Eastern Metal Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 239 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

- EASTERN METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION 239
In this quoted passage, and elsewhere in that case, it was made clear
that strict adherence to the Standards established for craft severance
would be demanded, and, generally that representation on a pure craft
basis would take precedence over - representation departmentally."
These criteria, in my opinion, have been disregarded in the majority
holding here. - Moreover, I view the present holding unwise not only
because it encourages" successive fra'ctionalizing of existing harmoni-
ous bargaining relationships, but as providing an open door to craft
unions to abuse the Board's severance standards by utilizing an ex-
tent-of-organization technique, where indeed such maneuvering would
not be sanctioned-in comparable circumstances involving requests for
original reprosentation.13 Thus a department may now be taken out
piecemeal-first the craftsmen of whose vote the union is presumably
more certain as a craft-unit, and later, the noncraft employees who can
be found to form a department with the, craftsmen. I am concerned
with the preservation of the right of a craft to separate representa-
tion, and the, essence of such a right existing in the traditionally
unique interests of the craft. Consequently, as I see the problem, there
is nothing in the long run which would be more destructive of the re-
spect for craft rights than to dilute the craft, and its special interests,
as in the manner produced by the instant majority decision-albeit the
craft union here involved has petitioned for this dilution.
Such rulings on severance questions as the majority has made here,
in my judgment, effectively impair the integrity of the American Pot-
ash doctrine, the constancy of which, as originally written, I regard as
of vital importance in assuring stable industrial relations. I would
accordingly deny the request for severance of the noncraftsmen, and
dismiss the petition.
v See my dissenting opinion in A. P. Oontrois Corp., 108 NLRB 593.
33 See, e. g., United Insurance Company; 108 NLRB 843 , 848; The Murray Company of
Teas Inc-, 107 NLRB 1571. See also Section 9 (e) (5) of the Act, which provides that
in determining the appropriateness of units, "the extent to which the einpIoyees have
organized shall not be controlling."
Eastern Metal Products Corporation and International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. RC-7.94 October 6, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated April 19,
1955,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 11, 1955, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
S Not reported in printed volumes of Boars Decisions and- Orders.
114 NLRB No. 56.
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate. There-
after, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties showing that out of
432 voters casting valid ballots, 200 voted for the Petitioner, 225 voted
for United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
419, and 7 voted against the participating labor organizations. Four
void ballots were cast and one was challenged. The challenged ballot
was not sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On May 13, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi-
gated the objections and, on July 25, 1955, duly served upon the parties
his report on objections in which, except as to one of the allegations
appearing in the Petitioner's first objection, he found that the objec-
tions were without merit and recommended that they be overruled.
As no exceptions have been filed to these recommendations of dismissal
by the Regional Director, we hereby adopt such recommendations.
In its objection No. 1, the Petitioner alleged, in part, that the UE's
local president, Nat Jordan, an employee of the Employer, circulated
throughout the plants during the 3 days before the election, elec-
tioneering on company time in behalf of the UE. The Regional Di-
rector found that Jordan did in fact go throughout the Employer's
plants on 3 days before the election, including the 24-hour period im-
mediately preceding the election, and that he interviewed a number
of employees in the plants while they were working at their jobs.
Jordan's absence from his own job was with permission of the Em-
ployer, given to enable him to conduct union business such as bringing
union dues books up to date and handling grievances. He was paid
for such time by the UE,2 and not by the Employer. The Regional
Director found that there was a dispute as to the number of employees
whom Jordan thus interviewed on company time and whether during
the course of such interviews Jordan engaged in electioneering, and
he recommended that a hearing be held to resolve this dispute. The
UE filed timely exceptions to this recommendation.
Upon consideration of the facts adduced by the Regional Director,
we find merit in the exceptions. There is no showing that the Em-
ployer was responsible for, or aware of, any electioneering in which
Jordan may have engaged in the plant.' Nor does it appear that
Jordan engaged in talks of a restraining or coercive nature. His elec-
a The UE was the incumbent representative , and party to a collective -bargaining contract
with the Employer
3 It does not appear to be contended that the Employer granted either union a favored
opportunity for campaigning in the plant. Moieover, it affirmatively appears that the
Employer sought to prevent election campaigning on its premises during working hours.
Thus the Employer informed the UE by a letter dated 6 days before the election that it
would at that time permit only one organizer to enter the plant under the visitation
provisions of the UE 's current contract ; that it would not permit any of the organizers to
discuss the election campaign on company property, and that it would not permit any
employee to engage in campaigning during working hours.
- KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INO. -241
tioneering, if such it was, consisted solely of individual interviews
with ,employees at their places of work. The interviews -,were brief,
inmost instances apparently not more than 3 to 5 minutes . As it does'
not appear that Jordan's activity contravened , the Board 's Peerless
Plywood 4 or other rules governing election campaign activity,-we
=shale also overrule this objection of the Petitioner .' Accordingly, as
theITh has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election,
we shall certify it as bargaining representative.
[The Board certified United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of-;4merica, Local 419, as the collective-bargaining representative of
-the-employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.
4 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427, 430.
8 The Board has recently held that an Employer 's conduct of individual interviews with
employees at their, places of" work is not ground for setting aside an election . Mall Tool
Company, 112 NLRB 1313 . See also Phelps-Dodge_ Copper Products Corporation, 111
NLRB 950; Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB 183. But cf.: Oregon Frozen Foods
Company, 113 NLRB 881; Riblet Welding and Mfg. Corp., 112 NLRB 712; Economic
Machiliery Company, Division of George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co., 111 NLRB 947.
Krambo Food Stores , Inc. and Dorothy L. Grantham and Maxine
Lightner
Allied Independent Union, CUA and Dorothy_ L. Grantham and
Maxine Lightner. Cases Nos. 13-CA-1639 -(a,) and 13-CA-
1639 (b);13-CB-28I (a) and 13-CB-284 (b). October 7,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 185, 1954, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman'issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
"Respondents had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in-the
complaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action,' as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, - both Respondents' filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. "The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,
and finds merit in the exceptions filed by. the Respondent Company,
and, accordingly, adopts the, Intermediate Report only to the extent
consistent herewith.
1. We find that the Respondent _ Company is engaged in commerce
within' the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over its operations. In
asserting jurisdiction, however, we do not, adopt the reasons urged
114 NLRB No., 55.