Lamb-Weston, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 412 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lamb-Weston, Inc. and Teamster Food Processors,
Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 670, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case 36-RC-3288
October 29, 1974
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for either Teamster Food
Processors, Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Lo-
cal 670 International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or International Union of Operating Engineers, Lo-
cal No. 280, AFL-CIO, and that neither of said labor
organizations is the exclusive representative of all the
employees, in the unit herein involved, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
Pursuant to authority granted it under Section 3(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
three-member panel has considered objections to an
election held May 17, 1974.1 and the Regional
Director's report recommending disposition of same.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Region-
al Director's findings I and recommendations.'
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election The tally was 133 for the Petitioner , 14 for the
Intervenor , International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No 280,
AFL-CIO, and 406 against the participating labor organizations , there were
4 challenged ballots , an insufficient number to affect the results
2 Member Penello agrees with the Regional Director that the alleged mis-
representations do not warrant setting aside the election , but so finds for the
reasons set forth in his dissent in Medical Ancillary Services, Inc, 212 NLRB
582 (1972)
3 The Regional Director found that the Employer 's publishing the details
of its employee pension plan 2 days before the election did not constitute
objectionable conduct In reaching his result he relied in part on evidence
submitted by the Employer to the effect that complete written copies of the
plan were posted in December 1973 or some 4 months before the petition
was filed The Petitioner contends , however , that there was no such posting,
and it claims it has evidence to support this contention Thus , it takes the
position that there is outstanding an unresolved factual issue which must be
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
I think that Petitioner has raised material issues
warranting a hearing on Objection 2 on the questions
of (1) whether copies of the pension plan were in fact
posted in December 1973; (2) whether employees
were, in fact, notified of the plan in 1973 and 1974;
and (3) if they were, the number who were so noti-
fied. I would therefore remand this case for hearing
on Objection 2.
sent to hearing We disagree with the Petitioner's conclusion, for there is
substantial, uncontradicted evidence showing that the Employer began
working on the pension plan in 1973 and so told its employees throughout
the years, that the plan was approved in December of that year, that the
Employer began making payments into the plan the following month, and
that by February 1974 employees had orally been told about substantial
portions of the plan Thus, it appears that well before the critical period the
pension plan had already become a reality Under these circumstances, we
hold that posting of its details 2 days before the election was merely the
emphasizing of an existing benefit and thus would not constitute objectiona-
ble conduct even if, as the Union now seeks to show, there had not been a
previous posting in December Consequently, we agree with the Regional
Director that Petitioner's Objection 2 is without merit, and that no poten-
tially determinative factual issue is raised requiring a hearing
214 NLRB No. 68