Prime Tanning Co., Inc.

PRIME TANNING CO., INC. 39 District 50 over the phone." However, the Petitioner, who testified before Rogers did, admitted in that testimony that he had a conversa- tion with Rogers on February 12, but he could not remember anything that was said. The Petitioner took the stand again, after Rogers had testified and after he had accused Rogers of lying, but no reference was made at this time to the conversation with Rogers. The Petitioner's difficulty in recalling conversations and events, the contradictions in his testimony, and his apparent evasiveness in an- swering many of the questions are in sharp contrast with the clear, explicit, and mutually corroborative testimony of the other witnesses about the Petitioner's activity on behalf of the UMW prior to filing the petition. On the basis of the entire record, we are convinced that when the Petitioner filed the instant petition, he was acting in behalf of the UMW, which was barred from seeking an election be- cause of its noncompliance with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. We agree, therefore, with the contention of the Employer and the Union that the petition herein should be dismissed.4 [The Board dismissed the petition.] a See Bay City Division, The Dow Chemical Company, 116 NLRB 1602; World Publish- ing Company, 109 NLRB 355. Prime Tanning Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5489. July 10, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, signed and executed on February 6, 1959, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on March 6, 1959, among the employees in the unit described below. After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 150 eligible voters, 148 cast ballots, of which 110 were against and 25 were for the Petitioner. Twelve ballots were challenged and one was void. The Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct affecting the results of the election. After investigation, the Regional Director on April 29, 1959, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he recom- mended that all of the objections but one be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely exception only with respect to the one objection which was sustained. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recommendations that the other objections be overruled, we hereby adopt them. 124 NLRB No. 6. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated and we find that all production and main- tenance employees employed at the Employer's Berwick, Maine, plant, including truckdrivers but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. The Regional Director sustained the Union's objection that the Employer discriminated with respect to the distribution of prounion and antiunion literature on company property and time. The record shows that the Employer had no general rule against distribution of literature in the plant and that in fact distribution for all purposes was permitted on company time and property. Shortly before the election of March 6, 1959, some employees passed out two antiunion leaflets with the knowledge 'and implied consent of at least one supervisor. Likewise, during the height of the union campaign in early February, prounion literature was freely distributed in the plant to the point that the downstairs departments were "plastered" with such literature. But on one occasion, about a month before the election, Foreman Emmons, a supervisor, but not the same supervisor who permitted the above-mentioned distribution of antiunion leaflets, instructed employee Gauthier, who previously had distributed pro- union material in the plant, to discontinue such distribution because of the former's mistaken belief that the distribution was "illegal" un- less and until the Employer made a distribution of antiunion material. On these facts and, as it appears that the Union otherwise had an opportunity to propagandize the employees effectively, we regard Foreman Emmons' instruction to Gauthier, which was contrary to company policy, as an isolated incident which did not substantially affect the results of the election.' Therefore, contrary to the Regional Director, we overrule this objection. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's conclusion that the remaining objections lacked 1 See Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, 107 NLRB 1534, 1537-1538; and Larsen-Hogue Electric Co., 97 NLRB 1405, 1407. MAGMA COPPER COMPANY 41 merit, these objections are hereby overruled. As the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast for Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, and that the said organization is not the exclu- sive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit herein- above found appropriate.] Magma Copper Company and International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Magma Copper Company and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Blacksmiths, Iron Ship Builders, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Magma Copper Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Magma Copper Company and International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Petitioner and International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RC-5434, 21-RC- 5436, 21-RC-5491, and 21-RC-5495. July 10, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before James W. Cherry, Jr., 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. . 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units: The Employer is engaged in deep underground mining, milling, and smelting of copper ore at its Superior, Arizona, plant, the only 124 NLRB No. 13.