Bercut-Richards Packing Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1052 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL. and
CANNERY AND FOOD PROCESS WORKERS COUNCIL OF THE PACIFIC
COAST AND ITS AFFILIATED UNIONS : FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL
AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 20-R-1414, et al.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
February 15,1946
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to a telegraphic Decision and Direction of Elections issued
on October 5, 1945, and confirmed in a printed Decision issued by the
Board on October 12, 1945, elections by secret ballot were conducted
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), among the employees
of members of California Processors and Growers, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as C P & G, and among the employees of certain Inde-
pendent Companies, herein jointly referred to as the Independent
Companies. The elections were conducted from October 11 to October
18, 1945, inclusive,' with results, other than those subsequently re-
ported, as set forth in the Tallies of Ballots and in the Regional Direc-'
tor's Report on Challenged Ballots and Report on Lincoln Packing
Company ballots, issued on October 22, 1945, and on December 21,
1945, respectively.2
Between October 29, 1945, and January 5, 1946, the AFL duly filed
objections to the conduct of the ballot in the several elections affecting
employees of C P & G and of the Independent Companies 3 On
December 7, 1945, the C. I. O. filed an answer to the AFL's objections.
On January 16, 1945, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objec-
1 Except for the election at Allen R. Parrish Co, which was held on December 20,
1945.
z The election results as reported in the Tally of Ballots and the Report on Challenged
Ballots and Report on Lincoln Packing Company ballots are set forth in Appendix A.
In view of our opinion concerning the ob jections , we find it unnecessary to make any dis-
position of the challenged ballots cast in the several elections.
3 The C. I. 0. also filed objections with respect to elections at two of the Independent
Companies , but has since withdrawn them with the statement that they were "inspb-
stantial."
65 N. L. R. B., No. 188.
1052
BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL. 1053
tions,4 in which report the Regional Director found that the Objections
of the AFL raised no substantial or material issues with respect to
the conduct of the elections and recommended that they be overruled.
Thereafter, the AFL filed exceptions to the Report on Objections. On
January 24, 1946, all parties argued orally before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., the issues raised by the AFL's objections.
The Issues Raised by the Objections
The AFL filed 21 objections. Some of the objections are highly
technical, consistent with the AFL's unremitting attempts to block or
discredit these particular elections. If, however, the Board is to do
justice in such a case, it must weigh the merits without regard to the
motives or methods of an objecting party.
An analysis indicates that the objections fall into four categories:
(1) charges that Board agents displayed partiality to the C. I. O. and
hostility to the AFL; (2) charges that irregularities occurred at the
polling places through the failure of Board agents to stop election-
eering near the booths, making last minute changes in the hours of
voting, and impairing the secrecy of the ballot by letting several
persons enter a booth at the same time; (3) charges that the Board
failed to provide lists which revealed with any degree of accuracy
the eligibility of the voters; and_ (4) charges that the Direction of
Election was erroneously interpreted in two particulars, the re-
sulting in the disenfranchisement of many employees, and in the
improper use of the ballot by many persons ineligible to vote.
With respect to the first contention, we agree, after reviewing
the Regional Director's analysis of the evidence, that his finding that
no Board agent displayed any favoritism-or prejudice towards any
of the rival unions is amply sustained. Although there may have
been some temporary confusion at some of the voting places, the
record establishes no bias, misconduct, or neglect of duty on the part
of the Regional Director or any of the Board agents in conducting
the elections.,' It appears that the Director and his assistants per-
formed a difficult task with diligence, but were seriously handicapped
by the pressure of time, due to the Board's having ordered the elec-
tions at the very end of the season.
The objections falling into the second category were accompanied
by several affidavits, most of them executed by AFL observers in the
various plants where the elections were held. In investigating the
truth of these affidavits, the Regional Director also obtained affidavits
* In addition to reporting on objections , the Regional Director reported on challenged
ballots in two inconclusive elections among employees of the Independent Companies.
® Indeed, counsel for the AFL stated at the oral argument that he was not asserting any
bias, misconduct or other failure of the Regional Director to perform his duty to the best
of his ability under the circumstances . Counsel said that the task assigned was an
Impossible one on such short notice.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from other persons who had been at the -polling places and reached
the conclusion that these objections were without merit. It was the
position of the AFL counsel at the oral argument that since the affiants
made allegations which, if true, do point to serious irregularities, the
Regional Director should not have held that these questions were
so immaterial that a formal hearing was not required. We take the
view that where affidavits do raise serious issues, the better practice
is to resolve any question of the credibility of the affiant at a hearing
rather than on the basis of reports and counter-affidavits .11 In this
case, however, the taking of testimony on these issues would neces-
sarily be extremely protracted, and, even assuming that the evidence
led us to overrule the objections, it could not result in a final decision
or certification until the 1946 season had been in progress for many
months and new employees were working in the canneries. Because
of other aspects of the case, we have concluded that a hearing is un-
necessary.
We are much more seriously concerned with the objections in the
third and fourth categories, because the Regional Director's report
itself reveals that certain of these contentions have a real basis in fact.
Under the Decision and Direction of Election, a person who had
worked a total of 25 days at more than one plant in the C P & G
unit was entitled to vote. In other words, even though the pay roll at
the particular plant where the vote was taken might indicate that
certain workers had not been employed for the requisite time, such
voters nevertheless had a right to have the days worked at other
plants "tacked on" to their record. Since there were some 61 plants
in the association unit, no eligibility list for a single plant would be
decisive on the voting rights of an employee who had worked pre-
viously for other companies in the association. Nevertheless, no
master eligibility list was available for use at the polling places.'
Nor were many lists made sufficiently available to all parties well
before the balloting began, although that is the invariable custom in
Board elections. Thus, no one knew, sufficiently ahead of time, who
should be challenged, or the facts upon which a challenge could be
based. It therefore appears that, although the right to challenge
was exercised in numerous instances by union observers, they had
no sure means of determining objectively the eligibility of employees
who claimed the right to vote by reason of having worked a total of
25 days at more than one plant in the C P & G unit.
See Matter of Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company , 60 N. L . R. B. 814.
' It is apparent from the record that the necessity of conducting the elections imme-
diately, in anticipation of a seasonal decline in canning operations , made it difficult to
prepare a master eligibility list for use at the elections in the C P & G unit, and contrib-
uted to the inadequacy of those eligibility lists used at the elections among employees
of the Independent Companies . No blame can attach to the Regional Director for not
taking this conventional precaution , whatever our view . of the important effect of its
absence upon the merit of the objections
BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL. 1055
Even more serious is a parallel objection with respect to elections
involving 3,500 employees at 10 C P & G plants (enough to affect the
result of the entire C P & G election), where admittedly no pay rolls
or other means existed which made it possible to ascertain eligibility
under the 25-day requirement. No data was provided as to the num-
ber of days worked in these individual plants. In these instances, no
extrinsic facts were available to indicate how many days particular
voters had worked in the very plant being voted. Thus there was
not even a sure figure to which additional days worked elsewhere might
have been added or "tacked." We are of the opinion that in' the
absence of objective means for determining eligibility, the possibility
of error in permitting ineligible employees to cast ballots was sub-
stantial. It was not precluded by the fact that in many instances the
observers of the several labor organizations agreed upon the eligi-
bility of individual employees, sometimes by refraining from chal-
lenging them. It is apparent from the record that such observers
could not, in fact, have had adequate advance knowledge of the factors
required for determining the eligibility of those employees who
claimed to have worked the required number of days.
With respect to errors in the interpretation of the Board's Decision,
the AFL maintains that the wording of the Decision created uncer-
tainty as to whether the 25-day eligibility period expired on October
5, 1945, the date of the Board's telegraphic Decision, or whether it
extended so as to permit days worked to be computed up to the date
of the individual elections," which were held between October 11 and
18. The AFL further contends that the words "temporarily laid off"
in the Decision should have been interpreted by the Regional Director
to include "seasonal lay-offs" (employees who had worked during
earlier peak periods in the 1945 season), as well as employees who
were merely temporarily laid off during the week of October 5.
So far as the eligibility provision is concerned, while the issue was
not specifically raised at the original hearing," both the language of
the Decision and the applicable precedents indicate a limitation of the
25-day test to the period prior to October 5. Our usual practice of
designating a pay-roll date is for the purpose of freezing eligibility
immediately upon the publication of the Decision, lest employers be
free to determine who may exercise the franchise by offering later
employment to particular individuals. On the rare occasions in which
we have permitted eligibility for voting purposes to be computed up
"The latter interpretation was that adopted and applied by the Regional Director to all
the elections involved herein . The telegraphic decision declared as eligible those em-
ployees "who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding October 5,
1945, and have worked a total of 25 days during the current season within the unit . . .
Including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off ..."
"The parties agreed at the hearing to the inclusion of the eligibility provision substan-
tially in the form adopted by the Board.
679100-46-vol. 65-68
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the very day of the election, it has not been our practice to insert, as
we did here, a specific pay-roll date in the Decision and Direction of
Election. Although the Regional Director acted in good faith in
adopting a contrary interpretation, a majority of the Board members
construe the Decision otherwise. It follows that under the pre-
election ruling an undetermined number of employees who would
otherwise have been ineligible to vote were permitted to cast their
ballots without challenge.10
Another complication developed from the use of the words "tem-
porarily laid off" in the Board's telegraphic Decision. The issue as
to whether employees known as "seasonal lay-offs" 11 should have been
held eligible to vote was likewise not expressly raised by the parties
at the original hearings, which were held during the summer. Ac-
cordingly, the Board adopted its usual language with respect to
temporarily laid off employees, which language was accorded its nor-
mal interpretation by the Regional Director, without reference to the
fact that this was an industry with fluctuating seasons. He advised
the parties that the only persons eligible would be those employed
during the then current tomato season, and that only those in that
category who happened to be "temporarily laid o'ff" during the week
of October 5 might vote. Inasmuch, however, as the appropriate
bargaining units necessarily include all persons employed at any time
during the entire canning season, and that any certification issued
would govern the relations of the employers with employees hired
during the entire 1946 season, the franchise should not have been so
lightly denied to any such 1945 employees Ila provided they had worked
the requisite 25 days before October 5. Although there may be no
direct evidence that any of the seasonally laid off employees were de-
prived of the right to cast challenged ballots, it is plain that ali in-
determinable number of the thousands of employees within the unit
must naturally have refrained from taking the seemingly futile step
of going to the polls, by reason of the Regional Director's previously
announced interpretation.12 It is this very uncertainty that gives us
io To be sure , the Regional Director' s Report on Challenges indicates that at some plants
a certain number of voters were challenged on this ground His Report on Objections,
however, shows that in many plants his ruling was accepted by all the observers. As his
report states on page 8:
Voters who were not shown as having worked 25 days up to the end of the pay-roll
period immediately preceding October 5 , 1945, but who showed evidence such as
check stubs of a total of at least 25 days' work through the voting date, or in the
absence of such evidence as to whose eligibility on this basis all the observers agreed,
were voted without challenge
It is therefoie clear that his interpretation caused observers to waive their right to chal-
lenge in an indeterminable number of Instances
it and ua Employees who worked (luring the earlier spinach , asparagus, apricot, and
peach seasons . Almost 40 ,000 men and women had been employed during the August-
September peach season in 1944. About 12,250 voted in this election.
12 Chairman Herzog does not concur in this paragraph to the extent that It implies
that the Regional Director interpreted our opinion of October 12 erroneously . The first
BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL. 1057
pause. -It raises more than a speculative possibility that the results
were not fully representative.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing facts, we are of the opinion
that the elections were not, under the circumstances here presented,
attended by such procedural safeguards or certainty concerning eligi-
bility as to constitute a proper foundation for a Board certification
in an industry which has been the scene of such bitter strife. There
is substantial doubt whether the results are truly representative of the
desires of the employees who should have been eligible to vote therein.13
It is of vital importance to the Board's effectuation of the policies of
the Act that the integrity of its procedures be maintained at all times
and at all cost, and that the regularity of the conduct of its elections
be above reproach. In this view of the matter, it is relatively unim-
portant that there is no sure proof that one party to the election was
prejudiced more than the other.
We therefore are constrained to conclude that the balloting was not
conducted in accordance with our usual standards or under conditions
tending to create confidence in the result or to lay the foundation for
satisfactory bargaining. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the
purposes of the Act will best be served by setting aside all of the
elections held herein.
While we view the record as requiring this result, we reach it with
considerable reluctance because it means that the employees will have
no bargaining representative to negotiate an exclusive collective agree-
ment to cover the coming season, until a new election can be held which
may result in one of the rival unions being certified. The current
AFL contract will expire on March 1, and since the legal effect of
the foregoing determination is to keep the question of representation
pending before the Board, none of the unions is entitled to an exclusive
status as the bargaining agent after that date. In accordance with
well-established principles,' the employers may not, pending a new
election, give preferential treatment to any of the labor organizations
involved, although they may recognize each one as the representative
of its members. In this state of the record, no legal effect may be
given the closed-shop provision contained in the current collective
paragraph of Section V of that opinion, relating to the tomato season , seems to the Chair-
man to support the Director 's interpretation of the opinion as written It remains true,
however, that the original determination by the Board may well have done a substantial
and avoidable injustice to a large number of other employees , and that it was probably
incorrect when reached . The Chairman believes that there are substantial other reasons,
already recited , which warrant the ultimate result herein
13 See Matter of Kennecott Copper Corporation , 55 N. L. R. B. 929 . See also Matter of
Mobile Steamship Company, 11 N. L. It. B. 374.
14 See Matter of Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc, 63 N . L. It. B. 163. See also Matter
of Ken -Rad Tube & Lamp Corporation , 62 N. L. R. B. 21.
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreements after their expiration date; 15 the inclusion of any such
provision in any new agreements, or action pursuant thereto, would
clearly be contrary to the proviso in Subsection 8 (3). Nothing in our
decision, however, should be construed as requiring any change in the
substantive conditions of employment now existing by virtue of the
foregoing agreements.
In order to expedite final disposition of the case, the Board will
conduct new elections as soon as eligibility lists can be prepared which
meet the objections discussed herein. Upon appropriate motion, the
Board will explore the possibility of holding the election at an early
date by use of mail ballots as well as by the manual method, provided
the feasibility of this procedure, with adequate safeguards, can be
demonstrated by the submission of data not incorporated in the present
record. As an alternative, the Board will consider holding a new
manual election as early, in the 1946 season as there is substantial
reemployment.
In setting aside these elections, we are aware of the fact that the
procedural defect arising from the absence of a master eligibility list
is not applicable to the elections held among employees of the Inde-
pendent Companies. However, the other defects based on uncertainty
concerning the meaning of 25-day eligibility rule and the action taken
respecting employees "temporarily laid off" are just as applicable to
these elections as they are to the elections held among the employees
in the C P & G unit. We are of the opinion that, by reason of these
difficulties, the elections conducted among employees of the Independ-
ent Companies raise such a possibility of error that such elections
should also be vacated and set aside. As a practical matter, this will
be in harmony with our ruling regarding the elections in the C P'& G
unit and will avoid inconsistent disposition of the problems of the
cannery industry.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the elections held from October 11 to
December 20, 1945, inclusive, among the employees of members of
C P & G and among the employees of the Independent Companies be,
and they hereby are, vacated and set aside.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, dissenting :
In the circumstances of these cases, I am of the opinion that the ob-
jections to the conduct of the election should be overruled and that
the Regional Director's Report on such objections should be sustained.
As is always the case when the Board is called upon to conduct a ballot
is Moreover , no requests for discharges resulting from activity in the election are justi-
fled even under the present agreement . See Matter of Rutland Court Owners , 44 N. L. R. B.
587, 46 N. L. R. B. 1040.
BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL. 1059
in an industry, seasonal in nature, with geographically widespread
operations and employing large groups of transient labor, the diffi-
culties of obtaining a precise result unattended by imperfections are
greatly magnified. In the present case my colleagues have pointed to a
number of contingencies as the basis for their decision to set these elec-
tions aside. Granted that the possibilities alluded to in the majority
opinion might have had the effect of producing deviations from nor-
mally acceptable consequences, the issue whether they are so serious as
to have rendered a representative and fairly conclusive choice impos-
sible must be answered, in my judgment, in the negative.
The Board in these cases was confronted with the necessity of desig-
nating a period of eligibility which would conduce to a representative
vote. In order to do so the Board was careful to take as a period
in which to conduct the ballot, a period in the operations of the indus-
try during which the largest number of "year-round" employees were
employed.bo Preparations for the elections were consequently speeded
and, so far as I am aware, these preparations were carried on in a
careful and skillful manner. The elections were conducted also with
a view toward the quick settlement of a protracted dispute of particular
significance to an industry vital to our national well-being. In the
course of the Board's preparation for and conduct of these elections
irregularities did occur, as they inevitably must have occurred in such
circumstances. It is of extreme importance to note, however, that
neither contestant can claim that its chances of success were thereby
prejudiced. Both came to the polls with equal advantages and equal
handicaps. While I am in whole-hearted accord with my colleagues
that "it is of vital importance to the Board's effectuation of the policies
of the Act that the integrity of its procedures be maintained at all times
and, t all cost, and that the regularity of the conduct of its elections be
above reproach," I do not think that, in the peculiar conditions
existing in this industry, we would endanger those policies by refusing
to disturb these elections.
In view of the majority decision the challenged ballots will not be
opened and counted. I should have ordered them opened and counted,
in my view of the case. Because the tally shows a great probability
that the C. I. 0. Union would have secured a conclusive majority,
'6 The suggestion in the decision that the words "temporarily laid oft " In our Decision
and Direction of Elections were erroneously interpreted is without substance in my judg-
ment. The then current tomato season was the period during which most regular employees
worked Balloting of these employees was considered as likely to produce a highly repre-
sentative vote The Regional Director ' s inteipietation of the above language to mean that
only employees laid off during that period were to be considered temporarily laid-off em-
ployees was in accord with that purpose and I am constrained to disagree with the decision
on this issue . The fact that a certification , if one issued , would be effective for all employ-
ees in the unit during the 1946 season does not support the majority view . Many times
our certifications are based upon balloting considered to be most likely to produce a repre-
sentative selection , although all employees in the unit certified do not participate. This is
especially the case in industries which operate upon a seasonal basis.
1 060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needing approximately 63 votes of a total of 1291 challenged ballots,
it would appear that a certification of representatives would have
been issued. This doubtless would have clarified the respective rights
and obligations of the parties apropos collective bargaining relation-
ships for the coining season.
APPENDIX A
C.C.P.& G.
Approximate number of eligible voters___________________________ 23, 545
Valid votes counted--------------------------------------------- 10,968
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A F. of L__ 4, 701
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. 0.----------------------------------- 6,067
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Council of the
Pacific Coast, Independent ------------------------ 0 -------------- 110
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 90
Challenged ballots________________________________________________ 1,291
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 248
Allen R. Parrish Company
Approximate number of eligible voters_____________________________ 67
Valid votes counted----------------------'------------------------- 40
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 7
Votes cast for F T. A -C.I 0_____________________________________ 33
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Stockton
Area, Independent----------------------------------------------
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------- 0
Challenged ballots ------------------------------------------------ 14
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 0
Stanislaus Canning Company
Approximate number of eligible voters____________________________ 154
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 80
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 9
Votes cast for F T. A.-C. I. 0------------------------------------- 71
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Modesto
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 2
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 4
Califruit Canning Co.
Approximate number of eligible voters____________________________ 136
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 101
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 22
Votes cast for F T. A.-C I. 0-------------------------------------- 77
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Stockton
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 1
Votes cast against participating labor organizations________________ 1
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 0
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 2
Scientific Nutrition Corporation, doing business as Capolino Packing
Corporation
Approximate number of eligible voters_____________________________ 107
Valid votes counted______________________________________________ 57
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A F. of L.__ 35
BERCUT-RICHARDS PACKING COMPANY, ET AL . 1061
Scientific Nutrition Corporation, doing business as Capolino Packing Cor-
poration-Continued
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. 0------------------------------------- 22
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Modesto
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 0
Void ballots ----------------------------------------------------- 0
Aron Canning Co.
Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------- 29
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 26
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 20
Votes cast for F. T. A -C. I. 0------------------------------------- 6
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Stockton
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 0
Void ballots ----------------------------------------------------- 0
Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc.
Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------- 225
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 96
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L_ 64
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Sacra-
mento Area, Independent--------------------------------------- 28
Votes east against participating labor organizations---------------- 4
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 4
Void ballots - -- -- - - ----------- ----- 3
Booth Company, Inc.
Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------------- 296
-Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 176
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 123
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. 0-------------------------------------- 52
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 1
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 14
Void ballots - - - -- -- ------- --- ---- ------------- 2
Raiter Canning Company
Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------- 96
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 49
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 30
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. 0------------------------------------- 19
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 10
Void ballots - ------ --- -- - - - ----------- ------- 2
Sardik Food Products Corporation
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------ 40
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 31
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 10
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. 0-------------------------------------- 21
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Modesto
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations----------------- 0
Challenged ballots----------------------------------------------- 1
Void ballots -- - ------ -- --- - -- -- - - - ------- - 1
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fruit•vale Canning Company
Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------------- 591
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 234
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 56
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. O______________________________________ 178
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 21
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------- 1
Basic Vegetable Products Company
Approximate number of eligible voters______________________________ 494
Valid votes counted______________________________________________ 285
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F.'of L__ 115
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. O-------------------------------------- 169
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Sacra-
mento Area,Independent ---------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------- 1
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 47
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 5
Pacific Grape Products, Inc.
Approximate Dumber of eligible voters----------------------------- 333
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 201
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 4
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C. I. O______________________________________ 193
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Modesto
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 4
Votes cast against participating labor organizations________________ 0
Challenged ballots---------------------------------------- ------- 1
Void ballots ---------------------------------------------- -------- 0
Flotill Products, Inc.
Approximate number of eligible voters______________________________ - 305
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 205
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 105
Votes cast for F. T. A.-C.I O-------------------------------------- 100
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Stockton
Area, Independent---------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations________________ 0
Challenged ballots --------------------------------------------- -_ 20
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 7
Sacramento Frosted Foods Co.
Approximate number of eligible voters______________________________ 85
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 62
Votes cast for California State Council of Cannery Unions, A. F. of L__ 28
Votes cast for F T. A.-C. I. O______________________________________ 34
Votes cast for Cannery and Food Process Workers Union of Sacra-
mento Area, Independent--------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------- 0
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 11
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------- 1
Lincoln Packing Compauy
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------ 150
Valid votes counted '7 --------------------------------------------- - 77
"The ballots in this election in which there were apparently no challenged ballots, have
not been counted but have been impounded, pending a determination of the question as to,
whether the employees of Lincoln Packing Company should be included in the C. P. &'G.
unit or should constitute a separate appropriate unit.