Shirlington Supermarket, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 15, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 312 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SHIRLINGTON SUPERMARKET, INC., AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, SHIRLEY FOOD STORE No. 1, INC., SHIRLEY FooD STORE No. 2, INC., SHUU.EY FooD STORE No. 5, INC., SHIRLEY FooD STORE No. 6, AND WESTMONT SuPER- MARKET, INC. and LooAL 1501, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-109.5. January 15, 1953 Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on August 18,1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on Septem- ber 6, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the voting group established by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 66 eligible voters, 60 cast valid ballots, of which 24 were for, and 36 were against, the Petitioner? There was 1 challenged ballot. Thereafter, on September 12, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely ob- jections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections, and on November 20, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections, in which he recommended that the election be set aside. On December 8, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Regional Director found that eligible employees were temporarily relieved of their duties, assembled, and addressed on company time and property by employer-representatives who, inter- alia, urged the employees to vote against the Union; and that these speeches began approximately 21/2 hours before the start of the elec- tion and in some instances were being delivered while the election was actually in progress. As to these findings, the Employer denies only that these speeches in some instances were being delivered while the election was actually in progress. Even accepting the Employer's denial, we find, as the Regional Director did, that the timing of the speeches denied a substantially equal opportunity for presentation of the Union's views and was tantamount to a refusal to consider a request by the Union to reply; and that the timing of the Employer's speeches was not counteracted by the absence of evidence as to a no-solicitation rule or the oppor- tunities which the Union may have had to present its views to the employees under other circumstances. We find further, as we have 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decision, No other union appeared on the ballot. 102 NLRB No. 36. VALENTINE SUGARS, INC. 313 under similar circumstances , that such conduct by the Employer was discriminatory and prejudiced that atmosphere we believe is essential to a fair exercise of their franchise by the voters.3 We shall , therefore , adopt the Regional Director 's recommendation that the election be set aside ; and we shall also direct that a new elec- tion be conducted. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on September 6, 1952, among employees of the Employer be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election. P The Hills Brothers Company, 100 NLRB 964. VALENTINE SUGARS, INC., AND VALITE CORPORATION and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 15-CA-367. January 16,1953 Decision and Order On May 13, 1952, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents, the United Packinghouse Workers (CIO), hereinafter referred to as the CIO, and the Valentine Independent Union, hereinafter referred to as the Independent, filed exceptions and the Respondents also filed a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela' ions Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. 102 NLRB No. 38.