Cleveland Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CLEVELAND PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYER and LOCAL 217,
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-320
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
August 2, 1949
On February 23, 1949, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a Tally of Ballots which showed that of approximately 27 eli-
gible voters, 26 valid votes were cast. Of these, 11 votes were for the
Petitioner and 15 against. There were no void or challenged ballots.
On February 23, 1949, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Conduct
of the Election upon the grounds that the Employer "in a letter to the
employees capitalized on the money consideration given to employees
since the filing of a petition for a representation election, also a threat
of the loss of overtime in the event a Union came into the Plant."
Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the Objections and on
April 14, 1949, issued and served upon the parties a Report on Objec-
tions. He found that the introduction of a shift premium and year-
end bonus (the money consideration) was. not so related to the election
in time or otherwise as to have any probable effect upon it, but that
the statements in the letter with respect to overtime conveyed a threat
of loss of benefits, and, therefore, was coercive in character and affected
the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative. The Re-
gional Director, therefore, recommended that the election of February
23, 1949, be set aside. The Employer filed Exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report on Objections. No exceptions were filed by
Petitioner.
On February 19, 1949, or 4 days prior to the holding of the election,
the Employer recounted in a letter sent to all its employees the efforts
made to improve conditions of employment and some of the benefits
181 N. L. R. B. 402.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
513
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which had resulted from such efforts. The Employer contrasted the.
alleged disruptive conduct of unions with the efforts of the Employer-
to find "work" for the employees under conditions which in organized
plants would lead to unemployment. The parts of the letter which
the Regional Director believes conveyed a veiled but nevertheless clear
threat of loss of overtime in the event the Union was successful is as
follows: "And what about overtime? Most organized plants work
on a 40-hour schedule. At Cleveland Plastics, those of you who so
desire can continue on substantial overtime at time and one-half rates.
Figure out what it would cost you if a Union contract forced us to work
on a 40-hour schedule . . . We do know that any increase in the hourly
rate would probably mean a reduction in the overtime work that you
have been getting . . . Ask yourself if you want to continue working
steadily, at good rates and with substantial overtime, or whether you
.want to take the chance of strikes, lost wages and a contract that might
result in loss of overtime work." In the Regional Director's Opinion,.
the quoted portions of the letter reasonably conveyed the implication
that the Employer's policy with respect to overtime would no longer
continue if the employees were organized. The Employer on the other
hand argues that the letter was nothing more than a recitation of facts
and permissible argument thereon, and that the Regional Director
erred in finding the letter to constitute a threat of loss of overtime..
We find merit in the Employer's contentions. Unlike the Regional
Director, we find no threat of reprisal either implicit or explicit in
the Employer's letter; but rather a recitation therein of the possible
consequences flowing from the selection of the Union as bargaining
representative.'
We find that the facts in this case do not establish a substantial inter-
ference by the Employer with the conduct of the election or the exercise
of a free choice of representative by the employees participating
therein. As the Petitioner has filed no exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report on Objections, as we have overruled the Petitioner's
Objections herein considered, and as the Tally of Ballots shows that
no collective bargaining representative has been chosen, we shall dis-
miss the petition herein.3
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
3 Mutter of L. H. Butcher Company, 81 N. L. R. B . 1184 ; Matter of Electric Steel
Foundry, 74 N. L. R. B. 129.
z Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [ Members Reynolds, Murdock , and Gray].