Showell Poultry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 580 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in this case to find that the ironworkers are craftsmen as
ordinarily defined by the Board , for all the parties, by their
recognition of the Petitioner 's authority to act on behalf of
these employees , have in effect over the years recognized
their distinctive interests and the appropriateness of separate
bargaining for them . Indeed, notwithstanding the single con-
tract made each year for both machinists and ironworkers,
both Unions and the Employer , to all intents and purposes,
carried on their collective -bargaining relations as though the
ironworkers were a separate bargaining unit. We think it is
clear, therefore , that the special skills of the ironworkers
coupled with the Employer' s recognition in the past of the
Petitioner ' s right to look after their distinctive interests
generally , amply support the conclusion now that the iron-
worker group may constitute a separate bargaining unit. We
also believe that, in view of the original certification of the
Intervenor for all the plant employees and the joint character
of later bargaining relations , a single overall unit could also
be appropriate.
We shall therefore make no final unit determination at this
time, pending the outcome of the election directed herein.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all ironworkers
and their helpers employed by the Employer at its Dorchester,
Massachusetts , plant in the ironshop departments designated
as shops B and C, excluding all machinists and their helpers,
clerical and professional employees , guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner , they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit,
and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for this voting group, which the Board , under such circum-
stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining . In the event that a majority vote for the Intervenor,
they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to be included
in the existing production and maintenance unit represented by
the Petitioner , and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to such effect.
(Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
SHOWELL POULTRY COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Petition er and LOCAL 199,
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER
WORKERS OF N.A., AFL. Case No. 5-RC-1224. June 12,
1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On March 3 , 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election , anelectionby secret ballot was conducted
105 NLRB No. 70.
SHOWELL POULTRY COMPANY 581
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the stipulated
unit. Upon the completion of the election, a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties. The tally reveals that of approxi-
mately 107 eligible voters, 63 cast valid ballots, of which 32
were for the Petitioner , 6 for the Intervenor , and 25 against
both Unions. There were 3 void ballots and no challenged
ballots.
On March 5, 1953, the Intervenor filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election . In accordance
with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on April 8, 1953, issued and
duly served upon the parties his report on objections. The
Intervenor filed exceptions to the report.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the
Act.
4. All employees at the Employer's Showell , Maryland,
plant, excluding office clerical employees , guards, watch-
men, professional employees , and all supervisors as defined
in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
5. The Intervenor alleged in its objections that the Em-
ployer had made a coercive speech in its plant just after
working hours, had refused the Intervenor an opportunity
to reply under like circumstances , and had made remarks
to its employees encouraging them to vote against both
Unions and to form a company union. The Regional Director,
in his report on objections , found that the Employer's speech
expressed opposition against both Unions equally, that there
was no evidence of Employer assistance to the Petitioner,
and that the Petitioner as well as the Intervenor had not had
an opportunity to address the employees on the Employer's
property . It is well established that the Board will not set
aside an election because of employer interference where
the only union involved wins the election , because to do so
would permit the wrongdoer to profit by its illegal acts.' The
Regional Director found this policy applicable to the instant
case where two unions were involved, and recommended that
the objections be overruled , and the Petitioner, which had
won the election decisively , be certified. 2
The Intervenor ' s exceptions to the report on objections
allege that the Employer ' s speech was coercive per se, that
t Keeshin Poultry Company, 97 NLRB 467.
2 Cf Meridian, Grain & Elevator Company, 74 NLRB 900.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under Board practice an election must be set aside whenever
there is coercion affecting an election, and that the election
in the instant case should be set aside because the Employer's
misconduct, although directed against both Unions, might have
unequally affected the Intervenor's adherents among the em-
ployees.
We find, for the reasons relied upon by the Regional Direc-
tor, that the Intervenor's objections and exceptions do not
raise material and substantial issues with respect to the
election. We shall therefore overrule them, and, as the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid ballots cast in
the election, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recom-
mendation and certify the Petitioner as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions as the designated collective-bargaining representative of
the employees of the Showell Poultry Company in the unit
hereinabove found appropriate.]
CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY and DIVISION 689, AMALGA-
MATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY
AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYES OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 5-CA-667. June 16, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed November 25, 1952, by Division
689, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employes of America, AFL, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Acting
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, issued a complaint
dated December 23, 1952, against Capital Transit Company,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act. Receipt of copies of the complaint,
the charge, and notice of hearing was stipulated by all parties,
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint
alleges, in substance, that on or about November 17, 1952,
the Respondent refused, and now refuses, to bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of certain employees
appropriately a part of the unit the Union currently represents.
The Respondent filed an answer admitting that the Union had
requested the Respondent to bargain as alleged and that the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as requested, but denying that it had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
105 NLRB No. 72.