Decorated Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1383 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

DECORATED PRODUCTS, INC. 1383
• employee votes against inclusion, he will not be included with the
nonprofessional employees, and his vote on the second question will
not be counted.
Our unit determination is based, in part, then, upon the ballot of
the professional employee. However, we now make the following
findings in regard to the appropriate unit.
1. If the professional employee votes for inclusion in the unit with
-the nonprofessional employees, we find that the following employees
will constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All retail store employees including regular part-time employees
as found above, and the professional employee employed at the Em-
ployer's retail store located at West Covina, California, excluding
meat department employees, optometry department employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. If the professional employee does not vote for inclusion in the
-unit with the nonprofessional employees, we find the unit set forth
above to be appropriate, with the exclusion, however, of the profes-
sional employee.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Decorated Products , Inc. and International Chemical Workers
Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-RC-5056. February 21, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region, an election was held on Sep-
tember 13 and 14, 1962, under the direction and the supervision of the
Regional Director. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
59 eligible voters, 56 votes were cast, of which 26 were for, and, 30 were
against, the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director in-
vestigated the objections and thereafter, on October 22, 1962, issued
and served upon the parties his Supplemental Decision, Order, and
Direction of Second Election in which he found merit in the Peti-
tioner's objections. The Employer thereafter, in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, filed a timely request for review.
On November 14, 1962, by telegraphic order, the Board, granted
the Employer's request, and subsequently a brief in support of such
140 NLRB No 131.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request was filed by the Employer. No brief was filed by the
Petitioner.
The Petitioner's objections relate to a 2-page letter sent to em-
ployees immediately before the election. Relying upon the principles
laid down by the majority of the Board in The Trane Company
(Clarksville Manufacturing Division), 137 NLRB 1506,1 the Re-
gional Director found that the following quotation from the letter
had a coercive effect upon the employees, particularly in view of its
last minute appeal which prevented effective response or an oppor-
tunity for the employees to evaluate its true worth :
Our company's policy has always been a fair wage for good
work consistent with the economic situation of the company.
That policy will continue-union or no union.
To sum it up, without ever having the expense and trouble of a
union you already have : (1) good wages, (2) decent working
conditions, (3) a good holiday and vacation plan, (4) a fair
seniority system, (5) overtime pay in accordance with what is
paid under many union contracts and (6) a good relationship
with the company. I don't see how a union is going to improve
on that.
Keep in mind some of the bad things about union membership :
1. Loss of take-home pay-union dues, high initiation fees and
assessments will result in an actual pay cut for you.
2. Loss of Pay through Strikes-Few, if any, of you have suf-
fered through even a short strike, with its tragic loss of pay. Cer-
tainly we would have to try to operate in the face of a strike and
would have to replace strikers with some of the many people
available and eager to work. Without a union there can be no
strike.
3. Frequently squabbles and arguments on the job, usually
caused by union agents.
4. Compulsory attendance at Union Meetings.
5. Election year assessments to elect someone the union wants
in Congress-regardless of what you think.
In making his findings the Regional Director noted that the above
statements were misleading and untrue in that under Indiana law em-
ployees cannot be required to join a union in order to retain employ-
ment, and, implied that the Employer would continue its unilateral
wage and benefit policy regardless of the Union so that the selection
of the Petitioner as a representative would be a futile and unnecessary
expense. The Regional Director concluded that such an attitude was
not only inconsistent with good-faith bargaining but impressed upon
employees that their votes would be "for naught."
'Chairman McCulloch, Members Fanning and Brown , with Members Rodgers and
Leedom dissenting
ARCH BEVERAGE CORPORATION 1385
The Employer in its brief contends that the matters which the Re-
gional Director found objectionable were mentioned and discussed
by it in a letter to employees 3-weeks before the election, so that the
reliance upon the impact of a last minute appeal which could not be
answered or evaluated was unwarranted? Moreover, the Employer
contends that the above statements, when considered in conjunction
with the complete letter of which it was an integral part and the re-
lated 4-week preelection campaign, could be recognized by the em-
ployees as propaganda. We agree with the Employer.
In our opinion the above statements relied upon by the Regional
Director contained neither an implied nor expressed threat of re-
prisal or promise of benefit, especially when considered, in the context
of the complete letter and the total election campaign. In such state-
ments the Employer was merely answering prior propaganda of the
Petitioner as to the benefits to be gained from unionization and point-
ing out certain disadvantages which could result. This an employer
has a right to do where, as here, it is done in a noncoercive manner.3
Under the circumstances, therefore, we do not believe that the freedom
of choice of the employees was sufficiently impaired to warrant setting
aside the election. Accordingly, we shall overrule the findings of the
Regional Director and certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified a majority of the valid votes was not cast for
the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and that this
labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees
in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision on Review and Certification of Results of Election.
2 The factual contentions raised in the Employer's brief are uncontroverted.
8 See Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 532 (1944).
Arch Beverage Corporation and Local 135, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Petitioner. Case No. 25-RC-2340. February 21.
1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, an election was held
on August 30, 1962, under the direction and the supervision of the
140 NLRB No. 132.