Boggs and Co., Inc.

758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 19. Bleach Plant Supervisor 20. Labor Gang Supervisor 21. Calendar and Rewinder Supervisor 22. Box Shop Supervisor 23. Control Laboratory Supervisor Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, Plant 1. Tour Foreman, Pulpmill APPENDIX B INCLUDED CLASSIFICATIONS Covington, Virginia, Plant 1. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, Construction 2. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, East Side Maintenance 3. Pipe Shop, Pipe Foreman, West Side Maintenance 4. Assistant Millwright Foreman 5. Assistant Carpenter Foreman 6. Assistant Finishing Foreman, No. 2 Boardmill 7. Labor Foreman 8. Paint Foreman 9. No. 6-7 Finishing Foreman Luke, Maryland, Plant 1. Millwright Supervisor, Pulpmill 2. Lubrication Inspector 3. Paint Shop Supervisor 4. Bleach Room Supervisor 5. Machinist Supervisor 6. Loading Supervisor, Papermill Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, Plant 1. Yard Boss Boggs and Company, Inc. and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4191. December 30, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into by the parties on August 29, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 11, 1958, under the supervision and direction of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among certain employees of Boggs and Company, Inc. Immediately fol- 122 NLRB No. 82. BOGGS AND COMPANY, INC. 759 'lowing the election a tally of ballots was served upon each of the parties which showed that of approximately three eligible voters, two cast ballots for the Petitioner, one against the Petitioner, and there were no challenged or void ballots. On September 11, 1958, the Employer timely filed objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election, copies of which were duly served on all parties. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on October 16, 1958, issued his report on objections, recommending that the objec- tions be overruled. On October' 8, 1958, the Employer filed a motion to dismiss and on October 23, 1958, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board' has considered the objections, the Regional Director's report, the motion to dismiss, and the entire record in this case and 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 represen- tation of certain 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 of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All truckdrivers and ware- house employees of the Employer at its Atlanta, Georgia, location, excluding office clerical employees, professionals, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act .2 5. The Employer's objections and exceptions relate primarily to the presence of Supervisor Jones at the polls during the election. Jones would have been eligible to vote but for the fact that he became a supervisor after the petition was filed. The Employer contends that Jones actively supported the Petitioner after he attained supervisory status. According to the Employer, 3 or 4 days before the election, Jones was present in an automobile with an individual who was Petitioner's assistant business agent, and employee Douglass (a former supervisor whom Jones succeeded) who allegedly was active on the Petitioner's behalf, when a new employee's support for the Petitioner was being solicited. The Employer's contention is that Jones' presence in the automobile and at the polls constituted coercion and intimidation of the new em- ployee, which, in view of the size of the unit, deprived him of a free choice in the election. 1 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 Bean and Jenkins]. G The unit description is in accord with the stipulation of the parties. 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While it is undisputed that Jones was in the immediate vicinity of the polls during the election, there is neither evidence nor an allegation by the Employer that Jones himself either then, during the automobile incident previously mentioned, or at any other time after he became a supervisor, ever affirmatively solicited support for Petitioner. Indeed, the Employer's position is that in the absence of such solicitation by Jones his mere presence both in the . automobile and at the polls constituted interference sufficient to set the election aside. The Board has consistently held such conduct-is insufficient fQr setting aside an election .3 On October 8, 1958, the Employer filed a motion to dismiss the petition, claiming that : (1) Douglass, at the time in question a supervisor as defined in the Act, encouraged and assisted Petitioner in its organizational campaign; and (2) Douglass was present when all authorization cards were signed and in fact signed such an authorization card himself. The Employer states that this assist- ance did not come to its attention until October 2 and 3, 1958. The petition for certification in the instant case was filed August 18, 1958, and Douglass was replaced as supervisor by Jones on August 25, 1958. The stipulation was entered into on August 28, 1958, and accepted by the Regional Director on August 29, 1958. On both of these dates, as well as on the date of the subsequent election, Douglass was not a supervisor and was admittedly. eligible to vote. Therefore, the allegations of improper supervisory assist- ance by Douglass necessarily antedate the stipulation for certifica- tion upon consent election and the Board has held that it will not consider objections based on interference occurring prior to the execution by the parties of the stipulation for certification upon consent election.4 Furthermore, that rule applies not only to objections to conduct affecting the election, but also to objections to the showing of interest.' The Employer's contentions of lack of knowledge of the alleged assistance until a later date is immaterial since the rule expressed above was not qualified by making it dependent upon knowledge 6 The Employer's motion to dismiss is therefore hereby denied. [The Board certified Truckdrivers and Helpers Local No. 728 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers-of America, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, place of business; in the unit found appropriate.] 3 Dixie Broadcasting Company, 120 NLRB 869 ; Brown-Duncan Company, 118 NLRB 1603; Underwood Machinery Company, 80 NLRB 1264; Allen B. Dumont Laboratories, Inc., 88 NLRB 1296; Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 91 NLRB 470. IF. W. 'Wooluiorth Comp'any, 109 NLRB 1446.' r Concrete Products, Inc., 120 NLRB 1348. 6 Ibid.