The Laclede Gas Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 839 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY , EMPLOYER and
UNITED GAS , COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
LOCAL 6 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
A. F. L., LOCAL No. 148
Case No. 14-RE-18
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 24, 1948
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order Setting Aside Direction
of Election , and Second Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board
herein, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 31, 1948,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region. Thereafter a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were 1121 eligible voters and
that 1064 cast ballots, of which 773 were for Local 6, 281 were for
Local 148 , 2 were against the participating labor organizations, 1 was
void , and 8 were challenged.
On September 7, 1948, Local 148 filed Objections to the Conduct of
Election and to Conduct Affecting Results of Election . Thereafter
on September 11, 1948, Local 6 filed an answer to the objections of
Local 148. On September 30, 1948, the Regional Director issued and
duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections , recommending
that the objections of Local 148 be dismissed . On October 15, 1948,
Local 148 filed Exceptions to the Report on Objections.
The objections of Local 148 are to the following effect:
(1) Persons employed as guards within the meaning of Section 9
(b) (3) of the Act, as amended , were not only included in the bargain-
ing unit which the Board found to be appropriate but they also cast
ballots in the election without challenge even though Board agents
knew that the names of these persons appeared on the eligibility list.
177 N. L. R. B. 354 as corrected on May 4, and amended on May 25, July 20 , and August
12, 1948.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 133.
839
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) An agreement and supplemental agreement entered into be-
tween the Employer and Local 148 in 1946 and 1947, respectively, was
in full force at the time of the election and therefore constituted a bar
to the election.
(3) The election did not represent the free choice of the employees
involved because (1) during the period immediately preceding the
election, Local 6 engaged in the following conduct: (a) it prevented
employees from attending open meetings which Local 148 had called
for the purpose of discussing the election issues, by coercing and
intimidating the employees by, among other things, congregating
around and encircling the entrance to such meeting places for the
purpose of surveying and identifying its employee-members who might
attempt to attend such meetings; and (b) it ordered its employee-
members to refrain from discussions involving their choice of bargain-
ing representative; and (2) on one occasion unknown parties tele-
phoned an employee and threatened personal harm to members of his
family if he persisted in advocating the selection of Local 148 as
bargaining representative.
(4) Although Local 148 had made it known before the election
that it would not approve the eligibility list until it obtained data
which would enable it to determine the eligibility of voters, Board
agents did not compel the production of this data.
(5) The Employer has rendered assistance to Local 6 during the
pendency of the present petition by negotiating agreements with
Local 6.
(6) The Board's unit determination in this case is in violation of
the statutory enactments and public policy of the State of Missouri,
as expressed and contained in Committee Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 79 enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri,
which permits the employees of an Employer who has more than one
plant to have a separate plant unit if they so desire.
Turning to the first objection, it appears that the Board's unit de-
termination does not mention guards by way of either inclusion or
exclusion. Local 148 contends, however, that there are guards in the
Employer's employ and, as this classification of employees was not
specifically excluded from the unit which was found to be appropriate,
it follows that guards are by implication included. We find no merit
to this contention. Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act expressly
prohibits the Board from including any individual employed as a
guard in the same bargaining unit with other employees. In view of
this prohibition, it cannot be successfully argued that, where no refer-
ence is made to guards in a unit finding by the Board, guards are
therefore included. As to the contention that guards were permitted
THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY 841
to vote in the election, the Regional Director found that, at the time
of the election, there were 16 employees in the Employer's employ who
combined various production or maintenance duties with services as
watchmen. Although he concluded that these persons were not guards
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, as amended, we
are unable to concur with this finding as his Report does not indicate
the amount of time these persons devote to their duties as watchmen.
If any of these individuals devotes more than 50 percent of his working
time to watchman duties, he shall be deemed to be a guard and excluded
from the appropriate unit. In any event, the ballots of these 16 per-
sons cannot affect the election results, as the Tally of Ballots shows.
With respect to the second objection, the Board found, in its original
decision in this case,2 that the agreements of 1946 and 1947, respec-
tively, did not constitute a bar to an election. Consequently, we do
not consider it significant that at the time of the election the Employer
was observing the terms of its agreements with Local 148. Accord-
ingly, we find this objection to be lacking in merit.
We also find no merit in the third objection. Certainly the iso-
lated incident of the alleged anonymous call does not constitute sub-
stantial reason for setting aside the election. The allegation that
Local 6 prevented employees from attending meetings held by Local
148 for the purpose of discussing the election, by congregating around
and encircling the entrances to the meeting places, is, in our opinion,
the only charge which, if proved, might in other circumstances con-
stitute grounds for setting aside the election. However, as found by
the Regional Director, the meetings referred to occurred more than a
month before the election.' We are therefore of the opinion, and
find, that even if Local 6 engaged in the conduct charged in this objec-
tion, it was so remote from the election itself that whatever coercive
effect it may have had upon the employees was dissipated by the lapse
of time.
On the fourth objection, the Regional Director found that Local 148
did not indicate to any Board agent that it did not approve the eligi-
bility list until after the election, when it filed its objections. He
further found that on the evening of the election, when the parties
met at the Board's Regional Office for the purpose of disposing of the
challenged ballots, Local 148 relied on the eligibility list used in the
election to determine whether the challenged ballots were those of
eligible voters. Local 148 does not except to these findings of the
Regional Director. In its exceptions, Local 148 contends that it re-
quested but was refused access to the Employer's records relating to
2 76 N. L. R. B. 199.
8 No exception was taken to this finding.
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees on leave because of illness, injury, disability or other
reason, with the result that it was unable to challenge some of the
voters. As is usual in such cases, the Direction of Election herein
indicates that employees who are absent from work on the eligibility
date because they are ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off are
eligible voters. In view of this circumstance, and in the absence of a
claim that the eligibility list contained the names of ineligible voters,
we shall reject the contention of Local 148 as being without merit.
With respect to the fifth objection, it appears that the conduct with
which the Employer is charged in this objection was the basis of an
unfair labor practice charge filed with the Board by Local 148 on
June 9, 1948.' This charge was adjusted by a settlement agreement
executed on June 28, 1948. The agreement provided for posting of
notice at the Employer's facilities for a period of 30 days and for the
mailing of a copy of such notice to each employee of the Employer.
The notice states that the Employer would discontinue and refrain
from bargaining with Local 6 and announced that all the employees
were free to become or remain members of Local 6 or Local 148 or any
other labor organization. The Regional Director reports that the
Employer has complied with the provisions of the settlement agree-
ment and that the case was closed before the election. Local 148 does
not contend and it does not appear that after the settlement agree-
ment, the Employer engaged in conduct similar to that which was
the subject of the settlement agreement. Under these circumstances,
and in accordance with our established practice, we shall not go
behind the settlement to consider the conduct of the Employer which
preceded it.b
The sixth objection is also found to be without merit. We have
heretofore held that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act, its
amendments, or its legislative history warrants a conclusion that Con-
gress intended the Act, which is national in scope, to be subject in this
respect to varied and often conflicting State statutes.e
Under all the circumstances, we find that the objections of Local
148 do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the con-
duct of the election and conduct affecting the results of the election.
Consequently, we hereby deny the motion of Local 148 to set aside these
proceedings and to order a new election herein.
As the Tally shows that a majority of all the ballots cast were for
Case No. 14-CA-90. The charge in this case alleged violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (2) of the Act.
b Matter of American Bakeries Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 937; Matter of Chrysler Corpora-
tion, 54 N. L. R. B. 510.
6 Matter of H. A. Winter, 61 N. L. R. B 361 ; Matter of Eppinger cE Russell Co., 56
N. L. R. B. 1259.
THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY 843
Local 6 and that the 8 challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the
results of the election we shall certify Local 6 as the collective bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers
of America, C. I. 0., Local 6, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees of The Laclede Gas Light Company, St.
Louis, Missouri, in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be appro-
priate, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the
above Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Represen-
tatives.