The American Sugar Refining Co.

THE AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY (DOMINO BAG) 207 counting the ballots in the four companion cases. However, whether or not BCW agreed to the postponement in the A cC P case, we believe that the Regional Director, in the circumstances, properly denied the request of the three BCW locals for further postpone- ment of the counting of ballots in the other elections. As we have overruled the objections to the elections, we shall certify the ABC as the representative of employees in group 1 and Locals No. 4 Auxiliary and 254, BCW in group 2. [The Board certified Bakers Union No. 4 of Greater St. Louis, American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative in group 1 and Locals No. 4 Auxiliary and 254, Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, as the collective-bargain- ing representative of employees in group 2.] MEMBERS BEAN and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa- tives. The American Sugar Refining Company (Domino Bag) and United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1094. March 13, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On March 20, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among employees in the agreed-upon appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, which shows that of 115 eligible voters, 110 cast valid ballots, of which 31 were for, and 79 were against, the Petitioner. On March 24, 1958, the Petitioner filed objections to the conduct of the election. On December 19, 1958, the Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his report on objections and recom- mendation in which he found that the objections lacked merit and recommended that they be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 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]. 123 NLRB No. 29. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : 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 within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Employer at its plant at Stark Industrial Park, Charleston, South Carolina, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, including shipping employees , laboratory employees , and inspection employees, but excluding all salaried employees , such as office clerical employees, and all watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The sole issue presented by the Petitioner's exceptions to the Regional Director 's report is whether the Regional Director erred in holding that antiunion , but noncoercive , statements made by management representatives to individual employees at their work stations within the 24-hour period immediately preceding the elec- tion did not interfere with the election . The Petitioner contends that these talks with individual employees violated both the Peerless Plywood rule, which bans the delivery of preelection speeches within 24 hours before an election ,2 and the Economic Machinery rule, which prohibits an employer from calling employees , individually or in small groups, into a private area removed from the employees' normal workplaces and urging them to reject the union .' We find this contention to be without merit. The Board has heretofore made it clear that an employer's conversations with employees in the circumstances of this case do not fall within the proscription of either the Peerless Plywood 4 or Economic Machinery 5 rule. As recommended by the Regional Director , the Petitioner's objections in this connection are accordingly overruled. 1 The Regional Director 's recommendations overruling objections to which no exceptions were filed are hereby adopted. 2 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 2 Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947. Member Jenkins' position in this re- gard is set forth in People's Drug Stores, Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 634. 4 Chock Full 0' Nuts, 120 NLRB 1296 ; Montgomery Ward & Company, 119 NLRB 52. 8 Pyramid Mouldings, Inc., 121 NLRB 788; The Bryant Electric Company, 118 NLRB 232. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 114 NLRB 444, upon which Petitioner relies in this connection , is a factually distinguishable case. There, the employer contacted the employees individually in their homes , on their work routes, and in company offices in an effort to induce them to vote against the union. WEAVER MOTORS 209 As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees of the Stark Industrial Park, Charleston, South Carolina, plant of The American Sugar Refining Company (Domino Bag) in the unit found appropriate.] Norman Weaver and Harold Weaver, Partners, d/b/a Weaver Motors; Galesburg Lincoln -Mercury Co.; J. E. Trapp, R. A. York, and John McCreery, a partnership d/b/a McCreery Motor Sales ; Crown Motors, Inc.; Inman-Swanson Motors, Inc.; Puckett Buick Company, Petitioners and Local Union No. 15, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers and Lodge No. 2085, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-RM-411, 13-RM-412, 13-RM-413, 13-RM-414, 13-RM-415, and 13-RM- 416.1 March 13, 1959 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing2 was held before Robert G. Mayberry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean]. Upon the entire record in these cases,3 the Board finds : 1. In these cases, the Unions either contest the Board's jurisdic- tion or take no position on this question. Each of the Employer-Petitioners herein is primarily engaged at Galesburg, Illinois, in the retail sale and repair of automotive equipment. During the year preceding the filing of the petitions,' 1 The Employer-Petitioners in these cases will hereinafter be called , Tespectively, Weaver, Galesburg Lincoln, McCreery, Crown, Inman-Swanson, and Puckett Buick. 2 As it is the Board's practice to consolidate cases for purposes of hearing , where, as here, they have common issues and facts, we overrule the Unions ' objection to the con- solidation of the instant cases. 3 Because in our opinion the record adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties, the Unions' request for oral argument is hereby denied. 4 The petitions Therein were filed on October 15, 1958. 123 NLRB No. 26. 508889-60-vol . 123-15