Rinn Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1410 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rinn Corporation and International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5662. January 27, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
approved August 15, 1957, an election was conducted on August 22,
1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees of the Employer's
Chicago, Illinois, plant. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
35 eligible voters, 11 voted for the Petitioner, 18 against the Petitioner,
and 6 ballots were challenged. The challenges were insufficient to
affect the results of the election.
On August 26, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election, copies of which were duly
served upon the Employer. In accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation
of the objections, and on September 25, 1957, issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the
objections be overruled and a certificate of results of the election issue.
On December 9, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's 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 Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
Petitioner's exceptions, and upon the entire record in this case finds :
.1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, 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 of the Employer's Chi-
cago, Illinois, plant, excluding office and plant clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
119 NLRB No. 147.
RINN CORPORATION 1411.
5. The objections:'
The main objection of the Petitioner concerns a meeting called by
the Employer for 12.01 p. in. on the employees'. lunch time, 4 hours
before the election. The notice stated that the meeting was to be
strictly voluntary, that it was against the law for the Company to
request the employees' presence at a meeting on company time within
24 hours of the election but that the employees could attend on a volun-
tary basis, on their own time, and urged the employees "to do so in
your own best interests." The purpose of the meeting was to com-
ment briefly on certain statements made in a union circular distributed
the morning of the election.
The Regional Director found that the meeting lasted approximately
5 minutes, that the president of the Company spoke, but that no evi-
dence was adduced to show that his statements exceeded the bounds
of permissive election campaigning. It was also conceded that the
meeting was held on the employees' own time, as they were never paid
for their lunch time. Petitioner adduced no evidence to show that
the employees were compelled to attend the meeting. The Regional
Director therefore found that as the meeting was not conducted on
company time and that as the attendance was voluntary, there was
no violation of the Peerless Plywood rule.'
In its exceptions 3 to the report, Petitioner urged that the statement
in the notice, namely, "we urge you to do so in your own best interest"
negates the contention that the meeting was voluntary and constituted
in fact a thinly veiled command to attend, which any employee could
not ignore because the plant is small, containing only 30 production
and maintenance workers and any employee who refused to attend
would make himself readily conspicuous by his absence. For the rea-
sons stated above we find no merit in this contention.
As we find that the attendance of the employees at the meeting in
question was voluntary and held on the employees' own time, we adopt
i In addition to the objection herein considered , the Petitioner contended that the
Employer had unlawfully urged certain employees to reject the Union. As no evidence
was adduced in support of this objection, we adopt the Regional Director's recommendation
that the objection be overruled.
2 107 NLRB 427; Superior Sleeprite Corp., 117 NLRB 430.
8 The Petitioner in its exceptions further urged that the Regional Director erred in
refusing and failing to give effect to a stipulation between the Petitioner and the Employer
wherein it was agreed that the election should be set aside and a new election ordered
based essentially upon an admission that the Peerless Plywood rule was violated by the
Employer . On November 13, 1957, the Board ordered the Regional Director to issue a
supplemental report on objections setting forth the circumstances surrounding the execu-
tion and recision of the stipulation to set the election aside. Such supplemental report
was issued on November 20, 1957, followed by timely exceptions by the Petitioner and a
reply brief, permitted by the Board, by the Employer. From the supplemental report it
appears that the stipulation was contingent upon a date for a new election being agreed
upon , and when such date could not be agreed on, the Employer notified the Regional
Director it was rescinding the stipulation. Accordingly, the stipulation was never ap-
proved by the Regional Director, and he proceeded to investigate the objections on their
merits. For the reasons set forth in the Regional Director 's supplemental report, we find
that he properly considered the objections on the merits.
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director's recommendation that the objection be
overruled.
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of the
valid ballots 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, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said
organization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's
employees in the appropriate unit.]
W. H. Nicholson and Company I and International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3483.
January 28,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Alan Zurlnick, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. W. H. Nicholson and Company Employees' Independent Union
was permitted to intervene at the hearing. Upon objection by the
Petitioner, which contended, as discussed below, that that organization
no longer existed, the hearing officer permitted intervention alterna-
tively by Certain Individuals, Employees of W. H. Nicholson and
Company.' The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current
contract, which will expire in November 1958, bars this petition. The
Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because the Inter-
venor is defunct.
- The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
9 As it appears that neither of these intervening organizations is in compliance with the.
provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, Member Jenkins, for the reasons
expressed in his dissenting opinion in West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 118 NLRB.
1595, would not allow them to intervene.
119 NL1IB No. 176.