Warner Cable Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1398 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Warner Cable Corporation of Pittsburgh and Gener-
al Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs; Warehousemen' and Helpers of
America, Petitioner . Case 6-RC-9473
8-August 1985
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered' the objection- to a
runoff election held on 21 June 1984 and the hear-
ing officer's report recommending disposition of it.
The original election was conducted pursuant to" a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots
for the runoff election shows 32 for and 54 against
the Petitioner, with no challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs and the recommendations
of the hearing officer and finds that a certification
of the results of the election should issue.
The Union alleged in its objection that the Em-
ployer permitted the consumption of alcoholic bev-
erages on its premises during the runoff election.,
The hearing officer determined that the presence of
beer on company premises undermined the integri-
ty of the election and interfered with. the atmos-
phere in which it should have been conducted. He
recommended therefore that the objection be sus-
tained and a new election be directed. We disagree.
It is undisputed in this case that most of the em-
ployees knew that beer was available on the day of
the election. This evidence, however, does not nec-
essarily warrant the hearing officer's conclusion
that the employees "attention had, in fact, been se-
riously diverted by the availability of beer at the
Employer's facility." Indeed, the record here belies
that conclusion since there is no showing that the
presence of beer on the day of the election im-
paired the employees' freedom of choice or under-
mined the integrity of the election.
The record establishes that employees frequently
purchased beer which they consumed on the Em-
ployer's premises at the end of the workday. On
the morning of the election several employees con-
tributed towards the purchase of a keg of beer to
drink at the facility after work that day. Uncontro-
verted evidence establishes that the idea for the
party originated with the employees and that this
same group of employees generally purchased the
beer.' The election was not discussed and there is
t The money was given to Supervisor Larry Coyne who agreed to
purchase the beer and bring it back to the facility There is no evidence
no evidence that the beer party was related to the
representation election.
Although the employees apparently began drink-
ing prior to the end of their scheduled shift, 2 this
occurrence was relatively commonplace. The
record - reveals many occasions when employees
began drinking prior to the official end of their
shift.3
Only one employee ' testified that he had con-
sumed any beer prior to voting and he consumed
only a few ounces of beer. The hearing officer al-
luded to one employee who had four or five glass-
es, of beer prior to 5 p.m. He failed to note, howev-
er, that the same employee testified that he did not
begin drinking -beer until after he voted. Conduct
of employees which is unrelated to the election is
clearly unobjectionable. Moreover, the Employer's
observer testified that no voter appeared to be
under the influence of alcohol.
The hearing officer correctly found that the beer
was placed at the loading dock entrance to the
building but he mischaracterized the proximity of
the loading dock to the polling area. One employee
testified, that the shortest walking distance between
the polling area and the beer was 100 feet, but the
two areas were separated by walls and corridors.
Other employees testified that the loading dock
could not be seen from the polling place. Thus, the
record clearly demonstrates that the beer keg and
the polling area were not proximate to one an-
other.•
All but one of the employees who testified at the
hearing knew that the beer party had been spon-
sored by the employees. Critically no employee
testified to a belief that the Employer had spon-
sored the party.
Based `on the record before us, the mere presence
of alcoholic beverages at the Employer's facility
was not shown to have had any effect on the con-
duct of the election. Neither the Employer nor the
Union provided the keg of beer. Thus this is not a
case where conduct of one of the parties to an
election arguably influences voters, even subtly by
that Coyne or any other supervisor instigated the party Coyne and Su-
pervisor Jerry Sims attended the party They had also attended previous
beer parties
2 Testimony established that field employees are finished with their
work for the day when they return to the facility This is true even on
those occasions when they return prior to the scheduled end of their
shift
3 The hearing officer found that few'employees were aware that they
were permitted to drink beer poor to the close of the workday and few
of those who were aware of it took advantage of it He concluded, there-
fore, that the availability of beer prior to the end of the shift on the day
of the election gave the appearance that the Employer condoned this par-
ticular beer party However, the only employee who testified in this
regard stated that it was a common occurrence for employees to begin
drinking prior to the end of their workday and he had observed employ-
ees doing so on previous occasions
275 NLRB No. 190
WARNER CABLE CORP
the promise or provision of benefits. In short, we
find no evidence to support the hearing officer's
conclusion that the employees' free choice was im-
paired.
We find therefore that a certification of results
should be issued.
1399 -
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local-249 a/w Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, and that it is
not the exclusive representative-of the bargaining
unit employees.
r-