Zeigler Refuse Collectors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 449 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ZEIGLER REFUSE COLLECTORS, INC.
Zeigler Refuse Collectors, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Team-
sters and Helpers Local Union No. 430 a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner.
Case 4 RC-13292
September 27. 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDAI.E
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion held on September 15, 1978, and the Hearing
Officer's report recommending disposition of same.
We agree with the Petitioner that the alleged conduct
objected to by the Employer is insufficient to set aside
the election.
The Employer timely filed four objections to the
conduct of the election. On November 16, 1978. the
Regional Director for Region 4 issued a report and
recommendation finding no merit to objections 3 and
4 but recommending that a hearing be held on objec-
tions I and 2. The Board, on January 22, 1979, issued
a Decision and Direction' adopting the Regional Di-
rector's recommendation and remanding the case to
him for further action. On February 21, 1979, a Hear-
ing Officer conducted a hearing at York, Pennsylva-
nia, and on April 9, 1979, filed his report in which he
recommended that the election be set aside and a sec-
ond election be directed. We do not accept the Hear-
ing Officer's recommendation and find that, even as-
suming the correctness of the Hearing Officer's
factual findings and credibility resolutions,2 the Em-
ployer has not demonstrated a sufficient factual foun-
dation for the setting aside of the election.
The Hearing Officer finds "only minimal evidence
concerning Petitioner's knowledge or participation in
I Not reported in bound volumes of Board Decisions.
2 We do not accept the Heanng Officer's finding that Martin Morthland's
recantation on cross-examination should not be credited. Morthland ex-
pressly denied that employees Knight and Barry and Larry Leisennng in-
timidated him with physical threats I week before the election. Furthermore.
Morthland impeached his credibility by substantially wavering on the ap-
proximate date of the threatening encounter. The Heanng Officer speculates
that Morthland recanted only in order to end his "ordeal" on the stand, hut
that is only speculation and no basis for rehabilitating Morthland.
threats against employees concerning how they were
going to vote." Furthermore, the most severe threats
he attributes to prounion employees are: If employees
did not sign authorization cards, "they would not
work for the Employer anymore"; "Whoever didn't
give $20.00 and sign union authorization cards was
going to 'get their asses kicked' "; "You had better be
voting for the Union if you know what is good for
you; "If you vote no for the Union: me. Russ
Knight and Barry Leisenring gets fired: we are going
to kick your ass."
We do not agree with the Hearing Officer that the
above gives rise "to a pervasive sense of apprehension
among prospective voters."3 Inasmuch as the Hearing
Officer has found "minimal" evidence connecting
these campaign incidents with the Petitioner in any
way, and such incidents did not relate directly to the
election vote or create a general atmosphere of fear
and confusion, we find that there is no basis for set-
ting aside the election.4 We shall, therefore, overrule
the Employer's Objections I and 2, and shall order
that the Petitioner be certified.
CERTIFICATION OR REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union No. 430 a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, and that, pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the Act, the said labor organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees n the
following appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment:
All rear load drivers and loaders employed at the
Employer's Rear Load Division located at 1020
N. Hartley Street, York, Pennsylvania; but ex-
cluding all front-end and roll off drivers, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
E.g., Price Brothers Company, 211 NLRB 822 (1974).
'The Heanng Officer incorrectly relies on Sonoco of Puerto Rico, Inc, 210
NLRB 493 (1974), and Diamond State Poultry Co.. Inc., 107 NLRB 3 (1953).
in support of his conclusion that the election ought to be set aside. In both
those cases the election environment was pervaded by immediate and senous
physical coercion. In the instant case, there was no violence only generalized
verbal threats which, unlike the Hearing Officer, we do not consider "numer-
ous," of the character familiar to the playgrounds as well as the shop. The
alleged intimidators in this case engaged in mere campaign bravado and
"heated statements" reflecting an "overzealous partisanship rather than
meaningful threats." American Wholesalers. Inc.. 218 NLRB 292 11975).
245 NLRB No. 60
449