Montgomery Ward & Co.

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer to the following named immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of our discrimination against them: B. R. Watkins Stanley Prda Travis Martin T. W. Jones - Y. G. Lopez Geo. Mikuda Herman Moore W. B. Neely Calvin Perry Don L. Poindexter W. L. Headrick Raymond Johnson John Vargas E. P. Ybarra Celestus Smith B. A. Riley J. W. Young K. 0. Lasater John Kennedy Robert E. McCullough Chas. L. Reed H. M. Ables Forest L. Johnson L. D. Folsom Clarence Dodd J. R. Bunch, Jr. Clifford Beamon Tommy J. Thomas R. M. Taylor J. D. Barnes Albert Bell Billy Gene Dugger C. R. Johnson Billy Thorp Earnest Wilpitz James N. Schoonover C. E. Hines Garland Mack Alex Smith Leon Lee, Jr. Bobby Jackson ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY of DALLAS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Montgomery Ward & Co. and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, Local Union 345, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 3-110- 1815. October 18,1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On March 28, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third Region among employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, showing that 16 votes were cast against, and 13 for, the Petitioner. On April 2, 1957, the Petitioner filed objections to the election. On April 25, 1957, the Acting Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled because not sufficiently specific under the Board's Rules and Regulations. On June 24, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction, remanding the case to the Regional Director for investi- gation of the issues raised by the objections.' On July 29, 1957, the Regional Director issued and served upon the parties a supplemental report on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Board issue a certification of 1118 NLRB 310. 119 NLRB No. 3. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. 53 results of election. The Petitioner has filed timely exceptions; to the supplemental report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. Upon 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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All selling and nonselling employees at the Employer's retail store at Newark, New York, excluding the manager and assistant manager, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Regional Director found, with regard to the Petitioner's objections, that: At 9: 30 a. m. on the day before the election,' the Employer's regional personnel manager, Kerin, addressed the as- sembled employees in the store; this speech contained no coercive statements ; after the speech, Kerin spoke to individual employees at their work locations concerning their personnel problems; he did not discuss the election in these talks except in response to questions asked by three employees; and he left the store about 3 p. m. that day. Citing the Mall Tool Company case,' the Regional Director found no interference with the election in the foregoing conduct. A copy of Kerin's speech is attached to the Regional Director's supplemental report. The speech concludes with an invitation to the employees to discuss with Kerin during the rest of the day any ques- tions they might have. In its exceptions, the Petitioner contends that Kerin's conduct violated the Board's rules against the delivery of prelection speeches within 24 hours before an election.4 While conceding that the speech to the assembled employees occurred more than 24 hours before the election, the Petitioner contends that the talks with individual em- ployees were merely an extension of the speech, in view of the invita- The election began 2 p. m . on March 28. 112 NLRB 1313. In that case the Board held that an Employer 's talks with individual employees at their workbenches, during a preelection campaign, did not per se constitute interference with the election. 4 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion in the speech to the employees to discuss questions with Kerin. Accordingly, the Petitioner contends that the Board should find that, as these individual talks continued until the 23d hour before the election, they violated the Peerless Plywood rule. Essentially, the Petitioner would have us treat as an integral part of a speech to a massed assembly of employees any conversations by an employer with individual employees at their work locations which follow, and are proposed in, the speech. However, we do not believe that we should extend the Peerless Plywood rule to the extent urged by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we find no merit in Petitioner's exceptions. As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the votes cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was.not cast for Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union 345, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] Maclntyre Motor Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 190, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Local No. 622, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioners Ryan Oldsmobile and Teamsters Local Union No. 190, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and. Helpers of America , AFL-CIO and Local No. 622, affiliated with the International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 19-RC-2021,19-RC- 2025, 19-RC-2022, and 19-RC-2024. October 21, 1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na, tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Howard E. Hilbun, 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 [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean] Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. Maclntyre Motor Company and Ryan Oldsmobile, the Employers herein., are automobile dealers engaged in selling new cars, used cars, 119 NLRB No. 15.