Doughboy Plastic Production, Inc.

338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tiated contracts with the Employer covering the warehouse employees alone, and they have been excluded from the production and main- tenance unit represented by Textile Workers. All employees receive comparable benefits regardless of bargaining representative. From the foregoing it is clear that a production and maintenance unit, including warehouse employees, may be appropriate. It is also clear that in view of the history of separate bargaining for ware- house employees, separate units of (1) warehouse employees, alone, and (2) all other employees may be appropriate.5 However, as no union other than Local 6 has made an adequate showing among the warehouse employees, and Local 6 does not desire to participate in an election among such employees, we shall not direct an election among the warehouse employees, but only among the following em- ployees of the Employer who, we find, under the circumstances, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's San Francisco, California, plant, including the textile department group leader, the maintenance department group leader, the multi- ware sul)e+visor and the texriie department supervisor of women, but excluding department foremen,s warehousemen, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] c Adams Coal Company, Inc., 118 NLRB 1493. The parties agree and we find, that the specified group leaders and "supervisors" whom we have included are not supervisors under the Act, but that department foremen are such supervisors. Doughboy Plastic Production , Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 32-RC-1150. December 5, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated April 22, 1958, an election was conducted on May 13, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among the employees at the Employer's West Helena, Arkansas, plant. At the conclusion of the election, the par- ties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 385 eligible voters, 364 cast ballots, of which 79 were for the Petitioner and 267 were against the Petitioner. There were 15 122 NLRB No. 45. DOUGHBOY PLASTIC PRODUCTION, INC. 339 challenged ballots and 3 void ballots.' The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On May 19, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On September 25, 1958, follow- ing an investigation, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, a copy of which is at- tached hereto, in which he found that the Petitioner's objections were without merit and recommended that they be overruled, and that a certificate of results be issued. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the Petitioner's exceptions, and on the entire record in this case 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. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's West Helena, Arkansas, plant, excluding all office clerical employees, technical employees, quality control personnel, managerial trainees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner's objections and exceptions do not raise material or substantial issues respecting the results of the election. We there- fore adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director and hereby overrule the Petitioner's objections. Accordingly, as the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, and that said Union is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit stipulated by the parties to be appropriate.] 1 The Regional Director inadvertently reported that 269 ballots were cast against the Petitioner. As the official tally of ballots shows that this figure Is 267, the Regional Director's report is hereby corrected In this respect. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed between the parties on April 22, 1958, an election by a secret ballot was conducted among certain employees of the Employer on May 13, 1958, to deter- mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the pur- pose of collective bargaining. As indicated by the tally of ballots, copies of which were served on the parties at the conclusion of the election, there were approximately 385 eligible voters, of whom 79 cast valid ballots for the Petitioner, 269 cast valid ballots against the Petitioner, 15 cast challenged ballots, and 3 cast void ballots. The challenges were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On May 19, 1958, the Petitioner filed with the Regional Director timely objec- tions to the election, and, simultaneously, served a copy thereof upon the Employer. In its objection the Petitioner alleged that the Employer interfered with the elec- tion by: (1) threatening to close and/or move its plant should the Petitioner win the election; (2) threatening to reduce the wages of employees if the Petitioner won the election; (3) threatening to abolish established seniority rights should the Union achieve collective-bargaining status; (4) promising economic benefits to employees if they would reject the Petitioner; (5) displaying antiunion propaganda to a captive audience of employees within the 24-hour period preceding the elec- tion; (6) interrogating employees as to their union sympathies and attendance at union meetings; and (7) engaging in antiunion campaigning in the immediate vicin- ity of the polls before and during the polling time. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, an in- vestigation concerning the issues raised by the Petitioner's objections has been conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director, who, having carefully considered the results thereof, makes the following report and recommendations to the Board: Objection 1: The investigation disclosed evidence that on February 1, March 13, April 26, and May 13, 1958, 2 of the Employer's minor supervisors warned 2 of the 385 employees eligible to vote that the Employer would move its plant if the Union achieved collective-bargaining status. The supervisors to whom the fore- going remarks are attributed deny having made such statements. Since the con- duct alleged to have taken place in February and March 1958 occurred prior to the Woolworth 1 "cutoff date," 2 such conduct cannot be utilized to support a find- ing of interference with the instant election. As for the coercive statements alleged to have been made after the "cutoff date," even assuming, arguendo, that such statements were actually made, the fact remains that they were made to only 1 of 385 eligible voters. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the state- ments in question are too isolated to warrant setting aside the instant election.3 Accordingly, it is recommended that this objection be overruled. Objections 2 and 3: In support of these objections, the Petitioner submitted leaf- lets distributed to employees by the Employer, which reflect, in pertinent part: YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD 1. THAT the Union attempting to organize your company has many con- tracts with other companies where the beginning rate of pay for a beginner trainee is $.75 or $.80 per hour. Our minimum rate of pay for a trainee is $1.00 per hour. The Union attempting to organize your company has contracts with other companies where there is no seniority for any employee. The fact that an employee has worked for a company a long time means nothing. An old employee can be laid off ahead of a new employee under the union system. In the opinion of the Regional Director, the above statements fall within the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda and in no wise constitute threats of reprisals. It is therefore recommended that objections 2 and 3 be overruled. Objection 4: No evidence in support of this allegation was submitted by the Petitioner, nor was any disclosed during the course of the investigation. Accord- ingly, it is clear that this objection is without merit. The Regional Director there- fore recommends that this objection be overruled. F. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446; see also Joanna Western Mills Co., 119 NLRB 1789. 2 The stipulation for certification upon consent election was executed by the parties on April 22, 1958. B Independent Nail h Packing Company, 120 NLRB 677. CRAFT MANUFACTURING CO. 341 Objection 5: Although there is evidence that the Employer distributed antiunion literature and displayed antiunion placards and banners, during working hours and on company premises, up until 2 hours before the election, there is no showing that such material was of a coercive . nature. With respect to the Petitioner's apparent contention that the above-mentioned conduct is violative of the "24-hour rule" established by Peerless Plywood,4 an examination of that case clearly reveals that the Board therein expressly reserved to parties the privilege of distributing campaign literature on company premises at any time before an election .5 Ac- cordingly, it is recommended that this objection be overruled. Objection 6: The investigation discloses evidence that on May 8 and 10, 1958, one of the supervisors involved in objection I interrogated an employee concern- ing her union activities. The- supervisor in question denies having engaged in such conduct. As is the case with objection 1, above, the incidents of interroga- tion involved only 1 of 385 voters. In the opinion of the Regional Director, this incident is too isolated to afford a basis for setting aside the election ' Accordingly it is recommended that this objection be overruled. Objection 7: Although it appears that the Employer engaged in antiunion elec- tioneering in the vicinity of the polls up until the election started, there is no evidence that such conduct took place while the polls were open. Since there is no showing that the conduct in question was of a coercive nature , it is recom- mended that this objection be overruled. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As set forth hereinabove, the Regional Director is of the opinion that the ob- jections raise no material or substantial issues with respect to the results of the election. The Regional Director, therefore, recommends to the Board that the objections herein be overruled and that the results of the election be certified. * Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 6 Montrose Hanger Company, 120 NLRB 88. 6Independent Nail & Packing Company, supra. Even if the threat incidents (see objection 1) and the interrogation incidents are considered together, they only involve 2 out of 385 eligible voters. Craft Manufacturing Co. and International Union, UAW-AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5917. December 5, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 16, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was held on July 16, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit found ap- propriate by the Board. Following the election a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties. The tally shows that, of approximately 62 eligible voters, 57 cast valid ballots, of which, 81 were for the Petitioner, 9 were cast for the Intervenor, District Lodge No. 140, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, 17 were against the participating labor organizations , and 4 were challenged. As the challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the results of the elec- tion, the Regional Director did not consider them. On July 23, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting - the results of the election and requested the Board to set 1 Unpublished. 122 NLRB No. 44.