Paramount Cap Manufacturing Co.

PARAMOUNT CAP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 747 have voluntarily included the television technicians and engineers in the existing unit even in the face of an opposing claim of representa- tion, because no one could successfully question the appropriateness of the unit resulting from such action. As such overall unit is clearly appropriate, and as the Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the representative of such unit despite Petitioner's claim of major- ity representation, Petitioner is clearly entitled to an election in the expanded unit and, if it wins, a certification as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees in that unit. This the majority's action does not guarantee. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I would not apply the Zia principle herein, but would direct an election in the expanded unit which I find to be appropriate. Paramount Cap Manufacturing Company and United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Pe- titioner. Case No. 14-IBC-2805. March 9,1956 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On August 26, 1955, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election herein,' pursuant to which an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Fourteenth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that of the approximately 126 eligi- ble voters, 123 cast ballots; of these, 27 were for the Petitioner's 83 were against the Petitioner, and 13 ballots were challenged. The challenged ballots are not sufficient to affect the results of the election. On September 28, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director caused an in- vestigation to be made of the issues raised by the objections, and on November 2, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections. In his report, the Regional Director found that there was a direct credibility conflict between statements by employees and state- ments by the Employer's vice president and general manager as to alleged acts of the Employer, which he found raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election; and the Re- gional Director therefore recommended that the conflicting state- ments be resolved by taking sworn testimony at a hearing. These 1 N treported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. p the AFr CIO having merged since the hearing in this case , we are amending the identification of the Petitioner's affiliation as indicated in the caption. - 115 NLRB No. 116. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommendations pertained to the Petitioner's objections Nos. 1 and 4. As to the Petitioner's objections Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and other matters per- taining to the Petitioner's 4th objection; the Regional Director recom- mended that they be overruled. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections and a supporting memorandum. The Petitioner asserted, in its first objection, that the Employer, at a meeting conducted on the day prior to the elections intimidated and coerced its employees by informing them that it was up to them to keep the doors of the plant open by voting "No" in the election. The Regional Director's investigation disclosed that the employees were notified to report to the sewing room after lunch on September 22, 1955, to hear a speech by its vice president and general manager, Nor- man Rubenstein. Rubenstein spoke from about 1: 15 to 1:30, con- cluding his speech with an appeal to employees to come to work the next day and vote in the election. The Regional Director found that the speech, with the possible exception of the closing statement, con- tained only campaign material which was privileged by Section 8 (c) of the Act. As to the closing statement, the Regional Director's in- vestigation disclosed that "most of the employees ihteh sewed" stated that Rubenstein had said "It is up to you to keep those doors open by voting `No' tomorrow." Rubenstein, according to the Regional Di- rector, in effect denied making such a remark. In its exceptions, the Petitioner contends that a mere denial by the employer should not serve to discredit employees who were present and listened to the speech, but that the Board should abide by the preponderance of the evidence which, according to the Petitioner, sus- tains the conclusion that the alleged coercive remark in fact was made. Wire do not agree. In the face of Rubenstein's denial, and as it appears that some employees gave versions of the event supporting that denial, we agree with the Regional Director that the credibility issue thus raised can be best resolved by the taking of sworn testimony at a hearing. In objection No. 4 the Petitioner asserted that Rubenstein informed employees that they would be discharged if they continued to engage in union activity and unless they took a position against representa- tion by the Union. The Regional Director found that two employees, unidentified in the report, made statements tending to support this allegation,' but that Rubenstein denied making the remarks these 3These alleged acts, peitaiinng to the Petitionei's objection No 4, are refereed to in the Regional Director's ieport as "Incidents 'A' and `C ' " In incident A, an employee stated in his affidavit that about a month before the election, he visited the homes of 3 employees accompanied by 1 of the union organizeis, and that on the following morning, Rubenstein said to him "Every time I hear that you are out horsing around with those guys it makes me mad enough to fire you . . . If I ever hear about it again I'll fire you." In incident C, an employee stated that about a week before the election Rubenstein told him'thaf lie -was about the slowest -workei in the shop and would last about 1 day in a PARAMOUNT CAP MANUFACTURING COMPANY - -- 749 employees attributed to him. The Regional Director found that these alleged remarks, if actually made, raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and he recommended that the conflict in credibility be resolved by sworn testimony at a hearing. In its exceptions, the Petitioner asks the Board to find, on the evidence reported by the Regional Director, that Rubenstein did make the re- marks attributed to him. We agree with the Regional Director that this conflict in evidence reported by the Regional Director may best be resolved by the taking of testimony at a hearing. The remaining portions of Petitioner's objection No. 4 relate to three separate instances of alleged statements by Rubenstein to individual employees.4 One employee, employed as an examiner in the shipping department, stated that about a week before the election Rubenstein talked to her about how "things are run in union shops in St. Louis," and told her that in union shops the job of examiner is consolidated with other jobs. The employee inferred from this that Rubenstein meant that her job would be eliminated if the Union got in., Another employee quoted Rubenstein as saying about 2 days before the elec- tion, "I can't tell you girls how to vote, but if you are interested in helping keep the doors open . . . " and then paused and looked at her. Still another employee stated that a day or two before the election, Rubenstein told him that the Employer had a foreman's job lined up for him but that he had "loused it all up," and explained "You know what I mean, hanging around with `these guys' around here." Rubenstein denied making the latter two remarks, and also denied threatening the first employee. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner's objections Nos. 1 and 4 raise issues of fact which may be best resolved at a hearing, and which we shall direct. In view of the fact that we are directing such a hearing, we shall not rule on the Petitioner's other objections at this time. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant case be remanded to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region for the purpose of'hold- ing a hearing upon Petitioner's objections Nos. 1 and 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting such hearing, shall prepare and cause to be union shop , and that if "the Union gets in here why the bad work you do will all be brought to you to fix." The employee stated that he understood this to mean that "I would make less piecework wages since I would have to repair the caps " The Regional Director found that the employee 's version attributed to Rubenstein a threat to the effect that if the Union got in piece-work operators would make lower wages , since they would be required to perform additional work without receiving additional compensation t The Regional Director, in his report , refers to these instances as incidents B, 1), and E, of objectiog No 4. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD- served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility issues, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of these objections. Within 10 days from date of the issu- ance of such report, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and 6 copies of exceptions. The party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the hearing officer. Preston Trucking Company, Inc., Petitioner and Local 822, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-RM g1$. March 9,1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 25, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the unit described in the stipulation. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally showed that of approximately 5 eligible voters, 3 cast valid ballots, of which 2 were for, and 1 against, the participating labor organization. There were two challenged ballots. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, issued his report on challenges. In his report he recommends that the challenge to the ballot cast by Byron Abbott be overruled and that the challenge to the ballot cast by Wil- liam Morris be sustained. On December 29, 1955, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on challenges. 'Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 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. In agreement with the parties, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective 115 NLRB No. 114.