Stevenson Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

STEVENSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Stevenson Equipment Company and General Truck
Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local
No. 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
Case 20-RC-7957
February 27, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election approved on February 20, 1968, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on March
12, 1968, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 20 among the
employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished with a
tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
24 eligible voters, 23 cast ballots, of which 17 were
for, and 2 against, the Petitioner. Four ballots were
challenged, which were not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election.
On March 19, the Employer filed objections to
the election. On March 25, the Regional Director
issued a Report on Objections recommending that
the Board overrule them for failure to comply with
Section 102.69 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The Employer
filed exceptions to the report. On June 20, the
Board ordered that an investigation be conducted to
resolve the issues raised by the objections.
The Regional Director conducted an investigation
and on July 22 issued and duly served upon the
parties his Supplemental Report, Order, and Notice
of Hearing on Objections in which he found that the
investigation disclosed substantial and material
issues of fact, and ordered that a hearing be held to
resolve the issues, before a Hearing Officer
designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing
and preparing recommendations to the Board.
Following such a hearing, in his report, issued on
September 26, 1968, the Hearing Officer
recommended that the objections be overruled in
their entirety and that the Petitioner be certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will 'effectuate the
8 65
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all
warehousemen, including military shipping and
receiving employees, employed at the Employer's
Santa Rosa operation and excluding all employees
presently covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The evidence shows that the Employer, in
addition to its equipment business, is engaged in a
packaging operation for the military. The employees
performing this operation comprise the bargaining
unit here sought to be represented by the Teamsters
Union. In December 1967, these 24 employees were
supervised by general superintendent Donald
Johnson, Day-Shift Supervisor Matt Espinosa, and
Night-Shift Supervisor Norman White. Shortly
before Christmas 1967, Johnson arranged a
luncheon meeting of all employees for the purpose
of discussing shop problems. White and Espinosa,
pursuant to Johnson's instructions, informed all of
the employees under them of the meeting. At the
meeting, which White and Espinosa also attended, a
question was raised as to whether it would be
advisable to ask the Union to talk to the employees.
Johnson then requested the employees to state their
views about a union.
In January 1968, another meeting was held.
White and Espinosa again told their employees of
the meeting and again were in attendance. At this
meeting, representatives of the Teasmters and of the
Machinists were introduced to the employees by
Johnson, and the union agents addressed the group.
The employees decided that they preferred the
Teamsters, and Teamsters authorization cards were
then passed out. Most of the employees, including
Johnson, Espinosa, and White, signed them at the
meeting.
On January 25, the Teamsters filed the instant
petition. On February 6, Johnson was discharged by
the Employer. Shortly after this discharge, Fred
Stevenson, vice president of the Employer, spoke to
the employees and told them that the Stevensons
wanted to get to know them better than they had
when Johnson was running the operation.
Johnson appeared at a meeting of the employees
on February 17 at the Union hall, and announced
that he had been terminated because of his activities
on behalf of the Union. There was a discussion of
the possibility that the Union would be able to win
Johnson's reinstatement as plant superintendent.
Espinosa and White were present at this meeting.
174 NLRB No. 128
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
White was discharged on February 24. He
nonetheless appeared at the Employer's premises on
March 12, when the election was held. During the
election period, which lasted for 30 minutes, White
stood at the doorway to the building in which the
polling was conducted and spoke to employees
before they entered the room. The polling booth was
located some 50 feet from the entrance at which
White stood. The record gives no indication of what
White said to the employees. There is also no direct
evidence that White was acting in any capacity on
behalf of the Union. The testimony does establish
that, shortly before the start of the election, White
was seen speaking to a Union representative as the
latter was leaving the building. Although an
Employer representative, noting White's presence
before the election began, had requested the Board
agent in charge of the election to "keep an eye" on
White, the Board agent, who was engaged in
conducting the election, did not attempt to interfere
with White's activity. The Employer representative,
once the election began, became aware of White's
approaches to the employees; however, he failed to
bring this conduct to the Board agent's attention.
The Employer contends that the election was
prejudiced by the participation of its supervisory
personnel in the Union's organizing efforts. Such
conduct may, depending on the circumstances, be
argued to have two different effects on employees. If
supervisors actively encourage employees to vote for
the Union, and the employer takes no known stance
to the contrary, the supervisory conduct might well
imply to the employees that the employer favors the
Union. Any such impression will be dissipated,
however, if, in one way or another, the employer's
antagonism to the Union is brought to the attention
of the employees.
It seems quite clear in this case that Johnson's
statement at the February 17 meeting that he had
been discharged for his activities on behalf of the
Union could have left little doubt in the minds of
the employees as to the Employer's sentiments
about the Union. By this declaration, as well as any
inference which the employees may have drawn
from the discharge of White a week later, the
employees were effectively informed that the
Employer not only did not favor the Union, but also
that he had taken steps to oppose it. If there had
been any misleading implication of Employer
favoritism to the Union by the prior conduct of the
supervisors, Johnson's remarks dispelled it.'
The other conceivable effect of such supervisory
activity is found in the implications of the
continuing relationship between the supervisors and
'Because of the presence of Espinosa and White at the meeting of
February 17, we take cognizance of the supervisory conduct occurring
prior to the filing of the petition. While we agree with the Hearing Officer
that the rule in Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB
1275, forbids specific reliance upon prepetition conduct as grounds for
objecting to an election , such conduct may properly be considered insofar
as it lends meaning and dimension to related postpetition conduct.
the employees. The Employer points out that,
although two of the three supervisors who had
displayed some interest' in unionization had been
discharged prior to the election, Supervisor Espinosa
was still employed on election day. Furthermore, at
the same meeting at which Johnson alleged that he
had been fired for union activity, there was some
discussion to the effect that the Union might be able
to secure his reinstatement.
From these facts, the Employer argues that the
employees' awareness that they would continue to be
directly supervised after the election by one, and
perhaps two, union-oriented supervisors could have
caused them to want to avoid risking the displeasure
of the supervisors which might be anticipated from a
union defeat. Fear of possible harassment or
discrimination by a disappointed supervisor, the
Employer contends, might well have • persuaded
employees to vote for the Union against their better
judgment.
We think it unreasonable to conclude that such
considerations played a part in the employees'
voting decisions. Insofar as this argument is founded
upon the prediction of Johnson's return to the
position of plant superintendent, it does not seem
likely that the employees would have regarded this
as more than a remote possibility. Espinosa presents
a somewhat different problem, since he remained in
the employ of the Employer through the election
date. But while Espinosa had demonstrated an
interest in having a union at the plant, it had hardly
been so marked or inordinate as to lead the
employees to fear possible retribution at Espinosa's
hands in the event that they rejected the Union.
There is certainly no evidence that Espinosa ever
indicated that there was a sound basis for such a
fear. Finally, Mr. Stevenson, the owner of the
Employer, had told the employees prior to the
election that he intended thereafter to govern the
operations of the plant more closely than he had
when Johnson was superintendent. We believe that
the employees most probably would have supposed
from this, and from Johnson's earlier remark to the
employees which evidenced strong Employer
opposition to the Union, that they would be able to
report to Stevenson any unfairness by Espinosa,
should he choose to maltreat them because of a
rejection of the Union. While it is not inconceivable
that some employees may have entertained a fear of
retaliation by Espinosa if they should vote against
the Union, we think that, without additional
evidence, the argument is simply too conjectural to
permit a finding that the election was improperly
affected by Espinosa's limited preelection conduct.
We also agree with the Hearing Officer's
conclusion that the evidence relating to former
supervisor White's conduct during the election is an
insufficient ground for setting the election aside.
White stood outside of the building in which the
polling was held and spoke to prospective voters as
they approached the building. There is no evidence
STEVENSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY 867
as to the nature of the remarks he made.
We agree with the Hearing Officer that the
evidence fails to show that White was an agent for
whose conduct the Union must be held responsible.
The brief conversation of unknown tenor between
White` and a union official prior to the election does
not suffice to establish agency. Furthermore, while it
might be supposed that the remarks made by White
to the employees were in the nature of
"electioneering" favorable to the Union, any
inference to this effect is weakened by the fact that
the Employer made no attempt to furnish real proof
of this allegation at the hearing. Since White's
remarks were not addressed to employees waiting in
line to vote and were not by an agent of the Union
(cf. Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 46), and further
were not shown to be "electioneering" by such an
agent in willful violation of officially established
limitations (cf. Star Expansion Industries
Corporation, 170 NLRB No. 47), we do not believe
that his conduct requires that the election must be
held invalid.
Accordingly, as the tally shows that the Petitioner
has obtained a majority of the valid ballots cast, we
shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 980,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
has been designated and selected by a majority of
the employees in the unit found appropriate in
paragraph 4 above, and that pursuant to Section
9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.