Davlan Engineering, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1982

262 N.L.R.B. 850 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Davlan Engineering, Inc. and District No. 9, Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 14-
RC-9383
July 13, 1982
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMAN
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion held May 15, 1981,1 and the Regional Direc-
tor's Supplemental Report recommending disposi-
tion of same. The Board has reviewed the record
in light of the exceptions and brief and hereby
adopts the Regional Director's findings 2 and rec-
ommendations.3
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for District No. 9, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Section
9(a) of the Act, the foregoing labor organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the following appropriate unit for the purposes of
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was: 34 for, and 16 against, the
Petitioner; there were 2 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to
affect the results.
2 The Employer has excepted to certain credibility resolutions of the
Hearing Officer and adopted by the Regional Director. It is the estab-
lished policy of the Board not to overturn a hearing officer's credibility
resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling
Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961); Stretch-Tex Ca, 118
NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no sufficient basis for disturbing the
credibility resolutions in this case.
3 Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we agree with the Regional Di-
rector's determination that employees Rachels, German, Nickels, and
Hanicke were not agents of the Union. In so doing, we continue to
adhere to established Board precedent which holds that the solicitation of
authorization cards by employees, standing alone, does not make those
employees agents of the union. Allied Metal Hose Company, Inc., 219
NLRB 1135 (1975); Jefferson Food Mart. Inc., d/b/la Call-A-Mart, 214
NLRB 225, 228 (1974). Accordingly, statements made by the four em-
ployees are not imputable to the Petitioner, and thus the Petitioner has
not violated the standards of N.LR.B. v. Sayair Manufacturing Ca, 414
U.S. 270 (1973).
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its 3644 Scarlet Oak Blvd., St.
Louis County, Missouri, facility, excluding
office clerical and professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I find that the Savair
violations committed by employees Rachels,
German, Nickels, and Hanicke are sufficient to
warrant setting aside the election. The Hearing Of-
ficer concluded that the above-mentioned employ-
ees conditioned reduction or waiver of initiation
fees upon employees signing authorization cards
prior to the election but concluded that they were
not agents of the Union and that there was ro evi-
dence that the Petitioner's organizer, Owens, or
Business Representative Vaughn made or ratified
such remarks.
Inasmuch as four employees were given authori-
ty to solicit authorization cards and that Vaughn
provided Hanicke with authorization cards and
instructions to distribute the cards on his own time,
I find that they were granted a limited agency to
act on behalf of the Union and that any comments
they made with respect to such solicitation of cards
is attributable to the Union. Granted such employ-
ees are not agents of the Union with respect to all
matters concerning the Union's organizational cam-
paign, when employees are permitted or authorized
to solicit union authorization cards, any comments
they make to other employees about such cards are
within the scope of their limited agency. See Star
Expansion Industries Corporation, 170 NLRB 364,
365 at fn. 8 (1968); N.L.R.B. v. Georgetown Dress
Corporation, 537 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976). Because
of the widespread nature of the Savair violations
and the size of the unit, a new election is warrant-
ed.4
4 In agreement with the Regional Director's recommendation that Ob-
jections 3, 4, and 5 be overruled, I would find that the alleged misrepre-
sentations do not warrant the setting aside of the election under either
the majority or dissenting view expressed in General Knit of California.
Inc., 239 NLRB 619 (1978).
262 NLRB No. 104
850