R. L. Polk & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

R. L., POLK & CO. 1079
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
R. L. POLK & Co. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
227, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-880. March 30, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On October 20, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Board herein,' an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate. Upon completion of the election, a tally of ballots was f urn-
ished the parties. The tally shows that, of the 731 valid votes counted,
289 were for, and 442 against, the Petitioner, and there were 21 chal-
lenged, and 4 void, ballots.
On October 23, 1950, the Petitioner -filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investi-
gation, and, on February 15, 1951, issued and served upon the parties
his report on objections to election. In his report, the Regional
Director found that the Employer engaged in activities interfering
with, and raising substantial and material issues with respect to the
conduct of, the election, and recommended that the election be set
aside. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's report.
The Regional Director's recommendation that the election be set
aside is based essentially on the following findings : On September
5, about a month after the hearing in this case, the Employer promised
the employees a wage increase of 5 cents an hour, and the adoption of
a new wage progression schedule. On September 25, the Board issued
its Decision and Direction of Election and, on October 5, the Employer
:announced the increase and new schedule, effective retroactively to
.September 4. In connection with this announcement, the Employer
:stated that these benefits were granted because of the increase in the
,cost of living, the rates paid for comparable work by other companies
in the area, and the efficiency of the plant employees 2 The Regional
Director found that these benefits were announced and put into effect
at the plant involved herein before similar changes at the Employer's
191 NLRB 443.
2 Although the Employer contends that the benefits were also granted to stem a high
personnel turnover, the Regional Director found that such turnover was not substantially
higher than previously experienced by the Employer and not followed by any wage
increases.
93 NLRB No. 204.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other organized plants, and that this action deviated from the Em-
ployer's past practice of effecting such changes at this plant after they
iti ere initiated at the other plants.
The Regional Director determined that the wage benefits were intro-
duced and made effective at a time calculated to influence the results
of the election. He also pointed to : (a) A speech by the Employer on
October 18, in which the Employer mentioned the benefits received by
these employees without organization and took a position opposing the
Union; and (b) other speeches by the Employer on the date of the
election, in which the Employer urged the employees to vote and indi-
cated that it believed the employees would be as well off without, as
with, the Union, but added that it would deal with the employees
through the Union if the employees so desired. The Regional Direc-
tor concluded that these speeches, taken together with the wage bene-
fits, presented a pattern of conduct warranting the setting aside of the
election. We 3 do not agree.
We have carefully examined the statements by the Employer, apart
from the introduction and granting of wage benefits, and find that
these statements contained no threats of reprisal or force or promise
of benefits, and that they did not prevent the employees from exercis-
ing a free choice in the election. 4 As to the wage benefits, these were
first promised by the Employer about 2 weeks before the Board's
decision issued and almost 6 weeks before the election, and were actu-
ally granted more than 2 weeks before the election. There is no evi-
dence that the Petitioner protested these benefits during the entire
period before the election, nor did it file any unfair labor practice
charges based thereon, although it was aware of the promised increase
as appears from pamphlets distributed by it as early as September.
Indeed, the objections filed herein by the Petitioner related not to the
introduction and granting of such benefits, but to the speeches made
by the Employer on the day of the election, which remarks we have
found did not constitute interference. Without passing upon ,the
question as to whether the Employer's conduct with regard to the
wage benefits might, in other circumstances, be deemed to have con-
stituted interference with the election, we conclude on all the facts
here, and more particularly because of the Petitioner's past acquies-
3 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 Houston, Murdock,
and Styles].
4 Although the Employer's speeches on the day of the election were made to groups
limited to about 20 or more employees, the Regional Director did not find that these
speeches were per se objectionable, and under all the circumstances, including the
extremely temperate nature of the remarks, It is clear, and we find, that this conduct
did not interfere with the election. Cf. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 79 NLRB 1399.
- O
THE PLUMBING CONTRACTORS ASSN. OF BALTIMORE , MD., INC. 1081
cence, that there is no warrant in this case for setting aside the elec-
tion. 5
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the Regional
Director, that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise sub-
stantial or material issues. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the
objections. As no collective bargaining representative was chosen in
the election, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order r
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
5Denton Sleepinq Garment Mills, Inc, 93 NLRB 329, Inte>national Harvester Com-
pany, West Pullman 1Vorks, 93 NLRB No 48
In view of our findings herein, we do not pass upon the other issues raised by the
Employer in its exceptions
THE PLUMBING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND,
INC., ET AL. ; FREDERICK C. KNIESE; EDWARD J. MCCANN & CO.;
WILLIAM J. HENSLER and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL No. 48, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 5-RC-96, 5-RC-94, 5-RC-95, and 5-RC-700. March 30, 1951
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions t duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing in these consolidated cases
was held before Ralph Winkler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed . 2
OnFebruary 13, 1951, the Board heard oral argument 3 at Washing-
ton, D. C., in which the Petitioner, The Plumbing Contractors Asso-
ciation of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., hereinafter called the Associa-
tion, and the Intervenors' participated.
I At the hearing, the Petitioner requested permission to withdrawn its petitions in
Cases Nos 5-RC-94 and 700. The hearing officer referred this request to the Board.
In the absence of objections thereto, the request is heieby granted
2 The Intervenors moved at the hearing to dismiss the petitions herein, on various
grounds discussed hereinafter The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board.
For the reasons set forth in Section 1, infra, the motion is granted as to the petition in
Case No 5-RC-95. For the additional reasons set forth hereinafter, the motion is
otherwise denied.
8 Case No. 3-UA-626, which was consolidated with this proceeding for purposes of
oral argument, is severed herefrom. See Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association
of Olean, New York, 93 NLRB 1099, decided this day
4 Because of the alleged novelty of certain of the issues in this proceeding, and because
-certain of the Intervenors represent employees of the Employers other than the employees
designated in the petitions, the Board permitted the following labor organizations to
intervene : International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers ;
93 NLRB No. 177.