E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 238 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of E . I. DuPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-45
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
January 19, 1949
On June 30 and July 1, 1948, pursuant to a Decision and Direction
of Election issued by the Board herein,' an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region. Thereafter, a Tally of Ballots was
furnished the parties. The Tally shows that, of the 3,167 valid votes
counted 1,551 were cast for and 1,616 were cast against the Petitioner.2
There were 9 void and 14 challenged ballots.
On July 6, 1948, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. It asserted that certain activity of the Em-
ployer, more fully set forth below, prevented a free choice by the em-
ployees in the balloting, and requested that the election be set aside.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation. On August 20, 1948, he issued
and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections. in which
he found that the objections raised no substantial and material issues,
and recommended that they be overruled and that the petition be dis-
missed. On September 7, 1948, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report.
The Petitioner's request that the election be set aside is based pri-
marily upon the following undisputed facts : On December 23, 1947,
approximately 1 week after the Petitioner had first claimed recogni
1 77 N L R . B. 935 The Board previously delegated its powers with respect to this
case to a three -man panel In view of the importance of the question which has sub-
sequently arisen, we deem it advisable for the full Board to consider the issue . Accord-
ingly, we hereby unanimously revoke the said delegation of powers.
, The Association of Chemical Employees requested, and was granted , permission to
withdraw its name from the ballot
81 N. L. R. B., No. 39.
238
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 239
tion and filed its petition herein, the Employer executed a contract
with District 50,3 granting it exclusive recognition and providing,
inter alia, for check-off of dues and formal grievance procedures.
Thereafter, and continuously until June 30, 1948, the date of the elec-
tion, notwithstanding the Board's consideration and rejection of the
December 23, 1947, contract as a bar to this proceeding, the Employer
implemented its terms in all material respects. It regularly checked
off dues, and permitted District 50's four-man grievance committee,
on company time, to investigate grievance matters throughout the
plant among the more than 3,700 employees. This procedure not only
followed the terms of the 1947 contract, but was also in accord with
a practice of many years' standing.
In this proceeding, we consider the foregoing facts only as they may
or may not support the Petitioner's attempt to question the results of
the election at this time. The Petitioner must have learned of the
execution of the contract in December 1947; certainly it knew the de-
tailed provisions of the agreement when it was discussed in the Feb-
ruary hearing, more than 4 months before the election. The
implementation of the contract followed naturally upon its execution,
yet the Petitioner chose not to protest during the 6 months intervening
between the making of the contract and the election. Instead, it
elected to await the results of the election. Without determining
whether or not the activity here objected to constituted interference
with the election, on the facts in this particular case we believe that,
in view of the Petitioner's past acquiescence, it may not now ask the
election be set aside because of this activity 4 We need not, nor do we
here, decide what view we would take of similar activity under differ-
ent circumstances .5
The Petitioner urges our decision in the Radio Corporation of
America case 6 in support of its objections. The facts in that case,
however, are distinguishable from those in the instant proceeding.
There, a contract between the employer and a rival union was executed
after the Board hearing; the election followed the date of the hearing
by less than 4 weeks; and the employer, 1 week before the election,
granted holiday pay for which it publicly credited the contracting
union.
The Petitioner also alleges that the Employer sanctioned campaign-
ing activity by District 50's grievance committee during working
° District 50, United Mine Workers of America, had been the bargaining representative
of the employees involved herein for several years, but its name was not on the.ballot in
this election because it was not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.
' Matter of Curtiss Wright Corporation , 35 N. L. R. B. 212; Matter of Precision Castings
Company, 27 N. L. R. B. 491.
° Cf. Matter of Mad-West Piping and Supply Co., 62 N. L. R B. 1060.
° Matter of Radio Corporation of America , 74 N. L. R B. 1729. ( Mr. Reynolds dissenting.)
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, while prohibiting the Petitioner's representatives from engag-
ing in similar activity. It appears that the grievance committee, while
handling grievance matters among the employees, did campaign for
a "No" vote against the Petitioner. The Regional Director's inves-
tigation reveals, however, that when apprised of this fact, the Em-
ployer made several attempts to stop it, once reprimanding the
committeemen in the presence of a group of workers. We agree with
the Regional Director that this objection is without merit.7
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the objections filed
by the Petitioner do not raise material or substantial issues. We there-
fore adopt the Regional Director's report; and, in accordance there-
with, we hereby overrule the objections. As the Tally of Ballots
shows that no collective bargaining representative has been selected,
we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives filed herein be, and it is, dismissed.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and GRAY took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
l The Petitioner also contended that the Employer improperly influenced the employees
by circulating a letter to each of them on June 10 , 1948 The letter commented on the
pending election , and was devoid of any promise or benefit or threat of reprisal. In
agreement with the Regional Director's recommendation, to which the Petitioner did not
except, we and that this objection also is without merit.