Piper Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Piper Industries , Inc., Plastic Products Division and purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
Local Union 3031 , United Brotherhood of Carpen- pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
ters & Joiners of America and International Wood - of employment.
workers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC,' Petitioners.
Cases 15-RC-5187 and 15-RC-5189
July 17, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On January 23, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 15 issued a Second Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative in which he over-
ruled the Employer and Woodworkers objections to
the runoff election. Thereafter, the Employer, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, filed a timely request for review of the Re-
gional Director's Second Supplemental Decision, on
the ground, inter alia, that he erred in failing to find
a substantial number of employees, sufficient in num-
ber to affect the election results, were deprived of the
opportunity to vote.
By telegraphic order dated March 4, 1974, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board granted the Employer's
request for review with respect to the objection con-
cerning alleged voter disenfranchisement.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review, and here-
by adopts the findings and conclusions of the Region-
al Director as set forth in his Decision, attached
hereto as an appendix.
Accordingly, as the tally of ballots in the runoff
election shows that the Rubber Workers has received
a majority of the valid ballots cast. we shall certify it
as the collective-bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit.'
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for United Rubber, Cork, Lino-
leum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all the employ-
ees in the unit found appropriate herein for the
Herein referred to as Woodworkers , United Rubber , Cork, Linoleum &
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Intervenor , herein referred to as
Rubber Workers
2 All production and maintenance employees employed by Employer at its
plastic molding and cabinet plants, located in Jackson , Mississippi , excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees , guards , and supervisors as
defined in the Act
APPENDIX
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION '
AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
in this matter by the undersigned Regional Director of Re-
gion 15 of the National Labor Relations Board August 7,
1973, a secret ballot election was conducted September 6,
1973, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director, among certain employees 2 of Piper Industries,
Inc., Plastic Products Division (herein called Employer), to
determine whether they wished to be represented for the
purpose of collective bargaining by Local Union 3031,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
(herein called Carpenters), International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO (herein called Woodworkers), or Unit-
ed Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (herein called Rubber Workers), or by none of
the aforementioned labor organizations The tally of ballots
served upon the parties immediately following the election,
disclosed the following results.
Approximate number of eligible
voters 241
Void ballots 2
Votes cast for Carpenters 12
Votes cast for Woodworkers 53
Votes cast for Rubber Workers 91
Votes cast against participating
labor organizations 49
Valid votes counted 205
Challenged ballots 6
Valid votes counted plus
challenged ballots 211
The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election.
No objections to the election were filed by any party.
1 Under the provisions of Sec 102 69 and 102 67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations. a request for review of this Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representative may be filed with the Board in Washington,
D C This request must he received by the Board in Washington by February
5. 1974
2 All production and maintenance employees employed by Employer at its
plastic molding and cabinet plants, located in Jackson, Mississippi, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act
212 NLRB No. 66
PIPER INDUSTRIES , INC. 475
Pursuant to Section 102.69(c) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, an investigation of the
challenged ballots was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the undersigned. October 11, 1973, a Supple-
mental Decision and Order Directing Counting of Chal-
lenged Ballots issued and concluded, inter alga, that the
challenge to one of the ballots be sustained and that the
other five challenged ballots be opened and counted.
November 1, 1973, the revised tally of ballots was served
upon the parties, which reflected the counting of the over-
ruled challenges and which disclosed the following results:
Approximate number of
eligible voters
Void ballots
Votes cast for Carpenters
Votes cast for Woodworkers
Votes cast for Rubber Workers
Votes cast against participa-
ting labor organizations
Valid votes counted
Undetermined challenged ballots
Valid votes counted plus
challenged ballots
Sustained challenges (voters
ineligible)
Original Challenged Final
Tally Counted Tally
241
2
12 12
53 53
91 2 93
49 3 52
205 210
6 0
211 210
1
Thus, although none of the three labor organizations re-
ceived a majority of the valid votes cast, the tally showed
that a majority of the voters desired representation by a
labor organization and that of those three unions on the
ballot, the Rubber Workers and the Woodworkers had re-
ceived the most votes. Therefore, pursuant to Section 102.70
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
a runoff election was conducted.
This election took place as scheduled November 28, 1973.
The parties agreed that the runoff election be conducted at
the same place (the shipping area of Employer's plastic
molding plant) and at the same times (7 a.m. to 7:30 a.m
and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.) as had been agreed to and used in the
earlier election. Additionally, the parties agreed to the same
payroll period ending date of August 3, 1973, with regard
to eligibility. Upon completion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of-ballots which disclosed the
following results:
Approximate number of eligible
voters 198
Void ballots 26
Votes cast for Woodworkers 40
Votes cast for Rubber Workers 50
Valid votes counted 90
Challenged ballots 4
Valid votes counted plus
challenged ballots 94
The challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election.
December 4 and 5, 1973, respectively, Employer and
Woodworkers timely filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, copies of which were duly served
on the proper parties. Copies of both Employer's objections
and Woodworkers' objections are attached hereto as At-
tachments A and B, respectively [omitted from publication].
Pursuant to Section 102.69(c) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, an investigation of the
objections has been conducted under the direction and su-
pervision of the undersigned, who, having carefully consid-
ered the facts, reports thereon and rules as follows.
Basically, both Employer and Woodworkers are in agree-
ment regarding the facts.; The morning session of the runoff
election was held as scheduled on the appointed date, from
7 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. The parties had agreed on this time
period in order to allow the third shift employees from the
Employer's plastic plant to vote after the completion of their
shift which ran from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Thus, while the
morning session was scheduled for the purpose of allowing
this specific group an opportunity to vote, other eligible
employees may have also cast their ballots at this time.
The Woodworkers has alleged in their objections that
several employees in the Employer's cabinet plant sought to
vote during the morning session but that the Employer
would not let them do so. However, the Woodworkers was
unable to substantiate this allegation by making any wit-
nesses available or by providing the names of witnesses who
could testify in this regard and it must, therefore, be con-
cluded that this particular allegation is without substance.
The 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. afternoon session of the election was
scheduled in order to accomodate the employees scheduled
to work the first shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and the second shift
(3 p.m. to I I p.m.) at the Employer's plastic plant, as well
as the Employer's cabinet plant employees who were sched-
uled to work from 7 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
About I I to 11: 15 a.m. on the date of the election, the
Employer was caused, by unexpected scheduling problems
resulting from a fire in the plant 2 days earlier, to tell the
employees in the cabinet plant that there was no more work
for them that day and that they should leave early. The
employees in the plastic plant continued to work that day
and were unaffected by the shutdown in the cabinet plant.
While the cabinet plant employees left.the plant early,
there is no evidence which would indicate that any of them
were told they would not be allowed to return later that day
and vote, nor is there any evidence that any of them were
hindered-or prevented from voting by any of the parties
involved herein. Indeed, election records show that 82 of the
154 eligible voters in the cabinet plant cast ballots, as well
as 36 of the 44 eligible voters in the plastic plant. Thus, over
50 percent of those employees whose names appeared on
the voter eligibility list and who were still working on the
date of the runoff election, did, in fact, vote in the election,
even though many of the cabinet plant employees found it
necessary to either wait at the plant or return to the plant
for the afternoon session of the election.
The Act makes no provision for a quorum or for the
participation of any definite proportion of the eligible em-
ployee complement in an election. Ordinarily, the political
rule applies and those who do not take the time to vote
acquiesce in the choice registered by a majority of those
3 The objections are combined for reporting
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voting. Absent unusual circumstances , the Board has held
that even a 31-percent voter turnout for an election consti-
tutes a representative vote. Stiefel Construction Corporation,
65 NLRB 925 (1946). The Board has held that an election
should be set aside where the working hours were unilateral-
ly altered by the employer on the day of the election with
the result that the employees either had to wait after work
or come in early in order to vote, Haskett Tool & Manufac-
turing Co, 77 NLRB 572 (1948). The same result is reached
in cases where the voting polls were closed prior to the
agreed time, Repcal Brass Manufacturing Company, 109
NLRB 4 (1954). However, the Board has been careful to
point out that disenfranchisement of some eligible voters as
a result of the change must affirmatively be shown in such
cases in order to warrant a decision to set aside the election.
A D Juilliard and Co, 110 NLRB 2197, 2199 (1954)
I find the cases relied on by the Employer in its legal
statement of position to be inapposite For instance , Yerges
Van Liners, Inc., 162 NLRB 1259 (1967); Kit Manufacturing
Company, 198 NLRB No. 131 (1971); Bernard Gold and
Jack Wasserman, 54 NLRB 869 and 55 NLRB 591 (1944);
and S A Kendall, Jr., et al, 41 NLRB 395 (1942), involve
two- or three-man units wherein only one employee cast a
ballot. The Board has consistently held that the rules with
respect to whether a voter turnout is representative are dif-
ferent in such small units from those in larger ones Addi-
tionally, Alterman-Big Apple, Inc., 116 NLRB 1078 (1956),
and Alaskan Glacier Seafood Co, 25 LRRM 1346 (1950),
involve situations wherein eligible voters were disenfran-
chised as a result of being called away or working away
from the polling area during the voting period because of
the necessities of performing their normal work duties.
The Employer also contends that the use of the August
3, 1973, eligibility date in the runoff election had the resul-
tant effect of making the election results even less represen-
tative thereby warranting a decision that the election be set
aside and another runoff election be conducted . In support
of its position, the Employer submits that only 198 of those
305 employees appearing on the original eligibility list were
still employed on the date of the runoff election . The Em-
ployer states that this difference was caused by the plant's
normal turnover rate. The Employer also submits, in fur-
therance of its position , that on the runoff election date
there was a total of 343 employees in the appropriate unit
The Employer's only presently comtemplated expansion
will probably occur sometime on or between March and
May 1974, and will involve the installation of a fourth cabi-
net assembly line and the addition of about 30 employees.
Section 102 70(b) of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations
provides as follows "Employees who were elibible to vote
in the election and who are in an eligible category on the
date of the runoff election shall be eligible to vote in the
runoff election " It is true that under the proper circum-
stances involving , for instance , a substantial increase in the
employee complement or a long period of time following the
payroll eligible date used in a prior runoff election, one or
more of the parties may request that the payroll eligibility
date be changed to a later date. Teletype Corporation, 122
NLRB 1594 (1959); The Interlake Steamship Co, 174 NLRB
308 (1969). Such a request may or may not be granted
depending on whether or not, considering all of the factors,
such a change in the eligibility date would be unfair to the
labor organization which was eliminated in the earlier vote
However, even though the Employer in the instant case was
aware of the employee turnover in the plant, it did not
choose to raise the issue until after the election had been
held. While not deciding whether a more recent eligibility
date might have been established prior to the runoff elec-
tion, the undersigned concludes that a material deviation
from the rule set forth in Section 102.70 (b), supra, suggested
by the Employer's objections, is not warranted at this time
and would not be consistent with good administration of the
Act. Cone Brothers Contracting Co, 109 NLRB 483 (1954),
Standard Coil Products Co., Inc, 101 NLRB 261 (1952).
Therefore, I find that there is no merit to the Employer's
contention that the original eligibility date was improper for
the runoff election
Conclusions
In conclusion , I find that a representative number of
eligible employees voted in the election and it does not
appear that any eligible employee's right to vote was fore-
closed by the Employer's decision to excuse the cabinet
plant employees early on the day of the election.
From the evidence set forth above, the undersigned con-
cludes that neither the Employer's nor the Woodworker's
objections raise substantial or material issues with respect
to the election. Accordingly, the objections are hereby over-
ruled.
[Certification of Representative omitted from publica-
tion.]