Fred Meyer, Inc.

FRED MEYER, INC. 1145 tion. We have frequently declared that we will not police this type of propaganda of unions and employers . I believe that in setting aside this election the Board is injecting itself too far into the cam- paign and is improperly establishing itself as the censor of each utter- ance. In my view, this kind of statement does not so disturb the laboratory conditions , which we are bound to provide , as to require our administrative action. Further, I would uphold the election for another reason. I would find that in the circumstances here the employees possessed the inde- pendent knowledge with which they could evaluate the Petitioner's statements. According to the Employer, the employees who are the subject of this petition work in the same building with those who are now represented by the Petitioner , and individuals from the two groups have contact when their lunch periods and coffee breaks co- incide. In this situation it is most likely that during the 6 months between the negotiation of the last contract between the Union and the Employer, the employees involved herein would have learned of the contract's terms. In two cases involving closely similar facts the Board found that the employees possessed sufficient independent knowledge to evaluate the propaganda and refused to set aside the election.6 Accordingly, I find that the facts here do not warrant setting aside the election and would adopt the recommendation of the Regional Director. 0 See Allis-Chalmers Manufacturvnq Company , 117 NLRB 744, 748, Hook Drugs, Inc , 119 NLRB 1502, 1505. Fred Meyer, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local 87, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-1762. February 7, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before Robert J. Wiener, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings 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 this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I The original hearing was held on July 17, 1962 Pui suant to an order of the Board reopening the record and remanding the proceeding , a further hearing was held on October 25, 1962. 140 NLRB No. 107. 1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. No 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, for the following reason. The Employer is engaged, at Portland, Oregon, in the production and sale, at retail and in its restaurant, of dairy products, ice cream, and frozen foods. Most of its employees are represented by various unions in 18 different units. The Petitioner seeks to represent two repairmen, Louis Riedel and Rolland Lovely. Steam claims to represent Riedel, while the IAM claims to represent Lovely. Both of these organizations as well as the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on contract-bar grounds, and the Employer also moved to dismiss on the ground that Riedel is a supervisor, and the Petitioner is, therefore, seeking a one-man unit. We find no merit in these unit contentions of the Employer. Al- though Riedel recommended that Lovely be hired, Lovely was there- after interviewed by the plant superintendent, who also recommended him, and was further interviewed in the personnel office before being hired. It is clear, therefore, that Riedel did not effectively recom- mend Lovely's hire. Moreover, Riedel does not responsibly direct the work of Lovely, who spends most of his time working alone on routine repairs. Accordingly, we find, upon the entire record, that the rela- tionship between Riedel and Lovely is merely that of a highly skilled worker to one less skilled, and that Riedel is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. As the unit sought herein is, therefore, a two-man unit, it is neces- sary to pass upon the issues raised by the contract-bar contentions. We find that the contract between the Employer and Steam, covering Riedel, is not a bar as it contained an expiration date of January 1, 1963.1 However, the contract between the Employer and IAM, cover- ing Lovely, was entered into on June 7, 1962, for a term ending July 1, 1963. As the petition herein was filed on June 14, 1962, 1 week after the date of this contract, we find that the IAM contract is a bar to an election in a unit which includes Lovely. We shall, therefore, grant the motion to dismiss the proceeding on this ground.4 [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER RODGERS, concurring : I concur with the result. a Steamfitters Union, Local #235, AFL-CIO, herein called Steam, and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 24, herein called IAM, were permitted to inter- vene on the basis of their contractual interests s Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995 * Water Tower Inn, a Partnership, 139 NLRB 842. Although the Employer contests the appropriateness of the requested unit, we find it unnecessary to pass upon that issue here.