Robbins Packing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1429 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

ROBBINS PACKING CORP. 1429
Robbins Packing Corp . and Local 56, Amalgamated Food & Allied
Workers Union, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-
2895. May 31, 1956
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION '
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted on November 17,1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on December 8, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board among the employees in the unit herein found appropriate. Fol-
lowing the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which
showed that of approximately 150 eligible voters, 22 cast votes for
and 108 against the Petitioner. Three ballots were void and one was
challenged. The challenged ballot is not sufficient to affect the results
of the election.
On December 13, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election, a copy of which was served
on the Employer. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the ob-
jections and, on March 28, 1956, issued and served on the parties his
report on objections in which he found that the Petitioner' s second
objection raised substantial and material issues with respect to the
election and recommended that that objection be sustained and an-
other election be directed. On April 23, 1956, the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the report on objections, the Employer's
exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section9 (c) (1) andSection2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at its Port Norris, New
Jersey, plant, excluding bookkeepers, office clerical employees, time-
keepers, foremen other than working foremen, managers , boat cap-
tains, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. In its second objection,,the Petitioner alleged that the Employer
interfered with the election by making a speech to its employees on the
115 NLRB No. 231.
•
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
morning of the election.' The Regional Director found that about 20
minutes before the election, the Employer's foreman, Waters, an ad-
mitted- supervisor, stopped all work and told the employees, who were
assembled in his presence, that it was time to leave work and vote, in-
forming them of the location of the voting place. Waters then read
to the employees a leaflet which had been distributed by the Peti-
tioner to the employees that morning. This leaflet among other things
characterized Waters as a "paid stooge" of the Employer and at-
tributed a statement labeled as "misleading" to him. After reading
the leaflet, Waters asked the employees what they thought of it and
whether they thought it fair. He then stated that he was not a stooge,
that the employees knew it, and that in all his dealings with the em-
ployees he tried to be fair with them. He answered a question about
the collection of back dues by the Petitioner if it won the election,
and told the employees they could vote for or against the Union
and that it made no difference to him which way they voted because
he would back them up.
Waters also read to the assembled employees a membership informa-
tion card circulated by the Petitioner to the employees for the an-
nounced purpose of providing the employees with a Christmas party.
After noting the information sought on the card, Waters commented
that he did not need to know an employee's social-security number,
church, or the number of cars he owned to give him a Christmas
present.
The Employer contends, contrary to the Regional Director's find-
ing, that these remarks were not made on company time and did not
constitute an election speech within the meaning of the Board's
Peerless Plywood rule.2 While it is true that the employees who
heard the speech were on piece rates and were not paid for the time
that they heard the Waters remarks, these remarks were made di-
rectly after Waters blew the whistle stopping work during the middle
of the work day, and Waters did not indicate to the employees that
their attendance was voluntary. An election speech made under such
circumstances falls within the Peerless Plywood rule.3 Likewise Wa-
ters' remarks, which were designed principally to refute specific cam-
paign propaganda and also criticized the Petitioner for seeking per-
sonal. information from the employees, cannot be characterized as
1 As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's recommendation that the Peti-
tioner's other objection be overruled , we adopt that recommendation for the reasons set
forth in the report on objections.
9 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427, 429. This rule provides that "employers
and unions ahke will be prohibited from making election speeches on company time to
massed assemblies of employees within 24 hours before the scheduled time for conducting
an election . Violation of this rule will cause the election to be set aside whenever valid
objections are filed."
3 S & P Mining Company, 114 NLRB 1436 ; Puffer Ford, Inc., 113 NLRB 169. Cf.
'National Petro-Chemicals Corporation , 107 NLRB 1610, 1614.
•
MIAMI PAPER BOARD MILLS, INC. 1431
nonpartisan, and therefore clearly constituted an election speech.'
Accordingly, we find that as these remarks were made within the 24-
hour period immediately preceding the election, the Employer violated
the Peerless Plywood rule, and we will order that the election be set
aside.
In his report the Regional Director found that the Employer is en-
gaged in a seasonal business and recommended that a new election be
directed on a date to be determined by the Regional Director at or
about the time of the employment peak of the Employer's next sea-
son. As no exceptions were filed to this recommendation, we will
adopt it.
[The Board set aside the election of December 8, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of, Second Election omitted from publication.]
4 General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division, 108 NLRB 1207; see also Riblet
Welding and Mfg. Corp., 112 NLRB 712.
Miami Paper Board Mills , Inc., Benner Box Company , and Simco
Waste Paper, Inc. and International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 10-RC-3249 and 10-RC-369. May 31, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
December 21, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
January 20, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties.2 The tally shows that of approxi-
mately 155 eligible voters, 154 cast valid ballots, of which 40 were for
the Petitioner, 99 were against the Petitioner, and 15 were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the
matter and, on April 9,1956, issued and duly served on the parties his
report on election, objections to election, and recommendations to the
Board, in which he found that the objections did not raise material
and substantial issues and recommended that they be dismissed. On
May 1, 1956, the Petitioner filed exceptions to report on the election,
objections to election, and recommendations to the Board.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 The Petitioner's representative refused to sign the tally of ballots on its face, but
signed it on the reverse side acknowledging service.
115 NLRB No. 230.