National Dairy Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1318 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1.318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Foreman Lough's remarks to Robert W. Brown about 6 weeks before the
election.
(g) Supervisor Box's remarks to R. W. Springer around June 1, 1957.
(h) Personnel Director Smotherman's threat to James D. Henson about a month
before the election.
(i) Foreman Hood's threat to Charlie P. Barton around August 15 or 16, 1957.
(j) Foreman Hood's threat and promise of benefit to Carl McKissack during the
last week in August 1957.
(k) Foreman Burline's threat to Franklin Dickson about 3 weeks before the
election.
(1) Foreman Lough's threat to Charlie P. Brown about a week before the election.
(m) Assistant Personnel Director Alexander's threat to G. M. Head 4, 5, or
6 days before the election and again a day or two before the election.
(n) Foreman Hardison's remarks to James Sudduth about September 5, 1957.
(o) Foreman Heller's threat to James Calton about 3 days before the election.
(p) Foreman Hood's threat to James Pettus on September 10, 1957. The con-
duct referred to in items (i) though (p) inclusive occurred after the date of the
issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election in the representation case and
interfered with the election and deprived the employees of their freedom of
choice.16 This interference with a free choice of a bargaining representative in
the light of the noncoercive antiunion statements noted above created, in the opinion
of the Trial Examiner, an atmosphere not conducive to the sort of free and un-
trammeled choice of representative that is contemplated by the Act. Accordingly,
the Trial Examiner recommends that the election be set aside and a new election
held.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in these proceedings satisfies the Board's requirement
for the assertion of jurisdiction herein.17
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent interfered with, restrained,
or coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent interfered with the election
and deprived the employees of their freedom of choice.
6. The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent discharged Doyle
G. Wallace because of his union or concerted activities.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
16 See New England Upholstery Co., Inc., 121 NLRB 234.
17 Annually Respondent ships from its place of business in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee,
products valued at more than $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of
Tennessee.
Citrus Division , Kraft Foods Div., National Dairy Products
Corporation and Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union No . 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner. Case
No. 12-RC-351. Febiwary 6, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed on August 22, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on Aug rust 30 and September 6, 1958, under the direction and
122 NLRB No. 158.
CITRUS DIVISION, KRAFT FOODS DIV. 1319
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, among
the employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the stipulation.
Upon the conclusion of the count on September 6, 1958, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that of approxi-
mately 50 eligible voters, 20 votes were cast for, and 29 votes were
cast against, the Petitioner. There were no void ballots and eight
challenged ballots. The challenged ballots are insufficient to affect
the results of the election.
On September 12, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting results of election. In accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an. investi-
gation and, on November 5, 1958, issued and served upon the parties
his report on objections, in which he found the objections to be with-
out merit and recommended that they be overruled. On November
14, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report, in which it excepted to his recommendation but
not to his factual findings.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All over-the-road truckdrivers, city truckdrivers, and helpers at
the Employer's Lakeland, Florida, plant, excluding warehousemen,
office clerical employees, professional employees, and all guards and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
5. The Objections: 1
In objections 1(a), (b), and 7, the Petitioner alleges in substance
that the Employer campaigned during the "period of quiet" required
by the Board by mailing a letter to each employee, knowing it would
I In its exceptions, the Petitioner refers to charges allegedly contained in an affidavit
submitted by employee Johnston, but has not submitted such an affidavit, disclosed its
contents, or, related it in any manner to any conduct which may be considered in con-
nection with the objections. In these circumstances, consideration of the contents of
such affidavit is unwarranted.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be received within 24 hours of the first election date, and by contact-
ing each truckdriver for the purpose of encouraging votes against
the Petitioner. The Regional Director found that the letters con-
tained no threats of reprisal or promises of benefit, and that any
discussions with the truckdrivers within 24 hours of the election
dates did not concern the election. Moreover as the Board held in
Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427, the 24-hour rule does
not apply to literature or to legitimate campaign media, other than
massed assemblies of employees. Accordingly, we find that these
objections are without merit.
In objections 1(c) and 1(d), the Petitioner alleges that the Em-
ployer threatened employee Little with discharge if the Petitioner
won the election, and refused to permit employee Wisham to vote
and threatened him with discharge if he voted. The Regional
Director found no evidence of a threat to Wisham, and a conflict of
evidence with respect to the other allegations concerning Little and
Wisham. As to Wisham, it is clear that his ballot would have been
challenged if he had attempted to vote and, in any event, his vote
could not have affected the results of the election. As to Little we
find that the alleged threat, if made, was isolated.' Accordingly, we
agree with the Regional Director that these objections are with-
out merit.
In objection 4, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer offered a
pay increase if the employees voted against the Petitioner. The
Regional Director found that a notice of a pay increase was posted
on the bulletin board on July 2, 1958; as this occurred before the
execution of the consent stipulation, the posting of the notice cannot
be considered as a basis for setting aside the election.' As there is
no showing, or even a contention in the exceptions, that the increase
was conditioned upon the outcome of the election, the fact that the
notice may have remained on the bulletin board following the execu-
tion of the stipulation does not warrant a finding of interference
with the election. Accordingly, we find that this objection is with-
out merit. As the incidents involved in objections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8
all occurred before the execution of the stipulation, they similarly
cannot be considered as a basis for setting aside the election.
Upon the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the Peti-
tioner's objections concerning the Employer's conduct, whether con-
sidered separately or together,4 do not raise substantial or material
issues affecting the results of the election. We therefore adopt the
recommendation of the Regional Director and hereby overrule all
2 Charles T. Brandt, Inc., 118 NLRB 956.
8 F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446.
4 National Furniture Company, Inc ., 119 NLRB 1.
CROSBY AEROMARINE COMPANY 1321
the Petitioner's objections. Accordingly, as the Petitioner failed to
secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 79,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, and that the said organization is not the
exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.]
Crosby Aeromarine Company, a subsidiary of Archer-Daniels-
Midland Company 1 and International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Crosby Aeromarine Company, a subsidiary of Archer -Daniels-
Midland Company and Crosby Aeromarine Drivers Union of
Fort Wayne, Petitioner. Cases Nob. 13-RC-5910 and 13-RC-
6301. February 6, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frances P. Dom, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer 2
The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
The organizations herein are (1) International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IIIE ; ( 2) Allied Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
called AIW ; (8) Crosby Aeromarine Drivers' Union of Fort Wayne, herein called Drivers'
Union; and (4 ) Crosby Aeromarine Independent Union of Fort Wayne, herein called
Independent. AIW, Independent , and Drivers' Union are Intervenors in Case No. 18-RC-
5910 and IUE and AIW are Intervenors in Case No. 18-RC-6801. All parties stipulated
that IIIE and AIW are labor organizations and we so find . IUE and AIW contend, how-
ever, that Drivers' Union and Independent are not labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act mainly on .the basis of lack of compliance with the filing requirements of
the Act. The record shows that Drivers' Union was in full compliance before the close
of the hearing and our administrative records disclose that Independent achieved and is
.122 NLRB No. 140.