Enid Cooperative Creamery Association

In the Matter of ENID COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION, EM- PLOYER and GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 886, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-10,6 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER June 17, 1949 Oil September 24, 1948, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, issued on August 31, 1948, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director of the Sixteenth Region (Enid, Oklahoma). At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a Tally of Ballots which shows that out of 55 eligible voters, 54 cast ballots. Of these 21 were for the Petitioner and 33 were cast against the Petitioner. No other labor organization was on the ballot. On September 29, 1948, the Petitioner filed objections to the elec- tion. Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the objections and, on December 8, 1948, issued qnd served upon the parties a Report on Objections to the Election, in which he found (1) that a number of the employees in the appropriate unit were questioned with respect to their union membership by one.of-the Employer's supervisors and were told by the supervisor that the plant manager had stated that all employees whom he found to be union members would be discharged; and (2) that it was made clear to the employees in the butter wrap- ping department that if the Union came into the plant, the butter wrapping employees would be laid off upon the installation of a butter wrapping machine, which news quickly spread throughout the plant. Exceptions to the Report on Objections were filed by the Employer on December 13,19481 On December 27, 1948, the Board reopened the record and remanded the case to the Regional Director for a hearing upon the issues raised 'No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's Report insofar as it found other objections to the election to be without merit 84 N. L R. B., No. 42. 343 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the exceptions? A hearing was held before James R. Webster, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board, on April 15, 1949. The hearing officer's ruilngs made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 3 The Employer's butter wrapping department consists of a senior butter wrapper, three butter wrappers, and a putter print machine operator. Two of the butter wrappers testified that in March 1948, the senior butter wrapper asked one of the three butter wrappers, in the presence and hearing of the other two, if she was a member of "the Union," and advised her that the plant manager had stated that all em- ployees whom he found to be members of the Union would be dis- charged. The senior butter wrapper denied making this statement' The plant manager also denied that he had ever made any such statement. The record discloses that the alleged conversation occurred prior to the filing of the petition and 6 months before the election was held. We find that the single remark, even if made, did not interfere with the conduct of the election more than 6 months later, or with the exer- cise of the free choice of representatives by the employees participat- ing therein. No evidence was adduced at the hearing in support of the Regional Director's finding that the employees in the butter wrapping depart- ment were told that they would be laid off if the Union came into the plant. Accordingly, we find this charge to be without merit.5 As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the Tally of Ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been chosen, we shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 On March 9, 1949, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Report on Objections wherein he found, after further investigation , that the Employer's activity described above was too remote in time to affect the results of the election, and recommended that the peti- tion be dismissed . The Petitioner excepted to this finding and the Board, on April 4, 1949, again remanded the case to the Regional Director for a hearing as previously ordered 3 Pursuant to 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 Houston and Gray] ' The record is in conflict upon whether or not the senior butter wrapper is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act However , we find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in view of our finding hereinafter set forth. b The Petitioner, in its brief, argues that a statement read to the employees by the plant manager just prior to the election , constituted coercion and interference with the rights of the employees to select their representative . The Regional Director, in his Report on Objections to the Election , found this objection to be unsupported,by the evidence and rec- ommended.that it be overruled . No exceptions to this recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, this issue is not before us.