Gary Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 187 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
Gary Aircraft Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America , UAW, Petitioner.
Case 23-RC-3440
September 11, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
An election petition was filed by International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, on April 24,
1970. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction issued
June 19, 1970, by the Regional Director for Region
23, an election was conducted July 10, 1970. On Sep-
tember 14, 1971, the Board set aside the election and
directed that a second election be conducted.' The
second election was held on October 25, 1974. Of the
450 votes cast, 209 were for the Petitioner and 183
were against. The 20 challenged ballots were not de-
terminative. Employer filed timely objections to the
election. On January 29, 1975, the Regional Director
ordered a hearing on Employer's objections.
Thereafter, a hearing was conducted before Hear-
ing Officer Richard J. Linton. The Hearing Officer
recommended that a portion of Objection 3 be sus-
tained and that all other objections, including the re-
maining parts of Objection 3, be overruled. As a re-
sult of his recommendation to sustain a portion of
Objection 3, the Hearing Officer directed that the
election be set aside and a new one conducted. Peti-
tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's
report?
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed.
The Hearing Officer found Edward L. Mendez to
be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and
that Mendez had actively campaigned for Petitioner.
Based on these findings, the Hearing Officer recom-
mended that Objection 3 be sustained to the extent it
was based on the conduct of Mendez. Petitioner ex-
cepts, contending, inter alia, that even if Mendez was
a supervisor his conduct does not warrant our setting
' 193 NLRB 108.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma, the Hearing
Officer's recommendations concerning all other objections filed.
187
aside the election. We find merit in Petitioner's con-
tention.
Mendez was a leadman 3 in Department 331 on the
date of the election. As such, Mendez was required to
fill out production and employee evaluation reports
in addition to performing his duties as a mechanic.
As of the election date, Mendez had held his present
position for only 2 weeks having been appointed on
October 11, 1974. However, prior to June 1974 he
had been a leadman in another department. During
the June to October 11, 1974, period he worked as a
mechanic and, in addition, signed certain reports in
the absence of his predecessor, Wilbert Swenson 4 as
leadman.
Mendez became involved in union activities some-
time after his June transfer to Department 331. His
activities consisted of attending union meetings,
passing out handbills, and speaking with employees
urging them to support the Union. Mendez contin-
ued these activities, in addition passing out union
buttons, after the October 11 announcement that he
was the leadman in Department 331. In all, Mendez
received statements of support for the Union from 80
to 90 employees.
Mere supervisory participation in a union's orga-
nizing campaign does not, without a showing of pos-
sible objectionable effects, warrant setting aside an
election. Turner's Express, Incorporate, 189 NLRB
106 (1971); Stevenson Equipment Company, 174
NLRB 865 (1969). As we noted in those cases, there
are two situations where such participation could
have an objectionable effect. First, employees may
be lead to believe the supervisor was acting on behalf
of the employer and that the employer favors the
union. Second, employees may be coerced out of fear
of future retaliation by union-oriented supervisors
into supporting the union. Neither situation is pre-
sent herein.
As to the first, it is inconceivable that the employ-
ees were misled into believing Mendez was acting on
behalf of the Employer since it had conducted a
widespread antiunion campaign. As the Board found
in the earlier proceeding, the campaign was marked
with a number of instances of unlawful conduct in-
cluding the discharge of several union adherents. As
to the second, there is no evidence to indicate Men-
3 The Regional Director in his June 19, 1970, Decision and Direction of
Election found Employer's production department leadmen to be statutory
supervisors. The Board so found in its earlier Decision and Order in this
case, 193 NLRB 108 The powers, authority, and functions of leadmen re-
main the same as they were in 1970
4 Evidence shows Mendez signed employee Tom Perez' request for leave
on September 17, 1974, since Swenson was absent Petitioner contends
Mendez was not a supervisor during this June to October 11, 1974, period,
but that he only occasionally substituted for Swenson In view of our find-
ings hereinafter that Mendez' actions do not warrant setting aside the elec-
tion, even assuming he was a supervisor at all times in question, we find it
unnecessary to decide this issue.
220 NLRB No. 32
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dez coerced or threatened employees into voting for
the Union, or that any action was taken to make the
employees fear possible retribution at his hands if
they did not adhere to his wishes. The number of
persons affected by Mendez in his capacity as a
"union supervisor," as well as the limited extent of
his authority, indicate very little opportunity for him
really to affect the status of other employees. That
was especially the case during June through October
11, 1974, when he worked primarily as a mechanic,
that is, as an employee like them, and thus they likely
viewed his prounion conduct as an extension of his
own personal views. In any event, Mendez was a
low-level supervisor whose actual authority extended
to only seven or eight employees. In light of these
circumstances, we find that Mendez' activities on be-
half of the Union did not impair the employees' free-
dom of choice in the election. Therefore we shall ov-
errule Employer's Objection 3.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections,
and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner
has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we
shall certify the Petitioner as the employees' repre-
sentative.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Union, Unit-
ed Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW and that, pursuant
to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the said labor organization is the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in the unit
found appropriate herein for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment.
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding production control plant clerical em-
ployees, engineering non-professional employ-
ees, draftsmen, inspectors, shipping and
receiving employees, material control employees
including truck drivers, supply department cleri-
cals and quality control clerks; but excluding all
office clerical employees, counselors, leadmen,
guards, watchmen and supervisors, as defined
by.the Act.