Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1420 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tampa Crown Distributors , Inc. and Teamsters , Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local Union 79, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-99. September 19, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated May 28,
1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 7, 1957, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twelfth
Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the
above-mentioned Decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was fur-
nished the parties, showing that out of 8 voters casting valid ballots,
4 voted for the Petitioner, 3 voted against the Petitioner, and 1 cast
a challenged ballot. On June 11, 1957, the Employer filed objections
to conduct affecting the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re-
gional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objec-
tions and on July 9, 1957, issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on objections, in which he found that the objections were
without merit and recommended that they be overruled. He also
recommended that the single challenge be sustained and that the
Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer
filed timely exceptions to the report on objections.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
The facts pertaining to the Employer's objections are not in dispute.
On the evening of June 5, 1957, employee Roland Paz received a
phone call from an anonymous caller who asked him how much he
loved his daughter. After Paz replied that he did love his daughter,
the caller told him, "Well, you better vote for the Union." On the
following evening employee Lionel Sardinas received a phone call
from an anonymous caller who told him to "watch out how [he]
voted on the following day's union election, or he will be sorry." The
following day the election was held.
Neither employee was able to identify his caller, and investigation
revealed that no similar calls were received by any other employee
nor had any other employees received threats or heard of threats be-
ing made to other employees relative to the election.
'.Not reported in the printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 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].
118 NLRB No. 190.
TAMPA CROWN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 1421
The Regional Director concluded that in the absence of any evi-
dence attributing the calls to the Petitioner, such conduct was not
sufficient to place the election in a general atmosphere of fear and
reprisal as to render impossible the free and uncoerced choice of a
bargaining representative.
The Employer in its exceptions contends that the anonymous
threats prevented a free election because of the small size of the unit
and the closeness of the election, and because the only reasonable
conclusion to be drawn by the threatened employees was that the calls
were caused by the Union. The Employer also contends that this
case is distinguishable from other cases in which threats by rank-and-
file employees were found not to interfere with elections because in
those cases the identity of the persons making the threats was known
to the threatened employees.
We find no merit in the Employer's contentions. In the absence of
evidence that threatening or coercive conduct is attributable to one
of the participating parties, the Board will not set aside an election,'
unless the character of the conduct is so aggravated as to create a
general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free expression
of choice of representatives impossible .4
The conduct of the anonymous caller cannot be attributed to the
Petitioner merely because the employees who were called did not
recognize the callers' voices, even assuming, as the Employer contends,
that they were familiar with the voices of their fellow employees.
Furthermore, the two anonymous and unpublicized calls I in this case,
while reprehensible, are clearly distinguishable from the conduct in-
volved in those cases where the Board has set aside elections without
attributing the objectionable conduct to any of the participating
parties's and in our opinion was not such as to create a general at-
mosphere of fear and reprisal among the Employer's employees.
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director that the objections
should be overruled.7
The Regional Director found that the single challenge should be
sustained, and no one has excepted to that finding. Accordingly, we
find that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast
3J. Spevak & Co ., Inc., 110 NLRB 954; White's Uvalde Mines, 110 NLRB 278; Gruen
Watch Company, 108 NLRB 610; Harman Bag Company, Inc., 103 NLRB 456 ; J. J. New-
berry Company, 100 NLRB 84.
4 Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 116 NLRB 1732; The Falmouth Com-
pany , 114 NLRB 896; Diamond State Poultry Co., Inc., 107 NLRB. 3.
6 We note that the call to Sardinas, while threatening in tone, failed to identify the
caller as either for or against the Petitioner and did not indicate how the caller wanted
him to vote.
e Compare cases cited in footnote 3 above.
Gruen Watch Company; Marman Bag Company, Inc.; and J. J. Newberry Company,
supra.
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,.
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, as the desig-
nated collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's truck
drivers, warehousemen, and helpers at Tampa, Florida, in the unit
found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.]:
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Soft Drink Work--
ers, Waste Paper Handlers, State , County and Municipal
Drivers and Helpers Local Union No . 86, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help -
ers of America, AFL-CIO. Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2980.
September 19,195'
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On April 3, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election herein.' On May 1 the election was held. The tally of bal-
lots discloses that, of approximately 108 eligible voters, 46 cast valid
ballots for the Petitioner, 58 cast valid ballots against the Petitioner,
and 2 cast ballots that were challenged. The Petitioner therefore lost
the election. On May 6, the Petitioner filed six objections to the con-
duct of the election or to conduct affecting the results of the election.
On or about July 25, the Regional Director, after investigating the
issues raised by the objections, issued and served on the parties his
report on objections to election. The Regional Director found that
objection 1 raised substantial and material issues affecting the results
of the election and recommended that this objection be sustained and
the election set aside. He recommended that the other objections be
overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations with respect to ob-
jection 1. As no other exceptions were filed, we 2 shall adopt the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendations concerning the. other
objections and accordingly we shall overrule them. We shall con-
sider only objection 1.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the Petitioner's objec-
tions, the. Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions,
the Board finds :
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 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 Murdock and Bean].
118 NLRB No. 189.