Duro Fittings Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1568 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and we will give specific notice to that effect to all our members
who are employed by any such employer and to all other em-
ployees of such employer who are represented by us.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
of AMERICA, GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELP-
ERS LOCAL No. 554, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Duro Fittings Company and Charlotte Adame, Petitioner and
UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-RD-415. June 8, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On February 26, 1959, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by
the Regional Director among the employees in the unit described be-
low. After the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots
which showed that, of approximately 141 eligible voters, 131 cast
valid ballots, of which 94 were for, and 37 against, the Union. There
were no challenged ballots.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the election. After an investigation, the Regional Director on
April 1, 1959, issued his report on objections, in which he found that
the objections did not raise substantial and material issues affecting
the results of the election, and he recommended that they be over-
ruled and that the Union be certified as the exclusive representative
of the employees involved. The Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
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 Rodgers and
Jenkins].
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 Petitioner, an individual employed by the Employer, asserts
that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees involved. The Union is
123 NLRB No. 192.
DURO FITTINGS COMPANY 1569
a labor organization currently recognized by the Employer as the
exclusive bargaining representative of such employees.
3. A 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.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the
parties, constitute a unit 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
Los Angeles, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Re-
gional Director's report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record
in this case.
The first objection was that the election notices had been defaced.
On the morning after Board notices of the elections were posted on
the bulletin board and in the restrooms, it was called to the Employer's
attention that all of the notices had been defaced by the placement of
X markings in the "yes" squares and by the tearing out of the "no"
square on one of the notices. The Employer communicated the matter
to the Regional Director and was instructed to remove the defaced
notices. New notices were supplied and were posted the next morn-
ing, the day before the election. The Regional Director found no
evidence that the Union was responsible for the defacement of the
notices and concluded that, as substantially all the eligible voters
voted and the defaced notices were removed and replaced prior, to the
election, the defacement of the notices was insufficient ground for
setting aside the election. The Employer contends, however, that the
posting of new notices, as replacements for the defaced ones, on the
day before the election-after the employees had clocked in-gave
the employees too little time to study and familiarize themselves with
the material therein, especially since a large percentage of the em-
ployees did not readily read and understand English. In support of
this contention, the Employer states that it had made a request of the
Regional Director that the ballots be printed in both English and
Spanish. However, whether or not the Regional Director should
have provided sample ballots printed in both Spanish and English, a
matter which we are unable to determine on this record, the Employer
made no reference to this circumstance in its objections and did not
file a separate objection on such basis. Thus, having accepted the
Regional Director's decision to post sample ballots in English only,
the Employer may not now rely upon its request for sample ballots
printed in both English and Spanish to support its contention that
508889-60-vol. 123-100
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees needed a longer time to familiarize themselves with the
sample ballots printed in English. In the circumstances , we believe
that the employees had ample time to read and understand the posted
sample ballots prior to the election.' We conclude that the first objec-
tion is no basis for upsetting the results of the election.
The second objection relates to alleged false and misleading state-
ments made by the Union in two leaflets . These statements are as
follows :
ARM TWISTING
A few weeks ago we were asked to sign a petition rejecting any
union to represent the workers of the Duro Fittings Company
in the labor management negotiations . I don't need to tell you
how many of us felt somebody was twisting my arm to sign this
petition ; it became obvious that if I did not sign THE petition
circulated by the floor lady the Company could attempt to dis-
miss anybody who did not sign that petition. It is indeed in-
credible and regretable that management would use such low
means to obtain whatever they have in mind. I believe that we
are all tired of continuing to work under these conditions of fear,
blackmail , merit system (brown-nosing ) etc. But don 't despair
and get ready for better things to come. A secret election is to
take place at the Company under the supervision of a Govern-
ment Labor Department representative ( Thank God) AND
SINCE THIS TIME NOBODY WILL BE TWISTING
YOUR ARM and since it is a secret ballot everyone will be able
to show that we want a Union to represent us and that we will
be negotiating with management pretty darn soon. VOTE FOR
UNION REPRESENTATION.
COMMON RIGHTS DENIED
In the election to be held Thursday , February 26th, the Com-
pany is attempting to complete its program of destroying the
basic rights and privileges of the Duro employees; rights and
privileges freely recognized and granted to millions of workers
in America today !
COMPANY GUILTY OF UNFAIR ACTS
The Company has been found guilty by the Government of the
United States of lengthy unfair labor practices against their
employees , but they will continue on their way , ignoring the
rights of their employees to dignity on the job, and the protec-
tion of guarantees in a signed agreement . The Company does
not grant the decency of recognizing the rights guaranteed by the
laws of our land.
I See Kenyon-Peck, Inc., 121 NLRB 780.
MAR-JAC POULTRY COMPANY 1571
The Employer contends that these statements constitute a gross
misrepresentation of the reason for the election, and were timed so
that the Employer had no opportunity to clarify the matter, due to
the bar of the 24-hour rule. We do not1 agree with the Employer
that these statements form a basis for setting aside the election. It is
immaterial that as a practical matter there may have been insufficient
time for the Employer to prepare a rebuttal for posting on bulletin
boards or circulation among the employees. The statements were
circulated to lead employees to believe that the Employer, through
the Petitioner, a leadwoman or floorlady,2 instigated the filing of the
decertification petition and that it might discharge anyone who did
not sign the document circulated to establish an adequate showing of
interest. The truth or falsity of such assertions was not peculiarly
within the knowledge of the Union. They could, in our opinion,
reasonably be understood by the employees to be campaign propa-
ganda and not assertions of fact. The Board does not attempt to
police this kind of campaign propaganda.' The second objection is
therefore also without merit.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and the tally of
ballots shows that the Union has received a majority of the valid
votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified UAW-AFL-CIO as the designated collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found by the
Board to be appropriate.]
The Regional Director found that the Petitioner is classified as a leadwoman, a classi-
fication sometimes referred to as floorlady.
3 Craft Mantefacturing Co., 122 NLRB 341.
McKibbon Brothers , Inc., d/b/a Mar-Jac Poultry Company and
Local 454, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-
4080. June 8, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
dated March 20, 1958, an election was conducted on April 15, 1958,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, among certain employees at the Employer's Gaines-
ville, Georgia, plant. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately
119 eligible voters, 105 cast ballots , of which 28 were for the Peti-
123 NLRB No. 184.