The Gallaher Drug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1379 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

THE GALLAHER DRUG COMPANY 1379
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of Banana Exchange Company and Gulf Southern
Corporation engaged in the handling and processing of fruit em-
ployed at the Tampa Municipal Dock and at the Employer's plant
and warehouse in Tampa, Florida, including cutters, box packers,
box stackers, refrigeration engineers, and plant clerical employees,
but excluding casual employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
The Gallaher Drug Company and Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-2583. May
17,1956
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed August 27, 1955, an election was conducted on September
20; 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Ninth Region, among certain employees of the Employer. At
the close of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished each of the
parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The
tally shows that 168 valid ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 221
valid ballots were cast against the Petitioner, 2 ballots were chal-
lenged, and 2 ballots were declared void.
On September 29, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. On December 23, 1955,
the Regional Director, after investigation, issued his report on the
objections, recommending that certain objections be sustained, and
that a new election be directed. On January 4, 1956, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Regional
Director with the following additions : 1
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
In the absence of any exception thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Regional Director's
recommendation that Petitioner's objections 3, 4, and 5 be overruled.
115 NLRB No. 213.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All retail store employees at the
Employer's 27 stores located outside Montgomery County and Fair-
born, Ohio, excluding store managers, assistant store managers, phar-
macists, the Easter basket crew, display employees, the inventory
crew, maintenance department employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. With respect to Petitioner's objection 1, we find, in agreement
with the Regional Director, that Assistant Manager Darlington, at
supervisor, by interrogating two employees as to whether there was to
be a union meeting and where it was to be held,2 and by going to the
place of a meeting being conducted by the Petitioner for employees
of the Employer and entering the meeting place uninvited 3 at a time
when employees were present, and by insisting for at least 15 minutes
over the objections of the Petitioner's representatives, and in the
presence of the employees, that he be allowed to remain at the meet-
ing, and by thereafter transmitting to higher supervision the names
of some of the employees who attended the meeting, engaged in a
type of surveillance which interfered with a free election .4
With respect to Petitioner's objection 2, we find, in agreement with
the Regional Director, that Manager Gahris, by conducting individual
interviews with most of the employees in a store in the bargaining
unit 5 for the purpose of urging them to reject the Petitioner in the
election, during the period between the signing of the stipulation and
the election, engaged in conduct which interfered with a free election,
regardless of whether or not his remarks contained any threat of re-
prisal or promise of benefit.'
The Employer contends, inter alia, that the conduct of Darlington
was an isolated act which in no manner affected the results of the elec-
tion. We find no merit in this contention, in view of the fact that
about 14 employees were subjected to his surveillance, and in view
of the additional interference with the election which resulted from
Gahris' individual interviews with the employees. The Employer
3 The Regional Director inadvertently found that only one employee was interrogated.
Darlington 's affidavit states that two employees were interrogated, and we so find.
3 As pointed out by the Regional Director , Darlington may have been told that he could
attend a union meeting, but he was not invited to this meeting and learned of it only by
his interrogation of the two employees
See Pacific Mills, 91 NLRB 60 , 68-70; Kitty Clover, Inc, 103 NLRB 1665, at 1676,
1677 ; The Jefferson Company, Inc., 110 NLRB 757, at 771, 772.
6 Approximately 20 out of 29.
9 See Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947; Oregon Frozen Foods Company,
at al, 113 NLRB 881, Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc., 114 NLRB 444.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1381
also contends that Darlington did not engage in surveillance be-
,cause there was no mention of the meeting made to any employee
afterward. However, Darlington did in their presence observe the
employees at the meeting, and did report the names of several em-
ployees to Gahris after leaving the meeting. Moreover, any impres-
sion that Darlington may have conveyed initially to the employees
that his presence was due to an invitation was immediately dispelled
when Darlington was told that he was not invited to this meeting and
was asked to leave. As for Gahris, he may not have specifically urged
the employees in his interviews with them to reject the Petitioner 'in
the election, but he did tell them of the disadvantages of having' a
union, thereby clearly implying that they should vote against the
Petitioner.7
In view of the foregoing, we shall set aside the election and direct the
holding of a new election."
[The Board set aside the election held on September 20, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RoDGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
.cision, Order; and Direction of Second Election.
° See Economic Machinery Company, supra.
8In view of our findings herein, we find it unnecessary to hold a hearing, as requested
.by the Employer.
'estinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Salaried
Employees Association affiliated with Federation of Westing-
house Independent Salaried Unions, Petitioner . Case No.
4-RC-2791. May 18, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Draper Lewis,
.Jr., 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 :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
.of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2- (6) ,and (7) of,the Act, for, the (following rea-
sons:
115 NLRB No. 218.