Pinkerton's National Detective Agency

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 1, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

PINKERTON'S NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY 599 Pinkerton's National Detective Agency and International Union , United Plant Guard Workers of America (U.P.G.W.A.). Case 7-RC-7886 February 1,1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted both by mail and manually in the above- entitled matter on March 28 and 29, 1967, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 7 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed 18 votes were for, and 115 against, the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged. The chal- lenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objec- tions and on August 16, 1967, issued his Report and Recommendation on Objections, in which he recommended that Objections 2(b), 4(c), 5(c), 6(b), 7(a), and 8(b) be sustained, that the election be set aside, and that a new election be held. He recom- mended that all other objections be overruled.' The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation that the aforesaid ob- jections be sustained, and a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time guards, includ- ing sergeants, employed by the Employer through its Detroit, Michigan, Branch Office, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, lieutenants, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and makes the following findings: The Regional Director recommended setting aside the election on the basis of a number of state- ments made by the Employer to the employees in a series of preelection letters, which statements the Regional Director concluded created "an at- mosphere in which employees could not freely make their choice." We do not agree. The state- ments in question, none of which is attacked as un- truthful, refer to (1) losses of business suffered by the Employer during a period when the Union represented the employees in Detroit, attributed by the Employer to the fact that "many of our clients lacked faith in Unionized guards. They cancelled our contract"; (2) a strike by the Union in Delaware, as a result of which the Employer lost all its business in Delaware; and (3) the pendency of a libel action against the Union in the United States District Court, in which the Employer was "hopeful of a big judgment against the Union," which in turn might result in special assessments by the Union from its members. None of these statements implies that the Employer was going to take any action in retribution against its employees' organizational ac- tivities, or if they selected the Union. Rather, the statements, in our view, are temperate and factual reports of events that had occurred, and of legal proceedings involving the Employer and the Peti- tioner,- which were relevant to the election issues, and which the Employer had every right to call to the attention of the employees. In these circum- stances, we do not believe that the election at- mosphere was such that the employees were precluded from exercising a free choice on the question of whether or not they wished to be represented by the Petitioner.2 Accordingly, we overrule the objections in question. As we have overruled the objections and as the tally shows that the Petitioner has failed to obtain a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America (U.P.G.W.A.), and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. ' No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recommendation that these objections be overruled, and this recommendation is therefore adopted pro forma 'American Greetings Corporation, 146 NLRB 1440; Coors Porcelain Company, 158 NLRB 1108. 169 NLRB No. 81