Vineland Poultry Laboratories

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

VINELAND POULTRY LABORATORIES
Tevis M. Goldhaft , Bryna Goldhaft , Nathan Werni-
coff , Helen B . Wernicoff , and Florence B. Gold-
haft d/b/a Vineland Poultry Laboratories and
Amalgamated Food & Allied Workers Union Local
56, Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Work-
men of North America , Petitioner. Case
4-RC-7620
October 8, 1968
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election executed on February 16, 1968, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on February
23, 1968, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 4 among the employees
in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 46
eligible voters, 45 cast ballots, of which 18 were for,
and 26 against, the Petitioner, and 1 was challenged.
The challenged ballot was not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on May 2, 1968,
issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on
Objections, in which he recommended that Objection
2 be sustained, and that the results of the election be
set aside. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's Report along
with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds-
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
123
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of the employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All employees of Vineland Poultry Laboratories,
but excluding sales personnel, office clerical em-
ployees, degreed professional employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's
objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the
Employer's exceptions thereto, and the Employer's
brief, and makes the following findings.
The sole objection in which the Regional Director
found merit,' related to comments made by Dr Tevis
Goldhaft, part owner of Vineland Poultry Laborato-
ries, at an employee meeting on February 21, 1968, 2
days before the election. The objection alleged that
the Employer unlawfully sought to have employees
form a "committee" to bargain with the Employer
instead of with Petitioner.
As appears from the version of three Union
witnesses, Goldhaft told the employees in the course
of a discussion about the Union that if the Union did
not win the election, the employees could form their
own union or committee to handle grievances. In the
Regional Director's view Goldhaft's statements im-
plied that the employees could better obtain benefits
and handle problems through such a committee
arrangement than through the Union. He concluded
that the Employer, by suggesting the possibility of an
employee committee to deal with management, inter-
fered with, and restrained the employees' free choice
in the election. Accordingly, he recommended that
the objection be sustained and the election set aside.
We do not agree. We find that Goldhaft's mere
suggestion that the employees could voluntarily form
a committee and his indication that management
would deal with such a committee, standing alone, are
insufficient to constitute either a promise of benefit
or other improper restraint of employees in the free
exercise of their choice. Therefore, contrary to the
Regional Director, we overrule Objection 2.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections
and as the tally of ballots shows that Petitioner has
not received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we
shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
I The Regional Director dismissed Objections 1, 3, 4 and 5. As to
the overruling of these objections , to which no exceptions were taken,
we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's Report.
173 NLRB No 25
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes has not been cast for Amalgamated Food &
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Allied Workers Union Local 56, Amalgamated Meat- sentative of the employees in the unit found ap-
cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, and propriate, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
that said labor organization is not exclusive repre- National Labor Relations Act, as amended.