Iowa Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of IOWA PACKING COMPANY and PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE , ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS 'OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. .89, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. B-44-12.-Decided March 19,043
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
'On November 23, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
.called the Board, issued its Decision and Direction of Election in this
proceeding. Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by
secret ballot was conducted on December 18, 1942, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region
(Minneapolis, Miinmesotti). On December 19, 1942, the Regional Di-
rector, acting pursuant to ' Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued
and duly :served upon the parties his Election Report.
As to- the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows:
I
Approximate number of eligible voters ---- ------------------ 1,205
Total ballots cast- ----------------------------------------- 956
Total ballots challenged----------------------------------- 44
Total void ballots ----------------------------------------- - 3
Total blank ballots----------------------------------------- I
Total valid votes counted ---------------------------------- 908
Votes cast for Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee,
C I. 0 -------------------------------------------------- 480
Votes cast ' for Local Independent Union of . Packinghouse
Wo'•kers------------------------------------------------- 418
Votes cast for neither-------------------------------------- 10
On December 24, 1942, Local Independent Union of Packinghouse
WTorkers, herein called the Independent, filed its Objections to Conduct,
of the Ballot and Election Report.?
On December 26, 1942, the Regional Director issued and duly served
-upon the parties his Report on Objections.
145, N. L R. B 733.
3 The Company and the P. W. 0. C did not object to the conduct of the election or to
the Election Report.
48 N L. R B , No. 43.
305
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS 'BOARD
On January 9, 1943; the Board, having duly considered the mat-
ter, referred the proceedings to the Regional Director for the pur-
pose of a hearing on the Objections. Pursuant thereto, a hearing
upon due notice was held on January 22 and 23, 1943, at Des-Moines,
Iowa, before William Strong, Trial Examiner. The Board, Iowa'
,Packing Company,,herein called the Company, the Independent, and
the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee, on behalf of ,the
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 89, affiliated
with the C. I. 0., herein called' the P. W: O. C., appeared, partici-
pated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses; and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Independ-
ent and the P. W. O. C. filed' briefs on February 1 and 8, 1943, re-
spectively, which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In general the Independent contends that, in addition to the 44
persons who cast challenged ballots, a substantial number of other
persons were so affected by alleged improprieties in the conduct of
the election that they failed to cast-a ballot at all ; that had, such per-
sons voted , either the Independent would have obtained a majority
of the votes cast or neither union would have obtained a majority..
We shall consider the separate allegations of the_ Independent, and
-the evidence pertaining thereto, in order.
1. The Independent alleged that the P . W. O. C. maliciously chal-
lenged 25 persons on the ground that they were "instructors"' of new
employees ; 3 that the challenge procedure caused considerable" delay
in voting ; that the Board 's agents failed to rule immediately' on the
validity of such challenges ; that such challenged voters returned to
the plant and,related their experiences at the polls to other employees
.similarly situated; that many employees who were then acting or had
acted as "instructors " in the past concluded that it was useless for
them to ' make the effort and take the time necessary to vote, and for
that reason did not vote; that no less than 50 girls on ,the "trimming"
floor who were members of the Independent were thus affected and
therefore- did not vote . The Independent alleged that older em=
ployees have always been used by the Company to instruct new em-
ployees; that such "instructors " were ordinary production employees
and not within categories excluded by the Board's Direction of Elec-
3 At the hearing on Objections the Independent's attorney stated that the correct figure
is 7, not 25 In fact , the P. W. O. C. challenged 6 persons as "instructors" and 1 as
"gang leader and instructor."
IOWA PACKING COMPANY 307
tion ; that the challenged "instructors" were, therefore, entitled to
vote at the election; that the Board's agents should have overruled
the challenges at 'the time they were made, thereby removing any
doubt or question as to the right of other employees similarly situated
-to vote and to have their votes counted. The Independent further
alleged that had the votes of the 25 persons who cast challenged bal-
lots been counted, and that had the 50 other employees who had failed
to vote for the above reasons voted, the Independent would undoubt-
edly have received a majority of the votes cast in the' election.:
The record shows and we find that the Company has no category
of employees specifically denominated "instructor." While most older
employees have, at some time in the past, casually shown newer em-
ployees the proper manner of performing their duties, at the time of
the election only three or four employees had been specifically directed
by their superiors to instruct groups of newly hired employees on" the
"trimming" floor.4 These so-called "instructors" were paid on a basis
different from that used to compute the pay of ordinary production
workers, and clearly performed functions which differentiated them
from old employees who may from time to time assist new employees.
There were no other employees on the "trimming" floor on December
18, 1942, who could reasonably conclude that they were similarly situ-
ated to these few "instructors." Very few, if any, other employees
were informed on election day of the challenges of persons alleged to
be "instructors." There is no credible testimony indicating that any-
one actually refrained from voting because 'of self-identification with
such challenged voters' work categories. Moreover, the claim of the
Independent that the challenges by the P. W. 0. C. were made ma-
liciously, in bad faith, and for the purpose of discouraging members of
the Independent from voting, is not supported by the' record. Both
the P. W. 0. C. and the Independent challenged employees for the rea-
son that they- were "instructors," each claiming that the challenges
were of individuals rather than a class, and based upon the specific
functions of such individuals, which are alleged to have placed them in
-supervisory categories excluded by the Board's Direction of Election.5
It is obvious that the Bdard's agents were not derelict in failing to rule
on the challenges when made; the Board, and not the agent conducting
the election; passes upon the eligibility of challenged voters in the,
event the result of the election will be affected by such ballots.
We find no merit in the foregoing objection, and it is accordingly
overruled.
The Company 's representative testified that on December 18, 1942, these "instructors"
-were Ruby North , Nettie Scoville , and Eleanor Harris.
The P. W. O. C. challenged six individuals on the 'ground that they were "instructors,"
while the Independent challenged five.individuals for-the same reason. '
521247-43-vol. 48-21
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II., The Independent alleged that two employees, Volk and Stotler,,
were employed by the Company on November •21, 1942; that they
endeavored to vote at said election and' were denied such right; and
that if they had been permitted to vote the P. W. 0. C. would not have
received a majority in the election.' Vonk and Stotler were hired by
the Company on November 21, 1942, but did not start to work until
November 23, 1942.7 Nevertheless,, Vonk was permitted to cast a
challenged ballot, which is included in the computation of total votes
cast. Stotler presented himself at the polling place but left without
casting a challenged ballot. Although Stotler testified that he was
not only denied the right to cast a regular ballot but also was- denied
the right to cast a challenged ballot, we credit the testimony of the
Board's agent and find that Stotler did not avail himself of the oppor-
tunity to cast a challenged ballot after the challenge procedure had
been explained to him. Even assuming that Vonk's ballot was cast
in favor of the Independent and that Stotler would have voted for the
Independent, the results of the election would not be changed. We
find no merit in this objection.
III. In its third allegation the Independent alleged that many
persons were hired by the Company on or before November 21, 1942;
the last day of the pay-roll period used for eligibility purposes, but
did not actually begin working until on and after November 23, 1942;
that no uniform policy was followed in the election*in allowing such
persons to vote, in that some were permitted to cast a ballot while
others were denied the right; that in view of such lack of uniformity
the election was illegal and void.
The record shows that during'the pay-roll period ending on Novem-
ber,21, 1942, and particularly on that date, the Company hired a
number of new production employees. Before putting them to work,
it was necessary to give each one a medical examination as well as
other routine examinations. Some of the new employees completed
these preliminary matters in time to perform some work on November
21; their names were included on the pay-roll list later prepared by the
Company, to be used in the election. The names of 15 of these new
employees who did not perform any work on November 21 were in-
eluded by error on said pay-roll list. A third group of about 11
,employees were those hired on November 21, who did not begin to
work until November 23, and whose names do not appear on the pay-
roll-'list of eligibles. The Independent's complaint is based solely,
upon the alleged failure of this latter group to vote in the-election.
"Those eligible ' to vote were persons in the unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding November 23, 1942 , the date of the Direction of Election.
7,The question , concerning the employees who were hired on November 21, 1942, but who
did not actually start working until November 23, 1942, is more fully covered under
paragraph III.
IOWA PACKING COMPANY. 309
Two days before the election, copies of the pay-roll lists were
-furnished to the Independent and the P. W. O. C. The testimony of
the Board's agents shows that after the representatives studied the
lists, each sought to obtain the exclusion of several employees but
no agreement was reached as to a majority of the proposed exclusions.
The question of the eligibility of the employees herein .involved was
not raised by either union at the time but it was raised for the first
time on the day of the election by representatives of the Company,
who were assisting in identifying employees at the polls. No claim
was made, and the record does not disclose that the Board's agents
were apprised during the election that-any similarly situated newly
hired employees were named on the pay-roll lists and had voted or
would vote that day, and no one called this lack of uniformity to their'
attention. The record further shows that some of the employees
whose names were on the pay-roll lists did vote challenged ballots
while others, similarly situated, did not do so. The Independent's
representatives claimed that the procedure of voting a- challenged, bal-
lot was not explained in all instances but the testimony of the Board's
agent, which -we credit, is to the contrary. Under the circumstances,
we find,that any employees not on the eligibility list but who,sought
to vote were fully apprised of their privilege to cast challenged ballots.
Therefore we conclude that the election should not be set aside on this
ground.
IV. The fourth allegation of the Independent is that Robert
Springer was improperly challenged by the P. W. O. C. and that, as a
result of the failure of the Board's agents to rule at the election upon
the validity of the challenge, "a false impression" circulated at the
plant that persons similarly situated to Springer would not be per-
mitted to vote.' At the hearing counsel for the Independent admitted
that there was no evidence which could support the allegation as a
whole. The Independent then limited its contentions to the validity
of the challenge as to Springer. Since his ballot could not affect
the election, we find it unnecessary to decide whether he was eligible
to vote.
V. The Independent alleged in this allegation that "Sam" Roth
was improperly permitted to vote at the election and voted for the
P. W. O. C.
The record shows that Roth had been absent from work since
April 27, 1940, due to illness, but that he is still carried on the Com-
pany's records as an employee. His name appeared on" the eligibility
list and he was not challenged. No question was raised as to his
e It appears that Springer had been absent during the pay-roll period ending November
21, 1942, because of illness. The P. W. 0. C. challenged him on the ground that he had
quit.
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eligibility either at the pre -election pay-roll conference , discussed
above; or at the election itself. This allegation is without merit since
employees who did not work during the pay-roll period ending
November 21, 1942, because they were ill, were declared eligible to
.vote in our Direction of Election.
VI. In its sixth allegation, the Independent alleged that prior to
the election an agreement was made between the Company , the Inde-
pendent, and the P . W. 0. C. which provided that if any employee
was permitted to vote during working hours , the election should be
set aside; that Frank,Alsup• and other employees voted during their
working hours, casting ballots for the P. W. 0. C., and that a similar
right was not granted to members of the Independent.
The Independent admitted, at the hearing , that it had no informa-
tioli about employees , other than Alsup, voting during working hours.
We will therefore treat only the Independent's contentions concerning
the alleged agreement between the parties and its contentions concern-
ing Alsup's alleged violation of the agreement.
At pre-election conferences , at which various questions pertaining
to the election were discussed , a P. W. 0 . C. representative insisted,
and it appears that everyone agreed, that the Company was not to
permit any groups of employees to take time off during working hours
to vote in- the election , and that if this occurred , the P. W. 0. C. would
regard it as a basis for a protest . The record further shows that
responsible officials of the Company thereafter instructed their super-
visory subordinates to adhere strictly to the rule , and that it was done
in all instances . Don Mahon, president of the Independent , testified
to the effect that Alsup was a member of the P. W. 0. C . and that he
saw Alsup vote during working - hours. However, Alsup was not
challenged . - We are convinced and find that no agreement was made
that the election would be voided if any employee voted during work-
ing hours , but that the parties understood that if groups of employees
were released for the purpose of voting such action might result in
a protest being filed. We find nothing in this contention warranting
setting aside the election.
VII. In its final allegation the Independent attacks the propriety
of the P. W. 0. C .'s challenges made at the election. Since we have
found no merit in the six allegations of the Independent , set out above,
we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the persons challenged
by the P. - W. 0. C. were eligible to vote. Even, assuming that all
the challenges should be overruled, the final result of the election
would not be changed.
IOWA PACKING COMPANY
CONCLUSION
311
We are of the opinion'and find- that the evidence does not support
the objections of the' Independent and that there is nothing in the
record which would warrant us in setting aside the election. The
objections are therefore overruled and we, shall accordingly* certify
the P. W. O. C. as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,-as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Packinghouse 'Workers Organiz-
ing Committee, on behalf of the United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local No. 89, affiliated with the C. I. 0., has been desig-
nated and selected by a majority of all hourly' paid production and
maintenance employees of Iowa Packing Company, Des Moines, Iowa,
including storage employees and truck drivers, but excluding all
general office and superintendent's office employees, medical depart-
ment employees, time and employment office employees, credit union
and snack employees, standards department employees, policemen and
watchmen, superintendent, division superintendents, general fore-
men, foremen, assistant foremen, gang leaders, salaried clerks, and
salaried scalers, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, Packing-
house'Workers Organizing Committee, on behalf of the United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, Local No. 89, affiliated with, the C. I. 0.,
is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of •pay,' wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification` of Representatives.