The Burrowes Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1149 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE BURROWES CORPORATION 1149
in contrast to the one conversation engaged in by Clark and Grant with Ahlberg,
the undersigned credits the version of the conversations with Ahlberg as testi-
fied to by Grant and Clark, to wit that Ahlberg thought there would be a gen-
eral increase if the Union lost the election and that Gengras was the kind of
a man who would close the shop if the Union won. Such express or implied
promises of benefits and threat of economic reprisal are clearly inconsistent
with the strict standards of laboratory perfection designed to assure that the
participating employees have an opportunity to register a free and untram-
meled choice in the Board election'
The conclusion that Ahlberg's remarks were reasonably calculated to inter-
fere with the employees' freedom of choice is further supported when con-
sidered in conjunction with the fact that the subject of general wage increases
was not referred to either in Alves' general report to his supervisors in April
of 1952, relating to proposed employee benefits, or in the announcement to the
employees of the granting of benefits on the morning of June 12, 1952. Coupled
with the practice of the Employer to grant automatic and merit increases to
individuals and small groups of individuals, Ahlberg's indications of future
general wage increases were not in conformity with the established company
practice.
A promise of benefit regardless of the outcome of the election has been held
by the Board to improperly interfere with the choice of the employees' Thus,
even if Ahlberg's own testimony were credited, wherein he indicated to em-
ployees that he would do something about wage increases regardless of the out-
come of the election, such statements would constitute interference.
Nor are Ahlberg's intentions or motives material so long as the general
tenor of his remarks were reasonably calculated to interfere with the em-
ployees' free choice.
Again, it is immaterial that certain employees who participated in the elec-
tion testified in effect that their vote was not influenced by coercive conduct
which accompanied the election.'
Accordingly, on the basis of Foreman Ahlberg's statements and Foreman
Quinn's interrogation, it is recommended that the election conducted on August
20,1952, be set aside and a new election conducted.
8 General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124.
4 Direct Laboratories, Inc., 94 NLRB 380.
' Lane Drug Stores, Inc., 88 NLRB 584.
THE BURRowES CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS, LOCAL #340, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER
THE BURROWES CORPORATION and DISTRICT 99, INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 1-RC-
3048 and 1-RC--305&. February 6,1953
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
102 NLRB No. 108.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robert S. Fuchs, hearing officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 .2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Teamsters, Petitioner in Case No. 1-RC-3048, seeks a sepa-
rate unit of truckdrivers. The IAM, Petitioner in Case No. 1-RC-
3052, seeks to represent the Employer's production and maintenance
employees, excluding the truckdrivers. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that only the existing production and maintenance
unit, which includes the employees who drive trucks, is appropriate.
The Employer operates a wood and metal products manufacturing
plant at Portland, Maine, where it employs about 640 employees.
It uses 3 trailer trucks, 2 intermediate trucks, and 1 small panel
truck for making deliveries to points as far as Philadelphia and
Detroit. There is no job classification known as "truckdriver."
The trucks, which are only in use about 40 percent of the time, are
manned by employees from the various production and maintenance
departments; their assignment to a particular trucking operation is
determined as the need arises on the morning of each trip. There
are no employees engaged solely in truckdriving. Only 1 employee
spends as much as 50 percent of his time driving ; about 10 others
devote from 10 to about 40 percent of their time to such work. In
addition, a larger but unspecified number spend less than 5 percent of
their time driving. In the past all these employees have been repre-
sented by the Intervenor in a single plantwide bargaining unit.
1 The hearing officer properly refused to permit the Employer to inquire into the ques-
tion of whether District 99 , International Association of Machinists , AFL, herein called
the IAM , had compiled with the filing requirements of the Act, as this is an administra-
tive matter to be determined by the Board , and is not litigable by the parties. Williams,
Dimond & Co., 101 NLRB 71.
f At the hearing the Employer refused to stipulate that District 99 of the International
Association of Machinists is a labor organization . The record shows that District 99,
like its parent organization , exists in part for the purpose of dealing with employers con-
cerning labor matters ; we therefore find that it is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
8 The Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, herein called the Intervenor , contends that
its current contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceeding . As both of the
petitions were filed before the Mill B date of the contract , we find no merit in this
contention.
BUCKEYE OIL COMPANY 1151
In these circumstances, there does not exist at this plant a clearly
identifiable group of employees engaged essentially in truckdriving
work. Rather it appears, and we find, that those production and
maintenance employees who in varying degree spend only a part of
their time driving trucks, have substantially the same interest in
working conditions as all other production and maintenance workers.
We conclude, therefore, that the Teamsters has not requested an
appropriate unit and, accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition in
Case No. 1-RC-3048.4
In view of the foregoing conclusion, we find that all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Portland, Maine, plant,
including employees who drive trucks, but excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, executives, foremen, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 1-RC-3048 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
d We have not accorded the Teamsters a place on the ballot in the election herein directed
as it did not indicate at the hearing that it desired to represent all production and
maintenance employees in the event its petition was dismissed . The Teamsters will,
however, upon proper application to the Regional Director , be placed on the ballot.
BUCKEYE OIL COMPANY, CHEMICAL PULP DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 32-RC--516. February 6, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Direction
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on October 21, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
among the employees in the appropriate unit on October 30, 1952,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots. The tally shows that there
were approximately 414 eligible voters and that 290 cast valid ballots,
of which 148 were for the Petitioner, 141 for the Intervenor (Local
19, Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America), and 1
1101 NLRB 30.
102 NLRB No. 112.