Vineland Poultry Laboratories

VINELAND POULTRY LABORATORIES Tevis M. Goldhaft, Bryna Goldhaft, Nathan Werni- coff, Helen B . Wernicoff, and Florence B. Gold- haft d/b/a Vineland Poultry Laboratories and Amalgamated Food & Allied Workers Union Local 56, Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher Work- men of North America, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-7620 October 8, 1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election executed on February 16, 1968, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 23, 1968, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 4 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 46 eligible voters, 45 cast ballots, of which 18 were for, and 26 against, the Petitioner, and 1 was challenged. The challenged ballot was not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on May 2, 1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which he recommended that Objection 2 be sustained, and that the results of the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's Report along with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds- 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 123 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All employees of Vineland Poultry Laboratories, but excluding sales personnel, office clerical em- ployees, degreed professional employees and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the Employer's brief, and makes the following findings. The sole objection in which the Regional Director found merit,' related to comments made by Dr Tevis Goldhaft, part owner of Vineland Poultry Laborato- ries, at an employee meeting on February 21, 1968, 2 days before the election. The objection alleged that the Employer unlawfully sought to have employees form a "committee" to bargain with the Employer instead of with Petitioner. As appears from the version of three Union witnesses, Goldhaft told the employees in the course of a discussion about the Union that if the Union did not win the election, the employees could form their own union or committee to handle grievances. In the Regional Director's view Goldhaft's statements im- plied that the employees could better obtain benefits and handle problems through such a committee arrangement than through the Union. He concluded that the Employer, by suggesting the possibility of an employee committee to deal with management, inter- fered with, and restrained the employees' free choice in the election. Accordingly, he recommended that the objection be sustained and the election set aside. We do not agree. We find that Goldhaft's mere suggestion that the employees could voluntarily form a committee and his indication that management would deal with such a committee, standing alone, are insufficient to constitute either a promise of benefit or other improper restraint of employees in the free exercise of their choice. Therefore, contrary to the Regional Director, we overrule Objection 2. Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and as the tally of ballots shows that Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION I The Regional Director dismissed Objections 1, 3, 4 and 5. As to the overruling of these objections , to which no exceptions were taken, we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's Report. 173 NLRB No 25 It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for Amalgamated Food & 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Allied Workers Union Local 56, Amalgamated Meat- sentative of the employees in the unit found ap- cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, and propriate, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the that said labor organization is not exclusive repre- National Labor Relations Act, as amended.