Burnside Steel Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 92 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Burnside Steel Foundry Company and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 13-RC-11791
August 14, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted by the Regional Director for Region 13
on March 27, 1969. At the conclusion of the
balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots, which showed that of approximately 368
eligible voters, 355 cast ballots of which 148 were
for, and 177 against, the Petitioner, with 2 void and
28 challenged ballots. The challenges were
insufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
for Region 13 investigated the issues raised by the
objections, and on May 15, 1969, issued and duly
served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in
which he recommended that objection 1 and an
unnumbered objection be overruled, and that
objection 2 be sustained. Accordingly, the Regional
Director recommended that the election be set aside
and that a second election be directed. Thereafter,
the Employer filed exceptions to the Report and a
brief in support of its exceptions, and the Petitioner
filed a brief opposing the exceptions and supporting
the Regional Director's Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the
parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Chicago, Illinois, plant, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director ' s Report ,' the Employer ' s exceptions
thereto and supporting brief, the Petitioner ' s brief in
opposition to said exceptions and in support of said
Report, and the entire record in this case , and finds
as follows:
Objection 2 is based upon a slide shown by the
Employer during an antiunion speech delivered to
the employees . The slide was a photograph of a
sample official secret ballot containing the names of
the Employer and the Petitioner . There was an "X"
in the "No" box. Below the ballot , and as part of
the slide, the following printed lines appeared:
ONLY YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE CAN
DECIDE
YOU ARE FREE TO VOTE AS YOU
WANT
In Our Opinion
A UNION IS NOT NECESSARY
at BURNSIDE
This slide was one of several which, together with
the Employer's speech, stressed, in noncoercive
terms, the Employer's belief that the employees did
not need union representation. It was shown after
the showing of an unmarked ballot, and
accompanied by remarks indicating that the decision
on how to vote was entirely up to the voter. Unlike
a poster or a leaflet, the slide was unavailable for
consideration out of context.
We do not believe that the use of the ballot in this
case tended to suggest Board approval of the
material thereon. Compare Superior Knitting
Corporation, 112 NLRB 984, 986, concerning Board
policy not to permit the reproduction and
distribution of marked sample ballots. See also Rett
Electronics, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 168. For the
above reasons, we disagree with the Regional
Director's recommendation and shall overrule
Petitioner's objection 2.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner
has not received a majority of the valid votes cast in
the election, we shall certify the results of the
election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of valid votes
have not been cast for United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, in the election herein , and that
said Union does not constitute the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
in the absence of any exceptions , thereto, we adopt pro forma the
Regional Director's recommendations that objection I and an unnumbered
objection be overruled
178 NLRB No. 32