General Cable Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 573 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION 573
General Cable Corporation and International Union , Allied In-
dustrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
13-RC-4811. March 12, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
On March 30, 1956, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, among the employees in the unit heretofore found appro-
priate. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was fur-
nished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 136
eligible voters, 131 cast ballots, of which 31 were for the Petitioner, 33
were for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, the Intervenor herein, and 67 were against union representation.
There were no challenged ballots.
On April 3, 1956, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the elec-
tion, copies of Which were duly served on the parties. In accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Acting Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the objections, and on May
16, 1956, issued and served oil the parties a "Report on Objections"
in which he found that one of the objections had merit, and recom-
mended that the election be set aside and a new election directed.
Thereupon, the Employer filed exceptions and supplemental excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report.
On September 12, 1956, the Board issued an order directing a hear-
ing on objections, and on October 23 and 24, 1956, a hearing was held
before Ralph Winkler, Trial Examiner. On December 4, 1956, the
Trial Examiner issued and served upon the parties his "Findings and
Recommendations on Objections to Election," in which he found that
the Employer had interfered with the employees' free choice of a bar-
gaining representative, and recommended that the election be set
aside and a new election be directed. On December 12, 1956, the
Employer filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's report. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing aie' free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed .2
i Not 0 eported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 The Trial Examiner referred to the Board the Employer 's motions to dismiss the pro-
ceeding on the grounds that ( 1) The Petitioner has been found to be out of compliance
with Section 9 (h) of the Act by Trial Examiner Downing's Opinion and Order in Kohler
Company, Case No 13-CA-1780, (2 ) Petitioner's name as stated in the original Direc-
tion of Election is d0Heient ftem that given in the Boatd order duetting a hearing on
objections , and (3 ) the holding of the election was premature . As to ( 1) and ( 2), the
Petitioner ' s mine, before the merger of the AFL and CIO, was International Union,
United Automobile \V'oikeis of America , NFL Atter the merger , it changed its name to
that appealing in the caption of this case in order to aioid confusion with Inteinational
Union , United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, which is the 00100 Involved in the Kohlet case In its "order directing a hearing"
117 ALKI: No 88
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's "Findings and
Recommendation," the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
The Trial Examiner found that between March 8 and March 30,
1956 (the dates of the Decision and Direction of Election and the
'election, respectively), the plant manager and other supervisors of
the Employer had systematically called a substantial number of the
employees into their private offices for interviews and individual dis-
cussions , and that in the course of these interviews they had expressed
the Employer 's opposition to union representation of the employees.
These findings were based on the testimony of the supervisors them-
selves , and in certain respects where it was in conflict with an em-
ployee's testimony, on the credited recital of the employee.
In its exceptions to the Trial Examiner's report, the Employer con-
tends that the Trial Examiner ignored the testimony of some of its
witnesses and failed to make credibility findings. The tenor of these
witnesses' testimony was that they had asked questions of their super-
visors about the Petitioner's campaign promises, and that their ques-
tions had been answered without promise of benefits or threat of
reprisal. Nothing in their testimony, however, detracts from the testi-
mony of the supervisors and rank-and-file employees that interviews in
private offices had been conducted with many employees who had not
sought the Employer's advice and had no questions they wished to ask
about the unions. As we have noted above, the Trial Examiner has
resolved such credibility issues as there are on the basis of the entire
record without detailing the testimony of every witness.
We, therefore, find, as we did in the Qualiton case, 115 NLRB 65, 66,
that "the technique of calling employees, individually or in small
groups, into an employer's office prior to an election and urging that
they reject the union, is in itself conduct which interferes with a free
-choice by the employees in the selection of a bargaining representative
and warrants setting aside the election. This is so , regardless of the
noncoercive• tenor of the Employer's actual remarks." We therefore
'adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation and shall direct that the
election be set aside, and a new election ordered.
[The Board set aside the election held on March 30, 1956.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
the Board amended its record in this case to show the Petitioner's change of name.
There has been no other change in Petitioner's status, nor was its compliance questioned
in the Kohler case. As to (3), we rejected the identical contention in our original De-
cision The motions are, therefore, denied.
8 We note that the Trial Examiner incorrectly stated that the plant at which Petitioner
had conducted a stulce in 1955, photographs of which were shown to some employees by
Superintendent Troyan, was located at Danville, Ohio We correct this to show, in con-
formity with the record, that the plant was located at Danville, Illinois.