Crane Co., Employer

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 979 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

CRANE CO. 979
Hydro-Aire Division, Crane Co., Employer and Mis-
cellaneous Warehousemen , Drivers & Helpers
Local 986, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America. Case 31-RC-5945
30 September 1986
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered an objection to an
election held 1 November 1985 and the hearing of-
ficer's report recommending disposition of it. The
election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated
Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 103
for and 196 against the Petitioner, with 1 void
ballot and 3 challenged ballots, an insufficient
number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs,1 has adopted the hearing
officer's fmdings2 only to the extent consistent
herewith, and finds that a certification of results of
election should be issued.
The issue presented by the Employer's excep-
tions, is whether the hearing officer erred in recom-
mending sustaining the Petitioner's objection and
setting aside the election because she found that the
Employer had created an impermissible impression
of surveillance of prounion employees' activities.
Contrary to the hearing officer, we find that the
Employer did not engage in any conduct interfer-
ing with the election.
The conduct in dispute took place at the end of
the employees' day shift in midafternoon of Friday,
25 October 1985. Larry Larios, an employee on the
Petitioner's in-plant organizing committee,3 was
leaving the Employer's facility. He carried with
him a stack of prounion campaign leaflets and a list
of eligible voters annotated by Larios and another
employee to reflect supposed preferences in the up-
coming representation election.
Acting pursuant to a valid company rule, the
Employer's chief of security, Don Rugee, would
not permit Larios to carry materials out of the
plant until the employee obtained a property pass
i We deny as lacking in merit the Employer's request that the Board
reconsider its Order dated 8 January 1986 , in which it rejected the Em-
ployer's contention that the Petitioner's objections were untimely filed.
2 The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil-
ity findings The Board 's established policy is not to overrule a hearing
officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stretch-Tex Co.,
118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis for reversing the findings.
a We find it unnecessary to rely on the hearing officer 's discussion
about the status of Larios as the Petitioner 's agent.
from an authorized official. Rugee took the stack
of papers from Larios and put them on a desk in
the guard shack. While Larios was in the plant get-
ting a property pass, Rugee also stopped two other
employees and similarly impounded their stacks of
leaflets.4
When Larios returned with his pass, Rugee
handed him a stack of papers. Larios left, joined
other employee organizing, committee members
outside the plant, then discovered that the anno-
tated voters ' list was missing from his papers.
Larios and three other employees immediately re-
turned to the guard shack and asked Rugee for the
list. Rugee expressed ignorance about the list and
told Larios that the employees would have to re-
enter the plant in order to satisfy their desire to
speak with the Employer's president about the
matter., During the conversation with Rugee, the
employees observed Management Representative
McAllister, approximately 50 yards away, walking
towards the Employer's facility.5 McAllister and
plant engineer Cameron had visited the guard
shack a few minutes earlier.
Larios and fellow employees, next entered the
main lobby of the Employer's building and ar-
ranged to meet with Robert Gruber, senior vice
president of engineering . After hearing the employ-
ees' explanation of events, Gruber summoned
Rugee, all materials left in the guard shack, and a
blank propertypass. Gruber then filled out the pass
and he returned all materials, including, the anno-
tated list, to the employees. Estimates vary, but the
entire sequence of events apparently took between
45 minutes and 1-1/2 hours.
The hearing officer found, and absent exceptions,
it is no longer disputed, that the Employer did not
engage in actual surveillance of employee union ac-
tivities by its possession of the list. She further
found, however, that the unexplained presence of
McAllister at the guard shack and the unexplained
delay in giving the confidential list to Larios after
he specifically sought the missing document from
Rugee created an impression of surveillance that
interfered with the employees' free choice in the
election. As previously indicated, we disagree.
The Employer was oblivious to the presence of
an annotated voter eligibility list when it initially
impounded Larios' documents pursuant to a valid
company security rule. There is no direct proof
that any representative of the Employer ever actu-
4 Although there is some evidence of inconsistent enforcement of the
property-pass rule, there is no proof of antiunion discrimination in its ap-
plication to the three employees.
5 There are no exceptions to the hearing officer's discrediting of em-
ployee claims that they observed McAllister holding the missing list as he
walked towards the Employer's facility.
281 NLRB No. 133
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ally saw the list. Furthermore, we find inappropri-
ate the hearing officer's reliance on the "unex-
plained" presence of McAllister at the guard shack
during the time when the Employer apparently
possessed the list. As the objecting party, the Peti-
tioner has the heavy burden of proving interfer-
ence with the election. It has failed to prove here
that the presence of McAllister was unusual, delib-
erate, or in any way related to the election or the
employees' union activities. Finally, we find insig-
nificant the delay occurring after Larios returned
to claim his missing list from Rugee. There is no
proof that Rugee yet knew whether he actually
had such a list. If the list was among documents
taken from the other prounion employees, there is
no basis to believe that Rugee and Gruber were
not still operating pursuant to the valid property-
pass security rule before turning over all remaining
documents; nor is there any objective basis for at-
tributing the slight delay involved to the Employ-
er's knowledge of its contents.6
In sum, we find that the Employer's action did
not reasonably tend to create an impression of sur-
veillance interfering with the election.7 Conse-
quently, we will overrule the Petitioner's objection
and certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for Miscellaneous Warehou-
semen , Drivers & Helpers Local 986, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America and that it is not the
exclusive representative of these bargaining unit
employees.
that the compromise , if any, of the allegedly confidential list was due to
6 Member Babson agrees that the Union has not adduced sufficient evi- anything other than the Union's own lack of care in maintaining the list
dence to show that the Employer perused the list. More to the point , per- T In this regard, we find irrelevant testimony about the subjective reac-
haps, Member Babson does not believe that the Union has demonstrated tions of unit employees to the events in question