Condenser Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of CONDENSER CORPORATION OF AMERICA and`' UNITED
ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA
In the Matter of CORNELL-DU_BILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION and UNITED
ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA
Cases Nos. R-323 and R-324, respectively
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 2, 1942
On July 9, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein.called
the Board, issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding.' Pursuant to the Direction of Elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 23, 1942, under
the,direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City). On July- 1942, United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, herein called-the United, filed
objections to the election. On August 26, 1942, ;the Regional Director,
acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor;Reations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued and,duly
served on the parties an Election Report and Report on Objections.
As to the balloting and its resulta, the Regional Director reported
as follows;
Total on Eligibility List----------------------------------- 1,059'
Total *Ballots Cast---------------------------------------- 991
Total Ballots Challenged---------------------------------- ,_J%_
Total Blank Ballots------ ---------------- ------------------ 0
Total Void Ballots--------------------------------------- 0
Total Valid Votes Counted-------------------------------- 912
Votes Cast for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local 401, C. I. 0---------------------------- 403
Votes Cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local B1041, A. F. of L------------------------------ 495
Votes Cast for Neither Union----------------------------- 14
142 N. L. R B 251.
45 N. L. R. B., No. 142.
968
CONDENSER CORPORATION OF AMERICA 969
On August 31, 1942, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local, B-1041, herein called the I. B. E. W., and on September 1,
1942, the United and the Companies, respectively, filed objections to
the Election Report and Report on Objections.2 On September 3,
1942, the -Acting Regional Director issued and duly served upon the
parties--a Supplemental Report on Objections to the Election Report
and Report on Objections.
On September 18, 1942, the Board, having duly considered the
matter, referred the proceedings to the Regional Director for the
purpose of a' hearing on the objections. Pursuant thereto, a hearing
was held between October 15 and November 4, 1942, at New York
City, before Howard Myers, Trial Examiner. The Board, the Com-
panies, the I. B. E. W., and the United appeared, participated; and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On or about November
20, the United, the I. B. E. W., and the Companies filed briefs which
the Board has considered.3 The Companies and the I. B. E. W. also
filed ekceptions to certain of the Regional Director's rulings ofi chal-
lenged ballots; the United did not specifically except to the Regional
Director's rulings on challenges.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
The United contends that by the acts and conduct of the Companies
and the I. B: E. W. the employees were deprived of a free choice of
representatives. The allegations contained in the objections filed by
the United may be summarized as follows : '
1. That shortly before the election, Robert Brown, William
Stransky, Joseph Russo and Anthony Kubal, well-knoWil United
adherents, were- indi5,idually called into the personnel office and
warned by the personnel manager to cease electioneering and
soliciting membership for the United during working hours on
pain of discharge.
2. That Robert Brown, a member of the United, was told by an
I. B. E. W. adherent that unless he joined the I. B. E. W. imme-
diately he would be required to pay a $3 initiation fee and all
back dues to that organization; that thereafter Brown was called
2 The I. B. E W and the Companies did not object to the conduct of the election but
limited their objections to the Regional Director's rulings on certain challenged ballots
and to the recommendation that a hearing on the objections of the United be held.
3 On November 9, 1942, the United filed a motion to reopen the record for the purpose
of adducing additional evidence. The Board has considered the motion and it is hereby
,denied.
.970 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-to the-.personnel office where Bleich, the Companies ' president,
severely reprimanded him and sent him home for the balance
of the day.
3. That Charlotte Van Nest , an I. B. E . W. adherent , was pro-
moted to a supervisory position shortly before the election and that
she had free run of the plant during the pre-election campaign.
4. That Stella Knauss, a member of the I. B. E. W . executive
board, was promoted to a supervisory position some time prior
to the election and that in this position she wore an I. B. E. W.
election badge , electioneered for the I. B. E. W. and urged all
employees under her to vote for the I . B. E. W.
5. That Agnes Drennan was threatened by her forelady that
she would lose her job if she joined the United.
6. That Mary Mansueto was instructed by her foreman to take
off her United election tag.
7. That Bleich made a hostile remark to Vera Leopold, a United
member, with respect to the United election tag she was wearing.
8. That on the day of the election and during the balloting,
Frank Diana , job agent of the'I. B . E. W., gained entrance-to the
plant with the permission of the employer and strolled around
the plant ; that Bleich, Kitty Heslin and Frank Thornton at the
time of the balloting spoke to the workers waiting to vote; that
Thornton and Diana are friends and political adherents.
9. That Bleich and four foremen patrolled the corridors where
the employees were waiting to vote; that Russo protested to Stei-
gelmeyer, one of the foremen; that Steigelmeyer replied that he
was acting on Bleich's orders and that Bleich'immediately came
over to Russo and reprimanded him for talking too much.
10. That a number of supervisors besides Van Nest and Knauss
(see Objections 3 and 4 ) wore I. B. E. W . badges in the plant
and electioneered for the I. B. E. W.
11. That I. B: E. W. officials distributed election badges and
urged employees to vote for the I. B . E. W. at the polling place.
12. That Charlotte Van Nest, a supervisor, was an election op-
server for the I . B. E. W. (see Objection 3).
13. That I. B. E. W. observers spoke to employees waiting,to
vote and that Van Nest urged some employees to vote for the
I. B. E. W.
14. That supervisors who were ineligible to vote nevertheless
stood in line with the employees and sought to cast ballots and
that when they were refused permission to do so by the Board
agent , they engaged in vituperation of the United.
15. That the foreman of the shipping and receiving department,
despite the fact that by Board direction that department was not
CONDENSER CORPORATION OF AMERICA 97 1
included among the voting groups in the election, marched with
his men to the polls with the permission of the Companies and
demanded that he and his men be permitted to vote.
16. That on the Saturday preceding the election the mainte-
nance men, known- to be United adherents, were threatened with
discharge. ,
17. That on the afternoon of the day of the election a group of
I. B. E. W. adherents led by Charlotte Davis, an I. B. E. W.
steward, left their employment and "ganged" outside of the plant
gate that led to the polling place; that this group met the night
shift as they went in to vote and threatened these employees with
violence if they voted for the United; and that neither Davis
nor the other employees were ever reprimanded or disciplined
by the Companies for this action.
18. That shortly after the conclusion of the balloting Russo,
Kubal and Stransky were attacked and brutally assaulted by a
mob of I. B. E. W. adherents led by Van Nest and Davis and that
this same mob later attacked the United headquarters, breaking
the windows and terrorizing the United members who were pres-
ent there; and that among the mob were supervisory employees
of the Companies.
19. That on the day after the election, some United members
in the plant went to the office of Octave Blake, president of the
Cornell Dubilier Electric Corporation, and insisted upon the
dismissal of the assailants of Russo, Kubal and Stransky; that
Blake refused this request and that the mayor of South Plainfield,
from, whom ,police protection for these three men was sought,
warned the members of the United that he would not tolerate
United activities in the town.
20. That the election was prematurely held.
At the hearing no relevant evidence was introduced to sustain
objections numbered 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 above. We shall
discuss the remaining objections in order:
1. The evidence indicates and we find that Brown, Stransky, Russo,
and Kubal, despite repeated warnings that their union activities on
company time and property were violative of well-established and
widely publicized company rules; continued to solicit membership and
distribute propaganda for the United on company time and property.
The evidence further indicates that I. B. E. W. members who engaged
in similar conduct were likewise reprimanded whenever their activities
came to the attention of a supervisor. We accordingly find that the
conduct of the personnel manager under these circumstances did not
constitute interference with the conduct of the election. The objection
will be, and it hereby is, overruled.
972 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The evidence indicates, that on or about ,July 19, Brown was
reprimanded for -admittedly endeavoring to enlist three or four girl
employees in the United during working hours. He was warned by
the personnel manager and by Bleich that if he did not cease soliciting
for the United on company time and property, he would be discharged.
On July 20, Brown was observed by Foreman Deutsch distributing
membership blanks and discussing initiation fees with two employees.
Although Brown denied passing out application blanks on July 20,
we credit the testimony of Deutsch and Bleich and find that Brown,
was sent home for violating a company rule after repeated warnings.
We therefore find the objection without merit and it is accordingly
overruled.
4. The United' contends that Knauss was a' supervisor. The evi-
dence indicates that Knauss is employed in the silver mica room, that
she is an hourly paid employee whose duties consist, in the main, of
distributing the mica to the various operators and of collecting the
various materials for the operators. Knauss testified that she per-
forms the same work during the day that the night supervisor, Ann
Jerema, performs at night. The evidence indicates, however, that
Jerema receives a higher rate of pay than does Knauss and that Jerema
performs additional and more responsible work. Stransky, a United
observer, testified that on one occasion Knauss told him that she was
"the boss" of the silver mica room. Knauss denied making the state-
ment. Counsel for the United introduced in evidence Knauss' time
card for August 5, 1942, which indicates that Knauss was considered
a supervisory employee by the checker. The Companies contend that
they should not be bound by this designation. Knauss had been a
member-of the I. B. E. W. for many years and a member of its nego-
tiating committee since February 1941. In a strike of production
employees called around April 1942,'Knauss'participated; she did not
participate in the slipervisors' strike in the, early part of May. The
record is barren of any evidence that Knauss had authority to hire-or
discharge or even to recommend such action. Although the evi-
dence as to Knauss' supervisory status is close, we are not convinced
that the record establishes that Knauss held a position so clearly super-
visory that she could reasonably be regarded by the employees as a
representative of management. Her activities on behalf of the I. B.
E. W. therefore cannot be properly imputed to the Companies. Fur-
thermore; there is no evidence that on the day of the election-, Knauss
urged anyone to vote for the I. B. E. W. The objection is therefore
overruled.
7. Leopold testified that on the morning of the election, Bleich
observed Leopold speaking to another employee and that Bleich, upon
being informed by Leopold that Leopold needed help, replied, "Just
CONDENSER CORPORATION OF AMERICA ' 973
because you are wearing that badge, don't think you are going to get
any help around here." Bleich denied making the remark attributed
to him by Leopold and testified that he last spoke to her •3 days
before the election, at which time he observed her talking to a group
of colored girls outside of her department, and that on that occasion
he told her to go back to work. The record discloses that members
of the United, as well as members ,of the I. B. E. W., were permitted
during the pre-election period and on the day of the election to wear
campaign badges and buttons in, the plant. Under these 'circum-
stancc,^, -qp credit Bleich's denial of the statements attributed to him by
Leopold. This objection is accordingly overruled.
8. No evidence was introduced ,to sustain the allegation that Diana
was permitted to stroll around the plant on election day. Nor was
any evidence introduced to sustain the objection that Bleich, Heslin,
or Thornton did anything on the day of the election to interfere
with the rights of the employees in their selection of a representative.
Furthermore, the evidence indicates that although Thornton and
Diana are friends, they are not members of the same political party.
We accordingly 'find these objections without merit.
9. We find no evidence in the record that Bleich reprimanded
Russo nor does the evidence indicate that any foremen spoke to any of
the voters on the day of the election or in any way interfered with the
conduct of the balloting. According to the,testimony of Bleich and
Steigelmeyer which we credit, Steigelmeyer's presence in Department
5 was occasioned by the absence of Bleich who instructed Steigelmeyer
to take charge of the department while Bleich was away. Russo left
his bench and inquired as to why Steigelmeyer was in the department
and after Steigelmeyer, ,explained, Russo returned to his bench. In
the absence of evidence that Steigelmeyer in any way interfered with
the voters, we find that the record does not support this allegation.
The objection is overruled.
10. We have found that Knaiiss is not a supervisor. No evidence
was introduced to support the allegation that Van Nest is a super-
visor. Furthermore, Van Nest was, an I. B. E. W. observer at the
election and the United did not then challenge her right to act as
such nor did it challenge her vote. Under these circumstances Knauss
and Van Nest were entitled to wear I. B. E. W. badges as were the
other employees. We therefore find this objection without merit.
,13. The evidence indicates that both Otto, the United observer, and
Van Nest spoke to employees waiting to vote. Both were reprimanded
by the Board's agent for doing so. Subsequent to this rebuke neither
Van Nest nor Otto engaged in such conduct. We accordingly find
that the evidence in support of this allegation is not sufficient to estab-
974' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lish interference by the I.B. E. W . or-the Companies . The objection
is overruled. -
14. The record is barren of evidence to support this allegation.
Only one incident occurred involving a disturbance in the ' polling
place during the election . One Binicassi , who was about to be in-
ducted into the Army and who had left the employ of the Companies
2 or 3 weeks before the election , attempted to vote. Upon being chal-
lenged by Stransky and Kubal , the United observers , Binicassi's bal-
lot was placed in an envelope marked •̀`C11allenged ." Stransky and
Kubal testified that Binicassi thereupon warned them "I'll get'you
for that challenge outside." We find that under . the circumstances
this remark, even if made, did not constitute substantial interference
with the free choice of representatives.
18. There was no evidence introduced to sustain the allegation that
any supervisory employee witnessed or participated in the assaults-
upon Russo, Kubal , or Stransky or in the attack upon the United head-
quarters . The election was preceded by a hotly contested campaign.
Members of both unions engaged in fistfights with their opponents.
As early as April 1942 , prior to the strike , the police were called to
intervene in a fistfight between distributors of I. ,B . E. W. and United
leaflets. This intervention resulted in the arrest of two members of
each union. The record is not clear and hence can support no finding
as to which union is responsible for these and subsequent fistfights.
The stoning of the United headquarters was apparently but a con-
tinuation of these encounters . We therefore find the objection without
merit.
19. With respect to this objection Kubal testified that the mayor
came to Blake 's office, and that Blake and the other officials of the
Companies left the room while the mayor and the members of the
United discussed the matter . Kubal testified that the mayor said
that "the people are getting sick and tired of the trouble in the plant"
and that "so far as the C. I. O. is concerned and the organizers are
concerned if I see 'any more of you in town I will run you out."
However, it is undisputed that the mayor agreed - to furnish-protec-
tion during that day outside of working hours to Russo, Stransky,
and Kubal . Under these circiunstances, we find that the evidence
does not sustain this allegation.
20. This contention was previously rejected by the Board 4 The
Board said : "The United contends that no election in, this proceeding
should be held at this time because the effects of the unfair labor
practices committed by the Company have not yet been dissipated.
We have carefully considered this contention and all the circum-
stances involved and we are of the opinion and find that- 'an, election
4 42 N. L . It. B. 251.
CONDENSER CORPORATION OF AMERICA .975-'
free from - all employer compulsions, restraints and interference can
be held' at this time."
. .. CONCLUSIONS
Although some of the objections to the election filed by the United
raised substantial issues concerning the validity of the election and
although some evidence was introduced which tends to establish the
validity of 'several of these objections, we 'ai e of the opinion and 'find
that the evidence does not support the allegations and that there is
nothing in the conduct of the Companies or of their representatives
which,-would warrant us in setting aside the election. The record
indicates that both contending organizations campaigned vigorously
prior to the election and that the partisans, contrary to the rules of
the Companies, engaged in organizational activities within the plant.
Followers of both organizations engaged in unbecoming conduct, both
before and after the election, but we find that the election itself was
conducted in an orderly manner and the employees were afforded a
free choice of representatives. Accordingly, the objections of the
United are overruled.
We note that the results of the balloting are inconclusive and it is
therefore necessary to determine whether or not certain of the chal-
lenged ballots are valid or invalid. The Regional Director recom-
mended that the challenges to 7 of the first 28 challenged ballots set
forth in the Election Report be sustained. None of the parties has
excepted to the Regional Director's recommendations as to these bal-
lots. We hereby sustain the rulings of the Regional Director with
respect to these 7 challenged ballots. Since our finding that these 7
ballots are not valid, results in the I. B. E. W. having received a
majority, it is unnecessary to pass upon the remaining challenges. We
shall accordingly certify the I. B. E. W. as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
IT IS 1TEREBY CFRTIFIEI that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-1041, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc-
tion employees of Condenser Corporation of America and Cornell-
Dubilier Electric Corporation, South Plainfield, New Jersey, includ-
ing checkers, but excluding engineers, laboratory employees, shipping
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL , LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and receiving employees, watchmen, .maintenance, office and clerical
employees, supervisory employees, and foremen, as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-1041, affiliated with the, American Federation of
Labor, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.