SONOCO PROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 2014

04-RC-128714 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

1
Montgomeryville, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SONOCO PROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS
Employer
and Case 04-RC-128714
LABORERS LOCAL 332
Petitioner
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has
considered objections to an election held June 26, 2014, and the Regional
Director’s report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted
pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 19 votes
cast for and 17 against the Petitioner, with no challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has
adopted the Regional Director’s findings and recommendations, and finds that a
certification of representative should be issued.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for
Laborers Local 332, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full time production employees, maintenance employees and shipping
and receiving employees employed by the Employer at its 161 Corporate
Drive, Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania facility; excluding all other
2
employees, including production line leads, office clerical employees,
laboratory employees, seasonal employees, and guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2014.
_____________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
_____________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER MISCIMARRA, concurring:
For two reasons, I find there is no merit in the Employer’s request for review and
exceptions to the Regional Director’s report and recommendation. First, regarding
Objections 1, 2 and 3, the Employer assertedly received a report of alleged threats to
certain Asian employees that, for example, if the Union won the election, and if certain
employees failed to vote for the Union, the Union would have those employees fired.
However, the Employer refused to convey to the Region the name or names of the
employee(s) who allegedly reported the threat. Further, the Region was given neither
the names of the employees to whom the threatening statement was allegedly made,
nor the name or names of the alleged Union supporter(s) who allegedly made the
threats. The Act protects employees from restraint or coercion, and such misconduct
may be objectionable conduct that is grounds for overturning an election; but the Region
cannot conduct a meaningful investigation unless, at a minimum, it is given the names
of potential witnesses or at least the names of individuals who can identify potential
3
witnesses. At least some of this information was available to the Employer, which, on
the basis of promises of confidentiality, declined to provide that information. While I am
sympathetic to employee fears regarding potential retaliation or threats, the Region and
the Board cannot conduct a meaningful investigation or act upon allegations of
misconduct without this basic information. See, e.g., Heartland of Martinsburg, 313
NLRB 655 (1994) (“The Employer here submitted counsel’s hearsay description of
alleged objectionable conduct and the names of witnesses who could provide direct
testimony about it. This was sufficient information to warrant a full investigation of the
issues raised in the objections.”); The Holladay Corporation, 266 NLRB 621, 622 (1983)
(“[B]y identifying two employees who allegedly received improper inducements to
support the Petitioner, the Employer has furnished the kind of evidence necessary for
the Region to proceed with a full investigation of the objections.”); Cities Service Oil Co.,
77 NLRB 853, 857 (1948) (“[W]e consider as crucial, in making an investigation of
preelection interference, that we have the names of witnesses upon whom the moving
party relies. Absent that information, the Board is unable adequately to investigate the
matter.”). See also NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part Two) Representation Sec.
11392.6. Second, I find that Objection 4 (regarding a hand gesture by one employee
observed by another employee outside but in the vicinity of the polling area, which the
latter employee interpreted as “someone was trying to tell me to vote ‘yes’”) is without
merit for the reasons articulated by the Regional Director.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2014.
_____________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD