Watkins Brick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 500 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WATKINS BRICK COMPANY and UNITED STONE & ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 10-RC-2457. December 22, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on September 18, 1953,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region , among the employees in the unit found
appropriate . Thereafter , a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties, showing that out of 45 voters , 23 cast valid votes for
the Petitioner , 20 cast valid votes against representation, and
2 ballots were challenged . On September 25, 1953 , the Em-
ployer filed timely objections to the conduct of the election and
to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's
objections and, on November 3, 1953 , issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on objections , in which he found that
the objections raised no substantial and material issues with
respect to conduct affecting the results of the election and
recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified as the sole collective -bargaining agent
for the employees in the unit . Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the report on objections.
In its objections , the Employer alleged that the Employer
was prevented by the Board agent who conducted the election
from being represented by an observer of the Employer's own
selection . The Employer admits that the Regional Director
correctly found that the Board agent refused to permit it to
use its vice president , treasurer , or office manager as an ob-
server , but the Employer contends that the Board ' s policy of
prohibiting persons closely identified with an employer from
acting as the employer ' s observers should not apply when, as
here , only such persons know all the employees of the Em-
ployer eligible to vote both by name and by sight. Like the
Regional Director , we find that these facts do not warrant a
departure from our usual policy. Nor do we find relevant the
fact that the Board agent failed thoroughly to explain that his
refusal was in accord with the prescriptions made by the
Regional Director pursuant to Section 102.61 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
The Employer excepts to the Regional Director ' s finding that
the Board agent conducting the election adequately and properly
explained the mechanics of the ballot to certain illiterate em-
ployees, some of whom have informed the Employer that they
now believe that they cast a "Yes" ballot when they desired to
cast a "No" ballot . Like the Regional Director , we find the
admissions of the Employer' s observer that the field examiner
107 NLRB No 110.
MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC. 501
carefully pointed out the method of marking the ballots and re-
peated such instructions to each voter more reliable evidence
that the field examiner adequately explained election processes
than the hearsay evidence to the contrary.
The Employer also excepts to the Regional Director's find-
ing that there was no evidence that Edwards was intoxicated
when he voted but that no material question is raised because
the Employer's observer did not challenge Edwards on that
ground at the time he came to vote. We agree with the Regional
Director's findings, but would in any event find that the mere
use of intoxicants by several voters would not warrant setting
an election aside. 1
The Employer also contends that the field examiner im-
properly permitted Young, an organizer for the Petitioner, to
vote and cast a challenged ballot and that his being permitted
to vote, in itself, exerted undue influence and had a coercive
effect upon the voters in the election. Like the Regional Direc-
tor, we agree that the field examiner properly permitted Young,
who claimed to be a laid-off employee and who was, at least, a
former employee, to cast a challenged ballot, despite his pos-
sible status as a union official, and that the voting of such an
official at the election did not exert undue influence, or have a
coercive effect, upon the voters. 2
Accordingly, we will adopt the recommendations of the
Regional Director, dismiss the Employer's objections, and
certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative
for the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified United Stone & Allied Products Workers
of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining
representative of all production and maintenance employees,
including the one truckdriver of the Watkins Brick Company,
but excluding all office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, the brick burner guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.I
'A. Werman & Sons, Inc., 106 NLRB 1215.
2See Soerens Motor Company, 106 NLRB 1388 (presence as an observer of a union
official).
MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No.
32-CA-307. December 23, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On September 15, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and
Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, adopting the findings,
1106 NLRB 1107.
107 NLRB No. 116.