Decca Records, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 552 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 2 (5) of the Act which is required to comply with the filing
provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.'
Accordingly, the holding of the election directed herein is
conditioned on the compliance of District 5 with the filing re-
quirements of the Act. The direction of electionis also subject
to the notice to show cause which the Board issued April 20,
1954 , concerning the compliance status of International Fur &
Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada. No election
shall be held unless District 5 and the Petitioner are in com-
pliance.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning of
Section 9 ((;) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in cutting, buying, processing,
and selling lumber . The Petitioner seeks a unit of all main-
tenance and production employees. Although the Employer
stated that it would take no position concerning the appropriate
unit , there was agreement between the parties on exclusions
from the unit . We find that all maintenance and production
employees at the Employer ' s lumber operation located at
Beaufort , North Carolina , including the wood employees , truck-
drivers, caterpillar drivers, firemen, sawyers in the woods,
and sawman, but excluding the woods foreman , the officers of
the Employer , office clerical employees , employees of con-
tractors , guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act , constitute a unit 'appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
Member Beeson took no partinthe consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
9 See United Tanners, Inc., 103 NLRB 760; Franklin Tanning Company, 104 NLRB 192.
4 Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph numbered 2.
DECCA RECORDS, INC. (BRUNSWICK RADIO CORPORATION)
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-
888. April 23, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION and CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On February 2, 1954 , Hearing Officer Clifford L. Hardy duly
issued and served on the parties his report on objections to
conduct affecting election in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the evidence did not support the Petitioner's ob-
108 NLRB No. 76.
DECCA RECORDS, INC. (BRUNSWICK RADIO CORPORATION) 553
jections and recommending that the Intervenor be certified.
Thereafter , the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report and a
brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing
officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the hearing officer ' s report, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the hearing officer.
The Petitioner urges the Board to credit testimonynot cred-
ited by the hearing officer , and to discredit testimony credited
by the hearing officer . However , there is no adequate support in
the record for disturbing the hearing officer ' s credibilityfind-
ings, and we accordingly affirm them.
The Petitioner ' s principal argument on the facts is that
Floorlady Dodson's authentication of the rumor that the plant
would close if the Petitioner won the election , although made Z
months before the election , is sufficient ground for voiding the
election . However , when the Petitioner brought the rumor to
the attention of Manager Kinsman shortly before the election,
Kinsman denied that it was true , and the Petitioner dropped the
matter . The Petitioner thereafter issued a handbill of its own
to the employees reading in part as follows:
Q. Will the Company close the plant when the IUE-CIO
is elected?
A. This question was answered by Mr. Kinsman at a
meeting where both parties were present . "This company
has no intention of closing this plant no matter who is
elected."
The Petitioner also argues that the Employer failed to pre-
vent some employee activity on behalf of the Intervenor on Com-
pany time and property. However, there was no proof that the
Employer refused the Petitioner similar treatment. Although
the Petitioner complained to the Employer that activity on its
behalf was being curbed, the evidence does not prove the truth
of any such complaints. Accordingly, we agree with the hearing
officer that the record does not support the Petitioner's objec-
tions to the election.
As we agree with the hearing officer in overruling the Peti-
tioner's objections to the election, and as a majority of the
valid votes in that election were cast for the Intervenor, we
shall, as recommended by the hearing officer, certify the In-
tervenor as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local Union 1715, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees at the Richmond, Indiana, plant, in-
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluding plant clerical employees but excluding office clerical
employees , technical employees , guards, professional em-
ployees, .and supervisors as defined in the Act.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tive s.
NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IN-
DEPENDENT, and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION. Case
No. 2 -RM -556. April 26, 1954
ORDER DENYING MOTION
On April 13 , 1954 , the New York Shipping Association and
the United Fruit Company filed a telegraphic motion with the
Board , requesting that the Board amend the unit heretofore
found appropriate by including therein the employees of the
United Fruit Company. On April. 19, 1954, the International
Longshoremen ' s Association , Independent , sent a telegram to
the Board in which it agreed with the request of the New York
Shipping Association and the United Fruit Company. On April
19, 1954 , the American Federation of Labor , International
Longshoremen ' s Association , sent a telegram to the Board in
which it took no positionwith respectto the said motion , stating
that it will abide by the decision of the Board on the motion.
The Board has carefully considered the motion , the tele-
graphic statements , and the entire record in this case. We note
that at no time material herein was the United Fruit Company
a member of the New York Shipping Association; that it did not
join in the petition filed by the New York Shipping Association
on October 22, 1953 , under Section 9 (e) (1) (B ) of the Act, or
move to intervene in this proceeding prior either to the initial
representation hearing or to the election heretofore held herein
on December 21 and 22, 1953 , or within a reasonable time
thereafter ; that in its decision issued December 16, 1953, the
Board described the appropriate unit herein as one comprising
the "employees of the members of the New York Shipping
Association "; that in its order directing ahearing on objections
issued February 17, 1954, the Board stated that "the United
Fruit Company at no time material to this proceeding was a
member of the Association , and the employees of that Company
were clearly not included in the Associationwide unit found
appropriate by the Board in the Decision and Direction of
Election issued on December 16 , 1953"; and that for the first
time, at this late stage of this proceeding , the United Fruit
Company applied to the Board to have its employees included
108 NLRB No. 93.