Tri-Pak Machinery Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 243 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of TRI-PAK MACHINERY SERVICE, INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-208
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
November 27, 1950
On August 30, 1950, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election herein, dated August 21, 1950,1 an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that, of the 30 ballots cast,
13 were for, and 13 were against, the Petitioner, and 4 were challenged.
The Petitioner timely filed objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election, and the Employer filed a statement with respect to the
challenged ballots. The Regional Director thereafter conducted an
investigation of the objections and challenges. On October 6, 1950,
following his investigation, the Regional Director issued and duly
served upon the parties a report on objections, in which he found
that a speech made to the employees by the Employer's Vice-President
Allen on August 26, 1950, went beyond the protection of Section 8 (c)
of the Act, thereby interfering with the election, and recommended
that the election be set aside. Because of his findings and,recom-
mendations on the objections, the Regional Director found it unnec-
essary to pass upon the challenged ballots. The Employer timely filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
We 2 cannot agree with the Regional Director that the Employer's
speech, the pertinent text of which is apparently not in dispute, was
outside the scope of Section 8 (c) and interfered with the election in
this case. The Employer's remarks were concerned generally with
1 Unpublished:
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 Houston , Murdock,
and Styles].
92 NLRB No. 66.
243
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the mechanics of the election and the Employer's opinion as to the
desirability of union representation. Although certain of the state-
ments were derogatory in nature and reflected the Employer's pref-
erence for dealing directly with its employees, rather than through a
union, the speech informed the employees that they were free to vote
as they saw fit and, in our opinion, contained no threat of reprisal or
force, or promise of benefit. We find that the Employer's speech,
viewed in its entirety, did not interfere with the election and that the
employees were not prevented from exercising a free choice in the
election .3 Accordingly, we shall overrule the objections to the election.
As previously noted, although the Regional Director investigated
the challenged ballots, which are determinative of the results of the
election, he made no report or recommendation with respect to those
challenges. We shall, therefore, order the Regional Director to pre-
pare and cause to be served upon the parties a report on challenged
ballots, including recommendations, in accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Tri-Pak Machinery Service,
Inc., Harlingen, Texas, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
shall, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations, prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report on
challenged ballots, including recommendations.
8 See Q-F Wholesalers, Inc., 87 NLRB 1085, and Charroin Manufacturing Co., 88 NLRB
88; ef. General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124.