Rold Gold of California, Inc.

BOLD GOLD OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 285 Rold Gold of California , Incorporated and American Bakery and Confectionery Workers, International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Inter- national Union, Local 400. Case No. 21-RC-5312. March 17, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 1 a runoff election by secret ballot was conducted on December 9, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the ]lit therein found appropriate. Following the election the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 24 eligible voters 10 cast ballots for the Peti- tioner, 12 cast ballots for the Intervenor, and 1 ballot was void. On December 15, 1958, the Petitioner filed with the Board's offices in Washington, D.C., objections to the runoff election and requested that it be set aside and a new election directed. The Employer and the Intervenor were served copies of the objections at the time of the filing with the Board. The objections were forwarded to the Regional Director and received by him on December 22, 1958. On December 23, 1958, the Regional Director set aside a certification of representatives issued by him to the Intervenor in the interim. Although the Employer and the Intervenor contended that the objections were improperly filed, the Regional Director conducted an investigation on the merits of the objections and, on January 12, 1959, issued his report on objections in which he found the objections to be without merit and recommended that they be over- ruled. On January 22, 1959, the Petioner 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 in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. In objection No. 1 the Petitioner alleged that the Employer allowed the Intervenor to enter the plant for the purpose of engag- ing in organizational activities but specifically denied such oppor- 1 Unpublished. 2 Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides that objections to the conduct of an election be filed with the Regional Director. The filing with the Board's offices in Washington, D.C., did not meet the requirement of Section 102.69, and therefore did not warrant an investigation of the objections on the merits. However, in the absence of exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections on the part of the Employer and the Intervenor, and in view of our disposition of the matter , we find no prejudicial error. 123 NLRB No. 24. 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tunity to representatives of the Petitioner. No evidence was sub- mitted in support of this objection. Accordingly, we find it to be without merit and adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that objection No. 1 be overruled. In objection No. 2 the Petitioner alleged that on the day preced- ing the election each employee received a letter entitled "Rold Gold of California, Inc. Reasons Why You Should Vote For Local 400." which contained material misrepresentations, promises of benefits for voting in favor of the Intervenor, Local 400, and threats of economic detriment for voting in favor of the Petitioner. The Peti- tioner specifically refers to the following excerpts of the Employer's letter : The contract we now have with Local 400 stops ABC from trying to get any more benefits for you. When this contract runs out, we will get you the most that the business can afford, regardless of ABC or Local 400. Almost all bakeries in Southern California have contracts with Local 400. If we have trouble with ABC and our com- petitors can deliver in the Markets under Local 400, then our customers will go to other Companies-our competitors. If that happens, there will be no jobs for you because if we cannot sell our products we do not need you to make them. Since all our competitors have contracts with Local 400, we have to be in the same business position, if we want to keep selling our products. If our price is the same as our competi- tors, then there will be jobs for you and your benefits will be at least equal to the employees of our competitors. Voting for Local 400 against ABC will mean that ABC will not be able to bother you anymore. The certified Bargaining Agent will then be Local 400, who will represent you under the requirements of the National Labor Relations Law. It is long-established Board policy that an employer need not remain neutral in an election campaign, but may express a prefer- ence between competing labor organizations. Absent threats or 'promises of benefit such expression of preference does not warrant setting aside an election.e Although the Employer's letter vigorously urges the employees to vote for the Intervenor, we find that it con- tains no threats or promises of benefit, nor material misrepresenta- tions of fact impeding or impairing the employees' freedom of choice in the election.4 Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director's recommendation, we hereby overrule objection No. 2 as being without merit. 3 Cupples-Hesse Corporation, 119 NLRB 1288, 1289. 4 La Pointe Machine Tool Company, 113 NLRB 171, 172. STOWE-WOODWARD, INC. 287 As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the Inter- venor has received a majority of votes in the runoff election, we shall certify the Intervenor as bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Bakery and Confectionery Workers Inter- national Union, Local 400, as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the appropriate unit of all production employees, janitors, checkers, and packers, at the Employer's El Segundo, California, plant, excluding sales drivers, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act.] Stowe-Woodward, Inc. and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-3093. March 18, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1958, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley 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. Thereafter, the Re- spondent and the Union, the Charging Party herein, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications. 1. For the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the interrogations, promises of benefits, and threats of plant manager Mitchell and plant super- intendent Turnbull violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the. Act. 2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish, on the Union's request, a copy of the group insurance booklet, infor- mation concerning the cost of such insurance to the Company, and 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 [Members Bean, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 123 NLRB No. 28.