Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc.

BUZZA-CARDOZO, A DIV. OF GIBSON Buzza-Cardozo, a division of Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-11020 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election executed on October 9, 1968, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 8, 1968, under the direction and supervil;ion of the Regional Director for Region 21, 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 366 eligible voters, 350 cast ballots, of which 118 were cast for, and 187 against, the Petitioner, 45 were challenged, and none was void. The challenges were not sufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, on November 14, 1968, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, duly serving a copy thereof on the Employer. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on December 20, 1968, issued his report on objections in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that a Certification of Results of Election issue. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's Report, and a brief in support thereof. 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. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employees, warehousemen 589 and truckdrivers at the Employer's Anaheim, California, plant; but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the Petitioner's exceptions and brief, and adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.' Accordingly, as the votes cast for the Petitioner were less than a majority of the valid votes cast we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting: On the day before the election, the Employer distributed envelopes containing 75 cents in coin, accompanied by leaflets which explained that the coins represented the amount of average hourly fringe benefits received by employees. Several days later, a drawing for groceries valued at $84 (described as the cost of annual union dues) was held. All employees who voted in the election were given raffle tickets. The Employer had announced the drawing and the prize in a posted advertisement which urged employees to vote. The Petitioner lost the election and filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director found that the gifts were merely election "gimmicks," whose distribution would not have impaired the exercise of employee free choice. He therefore recommended that the Petitioner's objections be overruled, and the certification of results of election issue. My colleagues adopt his recommendation. To me the combination of the 75-cent gift and the $84 raffle inject a crass monetary consideration into the election process that really has no place there, and I would set aside the election. I am concerned with any distribution of monetary gifts by either an employer or a union. In this case, the 75 cents distributed to each employee had as a purpose to illustrate the Company's average hourly fringe benefits in graphic form. This alone, however, 'In our opinion, the Petitioner's exceptions raise no material or substantial issues of fact or law warranting reversal of the Regional Director's findings and recommendations or a hearing. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's recommendation that the Petitioner's objections 3, 6, 7, and 9 be overruled. 177 NLRB No. 38 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD can scarcely suffice to make a gift of money unobjectionable, for the Company could as well have illustrated even more graphically its weekly fringe benefits, with a gift of $30 instead of 75 cents, in which case I am sure my colleagues would wish to set aside this election on that ground alone. Yet where the amount is very small and it has an illustrative purpose, it is difficult to conclude that it was either given with the purpose of bribing the employee or would be so regarded by the employee in making his choice. So although I would be tempted to regard any monetary gift as objectionable, regardless of "legitimate" purpose, I do not go so far. I would, however, set aside an election in which either party gave out cash in any amount without a tie in of any sort (i.e., "here's 25 cents, vote for [or against] the Union."), for this could only be regarded as a bribe; it would have no legitimate purpose. Nonmonetary gifts present a similar problem. I am dissenting in another case, Jacqueline Cochran, Inc., 177 NLRB No. 39, from my colleagues' refusal to set aside an election where a turkey was given each employee by the Union, with no purpose other than as a "gift," not, for example, as an inducement to attend a meeting. There the gift was of more than nominal value, it was estimated at being worth about $5. This to me partakes of a bribe. Although perhaps without any real logical basis, but I think in accordance with generally held concepts of morality and ethics, I do draw some distinction between a monetary and a nonmonetary gift. The former to me smack much more of bribery, and the amount, even with a legitimate purpose, that I would find bad as to a monetary gift would be less than it would take to make a nonmonetary gift objectionable. It is true, of course, that it is difficult to draw the line to say precisely what amount is bad, even when used to illustrate a that it is difficult to draw the line - to say precisely what amount is bad, even when used to illustrate a fringe benefit or the like, or conversely, what value a nonmonetary gift must have before it too should be viewed as akin to a bribe. Partly for this reason, I am instinctively inclined to the view that all such gifts have no place in a Board election. In my opinion, it would be salutary to adopt a rule against all gifts, large and small, by the parties to a Board election to the electorate. Despite the fact that gifts of relatively small value are not likely to influence an employee's vote, I see no real purpose to be served by permitting them, and therefore no real harm to the parties in forbidding them. Here, for example, the Employer could as easily have made his point by the use of scrip or cardboard coins. It was not necessary to use real money. But since I am satisfied that the combination of the small amount and the purpose here made the use of the 75-cent gift unlikely to impair the employees' free choice, I think that the use of the rule-making powers of the Board is the only feasible way to combat what I do regard as an intrusion into the Board-election proceedings. As I have indicated, I would set aside the election here in all the circumstances, without relying solely on the 75 cents, as here it was a relatively small amount and it had an illustrative purpose. The raffle itself I do regard, by itself, as a sufficient basis for setting aside the election. A Board-sponsored election is a serious governmental function, conducted by agents whose responsibilities are sufficiently numerous without the additional burden of policing games-of-chance. The introduction of the raffle into the election creates a carnival-like atmosphere, transforming the employee from voter into contestant, and diverting his attention from the issue being decided to the possibility of winning a prize. The decision on whether to have a union or not is a significant one and should not be intruded upon by eye-catching propaganda masquerading as a game of chance.