Olson Rug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1274 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ballot challenged rather than a general finding that the "Petitioner
submitted some evidence which tends to support its-position." Fur-
thermore, that if such individual findings were made, it might have
been possible for him to have recommended that some of the ballots
be opened and thus avoid a long and expensive hearing on all the
challenges. The Employer therefore requests that as to those ballots
concerning which insufficient evidence was submitted, these should
be opened, and that if the results thereafter are still undeterminative
of the election, a hearing be held on the remainder of the challenges..
We find no merit in the Employer's position. We believe that the
Regional Director's statement quoted above is obviously intended to
mean that Petitioner submitted evidence with. respect to each "of the
employees, and that a hearing is necessary to resolve the dispute as
to the facts in order for the Board to make a finding as to the status
of the foregoing employees.3
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner,
to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner for the purpose of de-
termining the eligibility of Genora Watts, Laverno Henke, Claire
Rudloff, Margaret McGee, Louise Wiggins, and Donna Bauer to vote
in the election, and that the Trial Examiner serve upon the parties a
report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings
of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of
said challenges. Within ten (10) days from the date of the issuance
of the report, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C.,
an original and six copies of exceptions. The party filing shall serve
a copy upon each of the other parties, and file a copy with the Regional
Director. If no exceptions are filed, the Board will adopt the Trial
Examiner's recommendations.
[The Board further ordered the above-entitled matter referred to
the Regional Director for arrangement of hearing, and issuance of
notice.]
8 Graphio Arta F4ndehers, Inc., 118 NLRB 852.
Olson Rug Company and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5369. August 29, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by, the
Board on May 7, 1957,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on
May 24, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
i Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
118 NLRB No. 166.
OLSON RUG COMPANY 1275
Director for the Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the
Board. At the close of the election the parties were furnished with
a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 958 eligible
voters, 466 cast ballots for the Petitioner, 413 cast ballots against the
Petitioner, 10 cast void ballots, and 40 cast ballots which were chal-
lenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect
the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election.2 In accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director caused an investi-
gation of the objections to be conducted and, on June 21, 1957, issued
and served on the parties his report on objections in which he found
that the objections are without merit and recommended that they be
overruled and that Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative in the unit found appropriate by the Board. The
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report
as it relates to the Employer's first, third, and fourth objections and
requested a hearing on these objections.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
The Employer's first objection concerns written campaign material
distributed by Petitioner in which, the Employer alleges, Petitioner
either expressly or impliedly averred that if Petitioner lost the elec-
tion the Employer would alter the wages and working conditions of
the employees to their detriment but that Petitioner expected to
receive more than two-thirds of the 900 votes that would be cast.
The Employer's contention that these statements constituted threats
and misrepresentations which affected the results of the election is
patently without merit as they contained neither assertions which the
employees could not evaluate nor threats within the Petitioner's
power to carry out.
The Employer's third objection concerns a campaign banner which
Petitioner displayed near one of the Employer's buildings while voting
was in progress. As the banner could not be observed by anyone in
the immediate vicinity of the polling place, and bore no resemblance
to a sample ballot, we find the Employer's contention, that display
2 While Section 102.61 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 6, as amended,
requires that copies of objections "shall immediately be served upon each of the other
parties" to the proceeding , the Board does not consider a labor organization whose name
is withdrawn from the ballot before the election to be a party within the meaning of
this section . Warwick Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 1 ; Hellige , Inc., 96 NLRB
1216. Accordingly , Petitioner 's contention that the Employer 's objections must be over-
ruled on the ground that the Employer failed to timely serve copies of its objections
upon the Intervenor , who was permitted to withdraw its name from the ballot before the
election , is without merit, and we so find.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this banner constituted improper electioneering and was tantamount
to circulation of an improperly altered sample ballot , to be without
merit.
The Employer 's fourth objection concerns a bulletin distributed by
Petitioner which alleged that in the past the Employer had lost "The
Ford Contract" because the Employer was not unionized and con-
cluded , "Get Ford Back-Vote `Yes'-Vote TWUA !" The Employ-
er's contention that Petitioner thereby promised employees a benefit
in exchange for an affirmative vote is plainly without merit ; as found
by the Regional Director , Petitioner 's assertion was evidently an
opinion or prediction of one consequence of Petitioner 's victory and
it was, in any event , a benefit not within the power of Petitioner
to confer upon the employees.
No exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's findings
on the Employer 's remaining exceptions, these findings are accordingly
adopted. Having considered the Regional Director 's report on objec-
tions and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and having found the
Employer's objections to be without merit, we hereby overrule them,
in accordance with the recommendations of the Regional Director,
and deny the Employer 's request for a hearing . As the Petitioner
has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we
shall certify the Petitioner as the collective -bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective -bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate.]
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and Local 442,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-3815. August
30, 1957
ORDER AMENDING DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On July 9, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election,' finding appropriate a unit of "all meat department em-
ployees at the Employer's Oak Ridge, Tennessee, store, including part-
time clerks. . . ." By specific reference the Board indicated that
part-time clerks included two employees mentioned by name, who
were found to be regular part-time employees.
On July 17, 1957, the Employer filed a petition for reconsideration
and clarification of the Decision and Direction of Election, request-
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
118 NLRB No. 169.