Tennessee Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1755 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. 1755
Tennessee Packers, Inc. and United Packinghouse Workers of
America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4275. June 19,
1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
January 9 and 10 , 1959, among the employees in the unit described
below . After the election , the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that , of approximately 251 eligible voters, 244
cast valid ballots , of which 146 were against , and 80 were for, the
Petitioner . Eighteen ballots were challenged . The Petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results and conduct of the
election.
After investigation , the Regional Director on March 3 , 1959, issued
and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he
recommended that all the objections , except one , be overruled . There-
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions only to the one recom-
mendation. As no exceptions were filed with respect to the Regional
Director 's recommendations that the other objections be overruled,
we hereby adopt them.
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 Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and we find that all production and main-
tenance employees employed at the Employer 's Clarksville , Tennessee,
plant, including truckdrivers and warehousemen, but excluding office
clerical employees, managerial employees, shipping and receiving
clerks, assistant foremen, foremen , the superintendent , gang leaders,
.guards, and all other 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.
123 NLRB No. 208.
1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The objection that was sustained by the Regional Director per-
tained to the payment of wage increases prior to the above election.
The stipulation herein was signed by the Petitioner on January 2, by
the Employer on January 3, and was approved by the Regional
Director on January 5, 1959. The investigation showed that approxi-
mately 44 employees were given wage increases ranging from 5 cents
to 10 cents per hour on the same day that the Petitioner signed the
stipulation. Although the wage increases were made effective as of
December 21, 1958, a number of the employees had no knowledge of
the increases until they were paid on January 2, 1959.1 The pro-
cedural issue raised is whether the petitioning Union is precluded
from raising these wage increases as a basis for setting aside the elec-
tion because of the date upon which they were given.
In The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company case 2 and sub-
sequent cases, the Board has established the rule that the date of execu-
tion of an agreement for consent election or a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election in uncontested cases marks the cutoff period
for Board consideration of objections: alleged interference occurring
before then will not be considered on its merits by the Board, while
alleged interference occurring after those dates will be considered on
the merits. However, the meaning of the term "date of execution"
has not been defined. In finding that the granting of the wage in-
creases on January 2, 1959, was not barred from consideration by the
cutoff rule, the Regional Director concluded that "conduct occurring
on the date that the stipulation is signed by one party should be con-
sidered on its merits as a basis for setting aside an election when such
conduct is adverse to that party's interest." We do not agree. A
stipulation agreement for an election is not duly executed or binding
upon the parties until it is signed by both the employer and labor
organization involved. Consequently, for purposes of applying the
cutoff rule , we hold that the execution date mentioned therein is the
date on which the last necessary party (either the employer or the
labor organization) signs the agreement. Therefore, as the Em-
ployer signed the agreement after the wage increases complained of
were given , we will not consider the objection based thereon as a
basis for overturning the instant election . As it appears that the
1 In light of our subsequent disposition discussed below we find it unnecessary to resolve
the dispute as to the factual findings of the Regional Director raised by the Employer in
its exceptions.
a 101 NLRB 1118. See also, F. W. Woolworth Company. 109 NLRB 1446 ; Berman Steel
Company, 115 NLRB 1581, 1582; Joanna Western Mills Co., 119 NLRB 1789.
ORLEANS STORAGE COMPANY, INC. 1757
Petitioner did not receive a majority of the votes cast, we shall certify
the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for the United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the employees in the unit found appropriate.]
Orleans Storage Company, Inc. and General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Independent , Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-
1871. June 22, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
October 23, 1958, among the employees in the unit described below.
After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that, of approximately five eligible voters, three cast
ballots for, and two against the Petitioner. None of the ballots were
challenged. The Employer filed timely objections to the conduct of
the election. After an investigation, the Regional Director on
March 25, 1959, issued his report on objections, in which he found
that the objections raised no substantial and material issues affecting
the results of the election and recommended that they be overruled
and the Petitioner certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the unit. The Employer filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report. It also filed a companion motion
and supporting brief.
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 Rodgers 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. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
123 NLRB No. 209.