W. T. Grant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 420 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
W. T. Grant Company and Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-7056. June 11, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to the Board's Decision, Order, and Direction of Second
Election herein, dated March 28, 1963,1 a second election was con-
ducted by secret ballot on April 26, 1963, under the direction and
supervision of the.. Regional Director for the First Region, among
the employees in the appropriate unit. Following the election the
Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 24 eligible voters, 10 cast votes for,
and 12 cast votes against, the Petitioner, and 2 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct allegedly
affecting the results of the election.
The Regional Director thereafter investigated the objections and,
on June 4, 1963, issued and duly served upon the parties his report
on objections in which he found no merit to the objections and rec-
ommended that they be overruled in their entirety, and that a certi-
fication of results. of election be issued. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to the Regional, Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to u three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the.
Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record in this case
adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.
The Petitioner alleged in objection No.1 that a notice dated April 4,.
1963, and posted by the employer for at least 3 weeks preceding the
election, contained a threat by the Employer not to bargain with the
Petitioner in the event it won the electron; thereby interfering with
the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. The'
Petitioner asserts in its exceptions that the Regional Director erred
in overruling this objection and urges that the notice should be con-
sidered in the complete context of the Employer's conduct and state-
ments from the very beginning of this case, including its conduct
preceding the first election found to have been objectionable in the
Board's earlier decision.
Not published in NLRB volumes.
147 NLRB "No. `52:'
W. T. GRANT COMPANY 421
The notice stated :
The National Labor Relations Board has ordered a second elec-
tion in your store. The reason for this order is that the union
filed objections to -the last 'election. The objections filed by the
union were dismissed but in its investigation the National Labor
Relations Board learned that I had spoken to six employees in the
Manager's office. Because of this fact, the government held that
my speaking to six employees "interfered with the conditions
necessary for the conduct of a free election."
It is my opinion as an attorney that this decision is completely
wrong. However, there is no appeal from this decision. The
only way that this decision of the National Labor Relations Board
may be reviewed by the courts is an extremely complicated one.
It would come about in the situation where the union is victorious
in the second election. If and when this event happens, the Com-
pany would take 'the position' that it is not obligated to''bargain
with the union because the decision overruling the election and
ordering a second election was erroneous . If the union does suc-
ceed in winning the second election, the Company will most surely
appeal the decision ordering the second election.
Mr. Strout will continue to keep you informed as to when the
election will take place.
The first election in this case, which was held on September 28,
1962, was set aside because the systematic interviewing by the Em-
ployer's attorney of individual employees in the store manager 's office
shortly before the election constituted interference. No contention is
now made, nor has any evidence been submitted, that the Employer
has continued to engage in such conduct since the first election. More-
over, except for the posting of the above notice, it does not appear that
the Employer made any other statements to employees before the
second election.
In the circumstances of the case, we believe that the posted notice
was no more than an expression of the Employer's disagreement with
the Board's action in setting aside the first election and of its determi-
nation to test the validity of that action in the only way open to it,
through an 8(a) (5) proceeding. We. are unable to conclude that
knowledge of the Employer's position in this regard, without more,
would justify the conclusion that employees were thereby inhibited
in the exercise of their freedom of choice in the election. This case is
factually 'distinguishable from the Dad-Tex 2 and Lord Baltimore,'
2Dal-Tea, Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782 (Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown ; Member Leedom concurring separately).
9 The Lord Baltimore Press, 142 NLRB 328 (Chairman McCulloch and Member Fanning;
Member Rodgers dissenting)..
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cases, in each of which the employer's statement of legal position, read
in the context of its other objectionable campaign statements, was
construed by the Board to mean that it would in no event bargain col-
lectively and that selection of a representative would be a futile act.4
Accordingly, as we have overruled all the objections and as the
Petitioner did not secure a majority of the valid votes cast in the sec
and election, we shall certify the results.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been
cast for Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, and that
the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate.]
' We reject the exceptions relating to other objections , as in our opinion , they raise no
substantial issues warranting reversal of the Regional Director 's findings with respect
thereto and his recommendations that they be overruled.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 743 [C. R. Tumblin , Wilbur Rickett, and
John C. Reaves, d/b/a Tumblin Company] and William R.
Parker. Case No. 21-CB-2140. June 12, 196.E
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 18, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and supporting briefs and General Counsel filed a
reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
147 NLRB No. 53.