Maine Fisheries Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regarded as a bar to a present determination of representatives .4
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
4 See Hamilton v. N. L. R . B., 160 F. 2d 465 , 471 (C. A. 6 ), cert. den. 332 U. S. 762. See
also American Seating Company , 85 NLRB 269 . Our decisions in C. Hager & Sons Hinge
Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163; Decker Clothes, Inc., 83 NLRB 484; The Brod-
erick Company, 85 NLRB 708 ; and Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc ., 97 NLRB 1488, are
hereby modified insofar as they may have implied to the contrary.
MAINE FISHERIES CORPORATION and SEA Fcfou WORKERS' UNION, ILA,
LOCAL No. 2, SERIES 1572, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2635.
June 10, 1952
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
On March 14, 1952, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted among the
Employer's production and maintenance employees at Holyoke Wharf,
Portland, Maine, to determine whether or not the said employees
wished the Petitioner to represent them in collective bargaining.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties in conformity with the stipulation. The tally shows that
of approximately 41 eligible voters, 15 votes were cast in favor of the
Petitioner and 23 against it, and 1 ballot was challenged. On March
20, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election, alleging that certain officers of the Employer had
promised economic benefits to the employees immediately before the
election for the purpose of influencing their votes.
On April 16, 1952, after investigating the objections, the Regional
Director issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that
the objections be sustained and the election set aside. On April 22,
1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report
and recommendation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
Findings of Fact
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
99 NLRB No. 98.
MAINE FISHERIES CORPORATION 605
.2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of said employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and'Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer-as stipulated by the
parties-constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Portland, Maine,
plant of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, executives, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The following facts, upon which the Petitioner rests its conten-
tion that the Employer improperly influenced the results of the elec-
tion, are not in dispute. The Employer processes fish which is
brought to its plant by fishing boats. On March 12, 1952, 2 days
before the election, the Employer sent a letter to each employee stress-
ing the fact that the Union was powerless to supply fish for the pl^unt
and could not keep the employees working full time. The next day,
the Petitioner distributed a circular in reply, in which it said, among
other things, that if the Employer could maintain full-time employ-
ment, no union election would be necessary.
On the day of the election, before the balloting started, the em-
ployees were asked to gather in the production area of the plant and
were addressed by officers of the company. The first speaker was
David Bergson, the general manager. He deplored the general con-
ditions which prevented the company from maintaining full employ-
ment, and added, "you can join this Union or any other, but no union
can provide work for you or prevent these layoffs." He was followed
by Irving Usen, the president, who made the following statement :
I want to tell you that the opinions expressed by Dave are the
opinions of the company and myself.
Since this election is of vital importance to both this company
and you I have made it my business to be here this morning.
In attempting to give you more steady work, I have been consid-
ering making arrangements to have another boat brought here in
order to supply more fish. I'm sure that you all know how com-
petitive this business is. We hope you will do nothing to prevent
the future progress of the company. We've sunk a lot of money
in here, to try to make this a business that can operate at a profit
and provide jobs in the area. It has always been our policy to
extend benefits to employees as fast as conditions warrant.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We hope to continue that policy and try to give you as steady
employment as possible. I hope you will demonstrate your confi-
dence in us.
Thanks for listening to me.
Usen was also treasurer of Mariner 's Fish Company, which operates
a processing plant at Gloucester, Massachusetts; treasurer of
O'Dennell-Usen Fisheries Corp., which operates another processing
plant at Boston, Massachusetts; and treasurer of Irving Usen Trawl-
ing Co., which operates a fleet of trawlers in the New England fishing
industry.
We agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that Usen's formal
announcement to the employees that he was "considering" new ar-
rangements to provide more work contained an implied promise of
economic benefits, either as a reward for voting against the union, or
as an inducement for the employees to abandon their self-organization
activities. The significant timing of the statement with respect to
the imminent hour for balloting, the emphasis which Usen himself
stressed on the purpose of his visit to the plant, the special importance
placed in the election campaign on the problem of scarcity of work;
and Usen's important standing in the managerial circles of other
companies engaged in operations which could easily make possible
the success of his new "considerations," forcefully impel the conclusion
that the assembled employees could only have understood Usen's
words as expressing an implied promise of more work. Made imme-
diately before the election, that statement prevented an untrammeled
expression of choice by the employees.'
The Employer argues that because Usen's statement did not ex-
plicitly or literally tie the announcement with the impending elec-
tion, no finding may be made that his promise of improved conditions
bore any relationship to the employees' union activities. But, as the
Board has heretofore held, it is immaterial whether coercive state-
ments be direct or indirect, explicit or implied. It suffices, so far as
the issue raised by the objections is concerned, that the employees, in
the circumstances of the moment, had reasonable cause to believe that
Usen's statement was a promise provoked by their union activity.z
Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, we find merit
in the objections, and we shall, therefore, set aside the results of the
election and direct that a new election be held at such time as the
Regional Director may deem proper.
1 Swarzenbach Huber Company , 85 NLRB 1490. See also, N. L. R. B. v . W. C. Nabors
Co., 196 F. 2d 272 (C. A. 5).
2 Bibb Manufacturing Company, 82 NLRB 338.
GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION 607
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the results of the election held among the
employees of Maine Fisheries Corporation, Portland, Maine, on March
14) 1952, be, and they hereby are, set aside.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL W ORKERS, LOCAL 309, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 14-RC-1821. June 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Benjamin E. Cook, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds.
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As a result of Board-directed elections in 1937, the employees
of the Employer have been represented by labor organizations on
the basis of four units : production and maintenance, welders, main-
tenance machinists, and patternmakers. The Petitioner now desires
to be certified as the bargaining representative of a unit of elec-
tricians A, electricians B, electrician helpers, and electrician learn-
ers, at the Employer's Granite City, Illinois, plant. These employees
have been represented by the Intervenor as part of the production
and maintenance unit. The Employer and the Intervenor maintain
i United Steelworkers of America , Local 1022, CIO, was allowed to intervene in this
proceeding on the basis of a contract with the Employer in which the Intervenor represents
the production and maintenance employees. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 530, moved to intervene , but later
withdrew its motion and did not participate in the hearing.
In view of our decision herein, the motion of the Intervenor to dismiss the petition is
denied.
99 NLRB No. 94.