Southern Car & Manufacturing Co.

SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 221 The Petitioner contends that Clarence Thompson, a litho- grapher, is not eligible to vote because be had nqt started work at the time of the hearing, while the Employer contends that he should be permitted to vote as he was already hired at the date of the hearing. In accordance with our usual practice, we will permit Thompson to vote if he was employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election,-' and meets the other conditions of eligibility set forth therein.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 The Goldenberg Company, 77 NLRB 335. 6The Petitioner requests that the Board fix the eligibility period as the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the instant hearing However, we perceive no reason for departing from our usual practice in this respect. SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOUIS C. TATE, Petitioner and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos . 10-RD- 116 and 10-RM - 115. November 25, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On August 4, 1953, pursuant to a Decisionand Order' issued by the Board on July 14, 1953, an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision .' Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 67 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots, of which 33 were for , and 24 against, the Union and 1 was challenged. On August 10, 1953, the Employer and employee Tate jointly filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. After an investigation , the Regional Director, on September 18, 1953, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections , in which he found that the objections did 1106 NLRB 144. 2 An election had theretofore been held among the employees in this unit on March 3, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election . The Union filed objections to that election and the Board issued the above-mentioned decision in which it sustained the objections, set aside the election, and directed that a new election be held. 107 NLRB No. 66. 337593 0 - 55 - 16 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not raise material and substantial issues with respect to the results of the election, and recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Union be certified on the basis of the tally of ballots. The Employer and Tate, on September 24, 1953, jointly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. The exceptions are confined to the Regional Director's disposition of the objection alleging that the Union interfered with a meeting conducted by the Employer on the day before the election and thereby improperly affected the election results. The Regional Director reported, in substance, the following uncontroverted facts 3 pertaining to the above objection: The Employer arranged for a meeting with its employees to be held August 3, 1953, at a club off the company premises and after working hours. The Union wired the Employer requesting an opportunity to attend and address the meeting and on August 2 received the Employer's answering telegram, in which the request was denied with the statement that the meeting was to be private, "without union interference or surveillance." The next day, three union representatives stationed themselves in front of the club where the meeting was to be held and counted the employees as they arrived. There, the union representatives also approached Kaiser and Barber, the Employer's president and attorney, respectively, and renewed their earlier request to attend and address the meeting, which was again denied. A short time later, they entered the lobby of the club, but Kaiser and Barber stopped them, denied a further request to take part in the meeting, escorted them out, and locked the entrance door. The union representatives remained outside, near the entrance to the club, throughout the meeting. One employee, arriving late and finding the door locked, asked them whether the meeting was being held there, and after a brief exchange, one of them stated to the employee, in substance , "Stay out here with us. What do you want to go in there for, anyhow?" However, the employee entered the club. When the meeting ended at 8 p. m., the union representatives distributed handbills to the departing em- ployee s. The Regional Director rejected the contention of the Em- ployer and Tate that the Union's conduct at the club was equivalent to an employer's surveillance of union activities and therefore interference with the election. He concluded further that the Union's actions in connection with the meeting 3 While the exceptions assert that the facts are neither fully nor accurately set forth in the Regional Director ' s report, they fail to indicate in what respects the facts are deficient. Although it is alleged as a fact that conduct at union meetings, involving assaults, are relevant in this case, no specific instances thereof are adverted to. The Regional Director found, and we agree, that one such incident, occurring on January 19, 1953, "can hardly be considered to constitute such a background as to indicate that the actions of the 3 union officials [described below] was a warning of violence." TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175, INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 223 did not in any manner constitute such interference as to warrant setting aside the election.4 We agree with the conclusion of the Regional Director that the objection lacks merit. Without regard to how the conduct of the union representatives is characterized , we are per- suaded, and find, that it did not prevent the sort of free and untrammeled choice of representatives contemplated by the Act. Under all the circumstances , we conclude , as did the Regional Director , that the objection does not raise material and substantial issues respecting the results of the election. As the Tally of Ballots shows that the Union obtained a majority of the valid votes cast in the election , we shall certify the Union as the certified bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Shopmen's Local Union No. 539 of the International Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, as the designated collective -bargainingrepresentative of the employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] 41n connection with this objection , the Employer and Tate allege that the union repre- sentatives, in the course of their conduct at the club, violated sections of the code of the city of Birmingham and the State of Alabama. The Regional Director rejected this argument on the ground that the Board is not the proper agency for the determination of such issues, that such issues are not germane and, moreover , that there was no evidence that any of the union representatives have been convicted for such alleged violations. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and BIAGI FRUIT & PROD- UCE COMPANY. Case No. 9-CD- 19. November 27, 1953 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which provides that "whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4 (D) of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ." On August 26, 1953, Biagi Fruit & Produce Company, herein called the Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region a charge alleging that Teamsters Local 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Respondent , had engaged in and was engaging in certain 107 NLRB No. 70.