Ralston Purina Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

506 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Respondent has not engaged in conduct interfering with its employees' freedom
of choice in selecting their bargaining agent in the election conducted on January 31
and February 1, 1963.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint in Case No. 13-CA-5455 be dismissed is
its entirety and that the objections in Case No . 13-RC-8923 be overruled and that
the results of the election be certified.
Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees ' Local 680, International`
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Ind. and Durling Dairy Distributors.
d/b/a Woolley 's Dairy. Case No. 2d-CC-197. June 17, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER
On, November 21, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order'
finding that Respondent Union had engaged in consumer picketing at
secondary establishments. Relying on Fruit & Vegetable Packers &
Warehousemen, Local 760, et al. (Tree Fruits Labor Relations Com-
mittee, Inc.) 132 NLRB 1172, 1177, the Board concluded that Re-
spondent had thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act..
On April 20, 1964, the Supreme Court rejected the Board's holding in
that case. N.L.R.B. v. Fruit dr Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen,.
Local 760, 377 U.S. 58.
Upon reconsideration of this case in light of the Court's aforemen--
tioned decision, we find that -Respondent Union did not violate the-
Act as alleged and we shall dismiss the complaint.
[The Board 2 dismissed the complaint.]
1145 NLRB 165.
2 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
[ Members Leedom, Fanning , and Brawn].
147 NLRB No. 68.
Ralston Purina Company and International Union , United Auto--
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO and its Local Union No . 1119, United- Auto--
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case -No. 25-RC-2542. June 17,..
1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election ex-
ecuted on December 12, 1963, an election was conducted on January 3,.
147 NLRB No. 65.
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 507
1964, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Twenty-fifth Region, in the agreed-upon unit. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of 34 eligible voters, 17 cast valid ballots for, and 17
against., the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on
March 31, 1964, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on
objections in which he recommended that objection No. I be sustained,
that the election be set aside and a new election directed, and that the
remaining objections be overruled. The Employer filed timely ex-
ceptions to the report.
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the 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, as stipulated by the parties, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
at its Richmond, Indiana, plant, including leadmen and truck-
drivers, but excluding all office clerical employees, all plant cleri-
cal employees, all professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Re-
gional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and
makes the following findings : 1
In objection No. I the Petitioner alleges that, in certain letters
and charts sent to its employees, the Employer misquoted the wages
of other companies which it used as a basis of comparison with its
own wages. The Regional Director found that'the chart, when read
together with the Employer's statements in the accompanying letter-
that the employees of Divco and Johns-Manville would be "better
off" and "receiving more money" working at Purina-clearly implied
1 The Regional Director recommended that objection No. II be overruled, and concluded
that other allegations of interference were without merit. In the absence of exceptions,
his recommendations as to these matters are adopted.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that all figures set forth in the chart reflected total earnings 2 of
employees rather than straight hourly rates and that on such basis
Purina employees were not receiving more money. The Regional
Director, relying on Hollywood Ceramios,3 therefore found that the
Employer's chart and the letter materially misrepresented hourly
earnings at the two plants, and that such misrepresentation, made at
a time when the Petitioner had no effective opportunity to reply prior
to the election, may reasonably be expected to have had a significant
impact upon the election.
We find merit in the Employer's exceptions. We believe that the
Regional Director erred in attributing to the Employer's latter and
chart more than can be reasonably read into them. Contrary to the
Regional Director, we find that the Employer's letter and chart at-
tempted to do no more than compare only "hourly rates." It referred
to the hourly rates of its own employees and compared them with
the hourly rates of employees of other companies. - In the facts as
set out by the Regional Director there was no basis whatever to assume
that the Employer was attempting to compare "hourly earnings" and
that therefore it misrepresented the total earnings of the other em-
ployees by omitting reference to such items as overtime and shift pre-
miums. 'Indeed, it must have been evident to the Employer's own
employees that the Employer was not comparing hourly earnings
since they had sufficient familiarity with the Employer's pay sched-
ules to realize that the rates set forth in the Employer's chart did not
reflect all of their own earnings since they did not include their own
overtime and shift premiums.'
We find nothing in Hollywood Ceramics to alter our conclusion that
there was no misrepresentation. For one thing, the Employer iden-
tified the companies with whom the comparison was being made thus
providing employees with a further means of evaluating the inform. a:
tion contained therein." For another, the statements made by the
Employer herein did not concern matters of which he could be pre-
2 The Employer , unlike the other companies selected for comparison, does not operate on
an incentive pay system. Thus, according to the Regional Director, the vice of the impli-
cation that the rates shown included such fringe factors as incentive , overtime, and shift
premium earnings lies in the fact that it enabled the Employer to understate the average
earnings of Divco and Johns Manville by 42 or 43 cents on the incentive factor alone,
and that the grossly disproportionate wage rates resulting therefrom could have influenced
voters.
2 Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221.
'In this connection , the Employer points out that it had previously mailed to its em-
ployees a wage comparison involving five different companies, which was similarly based
on hourly rates, not, hourly earnings, without objection from the Petitioner, and that there
is no evidence to indicate that the employees had understood the figures stated to be any-
thing but a comparison of basic hourly rates. Moreover, it is clear that had the Employer
made a comparison of "hourly earnings," it still would have been justified 1n saying that
the employees of Divco and Johns-Manville would be "receiving more money" working at
Purina, for the hourly earnings of its employees , including overtime pay, would still have
been in excess of that earned by the employees of the other companies.
s Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., supra, at 224, See also Hook Drugs, Inc., 119
NLRB 1502, 1505.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC. 509
sumed to have special knowledge. No such special knowledge existed
here. The source of the Employer's representation with respect to the
rates of the other companies came from the published contracts of the
other companies, and indeed, the contracts were readily available to
the Petitioner for possible refutation of the Employer's claims since
the contracts had been negotiated by UAW locals.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner had an effec-
tive opportunity to reply. The letter and chart were distributed on
December 31, 1963, and the election was not held until January 3,
1964. Only 34 employees were involved in the election and all lived
in the same small town. It would not have consumed much time for
the Petitioner to have communicated with each employee, if it seriously
believed that the Employer had materially misrepresented some matter
of special significance in the preelection campaign, particularly as the
Union's president also maintained an address in the same town as the
34 employees. Finally, we cannot view the Employer's statement as
a material misrepresentation within the intent of Hollywood Ceramics
even if the campaign literature were susceptible of the interpretation
placed on it by the Regional Director, for it is clear that the employees
knew enough about the Employer's rates to have realized that no such
meaning was intended.
For the reasons hereinabove set forth we do not adopt the Regional
Director's recommendation that objection No. I be sustained. Ac-
cordingly, as we have overruled objection No. I, as no other objections
of the Petitioner were sustained by the Regional Director, and as the
tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner failed to receive a majority
of the votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America., AFL-CIO, and its Local
Union No. 1119, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that this labor or-
ganization is not the exclusive representative of the employees em-
ployed by Ralston Purina Company, in the unit found appropriate.].
General Motors Corporation ( Buick-Oldsmobile -Pontiac Assem-
bly Division ) and Eddie Adams
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO [General
Motors Corporation ] and Eddie Adams . Cases Nos. 21-CA-5298
and 21-013-2156. June 18, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Eddie Adams, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
147 NLRB No. 59.