Armour Food Co.

ARMOUR FOOD CO. 1 Armour Food Company, a Division of Conagra, Inc., and Local 31P, United Food & Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 18-RC- 14052 March 2, 1988 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON The National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held February 26, 1987, and the hearing officer's report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 157 for and 122 against the Petitioner, with 7 chal- lenged ballots, an insufficient 'number to affect the results. • The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, has adopted the hearing officer's findings' and recommendations, and finds that a certification of representative should be issued. The hearing officer concluded that certain anon- ymous threats made by telephone to employee Merlin Schaefer not only were not attributable to the Union, but did not relate to the Union's cam- paign at all. In its exceptions to the hearing offi- cer's report, the Employer argues, among other things, that in two of the calls to Schaefer, the call- ers expressly referred to Schaefer's failure to attend a union meeting and that therefore the hearing offi- cer erred in finding no link with the campaign. We agree that the hearing officer's finding in that regard was in error, and we also acknowledge that reports about the telephone calls to Schaefer were disseminated in the unit of approximately 300 em- ployees. We nevertheless conclude that neither these calls nor any of the other third-party conduct relied on by the Employer warrants our setting aside the election. The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil- ity findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unlws the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis for reversing the findings. In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing officer's recommendation to overrule the Employer's Objections 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and his recommendation that the Employer's request to withdraw Ob- jection 1 be approved. On March 27, 1987, the Regional Director approved the Employer's request to withdraw Objection 4. Although Schaefer was known for his antiunion views, he had also long been known throughout the plant as a "company man" or a "snitch," who would either turn in his fellow employees for "little diddly stuff" or threaten to do so. In a number of the calls to Schaefer (which began before the critical period), the anonymous caller accused Schaefer of being a "snitch." Indeed, his reputation as someone "who can get you terminat- ed at Armour for little or no reason, regardless of your employment status" was alluded to in a union campaign leaflet (which contained no threats). Given Schaefer's reputation as not just an oppo- nent of the Union but also an informer, other em- ployees in the plant who did not have such a repu- tation were unlikely to conclude that they would be the target of similar threats or harassment simply by virtue of not favoring the Union. (It is also noteworthy that another employee, Rick Kin- gery, who had received harassing telephone calls that did not include references to the campaign and that were not disseminated within the unit, testified that "a lot of people called me a rat, said I ratted on people.") In sum, we do not find that the anonymous threats to Schaefer or any of the other third-party conduct on which the Employer relies, created a general atmosphere of fear and coercion that would preclude a fair election—the applicable standard for determining whether to set aside the election in this case. Marmon Group, 275 NLRB 652 (1985). We therefore affirm the hearing offi- cer's recommendation to overrule the Employer's Objection 2. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal- lots have been cast for Local 31P, United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All hourly-paid production workers and sala- ried maintenance mechanics, including ware- house, shipping and receiving employees em- ployed at the Employer's 1401 S. Eisenhower, Mason City, Iowa plant; but excluding all office clerical employees, temporary employ- ees, casual employees, salaried quality control personnel, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 288 NLRB No. 1