Callahan-Cleveland, Inc.

CALLAHAN-CLEVELAND, INC. SHIFTS AND TIME WORKEII-Continued 389 Day Date, 1957 BROWNE COOPER In Out In Out Monday--------------- April 15 ------- 4:26 p.m ------- 12:56 a.m ------ 7:00 a.m ------- 4:04 p.m. Tuesday----------- ---- April 16 --- ---- 2:42 p.m----- - 1:03 a.m----- -- 15:02 a.m------- 4:01 p.m. Wednesday------------ April 17 -- ----- 2:54 p. m ------- 12:04 a.m------ 7:00 a.m------_ 4:02 p.m. Thursday------------- April 18 ----- -- 2:02 p.m ------- 12:39 a.m ------ 7:03 a.m ------- 4:00 p.rn. Friday---------------- April 19- ------ 2:49 p .m ------- 12:06 a.m ------ 7:04 a.m ------- 3:55 p.m. Monday--------------- April 22------- 7:29 a .m------- 3:34 p.m------- 2:12 p .m ------- 1:30 a.m. Tuesday--------- ------ April 23------- 7:16 a.m ------- 5:00 p.m------- Absent-------- Wednesday------------ April 24-- ----- 7:34 a.m- ------ 1:15 a.m------- -----do--------- Thursday------------- April 25 ------- 1:58 p.m------- 10 :06 p.m------ -----do-------- Friday---- ------------ April 26--- ---- 7:29 a.m------- 4:18 p.m----- -- -----do--------- Monday--------------- April 29------- 7:28 a.m------- 4:28 p .m------- -----do--------- Tuesday--------------- April 30- ------ 7:21 a.m------- 4:55 p.m ------- -----do--------- Wednesday------------ May 1 -------- 7:14 a.m------- 4:51 p.m ------- -----do--------- Thursday------------- May 2--------- 7:36 a.m ------- 5:08 p.m ------- ----- do--------- Friday- --------------- May 3-------- 7:39 a.m------- 4:31 p.m------- ----- do--------- Monday---- ----------- May 6-------- 7:21 a.m- ------ 3:32 p.m ------- 1:59 p.m ------- 3:32 a.m. Tuesday ------------- May 7-------- 7:37 a.m ------- 3:59 p.m---- --- 2:12 p.m ------- 2:33 a.m. Wednesday------------ May 8-------- Absent-------- ---------------- 9:26 a.m------- 5:24 p.m. Thursday------------- May 9-------- 2:27 p.m------- 10:33 p .m.----- 7:10 a.m ------- 3:55 p.m. Friday--- ------------- May 10------- 7:23 a.m------- 12:09 p.m------ 2:08 p.m------- 2:30 a.m. Monday--------------- May 13------- 2:22 p.m ------- 6:00 p.m------- 7:05 a.m------- 4:01 p.m. Callahan-Cleveland, Inc. and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, District 65, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-31592. December 11, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On July 9, 1958, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 9, 1958,1 an election was conducted under the direc- tion and supervision of the regional Director for the Eighth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of approximately 8 eligible voters 5 voted for and 3 against the Petitioner. On July 16, 1958, the Employer filed objections to the conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi- gated the objections and, on September 25, 1958, issued and served upon the parties his report, a copy of which is attached hereto. The Regional Director found the objections to be without merit and rec- ommended that they be overruled, and that the Petitioner be certified 1120 NLRB 1355. 122 NLRB No. 56. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as the representative of the employees involved. Thereafter the Em- ployer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.2 Accordingly, we shall certify the Petitioner as representative of the Employer's employees. [The Board certified Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, District 65, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargain- ing representative of the selling and nonselling employees at the Em- ployer's store located and operated in the Bonwit-Teller store in Cleveland, Ohio, including the part-time stockboy, but excluding the sales-check writers, the part-time salesman, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa- tives. 2 In its exceptions, the Employer contends that this case should be remanded for a hearing, in view of an alleged conflict between an affidavit of employee Westbrook, recit- ing certain preelection threats and coercion to induce him to vote for .Petitioner, and Westbroolc's subsequent statement to the Regional Director repudiating such affidavit. However, as we have administratively determined that Westbrook's original affidavit did not name the person or persons making such statements, and in view, in any event, of the retraction of the affidavit, we find that there is here no material or substantial issue of fact, such as would warrant the conduct of a hearing. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the National Labor Rela- tions Board dated June 9, 1958, and a Supplemental Decision dated June 27, 1958, an election was conducted on July 9, 1958, among all selling and nonselling em- ployees at the Employer's store located and operated in the Bonwit-Teller store in Cleveland, Ohio. A tally of ballots was issued on July 9, 1958, showing the following results: Approximate number of eligible voters ---------------------------- 8 Void ballots --------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for Petitioner ----------------------------------------- 5 Votes cast against participating labor organization ------------------- 3 Valid votes counted --------------------------------------------- 8 Challenged ballots ---------------------------------------------- 0 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots ------------------------ 8 On July 16, 1958, timely objections to the election were filed by the Employer. Three affidavits were submitted by the Employer in connection with the objec- tions; two of the three persons executing these affidavits have been interviewed by a Board agent and additional, complete statements, under oath, have been secured. The third affidavit contained only hearsay. William Westbrook, a stock clerk, states he had various conversations with em- ployees prior to the election, and subsequent thereto he was asked by the store manager how he voted. Thereafter, at the request of J. E. White, whom he met in a hotel room at the instance of the acting store manager, he signed one of the statements submitted by the Employer ; however, he states he did not read the statement and that most of the statements attributed to him are not correct; that no employee at the store, nor any union representative, threatened him with the loss of his job if he did not vote for the Union. He states he was never threat- ened with any violence by anyone and, consequently , was not "scared" of any union member or union representative , and that no threat was made when he signed an authorization card for Mr. O'Connor, union representative. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 391 Westbrook states anoth.' Ee, John Farkus, told him he probably would get a raise if the Unioiil got in; that all employees would probably get one and that he would also. This can hardly be construed as a promise of benefit, but even assuming, arguendo, that such a promise was made, no evidence was adduced during the investigation to establish that Farkus was other than a rank-and-file employee; there is no evidence that he was even a nominal union representative. J. E. White, now employed elsewhere, himself denies that he was ever threatened by any union representative. He states he prepared the affidavit for Westbrook to sign in advance of the meeting, based on statements Westbrook allegedly made to him at the store; all of these statements are, of course , denied by Westbrook in his affidavit given the Board agent. White states that John Farkus was a "leader in the Union" but knows of no official connection he has with the Union . He claims Farkus told him if he did not vote for the Union, and the store was unionized , that he (White) would not get any pay increase as a result of the said unionization . While this might be construed as a threat, in any event, as pointed out above, Farkus lacked the author- ity to bind the Union, even by any bona fide threat or promise of benefit. Electric Wheel Company, Division of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 120 NLRB 1644. John Farkus denies under oath that he held any union office and that he was even a committeeman of some sort as suggested by White. He denies the alleged threat of loss of pay attributed to him by White, or that he threatened any other employee. On September 24, 1958, by letter, the Employer alleged that the Union had filed a wage assignment with Callahan at New York City involving a debt owed by a Callahan employee in New York City to the District 65 credit union in that city; and that this is evidence of coercion . These allegations are untimely filed; further, they do not involve employees in the unit involved in this proceeding and cannot therefore be considered. The Regional Director concludes that the objections are not supported by the evidence adduced in the course of the investigation, and it is therefore recom- mended that they be overruled and that the Union be certified. Westinghouse Electric Corporation and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, et al.i Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Salaried Employees Association at South Philadelphia, affiliated with Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 5 RM-64 and 4-RC-1293. December 11, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CLARIFICATION OF UNIT Pursuant to a Board certification on June 29, 1950,2 Petitioner, hereinafter called the Association, became the bargaining representa- tive of a unit of professional employees, including time-study men, at the Employer's South Philadelphia plant, and thereafter the par- ties entered into collective-bargaining agreements covering this unit. In 1957, the Employer created a position entitled "methods analyst," and the Association sought to bargain for the employees in that clas- 3 The name of the Union appears as in the original hearing. See Westinghouse Eleotrio Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, 11 ; 98 NLRB 468. 122 NLRB No. 63.