Carter Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1609 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

CARTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1609
24 hours before the Fayetteville polling began but 36 hours before the
Nashville employees were scheduled to vote, the Employer on company
property and during working hours, held 2 consecutive meetings of its
assembled Nashville employees, and made speeches to them, noncoer-
cive in content. No Fayetteville employees were present at these meet-
ings. The Regional Director recommended that the election be set
aside because the Employer had violated the rule enunciated in Peer-
less Plywood,3 which proscribes campaign speeches on company time
or property within 24 hours before the conduct of an election. In its
exceptions, the Employer contends that no campaign speech was made
"within 24 hours before the scheduled time for conducting an election"
among the Nashville employees.
We find merit in the Employer's exception. In a recent case, involv-
ing a somewhat analogous situation,' the Board held that the Peerless
Plywood rule required "only that no speeches be given on company
time or property within the 24-hour period preceding each of the poll-
ing dates." [Emphasis supplied.] We perceive no reason why that
holding should not apply here where the election period extended
over 2 consecutive days at 2 widely separated polling areas. Accord-
ingly, we find no merit in the objections. As the Petitioner failed to
secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify only the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for the Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local
Union 327, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and that said Union is not
the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit heretofore
found appropriate.]
8 Peerle88 Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
4 Pyramid Electrtio Company, 120 NLRB 1051.
Haskell C . Carter, Sarah E. Carter , Harry A. Carter, Roy C.
Carter and Russell E. Carter , d/b/a Carter Manufacturing
Company, Petitioner and District Lodge No. 24, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 36-RM-170.
June 24, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before E. G. Strumpf,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
120 NLRB No. 204.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record. in this case, the Board finds: - -
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within 'the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act. _ I ,
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the-representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed because
it has made no demand for recognition as majority representative of
the Employer's employees which would raise a question of representa-
tion. In September 1957, union representatives requested that the
Employer introduce them to the employees or that they be permitted
to address the employees on company time. The Employer declined
to comply with this request. Thereafter, the Union distributed hand-
bills to the employees at the entrance to the plant. On December 9,
1957, the Union mailed a letter to the employees announcing that a
meeting would be held within a few days to consider the erosion of
wage scales due to the operation of local plants with nonunion labor.
The following week, the Union placed a picket in front of the Em-
ployer's premises. The picket carried a placard stating that the
Union "invites employees to join with them for better wages, hours,
conditions" and also carried an umbrella bearing the word "Unfair"
which was partially obliterated. On December 24,1957, the Employer
received a letter from the Central Labor Council of Portland, Oregon,
of which the Union is an affiliate, advising that the Union had re-
quested that the Employer's name be placed on the Council' s unfair
list and that the Employer could meet with the Council on December
307 1957, to discuss the matter. In reply, the Employer agreed to the
meeting and the Union's picket was withdrawn. For reasons not
apparent in the record, the Employer was notified that the meeting
had been canceled and it never took place. Early in January 1958,
the Union again picketed the Employer's premises and has continued
to do so. -
The Union 'argues that its picketing is solely for organizational
purposes and that it has made no claim for recognition. We cannot
agree. In our opinion, the Union's action in seeking to place the
Employer on an "unfair list" at a time when it was picketing the
plant constituted an attempt to obtain conditions and concessions
which normally result from collective bargaining.' Accordingly, we
find that the Union's picketing and related activities are tantamount
1 See Francis Plating Co ., 109 NLRB 35. _To the extent that the Board 's decision in
Smith's Hardware Compdny, 93 NLRB 1009 , is inconsistent with our decision herein,
it is hereby overruled.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKEhS 1611
to a present claim for recognition and that a question of representa-
tion has arisen which should be resolved by an election.' The Union's
motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees at " the Employer's plant in Portland, Oregon, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' Member Fanning dissents from the majority 's finding that the Union's picketing is
for immediate recognition . In his opinion , the Union's picketing and related activities
were for organizational purposes . He would therefore dismiss the petition.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 52 and Associated Engineers Inc. and Mechanical Con-
tractors Association of New Jersey Inc. Cases Nos.' 2f2-CD-7
and 22-CD-8. June 25, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING
On August 15, 1957, and various subsequent dates Associated En-
gineers Inc. and Mechanical Contractors Association of New Jersey
Inc. filed charges and amended charges with the Regional Directors for
the Second Region and the Twenty-second Region, alleging that In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 52,
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region investigated the charges and
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The hearing
was. held at Newark, New Jersey, on various dates from January 13 to
March 17, 1958, before Edward F. Ryan, hearing officer. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to' be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and upon' consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, the Board makes the following:
'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 Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning]. -
120 NLRB No. 209.