Southern Car & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 221 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 221
The Petitioner contends that Clarence Thompson, a litho-
grapher, is not eligible to vote because be had nqt started work
at the time of the hearing, while the Employer contends that
he should be permitted to vote as he was already hired at the
date of the hearing. In accordance with our usual practice, we
will permit Thompson to vote if he was employed during the
payroll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction
of Election,-' and meets the other conditions of eligibility set
forth therein.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 The Goldenberg Company, 77 NLRB 335.
6The Petitioner requests that the Board fix the eligibility period as the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of the instant hearing However, we perceive no reason for
departing from our usual practice in this respect.
SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOUIS
C. TATE, Petitioner and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION NO.
539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL
SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner
and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos . 10-RD-
116 and 10-RM - 115. November 25, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On August 4, 1953, pursuant to a Decisionand Order' issued
by the Board on July 14, 1953, an election was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region , among the employees of the Employer in the unit
found appropriate in the Decision .' Upon the conclusion of the
election , the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which
showed that, of approximately 67 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots,
of which 33 were for , and 24 against, the Union and 1 was
challenged.
On August 10, 1953, the Employer and employee Tate jointly
filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the
election. After an investigation , the Regional Director, on
September 18, 1953, issued and served upon the parties his
report on objections , in which he found that the objections did
1106 NLRB 144.
2 An election had theretofore been held among the employees in this unit on March 3, 1953,
pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election . The Union filed objections
to that election and the Board issued the above-mentioned decision in which it sustained the
objections , set aside the election , and directed that a new election be held.
107 NLRB No. 66.
337593 0 - 55 - 16
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not raise material and substantial issues with respect to the
results of the election, and recommended that the objections be
overruled and that the Union be certified on the basis of the
tally of ballots. The Employer and Tate, on September 24, 1953,
jointly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on
objections.
The exceptions are confined to the Regional Director's
disposition of the objection alleging that the Union interfered
with a meeting conducted by the Employer on the day before
the election and thereby improperly affected the election
results.
The Regional Director reported, in substance, the following
uncontroverted facts 3 pertaining to the above objection:
The Employer arranged for a meeting with its employees to
be held August 3, 1953, at a club off the company premises and
after working hours. The Union wired the Employer requesting
an opportunity to attend and address the meeting and on August
2 received the Employer's answering telegram, in which the
request was denied with the statement that the meeting was to
be private, "without union interference or surveillance." The
next day, three union representatives stationed themselves in
front of the club where the meeting was to be held and counted
the employees as they arrived. There, the union representatives
also approached Kaiser and Barber, the Employer's president
and attorney, respectively, and renewed their earlier request
to attend and address the meeting, which was again denied. A
short time later, they entered the lobby of the club, but Kaiser
and Barber stopped them, denied a further request to take part
in the meeting, escorted them out, and locked the entrance door.
The union representatives remained outside, near the entrance
to the club, throughout the meeting. One employee, arriving late
and finding the door locked, asked them whether the meeting was
being held there, and after a brief exchange, one of them stated
to the employee, in substance , "Stay out here with us. What do
you want to go in there for, anyhow?" However, the employee
entered the club. When the meeting ended at 8 p. m., the union
representatives distributed handbills to the departing em-
ployee s.
The Regional Director rejected the contention of the Em-
ployer and Tate that the Union's conduct at the club was
equivalent to an employer's surveillance of union activities
and therefore interference with the election. He concluded
further that the Union's actions in connection with the meeting
3 While the exceptions assert that the facts are neither fully nor accurately set forth in the
Regional Director ' s report, they fail to indicate in what respects the facts are deficient.
Although it is alleged as a fact that conduct at union meetings , involving assaults, are
relevant in this case , no specific instances thereof are adverted to. The Regional Director
found, and we agree , that one such incident , occurring on January 19, 1953, "can hardly
be considered to constitute such a background as to indicate that the actions of the 3 union
officials [described below] was a warning of violence."
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 223
did not in any manner constitute such interference as to
warrant setting aside the election.4
We agree with the conclusion of the Regional Director that
the objection lacks merit. Without regard to how the conduct
of the union representatives is characterized , we are per-
suaded, and find, that it did not prevent the sort of free and
untrammeled choice of representatives contemplated by the
Act. Under all the circumstances , we conclude , as did the
Regional Director , that the objection does not raise material
and substantial issues respecting the results of the election.
As the Tally of Ballots shows that the Union obtained a
majority of the valid votes cast in the election , we shall
certify the Union as the certified bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Shopmen's Local Union No. 539 of the
International Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL, as the designated collective -bargainingrepresentative of
the employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found
appropriate.]
41n connection with this objection , the Employer and Tate allege that the union repre-
sentatives , in the course of their conduct at the club , violated sections of the code of the
city of Birmingham and the State of Alabama. The Regional Director rejected this argument
on the ground that the Board is not the proper agency for the determination of such issues,
that such issues are not germane and, moreover , that there was no evidence that any of the
union representatives have been convicted for such alleged violations.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and BIAGI FRUIT & PROD-
UCE COMPANY. Case No. 9-CD- 19. November 27, 1953
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which
provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
paragraph 4 (D) of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and
directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such
unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ."
On August 26, 1953, Biagi Fruit & Produce Company, herein
called the Company, filed with the Regional Director for the
Ninth Region a charge alleging that Teamsters Local 175,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the
Respondent , had engaged in and was engaging in certain
107 NLRB No. 70.