Korber Hats, Inc.

1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD make a union -security agreement in behalf of an alleged bargaining unit of the Employer's truckdrivers. All the Employer 's truckdrivers are currently covered by a 3-year contract with the Union. The contract, which contains a union-security clause, is in effect from February 1, 1958, to January 31 , 1961. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed because the unit as to which deauthori- zation is sought by the Petitioner is not coextensive with the bargain- ing unit. Although the Employer is not a member of an employer association, the contract between the Employer and the Union is identical with the one which was negotiated between various em- ployer associations and the numerous affiliates of Teamsters in the Central States Area. The Union contends that the appropriate unit coincides with the existing coverage of the Central States Area agree- ment, inasmuch as the grievance procedure in the contract provides for participation by the -Joint Area Cartage Committee and the Joint State Cartage Committee . The record shows that the Employer never took part in the contract negotiations on the areawide basis, nor did it authorize any employer association or other agent to nego- tiate in its behalf. The negotiated contract was merely left with the Employer by the union business agent with a request that it be signed, and the Employer signed on its independent judgment. The existence of uniform or master contracts covering a given geographic area does not ipso facto establish a multiemployer bargaining unit. Although the Employer has adopted the Central States Area agree- ment, we find that there is no history of bargaining on a multi- employer basis such as to preclude a finding that its employees con- stitute a separate , appropriate unit.' 4. All truckdrivers employed by Texas Cartage Company at its establishment in Detroit, Michigan, excluding all other employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of an election under Section 9(e) (1) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] I Colonial Cedar Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1613. Korber Hats, Inc. and Esther Sousa, Mary M. Sullivan and Georgiana J. Lambert, Petitioners and United Hat, Cap and Millinery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-RD-9d74. January 19, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated October 16, 1958,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 6, 1958, 1 Unpublished. 122 NLRB No. 128. KORBER HATS, INC. 1001 under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above-mentioned decision. As the Union had filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer on November 4, 1958, the Regional Director impounded the ballots. On November 17, 1958, the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint based on these charges and, on November 21, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 42 eligible voters, 34 cast ballots against the Union, no voters cast bal- lots for the Union, 1 ballot was challenged, and 1 ballot was void. On November 24, 1958, the Union filed timely objections to the election. In accordance with Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on December 2, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the objections be dismissed as lacking in merit. Thereafter, the Union filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. The Union objected to the holding of the election on the Em- ployer's property at a time when a strike was in progress and the plant was being picketed.2 The 7 or 8 of the Employer's employees who were on strike failed to vote in the election. The Union con- tends that it was unfair, coercive, and humiliating to the employees on strike to require them to cross the picket line, and that the hold- ing of the election in these circumstances was not conducive to a free choice by the voters. Mere location of the polling place behind a picket line is not of itself prejudicial to the fair conduct of an election 3 There has been no showing here that the Union was in fact prejudiced or that the secrecy of the election was impaired because of the location of the polling place. Nor is there anything here to indicate that the strikers failed to vote for any reason other than their own free choice and, in any event, the fact that the 7 or 8 striking workers failed to vote could not have any effect on the outcome of the election, since they were insufficient in number to affect the result. We find, under all the circumstances, that the Regional Director did not abuse his discretion in setting the place of the election. 2 Although no discussion as to the place of the election had taken place between the Regional Director and the Union prior to the Union's receipt of notice of the election, on November 3, 1958. the Board has held that the choice of the place of the election is within the discretion of the Regional Director. Consequently, failure to consult with the parties as to the place of the election is not per as prejudicial. The De Vilbiaa Company, 102 NLRB 942. 3Coffey's Transfer Company, 115 NLRB 888, 889. 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union also objected to the holding of the election while the above-noted charges, filed on November 4, 1958, were pending in the Regional Office.4 After the filing of these charges, the Regional Director conducted a preliminary investigation and determined that the election should proceed as scheduled, on November 6, 1958, and that the ballots should be impounded until the disposition of the charges. We find that this constituted a proper exercise of the Regional Director's discretion in these circumstances, where the charges were filed almost on the eve of the election. Furthermore, we find that the Union was not prejudiced by the fact that the elec- tion took place before the charges were dismissed, since the charges were subsequently found by the Regional Director to be without merit .5 We, therefore, adopt the recommendation of the Regional Director and overrule the objections of the Union to the conduct of the elec- tion. As the Union failed to receive a majority of the ballots cast, we shall therefore certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots was not cast for United Hat, Cap and Millinery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that this union is not the exclusive bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees employed at the Em- ployer's Fall River, Massachusetts, plant.] 4 The Union's objection to the holding of the election during the pendency of its appeal from the dismissal by the Regional Director of unfair labor practice charges filed on August 5, 1958, is clearly without merit as, apart from any other considerations, the appeal was dismissed by the General Counsel before the election was held. 5 Dumont Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 94, 95. Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi ' and Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 891, Petitioner a Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Laun- dry, Cleaning & Linen Workers' International Union, Local 218, Independent, Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 15-RC-1868 and 15-RC-1873. January 00, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 4 hearing was held 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Herein called the Teamsters. This Petitioner's name appears as amended at the bearing. 8 Herein called the Laundry Workers. This Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 4 The Regional Director's order consolidating cases and notice of hearing was personally served on the Employer 1 day prior to the actual date of the hearing. The Employer 122 NLRB No. 123.