Accurate Molding Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1087 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

ACCURATE MOLDING CORPORATION 1087
April 10 and another dated May 7, 1953, were handed to em-
ployees on company property. In addition, the Employer, through
its vice president, made several speeches to employees on
company time and property, including speeches made over the
public-address system on May 7, 1953, concerning union mat-
ters or the election. On April 17, 1953, the Employer received
the Petitioner's request that it be permitted to distribute hand-
bills in the plant, under the same circumstances as the Em-
ployer, and to address the employees on company time and
property. These requests were denied.
The Regional Director found that the no-solicitation rule
was illegal. As the rule applied to the employees' own time, we
agree. ' Here we are confronted not merely with the existence
of such a rule but with the Employer's discriminatory enforce-
ment of the rule which we find was reasonably calculated to, or
tended to, interfere with the election 2
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's conduct interfered
with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a
bargaining representative, and we shall, therefore, order that
the election be set aside.' When the Regional Director deter-
mines that the circumstances permit the free choice of a bar-
gaining representative, we direct that a new election be held
among the employees concerned.
[The Board set aside the election held on May 8, 1953.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
iSee Livingston Shirt Corporation, et al ., 107 NLRB 400.
2 See Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. N. L. R B , 197 F. 2d 240 (C. A. 2), cert. denied 345 U. S
905; N. L R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 205 F. 2d 45 (C. A. 2). Such'conduct is
clearly apart from the Board's limitations in the recently promulgated 24-hour rule, which
is applicable only to conduct which is otherwise within the privileges guaranteed by Section
8 (c). See Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427, cf. Blue Bell, Inc , 107 NLRB 514.
3 In view of our disposition herein, we need not, and do not, pass upon the other grounds
which the Regional Director found warranted the setting aside of the election
ACCURATE MOLDING CORPORATION and MAX SHERMAN,
Petitioner and LOCAL 318, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS,
AFL. Case No. Z-UD-16. February 5, 1954
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
On May 1, 1953, a petition was filed by Max Sherman pursu-
ant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, to
withdraw the union-shop authority of the Union. Thereafter, on
107 NLRB No. 229.
1 088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
June 9, 1953, the Regional Director for the Second Region con-
ducted an election among the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer at its plant located in Long Island
City, New York, to determine whether the employees in that
unit desired to withdraw the authority of their bargaining repre-
sentative to require, under its agreement with the Employer,
that membership in the Union be a condition of employment.
Upon the completion of the election, the Regional Director
duly issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which
showed that of approximately 14 eligible voters, 9 voted in
favor of the above proposition, 2 voted against the above prop-
osition, and no ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Union filed timely objec-
tions to the election. On July 17, 1953, the Regional Director
issued his report on objections, overruling the objections and
certifying the results of the election. The Employer and the
Union filed timely exceptions' to the Regional Director's
report.
The Employer and the Union reiterate their original objec-
tion to the election. They contend principally that the election
should be set aside and the deauthorization petition should be
dismissed because their contract barred this proceeding and
because the petition was in fact sponsored and inspired by a
rival union. Like the Regional Director, we find no merit in
these contentions. In The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
case,2 which was recently reaffirmed in the F. W. Woolworth
Company case,' the Board held that the normal contract-bar
rule is inapplicable in deauthorization proceedings. With re-
spect to the second contention, we, in agreement with the
Regional Director, find, without deciding the factual question,
that it is irrelevant whether a deauthorization petition, filed
by an individual., was sponsored or inspired by a rival union 4
Accordingly, we hereby overrule the exceptions of the Em-
ployer and the Union. As a majority of the employees eligible
to vote have voted in favor of the proposition, we shall certify
the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of employees eligible
to vote have voted to withdraw the authority of Local 318,
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL, to require, under its agreement with the Em-
iThe Employer's and the Union's exceptions are designated "Request for Rescission of
Direction of Election and Certification Thereof."
2100 NLRB 1494.
3107 NLRB 671.
4 We also find untenable the Employer's and the Union's contentidh that the Regional Director
erred by directing an election without holding a formal hearing (see Section 102.67 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations). Nor do we find merit in the Employer's and Union's con-
tention that the election was conducted when less than 50 percent of the usual number of
employees was eligible to vote because of the slack season. The Regional Director found no
basis for the factual assertion Although the Employer and the Union reassert this objection,
they do not offer any evidence disputing the Regional Director's factual finding.
ACCURATE MOLDING CORPORATION 1 089
ployer, that membership in such labor organization be a con-
dition of employment.]
Member Murdock, concurring:
But for the fact that I now deem myself bound by the deci-
sion of a majority of the Board in the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company case , recently reaffirmed in the F. W. Woolworth
Company case, I would dissent and sustain the objections of
the Employer and Local 318 to the election on the ground that
the Regional Director should not have held the election but
should have dismissed the UD petition as untimely filed at the
beginning of Local 318 ' s union-security contract.
Although I concur in the disposition of the case because I
deem myself bound by the former decisions, I am constrained
to point out that this case presents a vivid illustration of the
undesirable results which I predicted in the dissent in the
A & P case would flow from the majority's determination that
a deauthorization petition might be filed at any time during
a union-security contract and that a favorable vote would
result in immediate cancellation of the union-security clause.
Apart from the inequity of permitting a temporary majority
to encroach on the rights of a minority by revoking part of a
valid contract while leaving the remainder in effect, I there
pointed out that one of the evils which would flow from the
majority decision would be the use by "dissident minorities"
of the "tactical advantage of continuous vulnerability of such a
contract to disrupt the bargaining unit and the bargaining repre-
sentative." The complete facts in this case show that the UD
petition filed herein is merely part of a campaign by District
65, Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America,
to harass the certified incumbent union which it obviously seeks
to supplant. Nine months after the latter's certification, District
65 filed an RC petition, later withdrawn as untimely filed.
Only 8 days after the Employer and the certified union made
a 2-year contract, District 65 itself filed a UD petition. This
was withdrawn because Section 9 (e) (1) only permits "em-
ployees" to' file such petitions, and the present petition of an
individual, Max Sherman, was substituted. The Regional Direc-
tor and the Board hold as a matter of law (and I believe cor-
rectly) that it is irrelevant that Max Sherman's petition may
have been sponsored or inspired by District 65 as contended.
We thus have presented in this case a graphic example of
how a rival union (which has no right al this time to test the
incumbent union's representative status) may nevertheless
utilize the doctrine of the majority in the A & P and Woolworth
cases to conduct guerrilla warfare against an incumbentunion,
depriving it at the very beginning of its contract of the benefit
of a provision for which it unquestionably gave up other de-
mands in the give-and-take of bargaining, and leaving it with
a mutilated contract and no power to "compel further bargain-
ing to again balance the interests of all parties , for Section 8
(d) precludes this." As I pointed out in the A & P dissent, if
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the language of the statute is followed we avoid the inequitable
results here portrayed which Congress could never have con-
templated, but which are the necessary result of the inter-
pretation of the statute made by the majority in the A & P and
F. W. Woolworth cases.
AMERICAN CABLE & RADIO CORPORATION and COMMU-
NICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-4670. February 5, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board on December 31, 1952,' a mail -ballot election was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region among the employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision to
determine whether or not they desired to be represented for
purposes of collective bargaining by Communications Workers
of America , CIO, or by The Commercial Telegraphers Union,
AFL, or by the American Communications Association, Inde-
pendent, or by none. The tally of ballots served upon the
parties on May 29, 1953, showed the following election
results:
1. Approximate number of eligibles ................ 1,200
2. Void ballots (including 4 ballots ruled void:
ruling challenged ) ............................................. 24
3. Votes cast for ACA .................................. 258
4. Votes cast for CTU-AFL (including 2 votes
challenged as void ) .......................................... 258
5. Votes cast for CWA-CIO (including 4 votes
challenged as void ) .......................................... 337
6. Votes cast against participating labor
organizations .................................................. 41
7. Valid votes counted ... .............•.................. 894
8. Challenged ballots (not including 6 ballots
counted as valid but challenged as void) ............... 207
9. Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots ... 1,101
As the challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the
results of the election , the Regional Director , pursuant to
Section 102 . 61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, con-
ducted an investigation of the challenged ballots. On July 31,
1953, the Acting Regional Director issued his report on chal-
lenges. In his report , he stated that the Company and the unions
1101 NLRB 1759; amended 102 NLRB 877.
107 NLRB No. 230.