Southern Fruit Distributors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 261 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 261
warrant establishing them as a separate unit. The only apparent
reason for the Petitioner's request for a unit of only the
telephone operators, is the extent of its organization of the
Employer's service employees. Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act
precludes a unit finding on that basis alone.' We therefore find
that the unit requested by the Petitioner is not appropriate.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Kress Dairy, Inc., 98
NLRB 369.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC.and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT
DRINK & DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 10 -RC-1893. April 21, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board on August 16, 1952 (not reported in printed volumes
of Board decisions), an -election was held among certain em-
ployees of the Employer under the supervision of the Regional
Director on January 16, 1953. Upon the conclusion of the elec-
tion a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties showing that
out of approximately 371 eligible voters, 163 cast their ballots
for and 116 against the American Federation of Labor, the
Intervenor.'
Thereafter on January 21, 1953, the Employer filed objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election alleging
in substance that: (1) The Intervenor by means of a sound
truck or loudspeaker electioneered within the hearing of its
employees eligible to vote, during the time that the balloting was
taking place; (2) the Intervenor reimbursed certain employees
for expenses asserted to have been incurred in union activities,
without requiring an accounting; (3) the Intervenor gave finan-
cial benefits to certain employees to induce them to work on
behalf of the Union; (4) it persuaded former union members to
seek reemployment in the Employer's plant for the purpose of
persuading and coercing employees to vote for the Union; (5) it
distributed benefits, consisting of meals and refreshments, to
induce the employees to vote for the Union; and (6) it promised
employees that, if selected as their representative, it would
get them a wage increase.
I About 10 days before the election the Petitioner requested and the Regional Director
granted permission to have its name removed from the ballot.
104 NLRB No. 39.
283230 0 - 54 - 18
2 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Regional Director conducted an investigation concerning
the allegations made in the Employer's objections, and on
February 17, 1953, issued his report recommending that the
Employer's objections should be overruled and that the Inter-
venor should be certified. The Employer filed timely exceptions
to all the findings and recommendations of the Regional
Director.
The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the
Regional Director's report and recommendations, the Em-
ployer's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record finds:
As to the first of the Employer's objections, the Regional
Director found that the Intervenor had a loudspeaker installed
on a trailer located on a vacant lot, next to an employee park-
ing lot which was across the road from the Employer's plant.
The Intervenor broadcast from this trailer for about 10 days
before the election. On the day of the election, the Intervenor's
organizer announced over the loudspeaker that he would be back
on Monday to receive applications for union membership, and
that employees who had already signed would be charter
members of the Union. He further said that he expected to be
able to continue to use the property where his loudspeaker and
lunch wagon were located, but if he could not he would let the
employees know where he would be. He also announced that
there were refreshments on the lunch wagon and urged all
who could do so to remain there to get the election results after
the close of the polls. This talk occurred between about 5 and
5:20 p.m. The polls were open from 4 to 7 p.m.
These facts as found by the Regional Director are substanti-
ally uncontroverted. The Employer does not allege that any
announcements or references to the balloting, other than those
above set forth, were made by the Intervenor in its broadcast
during the voting hours. The Regional Director, in substantial
part, based his recommendation that this objection be overruled
upon his finding that the content of the broadcast material did
not constitute "electioneering." We agree with the Regional
Director. As we donot consider the Intervenor's announcements
above set forth to have been electioneering, reasonably calcu-
lated to affect the results of the election, within the intent of
the Board's prohibition of such conduct during voting hours and
in proximity to the polls,: it is unnecessary for us to consider
the Regional Director's other findings with respect to this
objection.' It is hereby overruled.
As to the Employer's objections Nos. 2 to 6, we find that
its exceptions to the Regional Director's report raise no
substantial issues of fact. We approve the Regional Director's
2 Cf. Alliance Ware , Inc., 92 NLRB 55.
SThe Regional Director reported that the building in which the polls were located was about
200 yards from the Intervenor 's loudspeaker, and that the work building nearest the loudspeaker
was about 75 yards from it. He found that the broadcasting was not audible in the polling place,
but was unable to say definitely that none of the employees had heard the broadcasting , either
while entering the plant and approaching the polls or while en route from their work buildings to
the polling place . In view of our determination on other grounds , we find it unnecessary to con-
sider the issues arising from the Employer 's exceptions to these findings.
AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY 263
conclusions. and recommendations as to these objections, and
shall adopt them. These objections are therefore hereby over-
ruled.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the American Federation of
Labor has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees of Southern Fruit Distributors, Inc., in the appropri-
ate unit described in the Decision and Direction of Election, as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said labor
organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with res-
pect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment.
Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tive s.
AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY and SOUTHERN CALIFOR-
NIA OPTICAL TECHNICIANS UNION, INDEPENDENT, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-2736 . April 21, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September
23, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty - first Region . At the conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 14 eligible voters, 14 cast
ballots, of which 7 were cast for the Southern California Opti-
cal Technicians Union, Independent , herein called the Petitioner,
6 were cast against the Petitioner , and 1 ballot, that of
Charles Schwinn, was challenged by the Petitioner on the
ground that Schwinn was a supervisor . No objections to the
conduct of the election were filed within the time provided
therefor.
As the challenged ballot was sufficient to affect the results
of the election , the Regional Director , acting pursuant to the
Board's Rules and Regulations , investigated the issues raised
by the challenge , and on September 30, 1952, issued his report
on challenged ballot in which he concluded that Schwinn was
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act ; recommended that
Schwinn be ruled an ineligible voter and that the Petitioner be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Employer's employees in the stipulated unit. On October 9,
1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on challenged ballot. On October 13, 1952, the Employer
filed supplemental exceptions.
104 NLRB No. 34.