Kent Plastics Corp.

KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 157 immaterial."' The latter holding is equally applicable here as to the six Employers in question. Accordingly, we find that the six single-employer units as sought in the petitions are appropriate. We find that the following separate units atthe San Francisco, California, plants of Traders Distributing Co., The Arabol Manufacturing Co., Reid Murdock Co., Sloss & Brittain, and California Barrel Co., Ltd., respectively, constitute appro- priate units for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All warehouse employees, excluding office clerical em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. We further find that all warehouse and production employees of American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., at its San Francisco, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, truck- drivers, salesmen , professional employees, guards, working foreman "A," 6 and other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 5 Bearing & Rim Supply Co., 107 NLRB No. 34. Member Murdock, who dissented in the Bearing & Rim case, agrees with the decision herein because he is convinced that the cir- cumstances surrounding the Employers resignations from the Association, unlike those in the Bearing & Rim case, evidence an unequivocal intention on the part of the Employers to abandon multiemployer bargaining and henceforth to bargain individually. 6As the record in Blue Ribbon Products Co , Inc., supra, which was made part of this proceeding, shows that the working foreman "A" possesses and exercises authority to hire and discharge employees, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and accordingly exclude him from the unit 7Apart from the question of excluding working foreman "A", there was no disagreement as to the unit sought by the Petitioner in the American Chain & Cable case, which varies some- what from the units sought in the five other petitions. KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-786. November 24, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election i an election was conducted on December 10, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the Employer's production and maintenance employees 1101 NLRB 519. 107 NLRB No. 51 337593 0 - 55 - 12 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at Evansville, Indiana. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of the approximately 359 eligible voters, 332 cast ballots. Of the ballots cast, 164 were cast for the Petitioner, 166 were cast against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was challenged, and 1 ballot was void. The Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. Pursuant to the Board' s Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director investigated these objections and, on April 16, 1953, issued his report on objections to election and recommendations. Among other things , the Regional Director found that Pe- titioner ' s objections relating to interrogation and threats of economic reprisal raised substantial and material issues of fact and recommended that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by these objections. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report. On May 15, 1953, the Board, having fully considered the Petitioner ' s objections , the Regional Director ' s report, and the Employer ' s exceptions , determined that substantial and material issues of fact had been raised by Petitioner's ob- jections relating to interrogation and threats of economic reprisal and ordered that a hearing be held on the issues raised by these objections. The Board ordered that the hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objections. On June 16 and 17, 1953, the hearing ordered by the Board was held before Edward T. Maslanka, hearing officer. Both parties were represented and participated in the hearing. On August 3, 1953, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report containing findings of fact and recommenda- tions to the Board. The Employer thereafter filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and recommendations. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, findings of fact and recommendations , and the Employer's exceptions. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: The Employer's president, Robert Morehouse, closed a speech made to the Employer's assembled employees shortly before the election by asking , " Wouldn't it be nice to come in here and vote 'No' on election day and come back on Thursday and let me announce a similar package to the one I gave last year." We find, as did the hearing officer, that this rhetorical question carried with it the implied threat that the employees could be assured of a Christmas bonus and year- end wage raise , the "package" given by the Employer in previous years, only if they voted against the Union in the coming election. Constituting a threat of economic reprisal, PRYNE & COMPANY, INC. 159 this statement was not privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act; 2 nor was this threat so minor or isolated in character as to have no substantial tendency to affect the results of the election , having been made at a meeting of the employees held by the Employer. We find no merit in the Employer's exception directed to the hearing officer ' s resolutions of credibility . The Board will reverse a hearing officer's credi- bility findings only when convinced that the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence compels a contrary conclusion, , and in this case we are not convinced that the hearing officer has erred in this regard . We therefore find, as did the hearing officer, that by Morehouse ' s threat of loss of economic bene- fits the Employer interfered with the freedom of choice of its employees in their selection of a bargaining representative; we shall adopt the hearing officer's recommendation that the election be set aside and a new election held. In view of our disposition of Petitioner ' s objection relating to the content of Morehouse ' s speech to the employees,, we find it unnecessary , and we do not , rule on issues raised by the remainder of Petitioner ' s objections. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of December 10, 1952, be, and it hereby is, set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit a free choice of bargaining representa- tive. 2 Compare Gardner Machine Company, 106 NLRB 197. 3 Standar d- Toch Chemicals, Inc., 104 NLRB 1120. PRYNE & COMPANY, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), LOCAL 1421. Case No. 21 - CA-1146. November 24, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On June 9, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order in this case ( 105 NLRB 447). Thereafter , on July 20, 1953, Pryne & Company filed a motion for the redetermination of the compliance status of United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America ( UE), Local 1421, Independent , herein referred to as the Union , and for the dismissal of the complaint against it . On October 9, 1953 , the Board issued a notice to show cause to the Union why the Board should not determine 107 NRLB No. 80.