Standard Steel Corp.

136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The exceptions : The Petitioner excepted to the Regional Director's finding that Vernon Craig (whose ballot was challenged) was not a supervisor. However, the Regional Director's report shows that the instruc- tions relayed by Craig to other employees were either routine or clerical in nature and did not require the exercise of independent judgment or responsible direction. Moreover, at no time did Craig, as a management trainee, possess the power to take, or make effec- tive recommendations as to, personnel action. In these circumstances we adopt the Regional Director's finding that Craig was not a supervisor. The Petitioner also excepted to the Regional Director's finding that a unit including Craig was agreed upon by the parties as appropriate and should be adopted by the Board. However, the Regional Director's report shows that the Petitioner had agreed to include in the unit all employees at the Employer's Riverside store, except for classifications required by the Act to be excluded. Craig was an employee at the Riverside store and did not fall into any excluded classification. Although Craig had interests as a management trainee which were different from those of the rank- and-file employees included in the unit, and although the cases dis- cussed in the Petitioner's brief show that the Board might have excluded Craig for this reason if it had been called on to determine the appropriate unit, the Petitioner here has voluntarily agreed with the Employer that the appropriate unit included all employees at the Riverside store except for supervisors and other statutory exceptions. We cannot agree with the Petitioner's argument that it should now be permitted to disregard its previous agreement as to the appropriate unit.- Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's finding that Craig is included in the agreed appropriate unit, and that his ballot should be opened and counted. In view of the foregoing, we shall direct that Craig's ballot be opened and counted. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty- first Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballot of Vernon Craig, and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.] - AELts-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 117 NLRB 744. Standard Steel Corporation and Engineers and Architects Asso- ciation, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-55093. March 11, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On December 19, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was conducted under the direction 123 NLRB No. 25. STANDARD STEEL CORPORATION 137 and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region among the employees in the agreed-upon unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 22 eligible voters, 21 cast ballots, of which 7 were for, and 14 were against, the Peti- tioner. There was no challenged ballots. On December 24, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the 'election. After an investiga- tion, the Regional Director on January 23, 1959, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found the objections to be without merit and recommended they be over- ruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 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 employees of the Employer. 4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All draftsmen and engineers at the Employer's Vernon, Califor- nia, plant, excluding office clerical employees, employees engaged in sales work or estimating, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner objects to the election on grounds that, on the afternoon preceding the election,' the Employer's president called a meeting of eligible voters and made the following statements, in substance : (a) That if the vote is for the union, it would take a long time to elect officers and committeemen, and that the negotia- tions themselves would take a long time. But if the vote was against the union, raises would be forthcoming immediately. (b) That if the vote is for the union, the only way you can get anywhere is by a strike and in the event of a strike, the Company can bring in other engineers to do the work. Concerning statement (a), the Regional Director found no evi- dence to support the Petitioner's contention that such a statement 'The Petitioner does not contend that the Employer's speech falls within the 24-hour rule enunciated in Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was made. President Burns, in an affidavit, stated that he read his speech from a prepared text,' and did not deviate from it except to answer two questions from employees. He attached to the affi- davit a copy of his speech, and a summary of the questions and answers that followed. During the course of the Regional Director's investigation of the objections, Petitioner's witness verified that the speech and answers to questions were as sworn to by Burns, and as contained in an appendix to the Regional Director's report. We have read the text of the Employer's speech, including his answers to employees' questions, and find in agreement with the Regional Director that it does not contain the statements which the Petitioner attributes to the Employer, nor does it contain any- thing of an unlawful or coercive nature.3 We find, therefore, that as to alleged statement (a), the Petitioner's objection has no merit. With respect to statement (b), the Regional Director found that the Employer's remarks were permissible campaign propaganda of the kind the Board leaves to the good sense of the employees. We agree.4 Having considered the objections, the Regional Director's report, and the exceptions thereto, we find in agreement with the Regional Director that the objections do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. Accordingly, the objections are hereby overruled. As the Petitioner has not secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall merely certify the results thereof. 3 We find no merit in the Petitioner 's contention that it did not offer the prepared text of the Employer's speech as part of its objections , and that it was therefore prejudiced by the Regional Director's reference thereto. 3 The questions and answers , as sworn to by Burns, were as follows : Q. How long will it take for the results of the voting to be announced? A. The results will be announced just as soon as the ballots are counted, which should be within 10 or 15 minutes after the men have voted . We will have installed in this building one or possibly two regular election booths in which the men can vote secretly. There will be a representative of the National Labor Relations Board present during the voting, and as soon as the voting is over the ballots will be tallied and the results announced. Q. Presuming that the vote goes against the Union , will the company then be relieved from the restrictions which it now has relative to discussing the grievances of the men or will we have to wait for some sort of an official document from Washington? A. As far as we know once the election is over that 's it, and if the election is against the Union the company can discuss these matters in any way that the men see fit. The Petitioner asserts in its exceptions that its witness did not actually agree to the Employer's version , but rather told the field examiner that one of the Employer's answers to questions was : ". . . But if the vote is against the union, I will sit down and settle your differences immediately." Even assuming that the statement was as alleged by the Petitioner , we find no promise of benefit or other element of coercion in the statement, properly taken in the context of the speech and the employee 's question to which it was a response. ' See Independent Nail & Packing Company, 120 NLRB 677; National Furniture Com- pany, Inc., 119 NLRB 1. AMERICAN DREDGING COMPANY 139 [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Engineers and Architects Association, and that said organization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's ,employees in the unit found appropriate.] American Dredging Company and Samuel Blair and Local 825 (Dredgemen's Branch), International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case No. 4-CA- 1554. March 1 2, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On July 2, 1958, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued _his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled case finding that the Respondent has engaged in and is 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 Respondent, ,General Counsel, and Local 825 (Dredgemen's Branch), Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations 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 reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations which are not inconsistent with this decision. 1. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding, based largely upon the credited testimony of employee Samuel Blair, that Respondent discriminatorily replaced Blair as a wiper on the dredge Philadelphia when it left drydock because of Blair's past insistence that the Union process his grievances concerning overtime pay. We find, contrary to Respondent's contention, that the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence does not demon- 'The Respondent and Local 825 have requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied because the record , the exceptions , and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 123 NLRB No. 18.