Oregon Frozen Foods Co.

OREGON FROZEN FOODS COMPANY 881 [The Board certified West Side Employees Association, ,Independ- cent, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the, employees aft the Employer, in the unit found, appropriate.] MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting in, part : I join my colleagues in the majority opinion insofar as it enunciates -the clear requirement for future cases that objections to an election, to be validly filed under the Board's Rule 102.61, must be stated in reasonably specific terms. However, I would not apply this strict requirement to the objections filed in the present case, in view of the 1'ack of complete clarity in Rule 102.61 as to what is meant by a "short statement of the reasons" for objections, and the uncertainty on the ,question in existing Board cases 4 As a matter of fundamental equity and fairness, I believe that a party, such as the Petitioner in the present case, should not be held, to its prejudice, as having breached a rule of -procedure where, as here, the existence and content of the rule have not been made unmistakably clear. Accordingly, I would consider on the merits the alleged acts of interference with the election described in the Regional Director's report on objections. In cases which preceded the promulgation of Series 4 of the Board's Rules and Regu- Iations, effective September 11-, 1946, wherein the provision- for "a short statement of the reasons" for objections was first incorporated , the Board permitted the filing of a gen- eral statement of objections such as involved in the instant ease-. See e. g., Reliance Manufacturing Co., 67 NLRB 515, 519 (where a telegram merely "protesting" the elec- tion was allowed). Under- the Rules in existence since September 11, 1946 (including Series 6 of the Rules, as amended , now in effect), the Board continued to accept as valid the filing of generalized objections, in Wilson,& Co. Inc., 88 NLRB 1, and Gastonia Weav- ing Company, 103 NLRB 1200 ; likewise in Lockwdod-Dutcliess, Inc., 106 NLRB 1089, which is apparently the most recent case in point. However, in National Carbon Com- pany, 99 NLRB 774, and Mission Appliance Corporation, 104 NLRB 331, the contrary was held. Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore Ida Potato Products, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs .and_ Helpers, Local No. 900, AFLL Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-2033. August 19, 1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On April 28, 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and-Direction of Elon,z an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Re- gion, among the employees in the unit heretofore found -appropriate. Upon the -conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that of approximately 293 eligible-voters, 2,72 cast bal- lots, of which 75 were for, and 185 against, -the Petitioner. There 1108 NLRB 1668. 113 NLRB No. 90. 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were also 38 challenged ballots, a number not sufficient to affect the results of the election, and 1 void ballot. On May 27, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Re- gion caused an investigation to be made of the issues raised by the ob- jections and, on July 8, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections. In this report, the Regional Director found that the Petitioner's objection No. 3 raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election and recommended that it be sus- tained and the election be set aside. He, however, found no merit in objections Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and recommended that they be overruled. As the Petitioner filed no exceptions thereto, we' adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and hereby overrule those objections. On July 15, 1955, the Employer filed exceptions to that part of the Regional Director's report which recommended the sustaining of ob-' jection No. 3 and the setting aside of the election. The Petitioner alleged in objection No. 3 that the Employer ques= tioned a vast majority of the employees involved in the election in- dividually and, in some cases, in groups of two or more concerning their union sympathies and activities. The Regional Director's in- vestigation revealed that the Employer's personnel manager held per- sonal interviews with most of the eligible employees between April 7 and April 26, the latter date being just 2 days before the election. In its exceptions, the Employer did not deny the factual findings of the Regional Director or submit any additional evidence. It merely alleged that the Regional Director failed to properly and thoroughly investigate the facts and requested that a hearing be held in order that evidence may be submitted to support its position that the state- ments of its personnel manager to the employees were in no way threatening or coercive. We consider this an insufficient basis for con- ducting a hearing.2 Accordingly, we shall deny the request for a hear- ing and shall adopt the Regional Director's finding of fact. In the Economic Machinery case,3 the Board said ". . . the tech- nique of calling the employees into the Employer's office individually to urge them to reject the union is, in itself, conduct calculated to in- terfere with their free choice in the election. This is so, regardless of the noncoercive tenor of an employer's actual remarks." , In these circumstances, we find that the aforesaid interviews con- ducted by the Employer's personnel manager interfered with the em- ployees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining repre= 2 See Ohmite Manufacturing Company, 111 NLRB 888. 8 Economic Machinery Company, Division of George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co., 111 NLRB 947. IMPARATO STEVEDORING CORPORATION 883 sentative.4 We shall, therefore, order that, the election be set aside and direct that a new election be held. In accordance with our usual practice in seasonal operations, we shall direct that the second election be held at or about the time of-the employment peak of the next potato processing and freezing season, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the notice`of election by the Regional Director. [The Board set aside the election held April 28,1955.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election. ' The instant case is distinguishable from Hall Tool Company, 112 NLRB 1313, on its facts. In that case, the interviews lasting about 3 minutes each took place at the em- ployees' workbenches, they were not individually summoned to the employer's office, and only about half of the employees were interviewed. In the instant case, however, 'as in the Eoononno Machinery case, supra, and General Shoe Corporation, 97 NLRB 499, the Employer called the employees, individually or in small groups, into its office to urge them to reject the Union and most of the eligible employees were subjected to this type of interview within 3 weeks of the election. Imparato Stevedoring Corporation and International Brother- hood of Longshoremen, AFL - Local 1247, International Longshoremen's Association, Independ- ent and International Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL. Cases Nos. 2-C9 3694 and 2-CB-1165. August 22,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On April 18, 1955, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued his Inter- mediate Report in . the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent Imparato Stevedoring Corporation, here called the Company , filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Charging Union, International Brotherhood of Longshoremen, AFL, filed a memorandum brief in support of the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the, exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in 113 NLRB No. 100.