Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.

CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. 819 Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group: All boilerhouse employees at the Employer's Vernon, California, operation, excluding office and clerical employees , guards, all other employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.15 However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated that they desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, they may continue to be represented as part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Peterson , dissenting: Other than their alleged craft status , there appears no other cogent reason for granting the powerhouse employees sever- ance from the production and maintenance unit established in 1937. In view of the 16 years of collective-bargaining history on a broader basis, and in accord with my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627, I would dismiss the petition herein. 15 The Employer appears to contend in its brief that only a unit including employees at its three Pacific Coast locations is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. This contention is rejected since each of the locations is separately represented and the degree of integration among the three plants is not sufficient to bar an otherwise appropriate unit on a smaller basis. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL 18, AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1041. June 29, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 21, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on July 31, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was held under the direction and supervision of 1 The Decision and Direction of Election does not appear in the published volumes of the Board's Decisions and Orders. 105 NLRB No 112 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Regional Director for the Fifth Region among employees in the unit found to be appropriate. The tally of ballots furnished the parties after the election shows that, of approximately 367 eligible voters, 120 employees cast ballots for the Petitioner and 130 cast ballots against the Petitioner; 8 ballots were challenged; and 1 ballot was void. The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the outcome of the election. The Petitioner having duly filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, and the Regional Director having issued a report on objections, to which no exceptions were taken, the Board on December 24, 1952, issued an order adopting the recommendations in the Regional Director's, report, overruling the Petitioner's objections numbered (2), (4), (5), and (6), and directing that a hearing be held on the objections numbered (1) and (3). Between January 15 and March 3,, 1953, pursuant to the order of the Board, a hearing was held before John H. Garver, hearing officer. At the hearing, evidence was taken only with respect to objection (1), the Petitioner at the hearing having requested, without objection, leave to withdraw objection (3). On April 10, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report on objections, finding that the Employer's conduct, alleged by the Petitioner as a basis for objection (1), interfered with the conduct of the election; and recommending that said election be set aside and a new election be held. The hearing officer further recommended that the Petitioner's request to with- draw objection (3) be granted. On April 29, 1953; the Employer duly filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report on objections, with a supporting brief and memorandum, requesting that the Board overrule the Petitioner's objection (1). The Board2 has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com- mitted. The hearing officer's rulings are hereby affirmed. The Petitioner ' s request to withdraw objection ( 3) is granted. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report and the Employei's exceptions thereto and, on the basis of the entire record, makes the following findings: The Petitioner ' s objection ( 1) raises the only issue remaining before us for decision. The Petitioner alleges as grounds for setting aside the election that the Employer compelled all employees in the unit involved in the election to attend certain meetings, either on the night before the election or on the morning of the election, on company time and property, at which the Employer's president addressed the employees. The same speech was delivered on each occasion. That the content of this speech was privileged is not now in issue. The Employer admits the occurrence of the planned meetings, the 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 Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC 821 delivery of the speeches, and the fact that at no time did it inform the Petitioner of the scheduled meetings. In its defense, however, the Employer urges that, although the Petitioner must have been aware of the first speech delivered approxi- mately 151- hours before the commencement of the election, the Petitioner at no time requested permission of the Employer to reply; that , had it done so, the Employer was in a position to permit the Petitioner to reply to substantially all the em- ployees reached by the Employer ; and that under these cir- cumstances the Employer ' s conduct does not, under established Board principles , justify setting aside the election . We do not agree. The election among the Employer ' s employees took place on the Employer ' s premises on August 21, 1952, between the hours of 2:30 and 5 : 30 p.m. and during a further period that night from 11:30 p.m. to 12 :15 a.m. At 10 p.m. on August 20, the night before the election , at a meeting arranged by the Employer for the employees on this shift involved in the election , the Employer ' s president read to the assembled employees a 15-minute speech, assuring them of the secrecy of the ballot box; stating the Employer ' s oppositionto unionism at its plant ; discussing the Employer ' s system of employee benefits ; describing the Petitioner ' s alleged lack of success in organizing its employees ; and in conclusion , urging the employees to vote "No" in the forthcoming election. The same speech was repeated on 3 other occasions : At another meeting held at 11 p.m. on the same night and a 2 other meet- ings at 7 : 30 a.m. and at 10 a.m. on the morning following. The several speeches were conducted on the Employer's time and property . The employees received notice of the speeches by word of mouth from foremen or from fellow employees or by crayon notices placed on bulletin boards by foremen. So far as the record discloses these were the only occasions on which the Employer had ever addressed its employees in this fashion . Substantially all eligible voters attended the meetings , which were timed to accomodate the several plant shifts. During the meetings , plant machinery was shut down at the request of foremen ; work was at a standstill. Although there is some doubt as to whether the president of the Petitioner ' s Local was aware of the fact that speeches had been delivered on the night before the election ,3 it appears that the Petitioner ' s officials did not learn the contents of the speeches until after 10 o'clock the following morning. The Petitioner ' s officials thereupon reported the incident to its 3The president of the Petitiondr;s Local testified that, at about the time the first speech was delivered, he received from an unidentified employee at the plant a call to the effect that employees had left work and that something was going on at the Employer 's cafeteria which the former should investigate . The president of the Local drove to the plant at about 11 P. m. but, seeing no one around, went home after a few minutes Although he denied that he had been told that a speech was going on, he did admit that, in his opinion, the Employer had probably summoned the employees to make an announcement . His attempts to reach other officials of the Petitioner that same night were without success. 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD attorney in New York City by telephone and were advised by the latter not to make an issue of the speeches at that time, in view of the imminence of the election and the fact that the Petitioner had then no copy of the text of the speeches. The Petitioner at no time requested the Employer' s permission to reply to the speeches on company time and property, nor does it appear that reasonable times were available for adequate replies. It is conceded that the speeches followed vigorous preelection activity, in the course of which the Petitioner availed itself of the absence of a no-solicitation rule in the Employer's plant and the Employer circularized the employees with numerous pamphlets. On the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the Employer's conduct in scheduling its speeches on company time and property so close to the time of the election, under the circumstances noted above , effectively denied to the Petitioner an opportunity to address the employees under equivalent conditions , thus improperly interfering with the conduct of the election . In arriving at this result, we do not ignore the schedule, outlined in the Employer' s exceptions and in its brief, by means of which it seeks to prove that sufficient time intervened between the speeches and the opening of the polls to give to the Petitioner, had it so desired, opportunity to have addressed substantially all the employees reached by the Employer.- Whether or not such replies might have been interposed , it is clear that adherence to the schedule, belatedly proposed by the Employer in retrospect , would have entailed great inconvenience to the Petitioner and a burden on the employees concerned and would have required the Petitioner to continue its preelection campaign up to a point several hours after the first scheduled opening of the polls.4 It cannot thus be affirmed that the course of action suggested by the Em- ployer would have afforded the Petitioner a reasonable op- portunity to reply to the Employers We agree with the hearing officer's conclusions and recommendations to this extent, and we therefore shall set aside the election 6 and direct that a new election be held. 4The Employer suggests that the Petitioner could have reached the late night- shift em- ployees by requesting them to hear a reply speech on the morning of the election , following their 8 a.m quitting time, and that the Petitioner could have reached those employees arriving between 3 and 4 p.m on the day of the election by requesting them to defer their voting until the night voting period, following a reply speech to be delivered during the recess in the election. We do not agree. 5Shirlington Supermarket, Inc., 102 NLRB 312; Foreman and Clark, 101 NLRB 40; Hills Brothers Company, 100 NLRB 254 Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99 NLRB 422, on which the Employer relies, has little bearing on the instant case In that case the issue concerned the question of what constitutes an appropriate request to reply on the part of a labor organization . The instant case does not raise that issue. 61n view of our determination herein, it is unnecessary for us to consider severally the Employer 's other exceptions to the hearing officer's report. WILSON & CO., INC. 823 [The Board set aside the election held on August 21, 1952.1 [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publica- tion. ] WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 37, UNITED PACKING- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 3, UNITED PACKING- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO WILSON & CO., INC. and LOCAL NO. 6, UNITED PACKING- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 18-CA- 55, 18-CA-56, and 18-CA-60. June 30, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 18, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 , Murdock, and Peterson]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications: 1. We have examined the entire record in this proceeding and find no merit to the contention that the Trial Examiner was biased or prejudiced or that any party was denied a fair hearing. 2. In its answer the Respondent stated that " claims and charges " of "certain individuals" named in the complaint in 1 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the Employer's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 105 NLRB No. 128. 2 41555 0 - 54 - 53