Bronze Alloys Co.

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees employed by Armour Ches-Peake at its feed mixing operation located at Pittsville, Maryland, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Acts [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] of their time in the feed plant ; the rest spend part of their time working there and the remainder driving trucks or performing other duties connected with the delivery of the feed. The Board's annual apppropriation rider requires the Board to follow the definition of the term "agriculture" contained in Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Board attempts to follow the interpretation of that Section made by the Department of Labor. Columbiana Seed Company, 119 NLRB 560. The Department of Labor has administratively advised the Board that unless the work performed on feed fed to the chickens raised in the Employer 's growing units is "very carefully segregated" from the work performed on feed fed to the chickens raised by the independent contractors, the persons working in the feed plant are not agricultural laborers , because they are not engaged in "agriculture" "to the extent that their ' activities are connected with the raising of poultry by the independent contract growers." As it does not appear that such segregation exists, we find that the individuals involved herein are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 8 The unit was stipulated by the parties. Bronze Alloys Company and Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 14BC-3295. April 30,1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On November 26, 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 Four- teenth Region among the employees in the unit herein found appro- priate. Following the election, the Regional Director served on ,the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 34 eligible voters, .18 voted for, and 15 voted against, the Petitioner, and 1 cast a void ballot. On December 2, 1957, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, alleging in substance, that the Petitioner coerced and intimidated employees by unlawful threats. The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on. January 22, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objec- tions to election, in which he found.the objections to be without merit and recommended that they be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 120 NLRB No. 95. BRONZE ALLOYS COMPANY 683 Upon the entire record, the Board 1 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees 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, as the parties stipulated, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, factory, excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. We find no merit in the Employer's exceptions herein. The Regional Director's investigation uncovered evidence to the effect that employee Schwartz told employees before the election that they could then join the Petitioner by paying a reduced initiation fee, whereas applications for membership in the Petitioner after the election would be more costly and would require unanimous approval by the full membership. Schwartz denied making such statements. The Regional Director concluded that there would have been no interference with the election even if Schwartz had in fact uttered the statements attributed to him, and the Employer excepts to this finding. It would appear that the statements allegedly made by Schwartz were designed to persuade employees to join the Peti- tioner before the election. Moreover, the benefits offered thereby were in no way made contingent on how the employees voted in the elec- tion or on the results of the election. As found by the Regional Director, such statements would not warrant setting aside the election 2 The Employer also excepts to the Regional Director's finding that the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for any threat made by Schwartz while soliciting employees to join the Petitioner before the election, or for the above conduct, because Schwartz was not then acting as agent of the Petitioner.' In support of its exception, the Employer relies on facts detailed in the Regional Director's report which indicate that Schwartz was in possession of applications for i 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 Rodgers and Jenkins]. 8 Otis Elevator Company, 114 NLRB 1490 ; The Gruen Watch Company, 108 NLRB 610. Cf Lobue Bros., 109 NLRB 1182. 8In addition to the "application" statements allegedly made by Schwartz which are re- ferred to above, the Regional Director's investigation also disclosed that before the elec- tion Schwartz may have threatened an employee with loss of his job if he didn't join the Petitioner. Schwartz denied making such a threat. 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership in the Petitioner, that he solicited employees to join the Petitioner before the election, and that he was appointed tem- porary secretary of the Petitioner 4 days after the election, pending the election of permanent officers therein. However, these facts fall short of justifying a finding that any threats made by Schwartz in the course of his preelection activities may be attributed to the Peti- tioner. For we are unable to infer therefrom that the Petitioner either authorized Schwartz' solicitation activities prior to the elec- tion or that it subsequently ratified the conduct in question. Absent evidence to this effect, the Employer's exceptions in the instant con- nection can have no merit .4 We, accordingly, overrule the Employer's objections, as recom- mended by the Regional Director. As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the votes cast, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Stove Mounters International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate unit.] 4 See W. A. Ransom Lumber Company , 114 NLRB 1418. The Employer has likewise failed to advert to evidence which impairs the validity of the Regional Director's finding that the conduct of employee Van Esler before the election also is not attributable to the Petitioner , or which supports its apparent contention that the Regional Director's investigation herein was an inadequate one. Its suggestion that a hearing be held in the case is accordingly rejected. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Ohio Con- solidated Telephone Company Local No. 4372, Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company. Cases Nos. 9-CB- 327 and 9-CE-428. May 1, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On April 11, 1957, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A.) of the Act, and recommending that the com- plaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Company and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup- porting briefs. The Respondents filed a brief in support,of the Inter- mediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no error which can plainly be termed 120 NLRB No. 96.