Standard Register Co.

THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY The Standard Register Company and The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, IA- cal 54, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9 RC 11852 June 2, 1978 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF RUNOFF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO. AND MUtRPH'Y Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election ' executed by the parties 2 and ap- proved by the Acting Regional Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board on March 2, 1977, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on March 11. 1977, under the direction and supervision of said Acting Regional Director. Upon the conclusion of the elec- tion, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally of ballots shows that there were approxi- mately 152 eligible voters and that 52 ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 57 ballots were cast for the Intervenor, 40 ballots were cast for neither labor or- ganization, and no ballots were challenged. Thereaf- ter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On May 17, 1977, the Regional Director, having duly investigated the matters raised by the Employ- er's objections, issued and served on the parties his Report on Objections to Election and Recommenda- tions to the Board in which he recommended that the Board overrule the Employer's objections in their en- tirety and that, as the tally of ballots revealed that none of the choices in the election received a majori- ty of the valid votes cast, the Board direct a runoff election to be conducted between the choices which received the highest and the next highest number of votes, the Intervenor and the Petitioner, respectively. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the Re- gional Director's report.3 'The appropriate bargaining unit set forth in the stipulation is as follows All employees in the letterpress room, Wieb Letterpress Division. in- cluding all apprentice pressmen, apprentice pre-pressmen. journeymen. floormen. and general workers, all employees operating transfer letter- presses used in production. including Building -;7. all photo offset em- ployees, offset (litho) pressmen, production emploees in the planning and analyzation department. plumbers, all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate Department including journeymen plate- makers. apprentices and general workers. all emplosed at the EnmplN- er's facility at 626 Albany Street, Dayton. Ohio. the onl, location of the EmploNer involved herein. but excluding all office clerical emplosees. professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined In the Act. and all other employees 2Graphic Arts International Union, local 508, O K I. AFI. (O(. is the Intersenor in this proceeding. 1While the instant matter was pending before the Board. the Inter.enor Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and hereby adopts the Regional Direc- tor's findings and recommendations. As none of the choices on the ballot received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall direct a runoff election. We agree with the Regional Director that the mis- representations alleged in the Employer's objections are insufficient to set aside the election herein, rely- ing, of course, on Shopping Kart Food Market, Inc., 228 NLRB 1311 (1977). However, unlike Member Jenkins, we also agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that certain statements contained in a leaflet distributed by the Intervenor do not contain impermissible threats which warrant setting aside the election. Since 1972, the Intervenor, the current collective- bargaining representative of the unit employees, has represented them in a non-Board proceeding in which it has asserted that the Employer is liable to unit members for certain wages. Shortly before the election herein, the Employer sent a letter to its em- ployees which stated, in pertinent part: But do you remember the wage freeze: Those of you in the GAIU at that time had to fight your own union to get it to do what was necessary to try to prevent further loss of more of your jobs. Even after you forced your local union leader- ship to change its mind and act in your best interests, the International ignored the clearly stated wishes of the majority and said it did not care what Standard's employees wanted or how necessary that wage freeze was to Standard's employees' job security. It would not agree to it. They are still spending dues money fighting that. Is that controlling your own destin,? In response to this letter, the Intervenor distrib- uted a leaflet containing the following passage: As the Company stated in their presentation to the employees, the GAIU has a case pending in Court regarding the "lost" $.45 wage increase. It would be to the Company's advantage if the ad ised the Board. subject to the Board's approval. of its disavowal of inter- est In representing the employees herein The Intervenor and its Internation- al requested the Board's permlssion to allow the withdrawal of Local 508 O K I a, the intersenor and the suhstitution of the International as its succes- sor In interestl We dens this request since we cannot assume that those emplo',ees who voted for Local 508. as Intervenor. would have voted for the Inlernatin al nf it had been the Interxenor See .1 .A .' den ( mpianl In, 159 NI RB 1730. 1731 196hl This denial is without prejudice to fur- ther considerationm upon a proper showing. Including employee consent. for subshtituting the International. In the event Intervenor wins the runoff elec- ntn anid is certified See e g. En,eri Indusre,-s. In, (Dic RuadJ. 148 NL RB 1. s2 53 ( 1964i 236 NLRB No. 75 699 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (;AIU was defeated in the election and would ultimately decide not to spend the remaining members' dues in an effort to collect the lost wage increase for its former members. This would relieve the Company of an approximately $4,000 pending liability per each affected mem- ber. Member Jenkins claims that the Intervenor's re- sponse constitutes an implied threat that it would abandon its statutory duty to fairly represent unit employees unless it won the election. However, Member Jenkins has ignored the fact that the intent of Intervenor's response was to negate the unflatter- ing implications left by the Employer's letter. No- where does the Intervenor indicate an intention to abandon its efforts to collect the disputed wages, which have presumably continued with the support of the employees. In our view, the Intervenor was merely describing what the Employer would wish to have happen should the Intervenor actually lose the election. The Intervenor's response recognized that it would be to the Employer's advantage if the Interve- nor in fact relinquished its fight on behalf of the em- ployees, for the Employer would thus be relieved of any financial liability to them. As recognized by the Regional Director, the Intervenor's abandonment of the wage dispute is remote, particularly in light of its ongoing efforts to pursue the matter. Accordingly, we cannot agree that there has been any threat on the part of the Intervenor to abdicate its responsibility to fairly represent the unit employees. DIRECTION OF RUNOFF ELECTION It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for Region 9 shall conduct a runoff election at a time and place to be determined by him, among certain employees of the Employer who were employed dur- ing the payroll period used in the prior election in the stipulated unit to determine whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communica- tions Union, Local 54, AFL-CIO, or by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 508, O-K-I, AFL- CIO. MEMBER JENKINS., dissenting in part: I agree with my colleagues' adoption of the Acting Regional Director's finding that the misrepresenta- tions alleged in the Employer's objections are insuffi- cient to affect the results of the election, but do so in reliance on the standards set forth in Hollywood Ce- ramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221 (1962), and not on Shopping Kart Food Market, 228 NLRB 1311 (1977). Contrary to my colleagues, however, I find that the Intervenor's leaflet contained an impermissi- ble threat which requires setting aside the election and directing a second election. Since 1972 the Intervenor, the current collective- bargaining representative, has represented unit em- ployees in an arbitration proceeding seeking back wages claimed to be owing. On the day before the election, the Intervenor circulated to the voters a leaflet which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As the Company stated in their presentation to the employees, the GAIU has a case pending in Court regarding the "lost" 45 cent wage in- crease. It would be to the Company's advantage if the GAIU was defeated in the election and would ultimately decide not to spend the re- maining members' dues in an effort to collect the lost wage increase for its former members. This would relieve the Company of an approxi- mately $4,000 pending liability per each affected member. The above passage was obviously intended to ad- vise the voters that the Intervenor's loss of the elec- tion could well cause the Intervenor to abandon fur- ther efforts, as their bargaining representative, to collect their backpay claims which it estimated to be worth approximately $4,000 per individual. In my view the language in the leaflet clearly constituted an implied threat to abandon the bargaining representa- tive's statutory duty fairly to represent the unit mem- bership after the election 4 unless the Intervenor won the election and thus interfered with the employees' right to express their wishes in the election free of coercion. I would therefore set aside the election and direct a second election. a See Red Ball Molar Freight, Inc., 157 NLRB 1237 (1966). 700