The Hills Brothers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 964 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
encumber this Report to set forth herein the numerous accusations of counsel
by means of innuendo and otherwise as regards Lightfoot's character , but would
serve no useful purpose in the undersigned 's ultimate findings herein . In passing,
the undersigned has this comment to make, in justice to all concerned with these
proceedings , that in the absence of any substantial evidence ( as a matter of fact
not even a scintilla ) that Lightfoot had ever been arrested , arraigned , indicted
by a grand jury, or convicted of any crime, either misdemeanor or felony, such
accusations must of necessity be ignored by a trier of the facts in testing a
witness' credibility.
In its brief the Respondents further contend that the Board acted in an arbi-
trary and capricious manner by processing the instant case . Its contention is
set forth below :
Finally, we would like to call to the attention of the Trial Examiner the
fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has sustained these contentions
we originally raised before him and also before the Board to the effect
that since the Board did not permit Union Security elections in the Build-
ing Construction Industry during the period in question it was arbitrary
and capricious and an abuse of its discretion for the Board to then proceed
as it did in this case. I am referring to the decision of that Court in
NLRB versus Guy F. Atkinson Company , 21 Labor Cases No. 66809.
Clearly the Respondents ' contention in this regard is beyond the scope of the
Board 's Order reopening the record herein. Consequently the undersigned
makes no comment"
Conclusions
In view of the foregoing and upon- the entire record in the case the under-
signed finds no reason to modify or change the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations in his original Intermediate Report.
I' See Matter of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers , Plaintiff v. Gerald A. Brown as the Regional Director of the Twen-
tieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, et al ., Defendants, in the District
Court of the United States for the Nortern District of California , Southern Division,
Case No. 31262, original filed March 5, 1952 ; before Pope, Circuit Judge , and Carter and
Murphy, District Judges.
THE HILLS BROTHERS COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1599. August 29,1952
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election
On March 20, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, among the Employer's employees at Bartow, Florida, to de-
termine 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. The tally shows that of approximately 230 eligible
1 Unpublished decision issued December 4, 1951.
100 NLRB No. 141.
THE HILLS BROTHERS COMPANY 965
voters, 47 cast valid ballots in favor of the Petitioner, 170 cast valid
ballots against it, and 4 ballots were challenged. On March 24, 1952,
the Petitioner filed objections to the election, alleging that the Em-
ployer improperly influenced the results of the election by addressing
the employees in the plant shortly before they were polled.
On May 7, 1952, after investigating the objections, the Regional
Director issued his report on election and objections to election, in
which he reported the facts on which the objections rest but made
no recommendation as to their disposition. Because the challenges
could not affect the results of the election, the Regional Director made
no report concerning the challenges. On May 14, 1952, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, requesting that the
objections be overruled. The Petitioner did not except to the Regional
Director's report.
The facts are not disputed. The employees were polled at 2: 30
p. in. At about 2 o'clock that afternoon, the Employer's plant
manager, C. R. May, spoke to the employees over a public address
system installed in the plant for the occasion. The employees re-
mained at work. May read from a prepared document and ended
his remarks at about 2: 15 p. in. In substance, he commented upon
the course of the representation proceeding before the Board, the
Employer's efforts to maintain high wages and continuous employ-
ment, the necessity for properly evaluating the Petitioner's election-
eering statements, and the importance of casting ballots in the elec-
tion to follow. We agree with the Regional Director's conclusion
that May's speech, which we have examined, contained no threat or
promise of benefit, and was therefore a fully protected expression of
opinion. The Petitioner does not claim otherwise.
The Petitioner complains that the Employer's strategem of making
extended arguments to the employees immediately before the election,
and thus holding their attention almost to the moment of balloting,
constituted improper interference with their right to express a free
choice in the election. The Employer defends its conduct on the
purely technical grounds that it made no threat or promise of benefit,
and that the Petitioner did not ask for an opportunity to speak to
the employees in like fashion. It is true that the plant manager
made no statement that could per se be deemed violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act, and that the Petitioner did not request per-
mission to address the employees in the plant. However, the plant
manager quite effectively foreclosed the possibility of a union reply
by timing his -remarks as he did. This conduct was tantamount to
.a refusal to consider a request to reply.2 Therefore we view the failure
to request time for a reply as hardly decisive against the Union.
2 See opinion in Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. N. L R. B., 197 F. 2d 640 (C. A. 21.
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
What we do consider decisive is the fact that the Employer preempted
the last opportunity for equal discussion and argumentation on the
union question by waiting as lie did until a time when no such equality
would be physically possible. This use by the Employer of working
hours for campaigning, timed so as to deny a substantially equal
opportunity for presentation of the Union's views, was discriminatory
and prejudiced that atmosphere we believe is essential to a fair exer-
cise of their franchise by the voters. As the Board has held : "In
election proceedings, it is the Board's function to provide a laboratory
in which an experiment may be conducted, under conditions as nearly
ideal as possible, to determine the uninhibited desires of the
employees." 3
With this salutary principle in mind, we are satisfied that this
election must be set aside. We shall also direct that a new election be
conducted.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election be held on March 20, 1942,
among the employees of The Hills Brothers Company, Bartow, Flor-
ida, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in
this volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took not part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124.
NEW ORLEANS LAUNDRY, INC." and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 320 , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 15-RCi-702.
August 29,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Victor H.
Hess, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affitmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson],
1 The petition was amended at the hearing to name the Employer ( d/b/a Chalmette
Laundries & Cleaners , Chalmette Rug Service , and Zelon Cleaners & Launderers ) correctly,
as stated in the caption.
100 NLRB No..146.