Showell Poultry Co.

580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this case to find that the ironworkers are craftsmen as ordinarily defined by the Board , for all the parties, by their recognition of the Petitioner 's authority to act on behalf of these employees , have in effect over the years recognized their distinctive interests and the appropriateness of separate bargaining for them . Indeed, notwithstanding the single con- tract made each year for both machinists and ironworkers, both Unions and the Employer , to all intents and purposes, carried on their collective -bargaining relations as though the ironworkers were a separate bargaining unit. We think it is clear, therefore , that the special skills of the ironworkers coupled with the Employer' s recognition in the past of the Petitioner ' s right to look after their distinctive interests generally , amply support the conclusion now that the iron- worker group may constitute a separate bargaining unit. We also believe that, in view of the original certification of the Intervenor for all the plant employees and the joint character of later bargaining relations , a single overall unit could also be appropriate. We shall therefore make no final unit determination at this time, pending the outcome of the election directed herein. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all ironworkers and their helpers employed by the Employer at its Dorchester, Massachusetts , plant in the ironshop departments designated as shops B and C, excluding all machinists and their helpers, clerical and professional employees , guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner , they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for this voting group, which the Board , under such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining . In the event that a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to be included in the existing production and maintenance unit represented by the Petitioner , and the Regional Director will issue a certifica- tion of results of election to such effect. (Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] SHOWELL POULTRY COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS- TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petition er and LOCAL 199, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKERS OF N.A., AFL. Case No. 5-RC-1224. June 12, 1953 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On March 3 , 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election , anelectionby secret ballot was conducted 105 NLRB No. 70. SHOWELL POULTRY COMPANY 581 under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon the completion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally reveals that of approxi- mately 107 eligible voters, 63 cast valid ballots, of which 32 were for the Petitioner , 6 for the Intervenor , and 25 against both Unions. There were 3 void ballots and no challenged ballots. On March 5, 1953, the Intervenor filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election . In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on April 8, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections. The Intervenor filed exceptions to the report. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. All employees at the Employer's Showell , Maryland, plant, excluding office clerical employees , guards, watch- men, professional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Intervenor alleged in its objections that the Em- ployer had made a coercive speech in its plant just after working hours, had refused the Intervenor an opportunity to reply under like circumstances , and had made remarks to its employees encouraging them to vote against both Unions and to form a company union. The Regional Director, in his report on objections , found that the Employer's speech expressed opposition against both Unions equally, that there was no evidence of Employer assistance to the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner as well as the Intervenor had not had an opportunity to address the employees on the Employer's property . It is well established that the Board will not set aside an election because of employer interference where the only union involved wins the election , because to do so would permit the wrongdoer to profit by its illegal acts.' The Regional Director found this policy applicable to the instant case where two unions were involved, and recommended that the objections be overruled , and the Petitioner, which had won the election decisively , be certified. 2 The Intervenor ' s exceptions to the report on objections allege that the Employer ' s speech was coercive per se, that t Keeshin Poultry Company, 97 NLRB 467. 2 Cf Meridian, Grain & Elevator Company, 74 NLRB 900. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under Board practice an election must be set aside whenever there is coercion affecting an election, and that the election in the instant case should be set aside because the Employer's misconduct, although directed against both Unions, might have unequally affected the Intervenor's adherents among the em- ployees. We find, for the reasons relied upon by the Regional Direc- tor, that the Intervenor's objections and exceptions do not raise material and substantial issues with respect to the election. We shall therefore overrule them, and, as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recom- mendation and certify the Petitioner as the bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Showell Poultry Company in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.] CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY and DIVISION 689, AMALGA- MATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYES OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 5-CA-667. June 16, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge duly filed November 25, 1952, by Division 689, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Acting Regional Director for the Fifth Region, issued a complaint dated December 23, 1952, against Capital Transit Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Receipt of copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing was stipulated by all parties, With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about November 17, 1952, the Respondent refused, and now refuses, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of certain employees appropriately a part of the unit the Union currently represents. The Respondent filed an answer admitting that the Union had requested the Respondent to bargain as alleged and that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as requested, but denying that it had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. 105 NLRB No. 72.