Crown Drug Co.

CROWN DRUG COMPANY 845 CROWN DRUG COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION, LOCAL UNION No. 782, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC- 1748. November 10,1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Elections Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the Board on May 27, 1954,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted herein, on June 18, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among the employees in the voting groups described in the Board's decision. Upon the conclusion of the elections a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally showed that in the election among the employees in voting group A, of approximately 273 eligible voters, 199 cast ballots, of which 66 were for Petitioner, 114 were against the Petitioner, and 19 were challenged, and that in the election among the employees in voting group B, of approximately 7 eligible voters, 7 cast ballots, of which none were for Petitioner, 5 were against Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On June 24, 1954, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the elections. On September 30, 1954, the Regional Director issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections and recommendation, in which he found the objections to be without merit and recommended that the Board issue a certificate of results finding and determining that the Petitioner has not been designated or selected as the representative of the employees involved and dis- missing the Petition herein. On October 11, 1954, the Petitioner filed its exceptions to the report on objections and recommendation. Objections Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the Employer's granting of a wage increase and announcement of a liberalized vacation policy on May 4, 1954. Without assessing the reasons advanced by the Regional Director for finding that these actions did not affect the results of the elections, we find the objections to be without merit, for the reason that the Employer's action occurred prior to the issuance of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections, and therefore were too remote in time to affect the results of the elections.2 Objection No. 3. The Petitioner urges the Board to set aside the elections because the Employer disseminated to employees antiunion literature on company time and property within 24 hours of the time of the elections. The Regional Director found that no literature was distributed which was not protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act, and that the Peerless Plywood rule has not been extended to cover litera- ture distribution. The Petitioner does not except to the finding that 1 108 NLRB 1126. 2 F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446. Cf. The Liberal Market, Inc., 108 NLRB 1481. 110 NLRB No. 139. 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no literature was distributed which was not protected by Section -(c), but urges only that the fact of distribution within the 24-hour- period preceding the elections brings this case within the Peerless Plywood rule .3 In the Peerless Plywood decision the Board expressly said : This rule will not interfere with the rights of unions or employ- ers to circulate campaign literature on or off the premises at any time prior to an election, nor will it prohibit the use of any other legitimate campaign propaganda or media. Accordingly, we find no merit in this objection. Objection No. 4. The Regional Director found that with one ex- ception the weight of the evidence indicated that no threats of dis- charge were made by supervisors to employees who voted for the Union. As to the one exception, which involved an alleged threat by one supervisor who was absent on an extended leave of absence at the time of the Regional Director's investigation, even if it were to be ac- cepted at face value, the Regional Director found that it would con- stitute no more than a single isolated instance of such expression to 1 employee in 1 store out of 30 stores and which was contrary to of- ficial company policy as expressed in bulletins and contrary to express written instructions to supervisors. The Petitioner excepts to this finding on the ground that it is based on unexplained ex parte credibility findings, and on the ground that the employees could not be expected to understand from the bulletins referred to by the Regional Director that threats of discharge if an employee voted for the Union were not in accord with company policy. We find no merit in the Petitioner's exceptions. It cites no instance of a credibility finding made by the Regional Director. It also refers to threats which, even though not denied, the Regional Director found too isolated to affect the elections, whereas the Regional Director found only one alleged threat which was undenied. It was with respect to this alleged threat that the Regional Director said that company bul- letins and instructions to supervisors indicated that the threat, if made, was not in accordance with company policy. Whether or not the employees could reasonably be expected to know that the threat was not company policy, the fact remains that it was an isolated in- stance, occurring in 1 store out of 30 or more, and involving 1 em- ployee out of more than 270 employees. We find accordingly that it did not affect the results of the elections. Objections Nos. 5 and 6. No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's report on these objections, finding them to be without merit. Accordingly we affirm his finding. 3 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. STROH BREWERY COMPANY 847 Accordingly, we find that no grounds exist for setting aside the elections. As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the elections. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots were not cast for the Petitioner, Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union No. 782, AFL, and that the Petitioner is not the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees employed in stores within divisions I and II of the Crown Drug Company.] STROH BREWERY COMPANY and BEER BOTTLER'S LOCAL UNION 181, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL , SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-2576. November 10,195.E 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 Iris H. Meyer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial 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 as a separate unit all case beer checkers at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan, brewery. In the alter- native, the Petitioner seeks to represent the case beer checkers as part of an existing bottling department unit which the Petitioner cur- rently represents.2 The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one which includes all office clericals, case beer checkers, and keg beer checkers at the Detroit, Michigan, brewery. At the present time the Employer has a contract with Local Unions No. 3, No. 38, and No. 181, affiliated with International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of 1 As its direct out-of-State purchases are in excess of $500,000 a year , we find, contrary to the Employer's contention , that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2 In view of our decision in this case, it is unnecessary to discuss various other alter- nate unit suggestions by the Petitioner. 110 NLRB No. 125.