Stokely Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1952

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

STOKELY FOODS, INC. 99
Also in the mechanical storeroom, though not sought by the Peti-
tioner, is an inventory clerk. Working in other plant areas, moreover,
are various other plant clerical employees who are presently excluded
from the production and maintenance unit.h1 None of these others are
now sought by the Petitioner. The employees sought are thus only a
segment of a larger group whose status and interests are similar. To
permit the Petitioner to round out its production and maintenance
unit by adding the excluded plant employees piecemeal as now pro-
posed would not only be administratively burdensome, but would also
transgress the requirement of Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, which bars
the Board, in making unit determinations, from giving controlling
weight to extent of organization. We will therefore dismiss the peti-
tion in Case No. 18-RC-159312
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 18-RC-1593
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
"Most of the employees in the Employer's other storeroom , the one which serves the
production employees , are excluded from the production and maintenance unit. So are
the 6 scalers , who weigh animal carcasses in plant areas , and the 2 hide graders, who
inspect and rate the quality of the hides stored in the Employer's hide cellars in the plant.
Also excluded are about 100 employees who handle various kinds of paper work at desk
locations in plant areas.
12 Kennecott Copper Corp ., 96 NLRB 1423 ; Southern California Gas Co., 74 NLRB 48.
STOKELY FOODS , INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER.
Case No. 17-RC1308. October 23,1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
July 16, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 13,
1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Seventeenth Region, among the employees in_the voting group
established by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 97
eligible voters, 78 cast valid ballots, of which 31 were for, and 47 were
against, the Petitioner.2 There were 6 challenged ballots.
IL Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
2 No other union appeared on the ballot.
101 NLRB No. 20.
242305-53-8
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Therefore, on August 18, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director
investigated the objections, and on September 10, 1952, issued and
duly served upon the parties a report on objections, in which he recom-
mended that the objections be overruled and that the Board issue a
certification of results of election. On September 22, 1952, the Peti-
tioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Petitioner alleges, in substance, that the Employer colluded
with District 50, United Mine Workers, in an effort to defeat the
Petitioner in the election ,3 by knowingly permitting a District 50
leaflet, which urged employees to vote "no" in the election, to remain
posted on the company bulletin board on the day before the election.'
The Regional Director, in his report on objections, found that there
was a lack of evidence in support of this allegation, and that therefore
the objections did not raise substantial and material issues with re-
spect to the election. The Regional Director also found that a repre-
sentative of the Petitioner removed the District 50 leaflet from the
bulletin board, and posted in its stead one urging employees to vote
"yes" in the election. The Petitioner admits the removal, but denies
the replacement.
We find no merit in the Petitioner's objections, even assuming the
facts to be those alleged by it. The publication of such a leaflet by
District 50 was legitimate campaign propaganda on the part of a
rival union which was not participating in the election.' And, in
the absence of any contention that the Employer refused to permit the
Petitioner to use the company bulletin board in the same way that
District 50 did,6 it cannot be found that the Employer gave discrima-
tory and improper assistance to District 50 in its election campaign?
We find, therefore, that the alleged facts raised by the objections do
not establish interference with the election which prevented the exer-
cise of a free choice by the employees participating therein, and we
hereby overrule the objections.
As the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the valid ballots cast
in the election, we shall certify the results of the election.
Certification of Results of Election
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots has not
been cast for American Federation of Labor, and that American
Federation of Labor is not the exclusive representative of the em-
8 District 50 has not heretofore been involved in this case in any way.
The leaflet was allegedly posted right next to the sample ballot for the election.
See Western Electric Company , Incorporated, 87 NLRB 183.
° The Petitioner admittedly did not seek such permission.
7 Cf. The Crosley Corporation , 60 NLRB 623.
JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. 101
ployees of Stokely Foods, Inc., in the unit heretofore found appro-
priate, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Results of Election.
JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION
OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 17, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-1466.
October 24, 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 Bernard Marcus, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of guards at the Em-
ployer's Lawrenceburg plant and Milan warehouse, both in Indiana.
Alternatively, it asks for a unit which also includes guards at the
Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio, warehouses. The Employer
contends that a unit which does not include guards at all of its plants
is not appropriate.
The Employer, a liquor manufacturer, operates 15 plants and ware-
houses in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
At Louisville, Kentucky, the Employer maintains its central produc-
tion offices under the direction of a vice president in charge of produc-
tion. The central production offices include such departments as
purchasing, industrial relations, industrial education, labor relations,
and safety. Heads of these departments determine policy for the
entire organization. The effectuation of that policy is, however, to
a considerable extent left to local plant officials.
An applicant for a position as guard files his application at one of
the plants. He is hired at the plant either for work at the plant of his
101 NLRB No. 37.