Snively Groves, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1617 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SNIVELY GROVES, INC. 1617
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties we find the
following described unit to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
at Rahway, New Jersey, including sheet metal workers or tinsmiths,
cafeteria employees, and truckdrivers, but excluding all mechanics
in the plant with the occupational classification of carpenter, pipe-
fitter, electrician, welder, all power plant employees presently classi-
fied as coal-passer, fireman, assistant watch engineer, watch engineer
in charge, outside engineer, oiler and water treater, all clerical, time-
keeping, technical (including laboratory assistants), professional,
efficiency, and personnel employees, managerial employees, watch-
men and guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SNIVELY GROVES, INC. and CITRUS AND ALLIED WORKERS, LoCAL 234,
WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREw-
ERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1733. February 04,
1953
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued on
April 11, 1952,1 an election was conducted in this proceeding on May
2, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region among employees in the unit heretofore found
appropriate. The tally of ballots shows that, of approximately 551
eligible voters, 195 cast valid ballots for, and 305 cast valid ballots
against, the Petitioner; and that 3 ballots were challenged. On May
7, 1952, the Petitioner's International filed 8 objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election.
Acting pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the issues raised by the objections, and, on De-
cember 8, 1952, issued his report on election, objections to election, and
recommendations to the Board. The Regional Director found that
7 of the 8 objections were without merit and raised no material or sub-
stantial issue with respect to the results of the election. The Regional
Director therefore recommended that these objections be overruled.
He found, however, that objection 5 had merit and raised material and
substantial issues with respect to the results of the election. He
198 NLRB 1146
102 NLRB No. 162.
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore recommended that this objection be sustained and that the
election be set aside and a new election directed. On December 15,
1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation that objection 5 be sustained. No exceptions were filed
to his recommendation that the other objections be overruled. We
therefore find it unnecessary to consider them and shall consider only
objection 5.
Objection 5 alleges, in substance, that the Employer interfered with
the rights of its employees to a free election by conducting certain
meetings of its employees on its property on the day of the election
and urging them to vote against the Petitioner. The findings of fact
made by the Regional Director with respect to this objection are not
substantially in dispute.
On April 25, 1952, a representative of the Petitioner wrote the Em-
ployer's president that he understood that the Employer was to hold
a meeting of its employees to discuss the issues involved in the pending
election. He asked that he be permitted to attend the meeting and
present the Petitioner's side of the question. On April 28 the presi-
dent wrote that such a meeting would be held on May 1 and invited
the Petitioner's representative to attend. At the meeting, the Em-
ployer's president and its attorney, the former's son, a local business
man, and the Petitioner's representative addressed the Employer's
employees. On May 2, the day of the election, the Petitioner distrib-
uted copies of a handbill. On the same day, allegedly in answer to the
handbill, the Employer's president delivered speeches on union activi-
ties, all substantially the same, to three different groups of its em-
ployees? The Petitioner did not learn of the president's speeches
until after the first had been completed, and the second was being
made. It made no request for further opportunity to address the
Employer's employees.
The Regional Director was of the opinion, in substance, that the
speeches made by the Employer's president and the Employer's failure
to offer the Petitioner an opportunity to reply, constituted conduct
which interfered with the election and required that it be set aside.
We disagree. As noted above, the Petitioner's representative was
granted a requested opportunity to address the employees at a meeting
held by the Employer on May 1, the day before the election. No con-
tention is made that this opportunity was inadequate. In the light
of this circumstance, it cannot reasonably be said that the Employer's
speeches on May 2, the day of the election, were deliberately timed so
as to prejudice the atmosphere of a free election. While it is true
' The election , held on the Employer's property , took place during different periods of
the day. The record does not disclose exactly when , in relation to the voting periods, the
distribution of the handbill and the making of the speeches took place.
THE H. E. KOONTZ CREAMERY, INC. 1619
that, by making the speeches in question on the day of the election,
the Employer had the opportunity of addressing the employees at a
point of time closer to the election, the Board's policy does not hinge
on who has "the last word" as a basis for setting aside an election, but
rather on whether the timing of the speeches was such as deliberately
to preclude a presentation of the union's views.3 In the context of
the facts of this case, including the fact that the Petitioner addressed
the employees at the plant on the day before the election, we hold
that the Employer's conduct did not constitute interference with a
free election.4
Accordingly, we find that objection 5 raises no material or sub-
stantial issues with respect to the results of the election, and we hereby
overrule it. Because we have overruled this objection, and because
the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner lost the election, we
shall issue a certification of results of election to this effect.
Certification of Results of Election
IT IS HEREBY cERTIrIED that a majority of the valid ballots has not
been cast for Citrus and Allied Workers, Local 234, Winter Haven,
Florida, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft
Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO, and that the said
labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees
of the Employer, in the unit heretofore found appropriate, within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of
Election.
8 See The Hills Brothers Company , 100 NLRB 964.
4 The Muter Company, 101 NLRB 287, and Metropolitan Auto Parts , Incorporated,
99 NLRB 401 , relied on by the Regional Director , are distinguishable on the facts
from the instant case, because in each of those cases , unlike the instant case , the union
was not accorded any opportunity to address the employees.
THE H . E. KOONTZ CREAMERY , INC. and Mu,K & ICE CREAM DRIv]Rs
& DAIRY EMPLOYEES , LOCAL UNION #937, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 5-RC-117.9. February 24, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Smith , hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
102 NLRB No. 160.