Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORPORATION and JOINT LOCAL EXECU-
TIVE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, AFL, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2028. Sep-
tember 30, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On January 24, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees at Los Angeles, California, 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 accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board. The tally shows that of approximately 94 eligible
voters, 22 cast ballots in favor of the Petitioner, 58 cast ballots against
it, and 11 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, on January 30, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions 2 to the election alleging, inter alia, that the Employer had im-
properly influenced the results of the election because its president,
Burton N. Arnds, had delivered a coercive speech on the day before
the election.
On August 12, 1952, after investigating the objections, the Regional
Director issued his report on objections to conduct affecting results of
election. In his report, the Regional Director found that Arnds'
speech did not constitute an express or implied threat that employees
would lose benefits if they voted for the Petitioner, and that the Peti-
tioner's objections raised no substantial or material issues which would
justify setting the election aside. He therefore recommended that
the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
'97 NLRB 230.
'We find no merit to the Employer 's contention that the objections were not timely,
as they were filed on the sixth day following the election. Section 102 61 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations requires that objections must be filed within 5 days after the tally
of ballots has been furnished the parties. However, Section 102.86 of the Rules, which
states how time "allowed by these rules" shall be computed , states that :
When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate,
Sundays and holidays shall be excluded in the computation . For the purpose of this
section a Saturday on which the Board's offices are not open for business shall be
considered as a holiday. . . .
See also Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , 79 NLRB 590.
100 NLRB No. 210.
SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORPORATION 1297
exceptions to the report on objections, and the Employer filed an
answer to the Petitioner's exceptions. -
Pursuant to the provision 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 Styles and Peterson].
The facts are not disputed. On January 23, 1952, during the course
of the speech on the day before the election, an employee inquired
whether a Christmas bonus "and other things" would be discontinued
if "everybody voted us in." Arnds replied :
I wouldn't want to say how it might be-that would be up to the
Company. Believe you me, it says in here that any benefits you
now have, the contract will see that you still get those benefits.
The contract presented might say that but whether or not they
got the Company to accept, that is a different matter. You can
lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, and if these
things have no more appreciation, if they don't mean anythinb
then you tell me why they should be continued. And let me tell
you, if the Union put it in there, what do you think would hap-
pen? What do you think would happen? Why beat around the
bush? You know what would happen. You'd have a strike-
we're the boss-you don't go to work. Or would they? They've
done it. How else can they do it? So if you want to take the
chance, that they would or wouldn't do it, I want to say this
here-our interest in the employee is going to be just as sincere,
regardless of what happens, because the employees are just an
important part of this operation, much more so than I am, because
no man is indispensable, every individual included. No one is
indispensable-Mr. Alex, me or anybody else. The employees are
much more important. Well, we would have to see. That is a
good question. (Emphasis added.)
In our opinion, the foregoing statement was reasonably calculated
to convey to the employees the threat that if the Employer's plant was
unionized, the Employer would reject any request by the Petitioner for
continuation of the existing benefits, and that such benefits would
therefore be jeopardized by voting for the Petitioner. We find, con-
trary to the recommendation of the Regional Director, that these
statements constituted threats of economic reprisals against the em-
ployees if the Petitioner won the election, and interfered with the
employees' freedom of choice in the election.
Accordingly, we shall set aside the results of the election and shall
direct a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises is
appropriate .8
8 In view of our disposition herein , it becomes unnecessary to, and we do not , pass upon
the various other grounds urged by the Petitioner as a basis for setting aside the election.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of January 24, 1951, among
the employees of Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation at its Los
Angeles plant be, and it hereby is, set aside.
RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, WEDGEWOOD DIVISION and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 115,
AFL, PETITIONER. Cases No8. 20-RC-1827, gi0-RC-1828, 20-RC-
1829, 20-RC-1830, and 2O-RC-1881. September 30, 1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Natalie P.
Allen, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 Petitioner and the Stove Mounters' International Union of
North America, Local No. 61, AFL, the Intervenor, claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (1) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner in these consolidated cases seeks to sever from
the established production and maintenance unit currently repre-
sented by the Intervenor several craft units composed, respectively,
of electricians, carpenters, maintenance machinists and the auto
mechanic, the sheet metal man, and the pipefitter. In the event the
Board finds inappropriate separate units comprising one pipefitter
and one sheet metal man, the Petitioner requests that these two in-
dividuals be grouped with the machinists. As a further alternative,
the Petitioner takes the position that it will accept a unit made up
of all employees in the maintenance department or any other unit
the Board finds appropriate.
I The Intervenor contends that a contract between it and the Employer, automatically
renewable each year on June 15 , subject to notice to modify on or before the preceding
April 15, constitutes a bar to the present proceeding . As the contract was opened by both
parties April 15, 1952 , we find that no contract bar exists. Coca-Cola Bottling Company
of Pottsville, 97 NLRB 503 ; Danner Press of Canton, Inc ., 91 NLRB 237.
100 NLRB No. 220.