The Rackle Co. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 462 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Rackle Company of Texas and International Hod Carriers
Building and Common Laborers ' Union of North America,
Local 18, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 39-RC-1094. February
27, X957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed on October 30, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on November 21, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board among the employees in the stipulated unit. Follow-
ing the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which
showed that of approximately 72 eligible voters, 35 cast votes for, and
30 against, the Petitioner. There were no void or challenged ballots.
On November 27, 1956, the Employer timely filed objections to con-
duct of election, a copy of which was served on the Petitioner. In ac-
cordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on Decem-
ber 5, 1956, issued and served on the parties his report on objections
in which he found that the Employer's objections did not raise any
substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election
and recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the report on objections, the Employer's
exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and 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 certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees
at its Houston, Texas, plant, including truckdrivers, but excluding
office clerical employees, guards and watchmen, professional employ-
ees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The election was held inside the main building of the company
plant in an area adjacent to the building entrance. The entrance opens
117 NLRB No. 67.
THE RACKLE COMPANY OF TEXAS 463
on the company parking area immediately to the west of the building.
At the far side of the parking area is a rough unimproved public street
without curbs or any other markings to indicate where the company
parking area begins.
The Employer alleges in its objections and exceptions, with support-
ing affidavits, that during the election union representatives Harvey
and Garcia were observed standing at times at the edge of the com-
pany premises and at times on the company parking area. The Em-
ployer further alleges that, during the election, these representatives
were observed talking to 5 or more employees on their way to vote and
that at all times during the election the union representatives could see,
and could be seen by, employees waiting to vote. However, the Em-
ployer makes no allegation as to the nature or content of the conversa-
tions between the union representative and the employees.
The Employer contends that the conversations between the union
representatives and the employees constitute electioneering which re-
quire setting aside the election. However, in the absence of any evi-
dence that the union representatives made any coercive statements 1
or wilfully violated any instructions of the Board agent,' we are not
justified in inferring either that electioneering occurred or that, if any
did occur, it was serious enough to warrant setting the election aside.3
Moreover, we find, contrary to the Employer's further contention, that
the mere presence of the union representatives outside the building
where the polling took place was insufficient to require setting aside the
election, even assuming as the Employer alleges, that the union rep-
resentatives could see, and could be seen by, employees waiting in line to
vote.4
i Although it made no allegation and submitted no evidence as to the nature or content
of the conversations , the Employer contends that the Board had the duty and obligation
of investigating what was said by the union representatives to the employees because
investigation by the Employer "could or might" constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act . We find no merit in this contention . The Board consistently holds that a
party filing objections to an election is obligated to furnish evidence in support of its
objections , and that unless such evidence is produced , the Regional Director is not required
to further pursue his investigation of such objections . N B Liebman & Company, Inc.,
112 NLRB 88 . Moreover , Section 8 (a) (1) does not prevent an employer from making
investigations essential to the preparation of a case. See Partee Flooring Mill, 107 NLRB
1177.
2 The Regional Director 's report indicates that the union representatives were cautioned
to remain off company property while the election was in progress. There is no other evi-
dence or allegation of any other special instructions given the representatives, to govern
their conduct during the election , apart from the usual instructions set forth on the election
notice. While the Employer alleges and its afHants aver that the union representatives
were seen in the parking area, 2 of the '3 affiants aver that they also saw the union repre-
sentatives in the street and are silent as to where the conversations took place ; more-
over, the Employer does not allege that the conversations occurred on company property,
and in any event it appears that the line of demarcation between the parking area and the
street was such that the union representatives could have stepped onto company property
without wilfully violating the instruction of the Board agent.
a General Electric Company, 115 NLRB 306. See also Deeco , Inc., 116 . NLRB 990.
* Gastonia Combed Yarn Corporation, 109 NLRB 585 . See also Kaiser Services, 111
NLRB 1093.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that
the Employer's objections are without merit, and in accord with his
recommendation, we hereby overrule them 5 As the Petitioner re-
ceived a majority of the votes cast in the election, we shall certify the
Petitioner as representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Hod Carriers Building and Com-
mon Laborers' Union of North America, Local 18, AFL-CIO, as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer
in the appropriate unit.]
c Contrary to the Employer 's contention , we find that this case is distinguishable from
Southwestern Electric Service Company v N L. It. B., 194 F. 2d 939 ( C. A. 5). Among
other things , except for the few laid -off employees who entered the plant to vote, none of
the Employer 's other employees had to pass by the union representatives in order to vote.
Also, as indicated in footnote 2 above, the line of demarcation between the Employer's
property and the public street was obscure, and it does not appear that the Petitioner's
representatives wilfully violated any rules governing election conduct.
Atlantic Freight Lines , Incorporated and William Glover, Charles
Reshenberg and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Local 491,
AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, Local 491, AFL-CIO and William
Glover, Charles Reshenberg and Atlantic Freight Lines, Inc.,
Party to the Contract
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America , Local 491, AFL-CIO and Richard
Minerd, James Christopher and Amsco, Incorporated, Party
to the Contract . Cases Nos. 6-CA-988, 6-CA-989, 6-CB-328,
6-CB-329, 6-CB-315, and 6-CB-316. February 28, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 28, 1956, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
Employer filed a reply brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
117 NLRB No. 70.