Stanley Smith Security

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 225 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

STANLEY SMITH SECURITY
Stanley Smith Security, Inc. and Reggie D. Sim-
mons, an Employee Petitioner and Pacific
Northwest Local 3, International Union of Se-
curity Officers
Stanley Smith Security, Inc. Employer-Petitioner
and Pacific Northwest Local 3, International
Union of Security Officers. Cases 19-RD-1884
and 19-RM-1788
30 April 1984
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held 15 April 1983 and the hearing offi-
cer's report recommending disposition of them.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
Employer's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts
the hearing officer's recommendation only to the
extent consistent herewith.
In his report the hearing officer sustained the
part of the Union's Objection I concerning the
Employer's grant of preelection benefits and rec-
ommended that the Board order a new election.
We do not accept the hearing officer's finding that
the benefits in this case constituted objectionable
interference with the election; consequently, we de-
cline to direct a new election. '
On 29 September 1982 Employee-Petitioner
Reggie D. Simmons filed a petition to decertify the
Union.2 Due to several blocking charges filed by
the Union the election was postponed indefinitely.
Thereafter, the Regional Director scheduled the
election for 15 April 1983.3
About 3 weeks before Christmas 1982, approxi-
mately midway between the filing of the decertifi-
cation petition and the 15 April election, the Em-
ployer announced its intention to issue to all em-
ployees in the voting unit gift certificates of $10
toward the purchase of a ham or turkey. The $10
certificates were actually distributed to the employ-
ees just prior to the Christmas holiday. This type
of benefit had not been granted by the Employer in
previous years.
I In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing offi-
cer's recomn endations that the remainder of Objection I and Objections
2 through 9 be overruled.
' The Employer's petition was filed 16 December 1982 at the request
of its employees that the Employer cease bargaining with the Union until
an election could be held.
' The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agree-
ment dated 30 March 1983. The tally of ballots shows 18 for and 27
against the Union, with 4 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to
affect the results.
270 NLRB No. 38
The hearing officer apparently credited the testi-
mony of the Employer's northwest area manager
that the decision to issue the gift certificates origi-
nated at a higher corporate level, and that the cer-
tificates were distributed to all employees in Stan-
ley Smith Security's five-state northwest region,
not just to the employees in the voting unit. How-
ever, the hearing officer found that the Employer
had not made a sufficient affirmative showing that
its preelection gifts were not intended to influence
the result of the pending election. Based on this
finding, he recommended that the election result be
set aside. We disagree.
The Board in Northern Telecom, 233 NLRB
1104, 1105 (1977), found that where an increase in
benefits resulted from a corporatewide decision and
was implemented corporatewide in a normal busi-
ness fashion, election results will not be set aside.'
Here the decision to give the gift certificates for
Christmas was made by the Employer's regional
manager for the Rocky Mountain States. There
was no evidence to indicate that he was aware of
the pending election petition. As noted above, the
gift certificates were issued not only to the employ-
ees in the voting unit, but also to all of the Em-
ployer's hourly workers that worked in the five
Rocky Mountain States. Further, the certificates
were issued at a time when the Respondent was
unsure when the election would be held because of
blocking charges, and the election, in fact, was not
held until 3-1/2 months after the certificates were
distributed. We also note that the gift certificates
were for $10, a fairly small amount, and that the
Employer had not engaged in any other objection-
able conduct.
Although there is a presumption of illegal motive
for benefits granted prior to an election the Board 5
generally finds not objectionable benefits granted in
the critical period which are pursuant to a past
practice or a decision reached prior to the filing of
a petition. It has further indicated "where an in-
crease in benefits results from a corporatewide de-
cision and is implemented corporatewide in a
normal business fashion, election results will not be
set aside [footnote citation omitted]."6 Further, it
has, depending on the surrounding circumstances,
also found not objectionable the granting of bene-
fits which were neither pursuant to a past practice
Contrary to the hearing officer's interpretation of the case, the
Board's holding was not based on the fact that the decision concerning
the benefits was made prior to the petition being filed, but instead on its
determination that the granting of benefits was not calculated to and did
not interfere with the employees' freedom of choice.
' Chairman Dotson finds it unnecessary to rely on any presumptions.
e Northern Telecom Inc., 233 NLRB at 1105.
- -
225
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nor to a decision made before the petition has been
filed. 7
Having considered the circumstances surround-
ing the issuance of the gift certificates, we find that
their issuance was not calculated to interfere with
the election. Accordingly, we reject the hearing of-
ficer's recommendation, overule Objection 1 in its
' See, e.g., Model Dye Southern, 246 NLRB 589 (1979).
entirety, and order the certification of the results of
the 15 April election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for Pacific Northwest
Local 3, International Union of Security Officers,
and that it is not the the exclusive representative of
these bargaining unit employees.
226