Equipment Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 419 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

EQUIPMENT MFG. 419
Equipment Manufacturing , Inc. and United Steel
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
7-AC-90
February 12, 1969
DECISION AND AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
In a Decision and Certification of Representative
of the National Labor Relations Board in Case
7-RC-7826 the Independent Equipment Employees
Union was certified on April 14, 1967, as the
bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of
the Employer's production and maintenance
employees with the usual exclusions. On March 13,
1968, the Petitioner filed its petition in this
proceeding seeking to amend the certification and to
substitute itself as the bargaining representative
named in the certification. The Regional Director
for Region 7 issued an Order to Show Cause on
April 3, 1968, and a Supplemental Order to Show
Cause on April 19, ordering the parties to show
cause if there were any reason why the petition
should not be granted. Thereafter, the parties made
certain submissions to the Regional Director and on
May 20, 1968, he issued a Notice of Hearing on the
issues raised.
A hearing was held before Albert L. Becker,
Hearing Officer.' Subsequent to the hearing, the
Petitioner, Intervenor, and Employer filed briefs
with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
An election among the Employer's production and
maintenance employees was held on January 27,
1967. Of approximately 206 eligible voters, 174 cast
ballots, of which 78 were for the United
Steelworkers Union, and 98- for the Independent
Union. As noted above, the Independent was
certified on April 14, 1967. Thereafter, the
Employer and Independent entered into a contract
effective from July 17, 1967, until March 31, 1970.
A number of the officers of the Independent
favored affiliation with the Steelworkers, even after
the Independent's certification. In November 1967
the Steelworkers held a dinner for such supporters
at a local hotel, and among other matters discussed
was the possibility of the Independent's membership
voting for affiliation with the Steelworkers. The
matter was further pursued after the dinner, and it
was decided to present the issue to the Independent's
membership at its regular meeting on February 8,
1968. At that meeting a Steelworkers' representative
spoke to the membership there present, pointing out,
inter alia , that upon affiliation the Union would
maintain local autonomy, and keep its same officers
and welfare fund. After some discussion, about 25
of the 30 members present voted that the
Independent should hold a secret ballot election on
the question of affiliation.
Thereafter, the Independent's secretary-treasurer
posted a "Notice" concerning the election on the
union bulletin board in the plant. The notice stated
that the purpose of the election was to vote on
merging with the Steelworkers and that it was to be
held on February 29, 1968, between 1:30 and 4:30
p.m. at a local Veterans of Foreign Wars hall. It
also listed the tellers for the election. Around
February 12 he gave to a Steelworkers'
representative a "Notice of Special Election" listing
the purpose, time, and place of the election. The
Steelworkers had the notice duplicated and mailed
to a list of employees supplied by the Independent's
secretary-treasurer and based on the Company's
1967 Christmas list. Then sometime later the
Independent's president posted on the plant bulletin
board a notice entitled "Rules For Voting" stating
that the polls would close at 4:30 p.m., and that
there could be no alcoholic beverages or loitering in
the voting area.
The voting was held at the time and place
scheduled. The election area was a large room.
When each employee entered, his name was checked
by each of three tellers against separate eligibility
lists based on the plant seniority list. If found
eligible, the employee was given a ballot which he
marked and then deposited in a sealed cardboard
box with a slit cut in it. After the polls closed the
ballot box was opened and the ballots counted by
the tellers and two union officers. The only
employees denied the right to vote were some 13
who had been employed less than 30 days and thus
did not appear on the seniority list.' There is no
substantial evidence that any employee did see how
another voted or that any person improperly
"loitered" in the voting area. Of approximately 160
eligible voters, 149 cast ballots. The ballots stated:
"Do you wish to affiliate with the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO? Mark an `X'
in the square of your choice." There were two
squares, the one on the left having "Yes" printed
over it; while the one on the right had "No."
Ninety-nine voters placed an "X" or other clear
'The Independent Union made no appearance in this proceeding
However, Franuel Benedict, an employee and former officer of the
Independent , intervened in opposition to the petition and participated
through counsel at the hearing
'The contract between the Independent and Company contained a union
security clause requiring in effect that each unit employee become after the
174 NLRB No. 74
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
marking in the "Yes" box; fifty, in the "No" box.'
On March 8, a letter on the Independent Union's
stationery and signed by all Independent officers
was sent to the Company. The letter stated the
employees had voted to "transfer their affiliation
from the status of an Independent Union to become
a Local Union affiliated with the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO." It also
expressed the hope that the Company would
voluntarily recognize the Steelworkers and amend
the present contract by substituting that Union for
the Independent in the agreement.' The following
day a Steelworkers' representative sought by letter a
meeting with the Company for purposes of such
contract modification. The Company refused to
meet. Subsequently, officers of the Independent
signed various documents provided by the
Steelworkers, and on April 4, 1968, that Union
issued a charter of affiliation to the Independent as
United Steelworkers of America Local Union No.
7369. The charter was formally accepted by the
Independent officers on April 8.
It is clear from the foregoing that employees
constituting not only a majority of union members
but also a majority of employees in the established
bargaining unit have voted, in a properly run
election with proper safeguards, for affiliation with
the Steelworkers Union; that a majority of the
Independent officers approved such affiliation and
have continued to serve as officers of the Union;
and that the Independent has not become defunct
but has in fact become Local No. 7369 of the
Petitioner. We find nothing inconsistent with our
conclusions here in the facts, heavily relied on by
the Employer and Intervenor, that even after the
Petitioner's charter issued, officers of the local union
continued to use forms and stationery with the
statutory grace period a member of the union All unit employees
employed over 30 days were members of the union and, thus, eligible to
vote in the election.
'The Intervenor complains that the tellers did not consider some 42
proxy votes acquired by him and another union officer We find no
substance in the complaint as the Independent ' s constitution and bylaws
made no provision for proxy voting, neither was provision made for such
voting in the election here, and, finally , some of the individuals listed on
the proxy sheet had previously cast secret ballots
'Intervenor signed the letter but contends , as did another officer, that his
intent, first stated after the letter was sent, was solely to inform the
Employer of the results (of the election , but not to urge recognition of the
Steelworkers
Independent heading in handling grievances,, and
dealt with the company as officers of the
Independent. As clearly appears, such practices were
occasioned, first, by the availability of Independent
stationery and forms, and second, by the fact the
Company would not deal with the officers other
than as representatives of the Independent. Finally,
we find no support for the claim that the Intervenor
revived the Independent in early July 1968. At most
we have the Intervenor and a few other employees
designating themselves as officers of an alleged
union which they contend- is the old Independent.
Even assuming the relevancy of a revival, the claim
here is not of a revival by a majority of the
employees, and is so patently frivolous as not to
require further consideration. In view of the
foregoing, we can perceive no reason for not
granting the Petitioner's request.' We shall,
therefore, amend the certification in Case
7-RC-7826 to reflect the current name and
affiliation of the certified Union.6
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition to amend the
certification filed by the United 'Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, granted,
and that the Certification of Representative issued
in Case 7-RC-7826 be amended by substituting
"United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
No. 7369" for "Independent Equipment Employees
Union."
'North Electric Co, 165 NLRB No 88 . Member Zagoria, who
dissented in the North Electric case , joins in this decision because here,
unlike in that case , voting eligibility extended as a practical matter to all
employees in the certified unit and a majority of those in the unit cast their
ballots for affiliation with the Steelworkers.
'The Employer objects to naming the Local, citing in support of its
position M. A Norden Company, Inc., 159 NLRB 1730. That case is not,
however, relevant for there , unlike the present situation, the company had
an established bargaining relationship with the international and the local
sought to be substituted had been in existence at the time of the election
involved Here, of course, the employer is opposed to any amendment of
the certification , and it has failed to show that it would in any way be
prejudiced if the Local rather than International were substituted . Finally,
the employees had been told by Steelworkers ' representatives before the
election that even after affiliation they would retain a large measure of
local autonomy . In our view , the granting of separate local status reflects
not only the fact that the employees did not vote to have their union
merged into the international , but'also that in reality it is Local No 7369
and not the Petitioner which is the employees representative.