O. K. Van & Storage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

0. K. VAN & STORAGE COMPANY 795
2. By discharging Ralph Echols, Johnnie H. Neal, Thomas McNeil, and Dor-
rence McNeil, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment and discouraging membership in United Glass & Ceramic Workers of North
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By discharging John Scoggins for his refusal to engage in the interference,
restraint, and coercion of Respondent's employees in order to prevent their exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the
Employees Council of Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company and contributing
financial and other support to it, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
O. K. Van & Storage Company and Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union 941, Petitioner. Case
No. 33-RC-679. December 31, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in
the above-captioned matter dated June 27, 1958,1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted on July 19, 1958, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
among employees in the bargaining unit found appropriate by the
Board. Upon completion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 21
eligible voters, 19 valid votes were cast. Of these, 10 were cast in
favor of the Petitioner, 8 were cast against the Petitioner, and 1
was challenged?
On July 24, 1958, the Union filed timely objections to the elec-
tion. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on September 15,
1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objec-
tions, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled,
and that the Board certify that a majority of the valid ballots
had been cast for the Petitioner. The Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the report.
1 Unpublished.
2 The challenged ballot was thus insufficient in number to affect the results of the
election.
122 NLRB No. 95.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board3 has reviewed the objections, the report on objections,
and the exceptions filed by the Employer and, upon the basis of the
entire record in this case, makes the following findings and con-
clusions :
In objection 1, the Employer contends that the holding of the
election, while unfair labor practice charges filed by the Petitioner
were being investigated, was prejudicial to it and affected the re-
sults of the election. The Regional Director recommended that this
objection be overruled. The unfair labor practice charges filed by
Petitioner alleged the discriminatory discharge of employee Daly, one
of Petitioner's adherents.4 As the discriminatory discharge of Daly
conceivably could have adversely affected the Petitioner in an elec-
tion, it was privileged to decide whether to proceed to such an
election. It chose to waive the unfair labor practice charges filed by
it for purposes of this representation proceeding, and the Regional
Director therefore properly proceeded with the election. While
claiming prejudice as a result thereof, the Employer has adduced
no evidence to support such a Charge .5 We therefore adopt the
Regional Director's recommendation, and overrule this objection.
In objection 2, the Employer claims that inadequate voting in-
structions. were given to Henry Hernandez, Sr., and Henry Her-
nandez, Jr., when they received their mail ballots at the Regional
Office on July 14, 1958. In a statement corroborated by his son,
Hernandez, Sr., asserts that "the instruction sheet did not say where
the votes were to be returned to, or that they had to be mailed or
received anywhere by any certain date or time." The Regional
Director's report, however, contains the following excerpt from a
carbon copy of the instruction sheet given Hernandez : "Deposit
this envelope, which requires no postage in the United States mail
so that your ballot will be received in the Regional Office of the
National Labor Relations Board not later than 5 p.m. (MST), Fri-
day, July 18, 1958." Hernandez, Sr. also concedes that when he
and his son were handed their ballots, they were told to "read the
instructions, mark the ballot and return them to the local office by
mail." It does not appear that either Hernandez or his son voiced
any inability to read or understand the instruction sheet. In these
circumstances, we find this objection to be without merit, as did the
Regional Director.
In objection 3, the Employer contends that the election was begun
late and that the voting booth was dismantled before the time sched-
uled for the closing of the polls. However, even assuming that this
s Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated
its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
I Case No. 33-CA-499 (unpublished).
s Southern Waste Material Co., Inc., 117 NLRB 1653, 1654.
0. K. VAN & STORAGE COMPANY 797
happened , there would still be insufficient basis for setting aside the
election. For the Board agent and the observers remained at the
polling place until the designated time for closing the polls, and
it does not appear that the conduct complained of in this objection
deprived any of the eligible voters of an opportunity to cast his
ballot. Accordingly, we find this objection without merit.('
With respect to objection 4 the Regional Director found that, just
prior to the closing of the polls, after all eligible voters had voted,
with the exception of the Hernandezes who were on a long distance
haul at the time, the Board agent reached into the ballot bag and
removed a ballot for the purpose of explaining, to the observers how
a ballot should be marked to be valid. After explaining this to the,
observers , the Board agent refolded the ballot and replaced it in the
ballot bag. Considering that it was the Board agent who handled
the ballot, the purpose of its removal, and the absence of any evi-
dence to show that the secrecy of the ballot was thus impaired, we
find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that this objection is
also without merit, and is overruled.
In its final objection, the Employer contends that threats of physi-
cal violence were made by employee Daly which interfered with the
exercise of a free choice in the election.?
With respect to this objection, the Employer submitted a state-
ment containing charges allegedly made by one of its employees to
the following effect : A week or two before the election, four em-
ployees were told by Daly that, if anyone voted against the Union,
he would find that out and beat up that person. Daly also allegedly
told the employees that anyone who had signed a union card had
to vote for the Union. When the employees replied that the election
would be a secret one and that no one would know how they voted,
Daly answered that he would find out how they voted.
An employee gave a statement to the Regional Director to this
effect : 1 or 2 weeks before the election, Daly invited him to attend
a meeting to discuss the matter of the employees joining the Peti-
tioner . Almost all the employees attended this meeting, of which
Daly "seemed" to be in charge. Daly talked about how much better
off the employees would be if they joined the Petitioner, and stated
that they could join then for $10 but that if they waited until after
the election, it would cost $35 to join. No union official was present
at the meeting.
We find that the statements submitted by the Employer do not.
justify a finding that Daly's alleged conduct may be attributed to^
the Petitioner. For they do not show that Daly held any office in
the Petitioner or that his activities on behalf of the Petitioner were.
° Eisner Grocery Company, 116 NLRB 976.
As noted above, Daly is the subject of the unfair labor charges filed in Case No.
33-CA-499.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized by it. Nor do they show that the Petitioner ratified the
conduct he is alleged to have engaged in. Moreover, under the cir-
cumstances described above, we are unable to find that Daly's alleged
conduct created a general atmosphere of confusion or fear of re-
prisal which rendered impossible a free election. This objection,
therefore; is also overruled.8
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the
tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers, Local Union 941, as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appro-
priate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
8 Newth-Morris Bow Company, 119 NLRB 1382; Say Manufaoturinp O'orporation, 121
NLRB 1077; Bronze Alloys Company, 120 NLRB 682.
Rockwell Manufacturing Company (Kearney, Nebraska, Divi-
sion) and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 17-RC-2736. December 31, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 11, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
on July 31, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Seventeenth Region among the rn employees
i\ the appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Di-
rector served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 81 eligible voters, 78 cast ballots, of which 37 were
for and 36 were against the Petitioner. There were five challenged
ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On August 5, 1958, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. Pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the challenges and
objections, and, on October 31, 1958, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on challenges and objections. In his report,
the Regional Director found that the challenges and objections
raised substantial and material issues of fact, and recommended
that a hearing be held thereon. The Employer has filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
1 Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 99.