Crane Carrier Corp.

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 9 (b) of the Act : 6 All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Knoxville, Tennessee, plant, including employees in the transportation and shipping departments, and leadmen, but excluding all office and plant clerical employees, salesmen, buyers, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.] 6 The appropriate unit was stipulated at the hearing. 7 It was agreed that all employees laid off since May 1, 1957, were temporarily laid off, and would be eligible to participate in the election. Crane Carrier Corporation and Local 790, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- t266. November 24, 1958 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICA- TION OF RESULT'S OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated March 24, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 17, 1958, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows that of 86 ballots cast, 42 were for the Petitioner, 42 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On April 24, 1958, the Petitioner filed eight objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the challenges and objections, and on May 26, 1958, issued his report on challenged ballots and objec- tions, recommending that only the objection concerning the meetings in the Employer's conference room be sustained and that the chal- lenges to the ballots be overruled. The Employer thereafter filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations concerning the 1 objection and 1 of the challenged ballots. On August 29, 1958, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision 2 wherein it deferred ruling on the objection but directed the Regional Director to open and count one challenged ballot. The revised tally of ballots thereafter prepared by the Regional Director shows that a majority of ballots-43-were cast against the Petitioner. The ob- jection which is in issue is now before the Board for ruling. ' Unpublished. z 121 NLRB 756. 122 NLRB No. 32. CRANE CARRIER CORPORATION 207 As indicated above, the Regional Director recommended that seven of the objections be overruled. As no exceptions have been filed thereto, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendations pro forma and overrule these objections. Concerning the remaining objection, the Regional Director's in- vestigation reveals that the Employer has followed a practice of hold- ing weekly meetings of its approximately 88 employees in the plant area to discuss production and other problems. No exception was filed to the Regional Director's finding that these meetings which were continued until the day before election were not improper. The Re- gional Director also states that other meetings are held every 60 to 90 days in a "conference" room on company property to permit a frank discussion concerning production and personnel problems between the employees and the Employer's president who is the only management representative present. During the period from April 2 through April 11, 1958, shortly before the election, the Employer's president had 5 such meetings in the conference room with all employees in small groups of 15 to 20. Attendance was mandatory at the meetings which lasted about 11/2 hours and employees were paid at the rate of time and a half therefor. At each of these meetings in early April, the presi- dent read a list of employees' rights emphasizing the employees' free- dom of choice with respect to attending union meetings and voting in the forthcoming election. Although there was no further discussion of the Union or the election at three of the meetings, employees asked questions at the other two that led to a discussion and explanation of the Employer's position on these matters.' Thereafter, the meetings continued as in the past with a discussion of "personnel or common problems." The Regional Director, relying on the principle enunciated in the Peoples Drug case,4 found that the small group meetings in an area away from the employees' place of work interfered with the election and warranted the holding of another. We do not agree. Unlike the situation in the Peoples Drug case, the meetings here in question were part of a series of meetings which were regularly and periodically held in the conference room for the purpose of discussions between management and employees. Thus, although the meetings were not held in an open plant area, it is clear that the conference room was not a locus of managerial authority in which employees normally do not go. Indeed, it appears that these meetings were no different from the prior meetings attended by employees in the conference room, except that they included a privileged discussion concerning the elec- 8 The president and the employees differ on whether the former urged the employees to vote against the Union at these two meetings. We need not resolve the conflict as there is no contention that even under the employees ' version, the president's remarks exceeded the permissible bounds of free speech. 4 Peoples Drug Stores, Inc., 119 NLRB 634. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion. When employees are gathered to hear views of company rep- resentatives regarding the election in an area where, as here, they are accustomed to find themselves, there results free and open discussion with both management and employees enjoying the confidences and assurances which are normal aspects of collective and group activities.° Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the meet ings in the conference room did not interfere with a free choice of bargaining representative. We therefore reject the recommendation of the Regional Director that the election be set aside, and shall issue the following certification. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Local 790, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and that this Union is not the exclusive representative of the employees at the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant, in the unit found appro- priate by the Board.] a See Mead-Atlanta Paper Company, 120 NLRB 882. Hearever Co., Inc. and International Association of, Machinists, . District Lodge No. 115, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-1341. November 25, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On June 25, 1958, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist. therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommended dismissal of allegations. of the complaint concerning such practices. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor. Relations Act, as amended, the' Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member. panel [Chairman Leedom and, Members Bean and Jenkins]. ,The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error.was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the _ 1Because of its disagreement with the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations, the Reapondent charges the Trial Examiner with bias and prejudice. We find no evidence in the record of any bias and prejudice and no merit in this. contention.. We further 122 NLRB No. 34.