Lincoln Plastics Corp.

LINCOLN PLASTICS CORPORATION 291 Lincoln Plastics Corporation and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-2353. Fl pvil 19,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on December 23,1954,1 a representation election by secret ballot was conducted on January 20, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate. Upon completion of the election the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots. The tally indicates that of approxi- mately 70 eligible voters, 68 cast ballots, of which 33 were for the Petitioner, 29 against the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct af- fecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investi- gation and on March 1, 1955, duly issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots and objections to election, finding the objections to be without merit and recommending that they be over- ruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Em- ployer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, inso- far as it dealt with the objections, but no exceptions were raised with regard to the rulings on the challenged ballots. The Challenged Ballots The Board agent challenged the votes of six employees because their names did not appear on the list of eligible voters. In his report, the Regional Director, in agreement with the parties to the election, found that as two of the challenged voters were floormen, previously found in the Direction of Election to be supervisors, and a third per- formed the duties of a guard, the challenges to their ballots should be sustained. In regard to the three remaining challenges, it was recommended that they not be resolved, as the resolution of such chal- lenges could not affect the results of the election. In the absence of specific exceptions thereto, we adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director as to the challenged ballots. 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Ordei s 112 NLRB No 43 369023-56-% of 112-20 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Objections The Regional Director recommended that objection number 3 be overruled as no evidence was submitted in regard thereto. As there is no exception to this recommendation,' it is hereby adopted. The Employer's objections numbered 1, 2, and 4, which the Regional Director recommended be overruled, are discussed below. Objection 1: The Employer asserted that the Petitioner through the Employer's supervisors threatened and warned employees to sup- port the Petitioner. It appears from the Regional Director's report that three of the incidents cited in support of this contention did not occur during the critical period from the issuance of the Direction of Election to the date of the election. Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director that such incidents are too remote in time to con- stitute sufficient grounds to set aside the election.3 The remaining incidents cited in support of this objection are as follows : (a) A supervisor told a subordinate, who was antiunion, that he (the supervisor) was working for the Union and the sub- ordinate was "on the wrong side"; (b) a supervisor offered to bet that the Union would win the election and stated that if any nonunion people came to his place "he would fill them full of buckshot"; (c) a supervisor attended a union meeting; and (d) a supervisor for several days prior to the date of the election tried to persuade an employee to vote for the Union by saying, inter alia, that the employee was "no buddy" and would not get restroom breaks unless he voted "yes" for the Union. The Regional Director found that the acts complained of were not sufficient to constitute election interference. In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that the Regional Director erred in treating each incident in "piecemeal fashion" and that the evidence shows continuous and constant effort to influence the election results. We agree with the Regional Director that the remarks were not such as would interfere with the free choice of representatives. The remarks were either mere expressions of views and opinion 4 or even if it is assumed, arguendo, that some of the remarks were co- ercive, in the circumstances of this case they were isolated incidents which do not warrant setting aside the election.' Objection 0: The Employer contended that an organizer for the Petitioner told the employees at a union meeting that they should vote for the Union in order that they might get a closed shop and that the employees who refused to join the Union "would be out." Moreover, evidence was submitted that an employee received a note which stated 2 The Employer's exceptions are confined to the Regional Director's rulings on objec- tions numbered 1, 2, and 4. 3 F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446. 4 F. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 710, at 711. 5 See Jewell Paint and Varnish Company, 104 NLRB 949, at 950. LINCOLN PLASTICS CORPORATION 293 in substance he should join the Union or "else he would be sorry." The Regional Director found the objection to be without merit, as -the evidence submitted in regard to both incidents did not, in his opinion, raise substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election. The Employer excepts to this finding on the ground that it is against the law and the evidence. We do not agree. As to the statements made by the Petitioner's organizer, we find that such statements are in the nature of legitimate campaigning and do not preclude the voters from exercising a free choice at the polls.' In regard to the note received by one employee, even if it is assumed that the Union was the sender, it would not be sufficient ground for setting aside the election as it is such an isolated incident which could not have interfered with the election. Objection 4: The Employer contends that the Petitioner at a union meeting held in December distributed a sample ballot, with an "X" in the "yes" block, and containing words advising the em- ployees to vote "yes" at the election. This contention was supported by affidavits of three employees who had attended the meeting. The Regional Director concluded after an investigation that the affiants had reference to two propaganda leaflets which were attached to his report. These leaflets contained a facsimile of the voting boxes of the Board's official ballot, with arrows pointing to an "X" marked in the "yes" box. The Regional Director found that the circulation of the propaganda leaflets on which were reproductions of the "yes" and "no" boxes, did not violate the Allied Electric Products, Inc.,' rule proscribing the distribution of marked sample ballots. The Employer excepts to these findings on the grounds (1) that they are against the law and the evidence and (2) that the Regional Director incorrectly assumed that the affiants when they mentioned "sample ballot" had in mind the propaganda leaflets. The Employer further urges that a hearing be ordered on this question. In its exception, the Employer fails to introduce or present an excuse for not introducing affirmative evidence supporting its allega- tion that a sample ballot was actually distributed at the union meet- ing. Under such circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director that the employees in their affidavits had in mind the propaganda leaflets containing the voting boxes. We further find to be correct the Regional Director's conclusion that as the material reproduced by the Petitioner on the leaflets was not a reproduction of the official ballot it did not violate the Allied Electric Products, Inc. rule.' We therefore overrule this objection. 11 NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc, 75 NLRB 1269, at 1272. v 109 NLRB 1270 8 Phelps -Dodge Copper Products Corporation, 111 NLRB 950 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the Employer'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. As the tally shows that a majority of the valid votes have been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Lnicolit Plastics Corporation in the unit found to be appropriate.] Ml:_IMBEJI LEEDO_M took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners and Laundry Workers Inter- national Union, Local 197, AFL, Petitioner. Case [1%o. 19-RC- 16041. April 19,1905 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed raider Sectlou 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Oliver E. Kearns, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [('hairnl,nn Farmer and Members Murdock and Peterson]. 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.1 'At the hearing the Buiplo^or nulled to dacmass the petition on tit(, ground that the P.o.ard would not assent jurisdiction osct the Implorer under its recently announced juris- dictional standards On -March 0 1951 the Board issnd a Decision and Oider finding that the employei had contributed support and a,sistance to the petitioner in violation of section 8 (a) (2) and ordering the emploter to cease faoun recogniv..ing the petitioner as baiganung Iepresentatiye for an} of its emplntees unless and until the petitioner shall be certified by the board On September 23, 1953, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit enforced the Board's order See Harset/ ,Stoller- d/b/a Richland Laundrt, and Dij Cleaners, 93 NLRB 080, enfd 207 F 2d 305 (C A 9), cent denied 347 U S 919, petition for rehearing denied 347 U. S 938 in the pilot proceeding the L'onrd assetted jutisdic- 11oI1 solely oil the ground that the employer's place of bnViiess was located on an atonic enemv reservation Since the issuance of this decision, the Board has ievined its juris- dictional standards and undei piesent policy would not assent luiisdiction here lion- ever, the Board's order in this case, issued in 1951, ss is propel Si hen made and has been enforced by couit decree For the reasons set out iii Cma-(ola I/oltlinq Company of .8fact toss. 110 NLRB 840, the Emplot el s motion to dismiss the petition heieili is denial. 112 NLRB No .58