General Plywood Corp.

In , the Matter. of GENERAL PLYWOOD CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-33 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES April 26,1949 On October 20, 1948, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' On October 25, 1948, the Employer requested time to file a motion for reconsideration and to set aside the Decision and Direction of Election, and a motion to vacate the Direction of Election pending such reconsideration. On October 28, 1948, the Board granted the Employer time within which to file its motion for reconsideration, but in all other respects denied the motion. On November 4, 1948, the Employer filed a motion for reconsidera- tion and to set aside the Decision and Direction of Election and a motion to dismiss the petition. The Petitioner filed no formal papers opposing the motion. On November 18, 1948, the Board denied the Employer's motion, except that it amended the unit finding in one minor respect. It further amended the Direction of Election by granting a 10-day extension of time for conducting the election. The election was held on November 23, 1948, and on the same day the Regional Director issued a Tally of Ballots. On November 29, 1948, the Employer filed objections to the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election. On November 30, 1948, the Regional Director issued a Corrected Tally of Ballots, and on Decem- ber 6, 1948, the Employer filed supplemental objections to the election? The Tally of Ballots and the Corrected Tally of Ballots show that of the 54 eligible voters, 47 cast ballots for, and 7 cast ballots against, the 'Petitioner. There were 10 challenged ballots. 179 N. L. R. B. 1458. 2 Although the Regional Director reported that the Employer's supplemental objections were untimely, we have, under the circumstances of this case, considered them together ,with the original objections. In view of our decision above set forth , we find it unnecessary to determine whether the supplemental objections were in fact timely filed. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 26. 197 844340-50-vol. 83-14 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On February 15, 1949, after an investigation, the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections, in which he found that the objec- tions were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. 'On February 25, 1949, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. In its objections, the Employer contends that : 1. As the Petitioner and the Congress of Industrial Organizations were not-in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, the Board did not have authority or jurisdiction to issue its decision, nor to order the election, and that therefore none of the votes cast in the election 'were valid. This is, in effect, a reassertion of the Employer's contention made at the hearing, and in its motion for reconsideration. For the rea- sons stated in our Decision, we reaffirm our finding therein that this contention is without merit. 2. The Employer's observer, in signing the original Tally of Bal- lots 3 and certification of conduct of election, did not waive the Em- 'ployer's objections to the election, or to the conduct thereof, or to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, to all of which the Employer has, and still does, object and except. ' This contention of the Employer is not, in fact, contrary to the Regional Director's recommendation. We find in accordance with such recommendation that the Employer has not waived its objections to the election or to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election. ' 3. The Regional Director should have given at least 10 days' ad- vance notice of the date-of the election, and, because he gave only 4 days' notice: (a) Other labor organizations had insufficient oppor- tunity.to request a place on the ballot; (b) 'The employees were denied sufficient time in which to consider the issues raised by the election and thus make a free and untrammelled choice; 4 (c) The Employer was denied the privilege of discussing the election with its employees, and could not make the necessary preparations therefor 5 'Neither the Employer's nor the Petitioner 's observer signed the Corrected Tally of Ballots. The Corrected Tally of Ballots was issued'to correct line 11 of the Tally of Ballots by_ striking the word not from the sentence "a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for the International Woodworkers of America, CIO." The Employer's plant was operating 3 days a week at that time. The notice of elec- tion, received by the Employer on November 19, 1948, set November 23, 1948 , as the date of the election. The notice of election was promptly posted, but it was not seen by the employees until November 22, 1948, the first operating day after its receipt. 6 The Employer requested postponement of the election in view of the Board 's 10-day extension noted above. Among other grounds for the request, the Employer stated that its counsel was required to attend a Board hearing elsewhere in the State on November 22, and if the election were held on November 23, counsel would be unable to reach the Employer's plant in sufficient time' before the election to "discuss matters" with the Employer. ' ' 1 GENERAL PLYWOOD CORPORATION 199 We find no merit to this contention. The Board issued its Deci- sion and Direction of Election on October 20, 1948. Thereafter, all parties were on notice that an election would be forthcoming within 30 days. The Employer and any interested labor organization were thus given ample time within which to make necessary preparations and requests concerning.the election. The election results show that all eligible voters participated .6 4. A Board agent advised the Employer that the Board would not conduct the election on the Employer's premises unless the Employer recognized, in accordance with the Petitioner's demands, the eligi- bility of certain employees. The demand not having been met, the election was scheduled to be held in a parked automobile in front of the plant. The Employer's exceptions disclose that there is disagreement as to whether the election was held in the place scheduled, or was held in a room within the plant which had been kept ready by the Employer for such purpose. There is also a factual conflict as to the reason for scheduling the election off the Employer's premises. We believe, however, that it is unnecessary to resolve these issues. The Employer does not assert, nor does it appear, that the place in which the election was held in any way affected the exercise of a free choice or prevented any eligible voter from exercising his franchise in the election. We find that none of the parties was prejudiced thereby. 5. On November 19, 1948, the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer and engaged in various improper and unlawful acts, including the making of slanderous and inflammatory statements, all of which were calculated to, and did, intimidate and -coerce the employees into voting for the Union.' Surely the mere filing of unfair labor practice charges is not in itself coercive, nor can it be said to interfere with the exercise of free choice. Absent any elements of coercion, the Board will not censor propa- ganda material used by unions in preelection campaigns.8 ° See Matter of Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 315. The charges alleged violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3). The Employer con- tends that by reason of the filing of the charges , the election should not have been held, and the petition for representation filed herein should have been dismissed. The Board does ,not, however, dismiss a representation petition merely because such unfair labor practice charges have been filed during the pendency thereof. As the complaining Petitioner filed a waiver, there was no need to postpone the election. 8 Matter of Philadelphia Lager Beer Brewers Ass 'n, 79 N L R. B. 351 ; Matter of May- wood Hosiery Mills, Inc., 64 N. L. R. B. 146. The Employer asserts that the Petitioner's agents employed coercive methods in effecting its preelection campaign . The Regional Director investigated the evidence offered in support of this allegation , and found only two instances which appear to involve any element of coercion , as follows : Approximately I year before the election , an employee who, as a union officer, had opposed the Petitioner's glans to strike the Employer 's plant, received an anonymous letter advising him to stay 200 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. The Employer's challenges to 10 employees made at the election should be sustained, and it is entitled to copies of all affidavits that such employees may have executed and furnished the Board's agent in support of their eligibility to vote. As the challenged ballots could not affect the results of the election, we find it unnecessary to rule on the challenges. Having duly considered the Employer's objections to the election and objections affecting the results of the election, the Board finds in accordance with the Regional Director's recommendation, the ob- jections to be without merit, and they are hereby overruled. As it appears from the Corrected Tally of Ballots that the employees have selected the International Woodworkers of America, CIO, as their bargaining representative, we shall certify that labor organization. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the International Woodworkers of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees at the Cuthbert, Georgia, plant of the General Plywood Corporation, including the truck driver, the truck driver helper, the checker, inspectors, and the head fireman, but excluding office, clerical, and professional employees, bookkeepers, timekeepers, watchmen and guards, foresters, technical advisors or instructors, casual or temporary employees, draftsmen, salesmen, engi- neers, students, foremen and assistant foremen, and all other super- visors as defined in the amended Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. away from the union meetings, and that if he did attend, be would be "dragged out and worked over." Another employee was approached several months before the election and told that if he didn't join the Union he would have no place to live . There is nothing to show that these incidents are attributable to the Petitioner . Moreover, we believe that these attempts to influence individual employees occurred at a time too remote materially to affect the results of the election.