Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1512 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Petitioner for each such voting group described above, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority
In either voting group vote for the joint representatives, the Board
finds the continued inclusion of such employees in their present unit to
be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of
results of election to such effect.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 10-RC-1976
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO,, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-672. October 15,
1952
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election was held under the direction of the Regional Director on
April 4, 1952, among employees at the Employer's New Orleans,
Louisiana, plant. As the results of this election were inconclusive,' a
runoff election was conducted on May 2, 1952. The tally of ballots in
the runoff election shows that, of approximately 42 eligible voters,
41 cast valid ballots, of which 18 were cast for, and 23 against, the
Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged.
On May 6, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director caused an investi-
gation to be made of the Petitioner's objections, and on August 22
issued his report in which he found merit in the Petitioner's objections
and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
I The tally of ballots in the original election shows that 22 votes were cast for Petitioner,
2 for Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL, and 20
against participating labor organizations , and there was 1 challenged ballot. The Regional
Director subsequently recommended that the challenge be sustained and no exceptions were
filed to his recommendation.
2 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, Styles,
and Peterson].
100 NLRB No. 242.
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. 1513
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A. question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of said employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer-as stipulated by
the parties-constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of,Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All general production helpers, boners, truck drivers, egg candlers,
smoked meat washers, smoked meat packers, janitors, luggers, and
assistant shippers employed at the Employer's New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, plant, excluding all office employees, salesmen, ticket extenders,
engineers, foremen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner objected to the election principally on the ground
that the Employer forced employees to attend an antiunion meeting
and denied the Petitioner an equal opportunity to address the
employees.
The Regional Director made the following findings, which are
uncontroverted :
During the afternoon prior to the original election held on April 4,
Paretti, the branch manager, addressed the employees on company
property during working hours. In his speech, which the Regional
Director found did not appear to exceed the limitations of Section 8
(c) of the Act, Paretti told the employees that the meeting was
voluntary and anyone who wanted to leave was free to do so. He
further told them, among other things, that he would like to see
problems solved without the help of a labor group.
Thereafter, on April 28, Field Representative Bouche of the Peti-
tioner sent Paretti a letter in which he referred to Paretti's speech of
April 4 and requested a similar opportunity, under the same con-
ditions, to talk to the same group of employees, and suggesting that
this meeting be arranged for May 1, the day before the runoff election.
The Employer did not respond to Bouche's letter.
During the afternoon before the runoff election was held on May 2,
Paretti again addressed the employees on company property during
working hours. He again informed them that attendance was volun-
tary and they were privileged to leave. In his remarks, which, in the
opinion of the Regional Director, did not appear to have exceeded
the limitations of Section 8 (c), he discussed labor strife and stated
that employees suffered wherever labor trouble occurred; that in his
opinion the Employer's rates of pay and other conditions were in
line with its competitors'; that the Employer would in the future
keep abreast with competition; and that the employees did not need
a union for that purpose.
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Regional Director concluded that the Employer interfered with
the election on the ground that, by refusing Petitioner's request for
use of the same forum utilized by the Employer, the latter denied to
the employees a reasonable opportunity to hear both sides of the
issue on which they were about to vote. He therefore recommended
that the Petitioner's objections be sustained and the runoff election
be set aside.
The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's report mainly
because: (1) Attendance at Paretti's speeches was voluntary; (2)
Petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to present its side of the case
by other means; and (3) Petitioner's request for an opportunity to
talk to the employees was received too late for the Employer to comply
with it. We find no merit in these exceptions 3
As to the Employer's first two contentions, neither Paretti's in-
forming employees at the meetings that their attendance was volun-
tary, nor the alleged availability of other means of communication
is dispositive in this case. What is controlling, as the Board has
recently reaffirmed, is that the Employer utilized company time and
property for an electioneering speech to an employee assembly before
the runoff election, while simultaneously denying the Petitioner the
same forum for a like use.4
As to the Employer's final contention that the Petitioner's request
for an opportunity to speak to the, employees was untimely, the Em-
ployer alleges that in a prior representation case involving the Peti-
tioner and by letter dated February 19, 1952, in this case, it advised
the Union that industrial relations matters are handled by the Em-
ployer's Chicago office and requested correspondence to be directed
to that office. The Employer further asserts that the Petitioner's re-
quest to speak, dated April 28, was sent to the New Orleans branch
manager, who was required to send it to Chicago ; that it was not
received in the latter office until the afternoon of May 1, at a time
when the individual handling the matter was out of town; and that
therefore the Employer was unable to comply with Petitioner's re-
quest to talk With the employees on May 1, as suggested. However,
Paretti, to whom Petitioner sent its request, was the chief operating
official in the New Orleans branch, and it was he who made the
speeches to the employees on the Employer's behalf. Moreover, after
the letter referred to by the Employer above, Paretti alone signed
the stipulation for certification for the Employer on March 19, 1952,
and papers involving the case were thereafter served directly upon
8 We likewise find without merit the Employer's exception based on the signing by a repre-
sentative of the Petitioner of the "Certification on Conduct of Election" and "Tally of
Ballots." Cf. General Plywood Corporation, 83 NLRB 197; and Howell Chevrolet Co.,
95 NLRB 410.
4 Onondaga Pottery Company, 100 NLRB 1143, and cases cited therein.
NIAGARA BEER DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION 1515
Paretti without apparent objection by the Employer. We are of
the opinion, therefore, that the Petitioner's request sent to Paretti
was both proper and timely.5
Accordingly, we find, as did the Regional Director, that the Em-
ployer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selec-
tion of a bargaining representative, and shall order that the runoff
election of May 2, 1952, be set aside. We shall direct the Regional
Director to conduct a new runoff election at such time as he deems
appropriate.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the runoff election conducted on May
2, 1952, in Case No. 15-RC-672 be, and it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the purpose of con-
ducting a new runoff election at such time as he deems the circum-
stances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
• In view of this determination , we do not here decide whether, apart from such request
by Petitioner , the Employer 's speech to the employees constituted interference solely by
reason of its timing . Cf. The Hills Brothers Company, 100 NLRB 964.
NIAGARA BEER DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, H AL 1 and BEVERAGE WORK-
ERS LOCAL UNION No. 195, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNTrED
BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAIy SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-975. October 16,
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 William J. Cavers,
hearing 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.
' The names of those individual employer -members of the Association concerned, as
amended at the hearing , are as follows : Cataract Bottling Co., Inc., Bruno G. Kreuger
Distributing Corp., C. O. Marra, L. G. Pearson , Hardy Distributors, Inc., Power City
Distributing Co., Suspension Bridge Bottling Co., Star Bottling Co., Certo Bros. Distribut-
ing Co., Inc., and The Charles Distributing Corporation.
100 NLRB No. 245.