Richards Container Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1435 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

RICHARDS CONTAINER CORPORATION 1435
sufficient reason for taking jurisdiction is that the `Employer is en-
gaged-in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
Richards Container Corporation and Miscellaneous Warehouse-
men & Production Employees ' Union, Local 781 , I. B. T. C. W.
& H, Petitioner. Case No. 13-PC-4537. December 20,1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
approved on August 30, 1955, an election by secret ballot was con-
-ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region on September 15, 1955, among employees
in the stipulated unit. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally
of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that, of approximately
-23 eligible voters, 22 cast ballots, of which 9 were for and 12 against
the Petitioner, and I ballot was challenged. The challenged ballot
is not sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On September 19, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of election. In accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region caused an investigation to be made, and on November
2, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objec-
tions. In his report, the Regional Director found, without ruling on
the Petitioner's objections Nos. 1 and 2, that the Employer's acts as
-alleged in Petitioner's objection No. 3 interfered with the employees'
,freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.
Accordingly, he recommended that the objection No. 3 be sustained
and that the election be set aside. Thereafter, on November 14, 1955,
the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report and to his recommendation that the election be set aside.
The Board, having considered the Regional Director's report on
objections, the Employer's exceptions, and the entire record in this
case, finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
114 NLRB No. 220.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Broadview, Illinois, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Regional Director's investigation reveals, with respect to the
Petitioner's objection No. 3, that between August 30 and September 9,
1955, the Employer's president called, on company time, 4 or 5 em-
ployee groups, comprising substantially all of the employees here in-
volved, into his office for 10- to 15-minute periods for the purpose of
conveying to the employees his preference for a "No" vote in the forth-
coming election. In its exceptions, the Employer accepts the state-
ments of evidence made by the Regional Director as to the acts of the
Employer,' but contends that the evidence does not support the Re-
gional Director's recommendations.
The Board has held that the technique of calling employees prior
to an election into an employer's office individually and in small groups
and urging that they reject the union is in itself conduct which in.
terferes with a free choice by the employees and warrants the setting
aside of the election, regardless of the noncdercive tenor of the em-
ployer's actual remarks.'
,. Under these circumstances, we find no merit to the Employer's con-
tention, and shall, therefore, order that the election be set aside and
direct that a new election be held.3
[The Board set aside the election held on September 15, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
' Because no issue is raised as to the commission of these acts , we find it unnecessary
to direct a hearing with respect thereto.
2 General Shoe Corporation, 97 NLRB 499 : Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB
947; Oregon Frozen Foods Company , 113 NLRB 881
3 We also find without merit the Employer ' s contention that the Regional Director's
recommendations are based upon findings unrelated to the specific allegations of Peti-
tioner 's objection No. 3.
Homer Politte , d/b/a H & P Mining Company and Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union , CIO,' Petitioner.
Case No. 14-RC-2812. December 21, 1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipuration for certification upon consent election
entered into between the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Regional
i The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Union accordingly.
114 NLRB No. 228.