Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1444 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Company set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce anct
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act,-
I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative.
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Makers Union, Local 1232, AFL-CIO, and Steel,.
Paperhouse, Chemical Drivers & Helpers Local 578, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Andrew Brown Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By picketing the premises of the Company for the purpose of obtaining recog-
nition and thereby restraining and coercing its employees, Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act..
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corp . and Local 142, Aluminum Metal'
Alloys, Aircraft Components and Allied Trades , CIU, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-8618. June 13, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on March 18 , 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
on April 2, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board . Upon conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots . The tally showed
that, out of approximately 18 eligible voters, 18 ballots were cast, of
which 8 were for the Petitioner , 6 were against the Petitioner, and 4
were challenged.
On April 9, 1957, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election . As the challenged ballots were sufficient in
number to affect the results of the election , the Regional Director in-
vestigated the challenges as well as the Employer 's objections and, on
May 23, 1957, issued and duly served on the parties his report on chal
lenges and objections . In his report he recommended that the Em--
I Not published.
120 NLRB No. 187.
RA-RICH MANUFACTURING CORP. 1445
ployer's objections be overruled, that the challenge to the ballot of
Margaret Hyman be sustained, and that any determination as to the
challenged ballots of Taliercio, McGee, and Vogel be held in abeyance,
pending the Board's decision in an unfair labor practice case filed on
their behalf. The Employer has excepted to that portion of the report
dealing with the objections to the election and Hyman's challenged
ballot.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Employer's objections to the conduct
of the election, the Regional Director's report, the exceptions thereto,
and the entire record in this proceeding. For reasons hereinafter
stated, we find the Employer's objections and- exceptions to be with-
out merit.
1. OBJECTIONS
In its first objection, the Employer contends that the election should
be set aside because of Petitioner's interference therewith, in that a
number of ballots cast at the election bore identifying symbols which
-were placed on the ballots pursuant to instructions by'the Petitioner's
representatives. The Petitioner denies instructing any voters to place
identifying symbols on their ballots.
During the counting of the ballots, the Employer objected to the
validity of two ballots, which were included in the count. One ballot
had a pencil dot between the lower ends of the "X" in the "Yes box,"
and the other ballot had a small slanting pencilled dash mark just be-
low the marked "Yes box." 2 No evidence with respect to the latter
ballot was submitted to the Regional Director, nor did the investiga-
tion reveal any evidence thereon. With respect to the other ballot, the
investigation revealed that employees MacDonald and Laietta claimed
that a coworker, Bongiorno, told them that he was instructed to place
a dot on his ballot and that, although Bongiorno did not say who gave
him such instructions, 'they assumed it was one of their coworkers,
either Dentel or Baker. Bongiorno denies having such a conversation,
having received such instructions or placing a dot on his ballot. Den-
tel and Baker deny having given any such instructions.
We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence.
There is no evidence submitted by the Employer, or revealed by the in-
vestigation, to indicate that the Petitioner or its agents-gave' instruc-
tions to Bongiorno or to any other employee, either directly or indi-
2In its second objection, the Employer asserts that a number of ballots cast at the elec-
tion should not be counted because they bear identifying symbols. There is no evidence of
markings on any but the two ballots here in question. Because the markings on the two
ballots clearly-reveal the intent of the voters and are not inherently such as to disclose
the identity of the voters , we find that they are valid ballots. F . J. Stokes Corporation,
117 NLRB 951, 955.
1446 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rectly, to put identifying symbols on their ballots. In its exceptions,
the Employer asserts that a more thorough investigation "may well
have shown a 'pattern of union interference with the' election." The
Employer, however, has not submitted any evidence to support such
a contention. As there is no evidence to indicate that the conduct
complained of was attributable to the Petitioner, we find no merit in
the Employer's objections or exceptions.' The Employer's suggestion
that a hearing be held on this objection is' accordingly rejected.4
In its third objection, the Employer alleges that the Petitioner
engaged in improper campaign activity during the course of a pre-
election meeting by furnishing free drinks, and by the use of false
and misleading statements and purported testimonials from public
officials. The Regional Director found this objection to be without
merit because the Board has held that the serving of free refreshments
is a legitimate preelection campaign activity. Because the Employer
failed to submit any evidence to support its contention that false and
misleading statements were made by the Petitioner or that forged
testimonials from public officials were read during the meeting, the
Regional Director recommended that this objection be overruled. In
its exceptions, the Employer asserts that the Regional Director's find-
ings are based upon an incomplete account of events occurring at the
meeting, and asserts that a more thorough investigation might disclose
other evidence of improper union activity. The Employer, however,
submits no evidence to support its assertion or to controvert the find-
ings of the Regional Director. It is well established that a party
filing objections is obligated to furnish supporting evidence .5 Absent
evidence to support the Employer's naked assertions, we also find this
objection to be without merit and deny the Employer's request for a
hearing.
Under the circumstances, we find the Employer's objections do not
raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election.
Accordingly, they are hereby overruled.
II. CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Although Hyman was hired on March 15, 1957, the eligibility date,
she did not start to work for the Employer until March 18. The
Regional Director recommended that the challenge to her ballot be
sustained because she did not start to work until after the eligibility
date. In its exceptions, the Employer contends that Hyman was an
employee within the meaning of the Act, and therefore eligible to vote,
because she was hired and placed on the payroll on March 15. We
Bronze Alloys Company, ] 20 NLRB 682 ; May, Stern and Company, 119 NLRB 84.
' Orleans Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 630 ; Imperial Optical Manufacturing
Company, 119 NLRB 5; Murray Chair Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 1385, 1387.
6 Wood & Smith Shoe Co., 117 NLRB 1760 , 1761; Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc., etc.,
119 NLRB 349.
THE BORDEN COMPANY 1447
find no merit in this contention. It is well settled that, in order to be
eligible to vote, an individual must be employed and working on the
established eligibility, date, unless absent for one of the reasons set
out in the Direction of Elections We, therefore, sustain the challenge
to Hyman's ballot.
On April 21, 1958, the Board issued its Decision and Order in Case
No. 2-CA-5182, in which it found that the Employer discriminatorily
discharged or laid off Taliercio, McGee, and Vogel in February 19571
As these employees would have been employed and working on the
established eligibility date, but for the Employer's discrimination
against them, we overrule the challenges to their ballots.
As we have overruled the 'challenges to three ballots and, as the
outcome of the election depends on a consideration of these ballots, we
shall direct that they be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Second
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Salvatore Taliercio, John McGee, and
Lorenz Vogel, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of
ballots.]
6 Schick Incorporated, 114 NLRB 931, 934; Barry Controls, Incorporated, 113 NLRB
26, 27-28.
7 Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corporation , 120 NLRB 503.
The Borden Company (Borden's Farm Products , Sunshine
Farms, Inc., and Dairy Sealed , Inc.) and International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local No. 30-A, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
National Dairy Products Corporation ( Sealtest Sheffield Farms
and Muller Dairies, Inc.) and International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers , Local No. 30-A, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Milk Dealers Association of Metropolitan New York, Inc. and
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 30-A,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. '-RC-9228, 2-RC-9.06, and
2-RC-9258.1 June 13, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Harry E. Knowlton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
'At the hearing, Petitioner's request to withdraw the petition in Case No . 2-RC-9258
was approved.
120 NLRB No. 183.