB 1014 , footnote 2.
5 Independent Rice Mill, Inc., 111 NLRB 536.
Ozark Manufacturing and Supply Company, 108 NLRB 1476, footnote 2.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1547
the Employer. - In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the
Regional Director's recommendations that these 17 challenges be sus-
tained. We also agree with the Regional Director that it is unneces-
sary to resolve the Union's challenges to the ballots of four other
employees as they cannot affect the results of the election. Accord-
ingly, as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall, as recommended by the Regional Director, certify the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.]
American Can Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 39-RC-943. Decem-
ber 29,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur S. Safos, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named above claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of lithographic pressmen, feeders, and
inkmen at the Employer's Houston, Texas, plant.3 The Intervenor
contends that the requested unit is inappropriate on the ground that
a multiplant unit, consisting of employees at some 37 plants of the
Employer, including the Houston plant, which are currently covered
by the Intervenor's master agreement is the only appropriate unit.
The Employer takes no position as to the Petitioner's unit request but
opposes the Intervenor's contention that the only appropriate unit is
one based on the multiplant pattern described above.
1 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions accordingly.
0 United Steelworkers of America , CIO, and its Local 2126 intervened on the basis of a
contract interest . They are collectively referred to hereinafter as the Intervenor.
3 The Houston plant is 1 of about 60 plants operated by the Employer in various parts
of the United States and Canada.
114 NLRB No. 238.