Arnold Stone Co. of N.C., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1012 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discipline them. We find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, and therefore not eligible to vote in the election directed
herein.
We find that all engineers and firemen at the Employer's Erie, Penn-
sylvania plant, excluding maintenance mechanics and all other em-
ployees, office clerical, confidential and professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 5 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Local 34 stated at the hearing that it did not desire to participate in any election which
might be ordered in a unit which did not include the maintenance mechanics.
ARNOLD STONE COMPANY OF N. C., INC. and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 11-
RC-440. February 4, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein by
the Board on October 29, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Upon
conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties
by the Regional Director. The tally shows that of approximately 61
eligible voters, 58 cast ballots, of which 43 were for the Petitioner, 13
were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.
On November 18, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the conduct
of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and on December 3,
1952, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Peti-
tioner be certified. On December 12, 1952, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to report on objections and a supporting brief. The Peti-
tioner filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's report.
The facts upon which the objections are based are not disputed.
The petition in this case was presented at the Board's Regional Office
on September 11, but for clerical reasons was not docketed until the
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions
102 NLRB No. 98.
ARNOLD STONE COMPANY OF N. C., INC. 1013
next day. The field examiner attempted to discuss the case with the
Employer's president by telephone on the 11th, but the latter was
unavailable then. Satisfied that all requirements were met, the
Regional Office issued a notice of hearing on September 12, returnable
on the 29th. No request for extension of time was made by the Em-
ployer, and the hearing was conducted.
After issuance of the Board's Direction of Election on October 29,
a conference was held on November 4 to arrange for the election. The
field examiner set the election for November 13, and mailed notices
of the election to the Employer on November 5. At this conference
the Employer requested that the election be postponed to the latter
part of November, but the Regional Director denied the request because,
in his opinion, insufficient cause appeared for delaying the election.
The first two objections allege that the examiner acted arbitrarily
because he did not conduct a longer investigation before issuing the
notice of hearing and because he refused to delay the election. Like
the Regional Director, we find no merit in either of these contentions.
Although the matter was processed with dispatch, there is nothing
to show that it was handled arbitrarily, or with prejudice toward
the Employer. The Employer had ample notice both of the hearing
and of the ensuing election. The Board has consistently held that
the primary consideration in the conduct of any election is whether
the employees are given adequate notice and sufficient opportunity to
vote? Nearly 95 percent of the eligible employees voted in the elec-
tion, and there is no showing that any employee was foreclosed from
voting because of the alleged haste in holding the hearing and the
election.
A third objection rests on the assertion that Kirk, a union organ-
izer, trespassed upon company ground during his campaign activities.
Two company officials state that on the day before the election Kirk
spoke to the employees from the street, and then, while distributing
leaflets, took a step or two onto company property. No less than 29
employees who were present told the Board investigator otherwise,
as reported by the Regional Director. Assuming however that the
Employer's contention is correct, we could hardly view such a trivial
trespass as raising any material or substantial issues with respect to
the outcome of the election. We find no merit in this objection.
The last objection relates to certain remarks made by the Board's
field examiner to the employees at the polling area before they cast
their ballots. He informed them of the secrecy of the ballot, and of
their right to make an untrammelled expression of their choice,
free of any campaign promises, intimidations or threats that might
2 Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 87 NLRB 324; Wilson Athletic Goods Manufac-
turing Co., Inc., 76 NLRB 315.
250983-vol. 102-53-65
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been made. The Employer argues that the field examiner
necessarily imputed improper conduct to the Employer. We do
not agree. Not only were the field examiner's comments not
directed at the Employer, but they were no more than a general
statement of the principles of the Act and of the rights which the
Board zealously accords to employees in representation elections.$
After carefully considering all the objections, we conclude, as
did the Regional Director, that they do not raise material or sub-
stantial issues. We find nothing in the entire record to support
the Employer's repeated assertion that the Board's agent or agents
were biased or prejudiced against the Employer in this case. Absent
any evidence supporting these serious accusations of favoritism toward
any of the parties, we will not presume improper motives on the part
of the Board agent in the election procedure. Indeed, the expeditious
processing of the petition, hearing, and election in the instant case
was consistent with established practice of the Board and General
Counsel.' Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's recom-
mendations and we hereby overrule all of the Employer's objections.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has secured a
majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the collective
bargaining representative of the Employer's employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Stone and Allied Products
Workers of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the Employer's production and maintenance employees
at its structural precast plant located at Greensboro, North Carolina,
but excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees,
watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentatives.
3 See O. H. Hess , Inc ., 82 NLRB 463.
4 Cities Service 0il Co. of Pennsylvania, supra.