Kent Plastics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 157
immaterial."' The latter holding is equally applicable here
as to the six Employers in question.
Accordingly, we find that the six single-employer units as
sought in the petitions are appropriate.
We find that the following separate units atthe San Francisco,
California, plants of Traders Distributing Co., The Arabol
Manufacturing Co., Reid Murdock Co., Sloss & Brittain, and
California Barrel Co., Ltd., respectively, constitute appro-
priate units for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All warehouse employees, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
We further find that all warehouse and production employees
of American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., at its San Francisco,
California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, truck-
drivers, salesmen , professional employees, guards, working
foreman "A," 6 and other supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5 Bearing & Rim Supply Co., 107 NLRB No. 34. Member Murdock, who dissented in the
Bearing & Rim case, agrees with the decision herein because he is convinced that the cir-
cumstances surrounding the Employers resignations from the Association, unlike those in
the Bearing & Rim case, evidence an unequivocal intention on the part of the Employers to
abandon multiemployer bargaining and henceforth to bargain individually.
6As the record in Blue Ribbon Products Co , Inc., supra, which was made part of this
proceeding, shows that the working foreman "A" possesses and exercises authority to hire
and discharge employees, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and
accordingly exclude him from the unit
7Apart from the question of excluding working foreman "A", there was no disagreement as
to the unit sought by the Petitioner in the American Chain & Cable case, which varies some-
what from the units sought in the five other petitions.
KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION and UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-786.
November 24, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election i an election
was conducted on December 10, 1952, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
among the Employer's production and maintenance employees
1101 NLRB 519.
107 NLRB No. 51
337593 0 - 55 - 12
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Evansville, Indiana. At the close of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of the
approximately 359 eligible voters, 332 cast ballots. Of the
ballots cast, 164 were cast for the Petitioner, 166 were cast
against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was challenged, and 1 ballot
was void.
The Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. Pursuant
to the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director
investigated these objections and, on April 16, 1953, issued
his report on objections to election and recommendations.
Among other things , the Regional Director found that Pe-
titioner ' s objections relating to interrogation and threats of
economic reprisal raised substantial and material issues of
fact and recommended that a hearing be held to resolve the
issues raised by these objections. The Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report.
On May 15, 1953, the Board, having fully considered the
Petitioner ' s objections , the Regional Director ' s report, and
the Employer ' s exceptions , determined that substantial and
material issues of fact had been raised by Petitioner's ob-
jections relating to interrogation and threats of economic
reprisal and ordered that a hearing be held on the issues
raised by these objections. The Board ordered that the hearing
officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report
containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses , findings
of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition
of said objections.
On June 16 and 17, 1953, the hearing ordered by the Board
was held before Edward T. Maslanka, hearing officer. Both
parties were represented and participated in the hearing. On
August 3, 1953, the hearing officer issued and served upon the
parties his report containing findings of fact and recommenda-
tions to the Board. The Employer thereafter filed exceptions
to the hearing officer's report and recommendations.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing
officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the hearing officer's report, findings of fact
and recommendations , and the Employer's exceptions. Upon
the entire record in this case the Board finds:
The Employer's president, Robert Morehouse, closed a
speech made to the Employer's assembled employees shortly
before the election by asking , " Wouldn 't it be nice to come
in here and vote 'No ' on election day and come back on
Thursday and let me announce a similar package to the one I
gave last year." We find, as did the hearing officer, that this
rhetorical question carried with it the implied threat that the
employees could be assured of a Christmas bonus and year-
end wage raise , the "package" given by the Employer in
previous years, only if they voted against the Union in the
coming election . Constituting a threat of economic reprisal,
PRYNE & COMPANY, INC. 159
this statement was not privileged under Section 8 (c) of the
Act; 2 nor was this threat so minor or isolated in character
as to have no substantial tendency to affect the results of the
election , having been made at a meeting of the employees
held by the Employer. We find no merit in the Employer's
exception directed to the hearing officer ' s resolutions of
credibility . The Board will reverse a hearing officer's credi-
bility findings only when convinced that the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence compels a contrary conclusion, ,
and in this case we are not convinced that the hearing officer
has erred in this regard . We therefore find, as did the hearing
officer, that by Morehouse ' s threat of loss of economic bene-
fits the Employer interfered with the freedom of choice of its
employees in their selection of a bargaining representative;
we shall adopt the hearing officer's recommendation that the
election be set aside and a new election held.
In view of our disposition of Petitioner ' s objection relating
to the content of Morehouse ' s speech to the employees,, we
find it unnecessary , and we do not , rule on issues raised by
the remainder of Petitioner ' s objections.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of December 10,
1952, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for the purpose
of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that
circumstances permit a free choice of bargaining representa-
tive.
2 Compare Gardner Machine Company, 106 NLRB 197.
3 Standar d- Toch Chemicals, Inc., 104 NLRB 1120.
PRYNE & COMPANY, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
& MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), LOCAL 1421.
Case No. 21 - CA-1146. November 24, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 9, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order in
this case ( 105 NLRB 447). Thereafter , on July 20, 1953,
Pryne & Company filed a motion for the redetermination of
the compliance status of United Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers of America ( UE), Local 1421, Independent , herein
referred to as the Union , and for the dismissal of the complaint
against it . On October 9, 1953 , the Board issued a notice to
show cause to the Union why the Board should not determine
107 NRLB No. 80.