Moyer & Pratt, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1147 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MOYER & PRATT, INC. 1147
sentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all auto mechanics, body men, painters, trimmers,
helpers and apprentices, lubrication and garage men, porters and
regular part-time employees in those classifications at the Employer's
Cleveland, Ohio, automobile sales and service company, excluding
office and clerical employees, salesmen, company officers, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the amended
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume. ]
3 See Jack Taylor and"PaulBullard , d/b/a Butte Motors, 85 NLRB 1336 ; George Vevoda
d/b/a Vei oda blotor.Salesy85-NLRB 573, and cases cited therein.
MOYER & PRATT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER
MAKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No . 3-RC-898. September 16,
1,952
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 3, 1952, in the
above proceedings under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Third Region, among the employees in the stipulated
unit. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which
shows that, of approximately 65 eligible voters, 63 cast ballots, of
which 35 were for the Petitioner, 23 were against the Petitioner, and
5 were challenged.
On April 9, 1952, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec-
tion alleging in substance that the Board agent refused to establish
electioneering limits and that a union official, wno was not an employee
and who conducted the union organizing campaign prior to the elec-
tion, electioneered near the polling place during voting hours, thus
coercing and intimidating employees on their way to vote and inter-
fering with their free choice.
Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on May
21, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections.
The Regional Director found that the objections raise no material
issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election and
recommended that they be overruled and that the Petitioner be cer-
100 NLRB No. 190.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tified as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit. On May 27, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report which, in effect, reiterated the contention
raised in its objections to the election. The Employer's request for
oral argument is denied as the record and briefs adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Ac`
4. The Employer's objections do not raise material or substantial
issues with respect to the election for the following reasons :
It appears that the election was conducted on the Employer's
premises, in a garage adjacent to the plant; that in going to the poll
a number of employees used an outside path leading from the plant
to garage; that the path followed the general contour of a paved road
leading to the plant; that during the first half hour of the election
a union official was stationed in his car at a point on said paved
road, which was about 10 feet from the path and about 125 feet
from the polling place. The Employer alleges and we shall assume
arguendo that while at the above-mentioned point, the union repre-
sentatives spoke to employees who were on their way to vote. Because
of this alleged conduct, the Employer immediately complained to
the Board agent conducting the election, who then told both parties
not to engage in conduct which would give rise to the filing of
objections. Thereafter, the union official returned to the location
described above and resumed his activity until a half hour later when
he drove his car to another location on a hill 100 yards from and
overlooking the polling place, from which he waved to employees.
The Employer's basic objection is that the union official electioneered
on a road within the "polling area" 1 and thereby coerced the employees
and interfered with the holding of a "free and fair" election. Upon
the entire record, and especially the following circumstances, we find
no merit to this objection: (1) No claim is made that the union
official made any coercive statements or wilfully violated any instruc-
tions of the Board agent; (2) the union official was stationed in his
1 while it may be true that the Board agent failed, at the Employer's request, to estab-
lish specifically electioneering limits, we think it clear that he regarded the union official's
station-125 feet from the polls-to be outside the prohibited area Otherwise , when he
was apprised of the location of the union official and spoke to both parties with respect
to general standards of conduct , he would have instructed the union official to leave the
point in question.
ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY 1149
car on a highway 125 feet from the polling place; 2 and (3) his prox-
imity to the private path used by the employees did not involve in-
escapable personal contact with them .8
We accordingly find that conduct of the union official did not
interfere with the election or impair the free choice of the employees
therein. The Employer's exceptions to the report on objections are
hereby overruled.
5. All production and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its mill and warehouses in Lyonsdale and Lyons Falls,
New York, but excluding all office employees, foremen, tour bosses, and
all guards, professional employees, and supervisory employees as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
As a tally of ballots shows that a majority of valid votes have been
cast for the Union, we shall certify that labor organization as the
collective bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees of Moyer & Pratt, Inc., Lyonsdale and Lyons Falls, New
York, in the appropriate unit described in the stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all
the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZoG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
We note that this distance is comparable to that required under New York State law.
.S In these circumstances , we are satisfied that our holding in J. I. Case Company (85
NLRB 576) is here controlling , rather than our holding in Detroit Creamery Co. (60
NLRB 179) which is distinguishable on its facts.
ST. Louis INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 700
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-1948. September 16, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William F. Trent, hearing
100 NLRB No. 177.