Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

'744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
papercutters, both journeymen and apprentices, employed by the
Employer at its Athens plant may constitute a separate appropriate
unit and may, if they so desire, be represented in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner, a labor organiza-
tion whose international union traditionally represents such em-
ployees. However, we also find, on the basis of the bargaining history,
that the papercutters may remain a part of the larger unit set forth
in the Intervenor's contract. We shall, therefore, make no final unit
determination at this time, but shall direct that the question con-
cerning representation be resolved by a secret election among the
employees in a voting group consisting of the papercutters, both
journeymen and apprentices, at the Employer's Athens, Ohio, plant,
excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
,of representatives to the Petitioner for this unit, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the
Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the larger unit and
the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election
to such effect.
[The Board revoked and set aside the Decision and Order issued
-herein on December 20, 1956.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1843.
March 22,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted on October 11, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted
,on October 17,1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board
among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that,.of ap-
117 NLRB No. 108.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING CO. 745
proximately 94 eligible voters, 47 cast votes for, and 45 against, the
Petitioner. There were no void or challenged ballots.
On October 22,1956, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation of the objections and, on December 21, 1956, issued
and served on the parties his report on objections in which he found
that the Employer's objections did not raise any substantial or material
issues with respect to conduct affecting the election and recommended
that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report with supporting
brief. During the pendency of the investigation of the Employer's.
objections, the Employer also filed a motion to reopen the record
and to vacate the consent-election agreement. The Petitioner filed a
memorandum in support. of the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions and in opposition to the Employer's motion to vacate the consent-
election agreement.
In its petition originally filed in this case, the Petitioner sought to,
represent all technical employees of the engineering department at
the Employer's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Works. On October 11,
1956, the parties entered into their stipulation for certification upon
consent election setting forth as the appropriate unit "All Designers-
'A,' Designers `B,' Draftsmen `A,' Draftsmen `B,' Detailers, and Trac-
ers presently so classified in the drafting sections of the product engi-
neering department of the Pittsburgh Works, excluding employees of
the engineering development section, guards, professional employees.
and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and all other employees." On November 5, 1956, after the-
election herein was held and while the objections were under investiga-
tion, the Petitioner filed another petition in Case No. 6-RC-1864,.in
which it sought to represent a unit of "All draftsmen employed by the-
company's maintenance department" at the Pittsburgh Works.
The Employer contends in its motion to vacate the consent-election
agreement that the filing of the petition in Case No. 6-RC-1864
demonstrates that the Petitioner did not in good faith seek the bar-
gaining unit described in its petition herein and that its real purpose
was to organize a residual group of the Employer's employees 1
piecemeal on an extent of organization basis. In a consent-election
proceeding, however, it is the agreement of the parties rather than
extent of organization which the Board considers controlling in the
absence of any statutory defect in the stipulated unit, and the Em-
ployer makes no claim that the unit in any other way contains any
1 The hourly rated production and maintenance employees at the Pittsburgh works have
been represented by the Petitioner since 1949. See Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com-
pany, 84 NLRB 30
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inherent statutory defect. Under these circumstances, it would be
contrary to the salutary purpose served by the consent-election pro-
cedure, which is specifically recognized by the provisions of the Act,2
to permit the Employer to vacate its agreement to certification upon
consent election 3 It is therefore immaterial that the employees in the
unit may, as the Employer alleges, be only a segment of its unrepre-
sented employees.' Accordingly, the Employer's motion is denied.
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-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].
Upon consideration of the report on objections, the Employer's ex-
ceptions and brief, the Petitioner's memorandum, and the entire record
in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
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 purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act: All designers "A," designers "B," drafts-
men "A," draftsmen "B," detailers, and tracers presently so classified
in the drafting sections of the product engineering department of
the Pittsburgh Works, excluding employees of the engineering de-
velopment section, guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and all
other employees.
5. The election herein began at 10 a. m. on October 17, 1956. On
the afternoon before the election, the Employer distributed a letter
from the general manager of the Pittsburgh Works to all employees
in the voting unit, in which there appeared, among other things, the
following :
I would like to briefly review with you some of the substantial
benefits which the company has voluntarily placed into effect for
for salaried employees :
1. Group Life Insurance.
2. Health and Accident Insurance.
3. Vacation Plan.
z Section 9 (c) (4) of the Act.
a See The Baker and Taylor Co., 109 NLRB 245; Growers Warehouse Company, Inc.,
114 NLRB 1568; A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628.
* See Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 117 NLRB 749, in which the Board
dismissed the petition in Case No 6-RC-1864, supra, for the reason that the employees
sought were only a segment of the Employer 's unrepresented technical employees.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING CO. 747
4. Paid Holidays. '
5. Liberal Overtime Provisions.
6. Annual Improvement Salary Increases.
7. Cost-of-Living Adjustment Plan.
8. Pension Plan.
9. Educational Opportunities Through College Tuition Re-
fund Plan.
The next morning the Petitioner distributed a letter to the employees
between 7: 45 and 8 a. m. The letter came to the attention of the
Employer a few minutes before 8:15 a. m. when the workday was
scheduled to begin. This letter contained the following paragraph
to which the Employer objects in particular:
Local management goes to great length to impress us with their
generosity-Let's look at the facts-The items listed in [the
Employer's] letter of yesterday are benefits negotiated with
[the Employer] for Production and Maintenance people by UAW
and passed along to us in restricted form-Had it not been for
negotiations with the Union we are certain that many of the
benefits would not have been granted.
The Employer alleges that this paragraph is false both in asserting
that the benefits mentioned in the Employer's letter were negotiated
by UAW for the production and maintenance people and passed on
to those in the unit, and in asserting that the benefits were given to
the employees in the unit in more restricted form than to the produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The Employer contends that the
election should therefore be set aside because the employees were not
in a position to evaluate the truth of the Petitioner's letter and the
Employer had no opportunity to rebut the assertions of the letter
due to the timing of its distribution and the Board's Peerless Plywood'
rule prohibiting campaign speeches on company time and property
within 24 hours before the scheduled time for an election.
The basic principle governing cases such as this is that expressed in
Merck ct Company, Inc : 6
Absent threats or other elements of intimidation we will not un-
dertake to censor or police union campaigns or consider the truth
or falsity of official union utterances, unless the ability of the em-
ployees to evaluate such utterances has been so impaired by the
use of forged campaign material or other campaign trickery that
the uncoerced desires of the employees cannot be determined in an
election.
5 Peerless Plyiotioil- Gold W y, 107 NLRB 427.
104 NLRB 891 at 892.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear under Board precedents, as'indeed it appears under the
very statement of principle set forth above, that mere falsity does not
alone constitute campaign trickery which warrants setting aside an
election. Examination of the cases relied, upon by the Employer re-
veals that in each instance in which the Board-has.made an exception to,
this general principle, not only was a false utterance made, but the-
circumstances were such that the knowledge of the true facts was
readily available to the publisher of the utterance but not readily avail-
able to the employees or the other party or parties.' Here the issue of
the comparison of the benefits received by the employees involved to,
those received by the employees already represented by the Petitioner,.
according to the allegation of the Employer in its brief, had been raised
by Petitioner in its campaign literature prior to the Employer's letter.
The employees in the unit worked in the same building as production
and maintenance employees and a number of them had transferred into
the unit from production and maintenance jobs. Thus, the basic ques-
tion underlying the alleged false statements was already in issue before
the Petitioner distributed its letter and the necessary information to
evaluate the Petitioner's claims was close at hand if not in the imme-
diate possession of the employees in the unit from the time the issue
was first raised.
Contrary to the Employer's contention, it is not material in this case
that the Employer could not address its employees on company time
and property after the distribution of the letter and before the election
without violating the rule of Peerless Plywood Company." As pointed
out in that decision,' the Peerless Plywood rule bans only 1 form of
campaigning during the 24-hour period prior to an election, and not
any other form. Moreover, the Board's reluctance to censor or police
union,campaign.utterances is not premised on any;assumption that, an
employer may always have an opportunity to reply to any-specific
union utterance . It is based, as indicated above, upon the premise that
in the atmosphere of a preelection campaign, absent unusual circum-
stances , employees will have sufficient knowledge to evaluate cam-
paign propaganda. Accordingly, while not condoning such misrep-
resentations as the Employer alleges were contained therein, we are of
the opinion that the Petitioner's campaign letter did not constitute
campaign trickery such as would require setting aside the election.
Therefore, in agreement with the Regional Director, we find no merit
in the Employer's objections.1° As the Petitioner received a majority
7 See Reiss Associates , Inc, 116 NLRB 217, The Gummed Products Company, -112
NLRB 1092.
8 Supra
9 107 NLRB 427, 430
10 See Comfort Slipper Corporation , 112 NLRB 183; Gong Bell Manufacturing Co ,
114 NLRB 342.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING Co. 749
of the votes cast in the election , we shall certify the Petitioner as rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Union, United Automobile, Air-
,craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as
the duly designated collective -bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.]
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company and International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case
No. 6-RC-1864. March 22,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Thackery,
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-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all drafting employees
in the maintenance department at the Employer's Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Works. The Employer contends that this unit is
inappropriate.
The Employer's Pittsburgh Works consists of five buildings or
plants. Operations are subdivided into general manager's, account-
ing, engineering, purchasing, and manufacturing divisions. Since
1949 the Petitioner has represented a unit of hourly paid production
and maintenance employees, all of whom are in the manufacturing
division.'
In the maintenance department, which is part of the manufacturing
division, there are five drafting employees in the classifications of
' See 84 NLRB 30.
117 NLRB No. 109.