Murray Worsted Spinning Co., Inc.

MURRAY WORSTED SPINNING CO., INC . 181 ing 2 which involved Binswanger, of which we shall take official notice,3 reveals that in 1953 Binswanger received directly from outside the Commonwealth of Virginia materials valued in excess of $750,000 and sold to customers outside the Commonwealth of Virginia, during the same period, materials valued in excess of $100,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein .4 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. As stipulated by the parties, we find the following employees of the Employer's glass installation plant at 2100 Stockton Street, Richmond, Virginia, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Benswanger & Company, Inc., Case No. 5-RC-1501 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) 8 See Avco Manufacturing Corporation, Appliance and Electronics Division, 107 NLRB 295. 4 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 295. MURRAY WORSTED SPINNING Co., INC. and CECILE PLOUFFE, PETI- TIONER and INDUSTRIAL TRADES UNION OF AMERICA . Case No. 1-UD-6. January 10, 1955 Decision and Direction On July 26, 1954, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, seeking to rescind the union- shop authorization of the Union. Thereafter, on August 27, 1954, the Regional Director for the First Region conducted an election among the employees in the production unit at the Employer's Woonsocket, Rhode Island, worsted yarn plant, to determine whether they desired to withdraw the authority of their bargaining representative to re- quire, under its agreement with the Employer, that membership in the Union be a condition of employment. Upon completion of the 111 NLRB No. 22. 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots. The tally indicated that of 98 eligible voters, 71 cast valid ballots, of which 49 were in favor of the above proposition, and 22 were against the proposition. In addition, there were two challenged ballots. The challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On September 2, 1954, the Union ,fled timely objections to conduct which it alleged interfered with the results of the election. The Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and the challenges, and on September 21, issued his consolidated report on objections and challenged ballots, recommending that the Union's ob- jections, and the challenges to the ballots, be overruled. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's findings and recom- mendations regarding its objections to the election. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The petition in the case has been properly filed and complies in all respects with the provisions of Section 9 (e) of the amended act. 4. All production employees at the Employer's Woonsocket, Rhode Island, worsted yarn plant, excluding executives, plant superintend- ents, assistant superintendents, departmental overseers, assistant over- seers, professional employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of an election under the provisions of Section 9 (e) of the Act. 5. The objections : Objections Nos. 1 through 7: These objections allege, in substance, that the Employer (1) instigated the filing of the petition, which did not represent the true desires of the employees who filed and supported it; (2) and (3) coerced the employees supporting the peti- tion and other employees by threats of continued shut down of opera- tions; (4) furnished the Petitioner the names and addresses of its employees ; (5) furnished, financial assistance to the Petitioner and supporters of the petition; and (6) and (7) assisted and directed the Petitioner in securing signatures and filing the petition. The Regional Director reports that in support of these objections, one of the employees avers that the Employer's general manager, in a conversation with union officials on or about July 21, 1954, 5 days before the petition was filed, informed the union officials that he was going to see to it that his workers threw the Union out and he was having his workers file some kind of a petition and the Union would soon see what he meant. The employee claims to have been present MURRAY WORSTED SPINNING CO., INC. 183 when the statement was made, but the Employer's general manager denies making the statement. Another employee avers that she was told by the employee who solicited her signature for the petition, that "The Murrays didn't want the Union." These alleged statements are the only evidence which the Union adduced in support of the above objections. The Regional Director concluded that these objections were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. The Union excepts to this recommendation, asserting that it made avail- able to the Regional Director additional evidence which would sup- port its allegations in objections 1 through 7. Because of this asser- tion, the Regional Director, on October 6, 1954, issued a supplemental report on objections, reaffirming that all evidence made available or suggested was investigated and considered in his original report. The Union does not describe the alleged additional evidence, nor proffer any additional evidence to the Board with its exceptions. The Board has held that it is not sufficient for an objecting party merely to allege in its exceptions that it proffered some evidence which the Regional Director either did not consider or properly evaluate, without substan- tiating its objection by the proffer of evidence to the Board, or citing specific evidence which the Regional Director failed to consider or investigate.' In addition to the fact that no evidence of actual insti- gation of the petition by the Employer has been presented, it appears that on May 7,1954, a petition was filed by an employee seeking decer- tification of the Union as bargaining representative of the unit here involved.' The petition was later dismissed as untimely filed under the Board's contract-bar rules. The previous action makes it ap- parent however, that a substantial percentage of employees in the unit were intent upon divesting the Union of authority nearly 3 months before the alleged statements offered in support of the Union's present allegations. In these circumstances, we find that the evidence adduced does not raise a substantial question as to whether the petition was Employer inspired, and adopt the Regional Director's recom- mendation to overrule objections Nos. 1 through 7 inclusive. Objection No. 8: The Union alleges that the Petitioner violated the nonelectioneering rules within the proscribed area surrounding the polling place. The Regional Director reports that the Petitioner appeared and voted about 10 minutes after the polls were opened. As she arrived after the polls were opened she had not been pre- viously informed of the nonelectioneering limits. Shortly after she voted, a Board agent observed the Petitioner with others on the side- walk across the street from the polling place. No solicitation of any kind was observed. The Petitioner and the others left immediately when apprised of the nonelectioneering limits, and did not reappear. On these facts, the Regional Director recommended that this objec- i Luntz Iron & Steel Company, 97 NLRB 72, at p 74. 0 Case No. 1-RD-170, dismissal affirmed by the Board on July 7, 1954. 184 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion be overruled. The Union in its exceptions alleges that it was prepared to prove that solicitation did occur, but as it has neither offered nor presented evidence to support this assertion, we shall overrule this objection and exception. Objection No. 9: The Union alleges violation of the nonelection- eering rules by the Employers' general manager. This objection is based on a conversation which took place near the polling area be- tween the Employer's general manager and his employee sister-in- law. Both parties to the conversation aver that it concerned only tickets to a sporting event which the general manager had secured for his brother, and neither the Union nor the election were men- tioned. The Regional Director reports that the Union offered no evidence of solicitation, and it does not offer any in its exceptions. We shall therefore overrule this objection. Objection No. 10: The Regional Director reports that there is no evidence to substantiate this objection, which alleges that the Em- ployer made coercive threats of continued shutdown of operations to influence employees' votes. Although the Union excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation to overrule the objection, it does not cite evidence to substantiate the allegation. We shall over- rule this objection. Objection No. 11: This objection alleges harassment, intimidation, and coercion of union members by the Employer. The only evi- dence adduced relates to a fight between a representative of the Em- ployer and a representative of the Union, which admittedly occurred after the ballots had been counted and the results announced. We agree with the Regional Director that this incident, occurring when it did, could not have affected the results of the election, and we shall therefore overrule this objection. We find that the Union's objections and exceptions do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of the election, and they are hereby overruled. The Challenged Ballots The Regional Director recommended that the challenged ballots of Leo Cournoyer and Jean Paul Menard be overruled. There being no exception to this recommendation, it is hereby adopted. Inasmuch as the ballots of Cournoyer and Menard may be determinative of the results of the election, we shall direct that they be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First Re- gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count these ballots and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of the above ballots; and take such further steps as may be necessary in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.]