Caroline Poultry Farms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 255 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CAROLINE POULTRY FARMS, INC. 255
CAROLINE POULTRY FARMS, INC. and LOCAL 876, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, Petitioner and LOCAL 199, AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTHAMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 5-RC-1207. April 21, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF NEW ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 5,
1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the
stipulated unit. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of approxi-
mately 176 eligible voters, 138 cast valid ballots, of which 62
were for the Petitioner, 72 were for the Intervenor, and 4 were
for neither of these organizations. There are 2 challenged bal-
lots.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation, and on February 18, 1953, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report on objections, a copy of
which is attached hereto, in which he found that the objections
raised substantial and material issues with regard to the elec-
tion and recommended that the election be set aside and that a
new election be ordered. The Intervenor filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board' makes the
following findings:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations
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 Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer--as stipulated
by the parties --constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All employees of the Employer's Federalsburg and
Denton, Maryland, plants, excluding employees in the
receiving, packing, and feeding departments, battery
pushers, local truckdrivers, office clerical employees,
i The Intervenor also requests oral argument . In our opinion the record , report , and ex-
ceptions fully present the issues and the positions of the parties . Accordingly , the request is
denied
2Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case toa three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
104 NLRB No. 37.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards, watchmen, and professional and supervisory em-
ployees as defined in the Act.
5. The Regional Director found, for reasons set forth in
his report, that both the Petitioner and the Intervenor, by
written and oral communication, impliedly and in fact threatened
the employees with loss of employment if their respective
organizations did not win the election, and that by such threats
they so coerced the voters as to prevent a free choice of
ballot. The Intervenor excepts to the report on the grounds
that statements made by its agents and contained in its leaflets
were not intended as a threat to. close the plant, but only to
show that it would be a stronger and more effective union in
securing a favorable collective -bargaining contract; and that
the Petitioner should not be allowed to object to conduct which
it engaged in itself.
We agree with the Regional Director that by the statements
set forth in the report both parties threatened the employees
with loss of employment and by such threats improperly
interfered with the employees' exercise of a free choice
of a bargaining representative . Further , in regard to the
"clean hands" doctrine invoked by the Intervenor, the Board
is concerned with the right of employees to choose a bargaining
representative in an atmosphere free from intimidation and
coercion. Unlawful conduct by the Petitioner neither extin-
guishes nor justifies the Intervenor's infringement of that
right. 8
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January
5, 1953, among the employees of Caroline Poultry Farms, Inc.,
at its Federalsburg and Denton, Maryland, plants, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Direction of New Election omitted from publication
3United Aircraft Corporation, 103 NLRB 102; SunsetLine and Twine Co., 79 NLRB 1487.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into by Caroline
Poultry Farms, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Company , and Local 876 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, here-
inafter referred to as the Teamsters , and Local 199, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL, hereinafter referredtoas the Meat Cutters , a secret ballot
election was held under the supervision of the Regional Director on January 5 , 1953, with the
following results:
Approximate number of eligible voters ............................................................. 176
Void ballots .................................................................................................. 1
Votes cast for Local 876, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL ........................................ 62
Votes cast for Local 199, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , AFL ........................................................................ 72
Votes cast against participating labor organizations ........................................ 4
Valid votes counted ...................................................................................... 138
Challenged ballots ..................................................................................... 2
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots ....................................................... 140
CAROLINE POULTRY FARMS, INC. 257
The unit of employees involved in the election has been represented for purposes of col-
lective bargaining by the Meat Cutters The Teamsters represents another unit of the
Company's employees not involved in the instant election.
On January 12, 1953, the Teamsters, in person, filed with the undersigned objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election . That afternoon the Teamsters mailed copies of
the objections to the other two parties and the Meat Cutters received a copy on January 13,
1953; the Company, while not sure of the exact date, states it received a copy sometime
during theweekofJanuary 12,1953. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the objections were
timely filed.
The Teamsters alleges that.
The reason for this protest is that undue influence was exercised on various employees
in order to achieve a certain result in the election Furthermore , other illegal acts were
performed for the purpose of influencing the election.
On February 3, 1953, J. R. Hargreaves, secretary-treasurer of the Company, orally stated
to an agent of the undersigned that the Company assumes a neutral position with respect to
objections to conduct of either labor organization and that the Company did nothing to favor one
organization against the other in the election.
The undersigned has caused an investigation of the objections to be made and reports as
follows:
1. Oral statements: Five employees of the Company testifying on behalf of the Teamsters
state that they attended a Meat Cutters' meeting at Denton, Maryland, in the afternoon on
Sunday, January 4, 1953, the day before the election. Approximately 20 employees attended.
Speakers were Jack Birl, local union president, and Willie Roberts and John Hackney, both
international representatives of the Meat Cutters. Birl stated in effect that if the Teamsters
won the election, the plant would close down and the employees would be out of work because
the Meat Cutters' union controls the New York and Philadelphia markets and they would see
that the Company's trucks were not unloaded. (A great proportion of the Company's poultry
is shipped to the New York and Philadelphia markets.) Roberts and Hackney repeat the same
statement
Two employees attested that Birl, Roberts, and Hackney made the same statement at
another Meat Cutters' meeting held on December 18, 1952.
Birl admits that he may havementionedat these meetings that, "We have the power to close
the plants if the butchers in New York, Philadelphia, etc , don't sell the chickens." Also, he
admits that he may have made similar statements to individual employees during the campaign.
However, Birl denies that Roberts and Hackney repeated the statements. Roberts, himself,
denies he made such a statement Hackney is presently in Chicago, Illinois, and was unavailable
at the time of the investigation.
The Meat Cutters also submitted statements from several employees who attended the
meeting of January 4, 1953 Two declare that Birl said nothing about the plant closing down if
the Meat Cutters did not win Three declare that something was said about the Meat Cutters
having the power to stop the poultry from being sold in the big cities, and that it was Hackney
who so spoke.
Two Teamsters' witnesses further testified that a Meat Cutters' stewardess told female
employees gathered in the restroom at the Denton plant on the morning of the election day,
that the Meat Cutters could stop the sale of poultry in the big cities and if the Teamsters won
the election the plant would close down. This stewardess contends that what she actually did
say was that if the Teamsters won, they(the employees) would not get a contract, and the Meat
Cutters controls the poultry in New York and other large cities.
On the other hand, Paul Reynolds, president of the Teamsters local union, admits that at
various times he stated to employees: "We have as much power as the butchers and when it
comes time to negotiate, we can get support from New York better than the butchers "
The Teamsters' chief steward at the Denton plant admits that he told several employees that
"Birl cannot stop the chickens from getting to the cities as the Teamsters control the trucks "
Written statements: Both labor organizations during the campaign distributed several leaflets
to the employees. Quoted below are pertinent excerpts from leaflets listed in the order in
which they were distributed.
(a) Meat Cutters' leaflet:
Local 199 has not forgottenwhat Reynolds said at Rosedale Beach, February, 1951, after
a two-week strike by Local 876, quote Local 876 can't win the strike without the support
of the Butcher Union. The Butcher Union controls the wholesale and retail poultry markets
in all the big cities.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Teamsters' leaflet:
He (Birl) also claims that I am powerless to do anything in spite of all the elections we
have won and that I made the statement that the butchers control all of the outlets in the
wholesale and retail markets in all the big cities He should know better than to make a
statement like that, because if my memory serves me right, it was the Teamsters Union
that stopped all the trucks for us back in 1944, when we got our first seven contracts here
on the Peninsula and I don't remember the butchers stopping one pound of poultry from
getting unloaded in New York City during the five weeks that we had to walk the picket
lines in front of the H& H Poultry Company's outlet I wonder if Mr. Birl remembers? ? ?
(c) Teamsters' leaflet:
On November 16, 1952, Jack Birl took his stewards to New York City and wined and dined
them and told them that they (the Butchers' Union) would not handle poultry shipped in to
New York City Market and the plants would be forced to close
To hear the Butchers' Union talk, they would have you believe that they are more power-
ful than the United States Government. The t rue facts. No one person or organization is as
big as the Government, and you can rest assured that the Butchers' Union is not going to
get themselves involved in an unfair labor practice charge in the course of these elections
that are comingupinthisplant,sodon'tbefooled by the big lies being put out by Local 199
(d) Meat Cutters' leaflet:
With the support of the wholesale and retail butchers' unions behind Local 199 in all the
large cities, it is possible for Local 199 to obtain the biggest increases and best working
conditions.
Remember 876 had to get the help of these Butcher Unions in January 1951 after a two-
week strike The butcher unions in the big cities will not support 876 in future strikes.
(e) Teamsters' leaflet:
This leaflet was distributed on January 4 and January 5, the day of the election, and is in the
form of an open letter to Jack Birl. It asks 10 questions:
1. Why do you he to the people by telling them that if they vote for 876 the Butchers are
going to close down the plant?
2. Did you or did you not tell the same big lie to the people at the Delmarva Poultry
Corporation plant at Milford, Delaware where we beat you in an election on December 2nd
and aren't the people still working?
6. Why do you keep lying to the people about all the power the Butchers' union has in the
markets where the poultry is taken when you know very well it is the Teamsters union that
can do all the stopping of poultry from being unloaded in all the big markets in all big
cities?
(f)' Meat Cutters' leaflet:
This leaflet was distributed on January 5, 1953, and is in the form of an answer to Paul
Reynolds' 10 questions
1 It is not a lie when the people are told that the Butchers' unions in New York City and
other big cities have the power to close the plants
2. The workers at Delmarva were told the same thing that all other poultry workers
were told, we make no secret about it
6 Who stopped the Poultry from being sold in New York in the strike of May 1951? 9 ? 9
The Butcher's Union .. Who stopped the trucks from unloading then? 7 7 The Butchers'
union did... You know that too During this strike the Teamsters Union would not even
trial the trucks 199 had to call the Butchers' Union in New York City and Philadelphia
and let them know which trucks to stop.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that both the Teamsters and Meat Cutters, by oral and
written communication, impliedly and in fact, threatened the employees with loss of employ-
ment if their respective labor organizations did not win the election. By such threats, they so
coerced the voters as to prevent a free choice of ballot
HERCULES POWDER COMPANY (SUNFLOWER ORDNANCE WORKS) 259
2. The Teamsters submitted a stat'ment from an employee of the Company which declares
that on or about January 4, 1953, an individual, unknown to the employee, stated to him that he
was sent by the Meat Cutters and would give him fifty dollars to swing his votes to the Meat
Cutters. The employee replied that he would not desert his Union, the Teamsters. The next
morning, upon arrival at the plant, the same employee told a Meat Cutters' stewardess of the
offer, to which the stewardess replied that if he still wanted to swing votes to the Meat Cutters,
she would see that he received the fifty dollars.
The employee who was offered the money was not made available for interview and, accord-
ing to Mr. Reynolds of the Teamsters, is unwilling or unable to make an attempt to identify
the individual making the offer.
The Meat Cutters' stewardess denies that the employee involved ever spoke to her about the
Meat Cutters paying for votes.
There is insufficient evidence of any offer of money to deliver votes and, therefore, the
undersigned Regional Director recommends that this objection be overruled.
3. Teamsters' president, Reynolds, alleges that he encountered great difficulty prior to the
election in obtaining admission to the Company's Denton, Maryland, plant in order to check the
Board 's election notices. Further Reynolds alleges, "Ihaveknown of occasions when Mr. Jack
Birl, President of Local No. 199, A. F. of L. was given the privilege of entering and leaving
the plant at will and that on these occasions, has conferred in the private office of management
and at times was given the opportunity to call his stewards off their jobs to take part in the
discussions."
The Company denies that Birlwas treated any more favorably than Reynolds insofar as entry
into its plants for the conduct of legitimate union business was concerned.
There is no evidence that Birl was permitted in the plants to engage in any activity which
would affect the results of the election while Reynolds was denied this privilege. The under-
signed recommends that this objection be overruled.
For reasons stated in paragraph 1, above, the undersigned recommends that the election
held on January 5, 1953, be set aside and that a new election be ordered.
HERCULES POWDER COMPANY (SUNFLOWER ORDNANCE
WORKS) and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING
AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, PRODUC-
TION EMPLOYEES' LOCAL NO. 605, SUNFLOWER ORD-
NANCE WORKS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-1523.
April 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry Irwig,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles
and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
t At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate. The hearing officer referred the motion to the
Board. For the reasons set forth infra, the motion is hereby granted.
104 NLRB No. 25.