Bordo Products Co.

BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 79 Bordo Products Company and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-12. Octo- ber 2,0,19b7 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION On February 5, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election,' directing an election in this case. Thereafter, the Regional Director permitted the Petitioner to withdraw from the election leav- ing the Intervenor, Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehouse- men and Allied Employees, Local 60, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO, as the only participating labor organization. Immediately prior to the date of the election scheduled pursuant to the Board's Decision, the Employer filed a motion for rehearing, requesting reconsideration and dismissal of the proceedings. On February 25, 1957, the Board directed the Regional Director to conduct the election as scheduled and impound the ballots. The election was held on February 26, 1957. The Board, on April 9, 1957, issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction 2 denying the Employer's motion for rehearing and directing that the ballots be opened and counted. Pursuant to the Board's direction, the ballots were counted on April 18,' 1957. The tally of ballots issued at that time showed that of approximately 1,256 eligible voters, 658 votes were cast for and 175 votes were cast against the Intervenor. There were 4 void ballots and 12 challenged ballots. On April 23, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec- tion and conduct affecting the election, alleging that such conduct constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees who voted in the election. Thereafter, on May 10, 1957, the Regional Di- rector, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, issued and duly served on the parties a report on objections, in which he found that insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the allegations of interference, restraint, or coercion and recommended that the Board overrule the objections and certify the Intervenor. On May 20, 1957, the Employer filed exceptions to the report on objections. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a supplemental report on objections in which he answered certain of the Employer's exceptions and again recommended that the Board certify the Intervenor. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's reports, and the Employer's exceptions, and hereby adopts 1 117 NLRB 313. 2 117 NLRB 1046. 119 NLRB No. 11. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Regional Director's recommendations that the objections be over- ruled and the Intervenor certified. In its exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections the Employer objects to the Regional Director's failure to discuss certain statements and affidavits submitted during the investigation of ob- jections. As the Regional Director points out in his supplemental report, the Employer did not specify the conduct referred to in these statements in its objections to the election. The Employer also renews in its exceptions each of its original objections to the election. We shall discuss them briefly. The Employer's objections 1 through 5 pertain to alleged improper activity at the place of balloting or within sight of the polling place. In particular, the Employer alleges that : Nonemployee union agents and officers interrogated and solicited employees within sight of the polling place on company property; union officers were permitted to act as observers; union observers while performing no official func- tion were permitted to circulate among the voters, away from the immediate polling area, wearing official badges; the union president who was an observer and another union observer circulated among and talked to employees although they were neither performing official duties nor working as employees; and a greater number of union ob- servers than company observers were appointed by the Board and one performed no official function. In his investigation, the Regional Director found no evidence that any electioneering was done by a union representative or a union observer in the situations objected to by the Employer although two alternate union observers were permitted to remain in the plant and talk to the employees while the election was being held. He was of the opinion that the presence of union representatives outside the building where the election was conducted is insufficient to require the setting aside of the election even assuming employees waiting in line to vote could see and be seen by them and that an official position with the Union does not disqualify an employee from acting as a union observer. He reported that the disparity in number of ob- servers was occasioned by the Employer's failure to designate alter- nate observers as did the Union, and that no more than 3 union observers were on duty at any 1 time. We agree with the Regional Director that absent a showing of electioneering, interference, or 'coercion, the above conduct objected to does not constitute grounds for setting aside the election-' Objections 6 and 7 filed by the Employer challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis of the Intervenor's compliance with the filing See Wood d Smith Shoe Co., 117 NLRB 1760 ; The Rackle Company of Texas, 117 NLRB 462; Dallas City Packing Company, 110 NLRB 8. BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 81 requirements of the Act ; and objection 16 refers to the Employer's request on March 11, 1957, that the Regional Director investigate the Intervenor's compliance status. The same allegations concerning the Intervenor's compliance were a part of the Employer's motion for a rehearing and were found by the Board to be without merit. The motion was specifically denied, insofar as it pertained to ques- tions of compliance, by telegraphic order of February 25, 1957. Objections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 relate to the Petitioner's with- drawal from participation in the election. Substantially, the Em- ployer contends that Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations whereby authority is granted by the Board to the Re- gional Director to permit withdrawal of a party from the ballot is an unlawful delegation of the power of the Board to direct a secret election and to determine disputed and controversial issues, and that the Regional Director's acts pursuant thereto are void; that the em- ployees were not given a choice of representatives as directed by the Board; and that Federal Local Union No. 24215, as well as the em- ployees, was prejudiced by the fraudulent action of the Petitioner approved by the Regional Director. The Regional Director recommended that these objections be over- ruled as lacking in merit and pointed out that the Board had con- sidered substantially the same allegations as contained in the objection relating to Federal Local Union No. 24215 in its Supplemental De- cision and found no merit to the contention. The Regional Director reported that his investigation did not disclose any facts to support the Employer's contention that the Petitioner's withdrawal was fraud- ulent. The Board is of the opinion that Section 102.61 of its Rules and Regulations is a valid delegation of authority and that conduct of the election herein, after permitting withdrawal of the Petitioner and with participation by the Intervenor alone, was proper. Objection 14 pertains to the designation of the Intervenor on the ballot. The name of the Intervenor is Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Allied Employees Local 60, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO. , Inadvertently, the word "of" was inserted after "Employees" and preceding "Local" and the word "Union" following "Local" and preceding "60," in the direction of election, notice of election, and on the ballot. The Employer contends that because of this error in setting out the Intervenor's name, the ballot failed to designate a labor organization in that there is no labor organization or entity with the name which appeared on the ballot. We agree with the Regional Director that the erroneous insertion of the word "of" and the word "Union" in the Intervenor's name on the ballot was 476321-58-vol. 119-7 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD insufficient to cause confusion as to the identity of the labor organi-_ zation involved, and we overrule the objection. Objection 15, filed by the Employer, asserts that prior to the election the Intervenor circulated a false and misleading leaflet and sample ballot. The Regional Director reported that the parties agreed to meet on February 20 to complete election arrangements for the election to be held on February 26, but prior to the 20th the Employer advised the Board agent that it intended to file a motion for a rehearing and would not be present. The Board agent and the Intervenor met as planned and arranged for the election to be held off company prop- erty. Notices of election were issued scheduling the election. The Intervenor thereupon passed out leaflets to the employees. It is these leaflets to which the Employer objects. The leaflets circulated by the Intervenor set out certain information as to the unit, time, and place of election, and a reproduction of the ballot. The information presented varied to some extent from that contained in the official notice of election. At the top of the leaflet was written : "This is a sample ballot shown to you so you will know what the voting ballot will look like. Do not mark this sample ballot in any way." The voting unit was described as on the official notice of election, with the following sentence added: "Those who were employed during the week ending Friday midnight, February 15, 1957." The leaflet showed the hours of election as from 5 a. in. until 6: 30 p. in., while the hours were designated on the official notice from 5: 30 a. M. to 10 a. M., 11: 30 a. in. to 1 p. in., 3 p. in. to 6 p. m. The official notice of election stated the place of election as : "Barnetts Trailer Court, 1847 Seventh Street, S. W., Across Street From Seaboard R. R. Depot." The leaflet described the place as "Across Street from Seaboard R. R. Depot in the trailer park on 7th Street." Following the description of the time and place of election, the Intervenor's leaflet made the following statement : "The Company has refused to let the N. L. R. B. conduct the election on Company property, so the N. L. R. B. has made arrangements to hold election at the above location." Immediately below the above information was a purported repro- duction of the official ballot clearly marked "Sample." However, the sample ballot was altered to the following extent : 1. The official sample ballot showed that the election was for the employees of "Bordo Products Company, Winter Haven, Florida." The purported reproduction stated that the election, was for the em- ployees of "Bordo Products, Inc." 2. There was a discrepancy in the designation of the participating labor organization. The official ballot showed the name as Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Allied Employees of BORDO PRODUCTS COMPANY 83 Local Union 60, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO." The purported reproduction showed it as "Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Ware- housemen and Allied Employees Local No. 60, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO." In summary, the ballot was altered in respect to the name of the Employer giving it as "Inc." instead of "Company" and omitting the location of the Company; and in the designation of the participating union omitting the word "of" between "Employees" and "Local," and substituting "No." for "Union" between "Local" and "60," and showing the local to be "affiliated with" the Teamsters International organization, a fact that is implied rather than written out on the official ballot. No marks were placed in the voting squares on the sample ballot. On February 25, the Employer requested the Regional Director by telegram to conduct the election on the Employer's premises, and the Regional Director agreed. Agents of the Employer on election day distributed to each voter a printed notice which included the state- ment, "The Company has requested that this election be held in the plant for your convenience." On these facts the Board adopts the Regional Director's recommen- dation that objection 15 be overruled. The first part of the leaflet which was circulated, giving information regarding the election which differed somewhat from that on the official notice of election and adding the statement concerning the conduct of the election off com- pany property, is not in the form of the official notice and did not give the impression of being an official document. Moreover, we do not think that the material thereon tended to mislead employees or interfere with their freedom of choice in the election. The bottom half of the leaflet purported to be a facsimile of the of- ficial ballot. The Board has previously held that it will not counte- nance circulation of any document purporting to be a copy of the Board's official ballot except one unaltered in form and content and clearly marked "sample" on its face.' The reproduction of the Inter- venor's leaflet was so marked, and the minor changes in names on the ballot were insignificant. They did not tend to mislead voters as.to the choice which was theirs or suggest either directly or indirectly that the Board endorsed a particular choice. Accordingly, we find that the circulation of the sample ballot was not a misuse of the Board's processes for partisan advantage and did not interfere with.the election. Under objection 17, the Employer alleges that the polls were not open as specified on the notices of election. The Regional Director ' See Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270. 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD attributes this divergency to the request of the Employer's general manager the day before the election that the election be held on com- pany property in the cafeteria, and that the formerly scheduled hours be changed. It was agreed between all the parties that there would be no voting during the lunch hour, and employees were released to vote during company time. We find no merit in this objection. Objection 18, by the Employer, alleges interference, restraint, and coercion by the Intervenor in circulating notices of its meeting an- nouncing that attendance at the meetings entitled one to a ticket which was a chance on three prizes it was giving away at a meeting at which one had to be present to win. In view of the fact that no evidence was submitted showing that the offer of prizes was contingent on how employees voted in the election or the results of the election, we find no merit in the Employer's objection. We have overruled the Employer's objections to the election and as the Intervenor has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Intervenor as the representative of the employees involved. The Board certified Cannery, Citrus Workers, Drivers, Warehouse- men and Allied Employees Local 60, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certification. May, Stern and Company and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, Local 1365, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1956. October 22, 1957 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe- cuted on June 3, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 11, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that all 13 eligible voters cast valid ballots, of which 7 were cast for, and 6 against, the Petitioner. There were no void or challenged ballots. On June 18, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct which it alleged affected the results of the election. After an investi- 119 NLRB No. 12.