Newth-Morris Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1382 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carter does not specifically deny the Employer 's testimony in this regard, he did
state that he at no time asked the employees whether they were for or against the
Petitioner, or as to how they were going to vote. In the opinion of the hearing
officer, the weight of the evidence concerning the contradiction in evidence, if any,
compels him to conclude that Wilbur Carter on several occasions asked the em-
ployees -about what they thought about the Petitioner.
It was admitted by Frederick Carter that he was aware that his brother, Wilbur
Carter, was also engaged in conducting personal interviews of -employees through-
out this period In addition, it appears that most of the employees who were indi-
vidually interviewed were interviewed by both Carters.
The undisputed facts show that about 50 percent of the eligible employees were
individually interviewed by the Carters . It appears that most of these conversations
occurred in the "upstairs room" which ensured privacy to the Employer . Moreover,
the evidence establishes that the Carters commenced -several of the conversations
by asking each employee what he thought or felt about the Petitioner in regard
to the pending election.
In light of these foregoing facts concerning the circumstances surrounding the
interviews, and in consideration of the activities of Lawrence Baxter,10 the hearing
officer concludes that such conduct interfered with a free election 11
[Recommendationsomitted from publication ]
10 See footnote 8
71 See Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947 , Gallaher Drug Company, 115
NLRB 1379 , Hook Drugs, Inc, 117 NLRB 846, San Diego Glass and Paint Company,
117 NLRB 59 , Quahton, 115 NLRB 65 , 66 Nor does the Board 's holding in Mall Tool
Company, 112 NLRB 1313 , affect the result herein as in that case the employees were
interviewed at their place of work In the instant case, most of the interviews occurred
in an enclosed area chosen by the Employer because of its privacy
Newth-Morris Box Company and International Printing Press-
men and Assistants ' Union of North America, Printing Spe-
cialties and Paper Products Local No. 600 , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner
Morris Foster , Inc. and International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, Printing Specialties and
Paper Products Local No. 600, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
Nos 12RC150 and 13RC16.. January 21, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election was conducted on July 26,1957, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, among certain
employees of the Employer. The tally of ballots shows that there were
approximately 66 voters; and that 33 valid votes were cast for the
Petitioner, 29 valid votes were cast against the Petitioner, 4 ballots,
were challenged, and no ballots were declared void
The challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. On August 2, 1957, the Employer timely filed objection to
conduct affecting results of election. On September 11, 1957, the
Regional Director, after investigation, issued his report on objections
and challenges, recommending that the objections be overruled in
their entirety, that 1 challenge be sustained and the other 3' challenged
ballots remain unopened since no longer determinative as to the
119 NLRB No. 168
NEWTIH-MORRIS BOX COMPANY 1383
results of the election, and that the Petitioner be certified as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit. On
September 23, 1957, the Employer filed exceptions to that part of the
Regional Director's report dealing with the objections.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board i finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) 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 certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Florida, plant, including
plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees,
and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. In its objections, the Employer alleges that unid.entified pro-union
employees made certain threats to employees Chesser and Ammons
prior to the election.
With respect to Chesser, there is evidence that on one occasion prior
to the election another employee, Moore, threatened Chesser with bod-
ily harm for being against the Petitioner. In the absence of evidence
that the Petitioner either authorized or subsequently ratified the
actions of Moore, Ave find that Moore was not an agent of the
Petitioner.2
Moreover, the single incident alleged with respect to Chesser
admittedly occurred at least 3 weeks prior to the election, held on
July 26, 1957, and therefore prior to the date of the approval of
the election agreement on July 19, and even prior to the mailing
of the election agreement by the Regional Director on July 12, to
the parties for signature.3 Thus, it is clear that the alleged threats
made to Chesser were made prior to the date of execution of the con-
sent-election agreement, and that, even if proven that Moore was
an agent of the Petitioner, such threats cannot be considered as a
basis for objections to the election 4
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
2 See Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company , 107 NLRB 234.
As found by the Regional Director , the Employer does not contend that Moore was
other than an employee. -
'3 The election agreement was executed by both parties sometime between July 12 and
July 17.
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118; F. W. Woolworth Co.,
109 NLRB 1446.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The evidence with respect to Ammons also shows that the alleged
threats made to her were made by other employees, and there is no
evidence that the Petitioner either authorized or subsequently ratified
such actions by these other employees.' Moreover, as only these
alleged threats to only one employee can be considered as a basis
for objections to the election, we find that the election was not held
in such a general atmosphere of confusion and fear of reprisal as
to interfere with a free and untrammeled election .6
6. In the absence of any exception to the Regional Director's
recommendations that 1 challenge be sustained and the other 3
challenged ballots remain unopened since no longer determinative
as to the results of the election, we adopt these recommendations.
As we have overruled the Employer's objections to the election
and the challenged ballots can no longer .affect the results of the
election, and as the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid
votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America, Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Local No. 600, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Florida, plant.]
5 See Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, supra.
As found by the Regional Director, the Employer does not contend that these other
employees were other than employees.
9 See Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, supra. Cf. Diamond State Poultry
Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 3; Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 116 NLRB 1732.
Parkersburg Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-
CIO; International Hod Carriers', Building and Common La-
borers' Union of America, Local Union No. 1085, AFL-CIO;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local No. 899, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local Union No. 175, and International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local No. 132, AFL-CIO and Howard Price d/b/a
Howard Price & Co. Case No. 9-CD-30. January 23, 1958
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that , "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of sec=
119 NLRB No. 171.