Riegel Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1330 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an immediate election among those employees presently em-
ployed, including as eligible all temporary or seasonal em-
ployees who may appear on the current payroll.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
R I E G E L PAPER CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS , AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 4-RC-1938 . February 25, 1954
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion signed on April 10, 1953, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on April 30, 1953, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, among
the employees in the stipulated unit . Following the election a
tally of ballots was furnished the parties . The tally shows that
of approximately 1,220 eligible voters, 530 voted for , and 639
voted against , the Petitioner . There were also 2 challenged
and 2 void ballots.
On May, 6 , 1953, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct
of the Employer allegedly affecting the results of the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on
May 27, 1953 , issued a report on objections in which he rec-
ommended that the objections be overruled . Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report. On June 24 , 1953, the Board directed that a hearing
be held on the Petitioner's objections . Pursuant to this order,
a hearing was held before Lewis Moore, hearing officer, at
which the Employer and the Petitioner appeared and partici-
pated . On November 20, 1953, the hearing officer issued his
report on objection to election , in which he recommended that
one of the objections be sustained and the election be set aside.
Thereafter , the Employer and the Petitioner filed timely ex-
ceptions to the report together with supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. ' Having con-
sidered the hearing officer's report, the exceptions , the briefs,
and the entire record inthe case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, claims
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
'The Employer has requested oral argument . The request is denied as the record and
briefs adequately present the issues and the position of the parties.
107 NLRB No. 270.
RIEGEL PAPER CORPORATION 1331
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) 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 meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Riegelsville, Warren Glen, Hughesville, and Milford, New
Jersey, plants, excluding office clerical employees, plant cler-
ical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. As stated above, a majority of employees in the unit voted
against representation by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has
objected to the election upon the following grounds: (1) In vio-
lation of a company rule against solicitation, the Employer, on
April 28 and 29, 1953, distributed to employees antiunion
literature on company time and property, and refused the
Petitioner permission to distribute answering literature under
similar circumstances; and (2) the literature distributed by the
Employer was coercive in nature.
On April 28, 1953, 2 days before the election, the Employer
placed in stacks at various accessible points in its mills copies
of an article from Life magazine entitled "High Noon."z Several
supervisors, apparently against the orders of the Employer,
also personally distributed to some employees copies of the
article together with their paychecks. On the following day,
the Petitioner requested an opportunity to distribute literature
answering the High Noon article on company time and property
under the conditions which prevailed when the Employer made
its distribution of that article. The Employer refused, stating
that the Petitioner had always distributed its literature outside
the plant gates and could do so this time. Following the denial
of this request, the Petitioner distributed at the plant gates
copies of a propaganda leaflet alluding to the High Noon ar-
ticle. Several employees took stacks of this leaflet into the
mill and placed them in conspicuous places about the plant.
No employee was disciplined for this action. At midnight on
April 29, in accordance with its past practice, the Employer
removed all election literature from the plants, including the
High Noon reprint.
The hearing officer found that the Employer had in effect a
rule barring the distribution of literature on company time and
property, and that, by making the April 28 distribution of the
High Noon article in the plant and refusing the Petitioner an
opportunity to make a similar distribution in answer thereto, it
interfered with the election. The Employer contends, inter alia,
that there was no rule such as that found by the hearing officer.
Responsible officials of the Employer categorically denied
the existence of any such rule. The Employer's rules handbook
2 This article, which appeared in the April 13, 1953, issue of Life, dealt pictorially with a
strike conducted by the Petitioner at a southern paper mill.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prepared for distribution to employees makes no mention of
the alleged rule . There was also evidence that in the present
and earlier elections , employees had carried into the plant
with them, and posted or distributed , campaign literature
friendly to the Petitioner without interference by the Employer.
The hearing officer admitted that there was no documentary
evidence of the existence of the alleged no-solicitation rule.
In making his finding, he relied on 2 items of circumstantial
evidence : ( 1) In previous elections neither the Employer nor
the Petitioner had directly distributed campaign literature on
plant premises ; and (2 ) on one occasion in May 1951 , and again
in April 1953, the latter described above , supervisors had
prevented employees from distributing literature on company
property. The *past practice is not necessarily indicative of a
prohibition imposed by the Employer . The 2 separate incidents,
2 years apart , are too isolated to spell out a general rule. We
conclude on the basis of a preponderance of all the evidence,
contrary to the hearing officer, that there was no company rule'
against the distribution of campaign literature on companytime
and property. Accordingly, we find that the Employer did not
interfere with the election by distributing the High Noon article
on company time and premises and by refusing the Petitione?
the opportunity of distributing an answer thereto under similar
circumstances.
The hearing officer found , and we agree, that the article
High Noon was not coercive.
As we have found that the Petitioner ' s objections are without
merit , we hereby overrule them.
The Petitioner failedto receive a majority of the votes cast in
the election . We shall therefore certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for the Petitioner , International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, AFL, and that the Petitioner is not the exclusive
representative of the employees employed at the Employer's
Milford, Riegelsville , Warren Glen , and Hughesville, New
Jersey, plants , in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be
appropriate.]
BANNER DIE FIXTURE CO. and LOCAL #155, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-2059 . February 25, 1954
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , ORDER, AND
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Electionissued here-
in on April 8, 1953,' an Order issued herein on April 20, 1953,
1Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
107 NLRB No. 267.