Fred Meyer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1145 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

FRED MEYER , INC. 1145
tion. We have frequently declared that we will not police this type
of propaganda of unions and employers . I believe that in setting
aside this election the Board is injecting itself too far into the cam-
paign and is improperly establishing itself as the censor of each utter-
ance. In my view, this kind of statement does not so disturb the
laboratory conditions , which we are bound to provide , as to require
our administrative action.
Further, I would uphold the election for another reason. I would
find that in the circumstances here the employees possessed the inde-
pendent knowledge with which they could evaluate the Petitioner's
statements . According to the Employer , the employees who are the
subject of this petition work in the same building with those who are
now represented by the Petitioner , and individuals from the two
groups have contact when their lunch periods and coffee breaks co-
incide. In this situation it is most likely that during the 6 months
between the negotiation of the last contract between the Union and
the Employer , the employees involved herein would have learned of
the contract 's terms. In two cases involving closely similar facts
the Board found that the employees possessed sufficient independent
knowledge to evaluate the propaganda and refused to set aside the
election.6
Accordingly, I find that the facts here do not warrant setting aside
the election and would adopt the recommendation of the Regional
Director.
0 See Allis - Chalmers Manufacturvnq Company , 117 NLRB 744, 748, Hook Drugs, Inc ,
119 NLRB 1502, 1505.
Fred Meyer, Inc . and International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 87, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 36-RC-1762.
February 7, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Robert J. Wiener, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
I The original hearing was held on July 17, 1962 Pui suant to an order of the Board
reopening the record and remanding the proceeding , a further hearing was held on
October 25, 1962.
140 NLRB No. 107.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reason.
The Employer is engaged, at Portland, Oregon, in the production
and sale, at retail and in its restaurant, of dairy products, ice cream,
and frozen foods. Most of its employees are represented by various
unions in 18 different units.
The Petitioner seeks to represent two repairmen, Louis Riedel and
Rolland Lovely. Steam claims to represent Riedel, while the IAM
claims to represent Lovely. Both of these organizations as well as
the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on contract-bar grounds,
and the Employer also moved to dismiss on the ground that Riedel is a
supervisor, and the Petitioner is, therefore, seeking a one-man unit.
We find no merit in these unit contentions of the Employer. Al-
though Riedel recommended that Lovely be hired, Lovely was there-
after interviewed by the plant superintendent, who also recommended
him, and was further interviewed in the personnel office before being
hired. It is clear, therefore, that Riedel did not effectively recom-
mend Lovely's hire. Moreover, Riedel does not responsibly direct the
work of Lovely, who spends most of his time working alone on routine
repairs. Accordingly, we find, upon the entire record, that the rela-
tionship between Riedel and Lovely is merely that of a highly skilled
worker to one less skilled, and that Riedel is not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.
As the unit sought herein is, therefore, a two-man unit, it is neces-
sary to pass upon the issues raised by the contract-bar contentions.
We find that the contract between the Employer and Steam, covering
Riedel, is not a bar as it contained an expiration date of January 1,
1963 . 1 However, the contract between the Employer and IAM, cover-
ing Lovely, was entered into on June 7, 1962, for a term ending July 1,
1963. As the petition herein was filed on June 14, 1962, 1 week after
the date of this contract, we find that the IAM contract is a bar to an
election in a unit which includes Lovely. We shall, therefore, grant
the motion to dismiss the proceeding on this ground.4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
I concur with the result.
a Steamfitters Union, Local #235, AFL-CIO, herein called Steam, and International
Association of Machinists, District Lodge 24, herein called IAM, were permitted to inter-
vene on the basis of their contractual interests
s Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995
* Water Tower Inn, a Partnership, 139 NLRB 842.
Although the Employer contests the appropriateness of the requested unit, we find it
unnecessary to pass upon that issue here.