Stokely Foods, Inc.

STOKELY FOODS, INC. 99 Also in the mechanical storeroom, though not sought by the Peti- tioner, is an inventory clerk. Working in other plant areas, moreover, are various other plant clerical employees who are presently excluded from the production and maintenance unit.h1 None of these others are now sought by the Petitioner. The employees sought are thus only a segment of a larger group whose status and interests are similar. To permit the Petitioner to round out its production and maintenance unit by adding the excluded plant employees piecemeal as now pro- posed would not only be administratively burdensome, but would also transgress the requirement of Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, which bars the Board, in making unit determinations, from giving controlling weight to extent of organization. We will therefore dismiss the peti- tion in Case No. 18-RC-159312 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 18-RC-1593 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections. "Most of the employees in the Employer's other storeroom , the one which serves the production employees, are excluded from the production and maintenance unit. So are the 6 scalers , who weigh animal carcasses in plant areas , and the 2 hide graders, who inspect and rate the quality of the hides stored in the Employer's hide cellars in the plant. Also excluded are about 100 employees who handle various kinds of paper work at desk locations in plant areas. 12 Kennecott Copper Corp., 96 NLRB 1423 ; Southern California Gas Co., 74 NLRB 48. STOKELY FOODS, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC1308. October 23,1952 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on July 16, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 13, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among the employees in_the voting group established by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 97 eligible voters, 78 cast valid ballots, of which 31 were for, and 47 were against, the Petitioner.2 There were 6 challenged ballots. IL Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions. 2 No other union appeared on the ballot. 101 NLRB No. 20. 242305-53-8 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Therefore, on August 18, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections, and on September 10, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections, in which he recom- mended that the objections be overruled and that the Board issue a certification of results of election. On September 22, 1952, the Peti- tioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner alleges, in substance, that the Employer colluded with District 50, United Mine Workers, in an effort to defeat the Petitioner in the election ,3 by knowingly permitting a District 50 leaflet, which urged employees to vote "no" in the election, to remain posted on the company bulletin board on the day before the election.' The Regional Director, in his report on objections, found that there was a lack of evidence in support of this allegation, and that therefore the objections did not raise substantial and material issues with re- spect to the election. The Regional Director also found that a repre- sentative of the Petitioner removed the District 50 leaflet from the bulletin board, and posted in its stead one urging employees to vote "yes" in the election. The Petitioner admits the removal, but denies the replacement. We find no merit in the Petitioner's objections, even assuming the facts to be those alleged by it. The publication of such a leaflet by District 50 was legitimate campaign propaganda on the part of a rival union which was not participating in the election.' And, in the absence of any contention that the Employer refused to permit the Petitioner to use the company bulletin board in the same way that District 50 did,6 it cannot be found that the Employer gave discrima- tory and improper assistance to District 50 in its election campaign? We find, therefore, that the alleged facts raised by the objections do not establish interference with the election which prevented the exer- cise of a free choice by the employees participating therein, and we hereby overrule the objections. As the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. Certification of Results of Election IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for American Federation of Labor, and that American Federation of Labor is not the exclusive representative of the em- 8 District 50 has not heretofore been involved in this case in any way. The leaflet was allegedly posted right next to the sample ballot for the election. See Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 87 NLRB 183. ° The Petitioner admittedly did not seek such permission. 7 Cf. The Crosley Corporation, 60 NLRB 623. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. 101 ployees of Stokely Foods, Inc., in the unit heretofore found appro- priate, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 17, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1466. October 24, 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 Bernard Marcus, hear- ing 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of guards at the Em- ployer's Lawrenceburg plant and Milan warehouse, both in Indiana. Alternatively, it asks for a unit which also includes guards at the Kings Mills and Middletown, Ohio, warehouses. The Employer contends that a unit which does not include guards at all of its plants is not appropriate. The Employer, a liquor manufacturer, operates 15 plants and ware- houses in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At Louisville, Kentucky, the Employer maintains its central produc- tion offices under the direction of a vice president in charge of produc- tion. The central production offices include such departments as purchasing, industrial relations, industrial education, labor relations, and safety. Heads of these departments determine policy for the entire organization. The effectuation of that policy is, however, to a considerable extent left to local plant officials. An applicant for a position as guard files his application at one of the plants. He is hired at the plant either for work at the plant of his 101 NLRB No. 37.