General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the rule is salutary and not unreasonable in its requirements, and
that it is essential to certainty in procedural matters that parties be
held to strict compliance therewith.
As the last day of the 5-day period provided by Section 102.61 for
filing objections to the election was November 19, 1952, we must find
that the Petitioner's objections received and filed at the Regional
Director's office on November 20, 1952, were not timely filed .4 Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the Petitioner's objections and its excep-
tions. As the Intervenor has secured a majority of the votes cast, we
shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
It is hereby certified that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE) and its Local No. 732 has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees of the General Electric
Company at its Tiffin Plant of the Fractional Horsepower Motor
Department, Tiffin, Ohio, in the unit heretofore found by the Board
to be appropriate in Case No. 8-RC-1524 as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
* In view of our finding herein , it is unnecessary for us to consider whether by serving
copies of its letter on the other parties on November 20, 1952 , the Petitioner complied with
the requirement in Section 102.61 of immediate service upon the other parties.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
2-RC-41P2. February 27, 1953
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Elec-
tion," issued on September 30, 1952, an election was conducted on
October 15, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region, among the employees in the unit
3 100 NLRB 1315.
103 NLRB No. 12.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 111
found appropriate. At the conclusion of the election the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately
760 eligible voters, 123 valid ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 489
valid ballots were cast for the Intervenor, United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America (UE) and its Local 332, there were
2 void ballots and 6 challenged ballots, and 10 ballots were cast against
participating labor organizations.
On October 22, 1952, the Regional Director received from the Pe-
titioner a letter dated October 20, 1952, reading as follows :
This is to notify you that we are hereby filing objections to an
election held on October 15, 1952 in Ft. Edward and Hudson
Falls, N. Y. at the installations of the General Electric Company
between the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, CIO and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, Local 332-Case No. 2-RC-4122.
On or about September 12, 1952 the General Electric Com-
pany concluded a wage and contract settlement with United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Such agree-
ment covered and was made applicable to employees in the above
plant. At the time the agreement was concluded there was pend-
ing before the National Labor Relations Board a proceeding
which gave rise to a question concerning representation involv-
ing such employees. Shortly after the conclusion of an agreement,
on October 2, 1952, the National Labor Relations Board directed
an election among such employees on the basis of a petition filed
by IUE-CIO. Execution of the agreement by the General Elec-
tric Company and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers while a question concerning representation was pending
constituted interference with the right of employees to select
their own bargaining agent and amounted to illegal assistance
by the General Electric Company to United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America.
Based on the above objection we request that the said election
be set aside and a new election be held.
The Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter on the Intervenor.
On December 30,1952, the Regional Director issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections in which he recommended that
the Petitioner's objections be overruled upon the ground that there
was ample evidence to show that the Petitioner was fully aware of
the execution of the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor
prior to the issuance of the Board 's supplemental decision ; that not
only did the Petitioner raise no question concerning the execution and
ratification of this agreement , but issued several leaflets attacking
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the agreement as a "sell-out of the employees"; and that, neverthe-
less, the Petitioner proceeded to an election with full knowledge of the
contract.
On January 15, 1953, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions, which
were served on all parties, contending that it did not learn that the
September 12 contract was applicable to the Hudson Falls plant until
October 15, 1952, and at no time did it ever willingly or knowingly
waive its right to urge application of the contract to the Hudson
Falls plant as a ground for objecting to the election. Moreover, the
Petitioner asserts that the Regional Director's theory of waiver is
inconsistent with the Board's recent holding in the Great Atlantic
and Pacific Tea Company case 2
While we agree with the Petitioner that because of our decision in
the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company case the Regional Di-
rector's waiver theory is inapplicable here, we also agree with the
Regional Director's recommendation, but for a different reason.
Section 102.61 of the published rules of the Board requires that,
within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished, any party
may file with the Regional Director objections to the conduct of the
election or conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall
contain a short statement of the reasons therefor; and that copy of
such objections shall immediately be served on each of the other parties
by the party filing them, and proof of service be made.
The Petitioner did not serve upon the Intervenor a copy of its
letter of October 20, 1952, which set forth the fact of, and the basis
for, its objections to the election. In failing to do this, we are satis-
field that the Petitioner did not follow the fundamental procedure
essential to fairness, as set down in our rules, and we shall not con-
sider the objections.3 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the Petitioner's
objections and its exceptions. As the Intervenor has secured a ma-
j ority of the votes cast, we shall certify it as the bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
It is hereby certified that United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America (UE) and its Local 332 has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees of the General Electric Com-
pany at its Hudson Falls plant which includes the buildings located
at John Street, Hudson Falls, New York, and the buildings located
at Upper Broadway, Fort Edward, New York, in the unit heretofore
found to be appropriate by the Board as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
2 101 NLRB 1118.
3 Freeport Gas Coal Company, 99, NLRB 949.
POINSETT LUMBER AND MFG. CO . 113
of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
POINSETT LUMBER AND MFG. Co. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS (CIO). Case No. 11-CA-
522 (formerly 10-CA-1233). March 2,1953
Decision and Order
On October 2, 1952, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of
those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent filed a sup-
porting brief.' The Respondent's request for oral argument before the
Board is denied, as the record, including the exceptions and brief, ade-
quately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modi-
fications :
1. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the interrogation and threats detailed
in the Intermediate Report. However, in so finding, we do not rely
upon Supervisor Robertson's inquiry of employee Reed concerning the
difference between the "CIO and the Carpenter's Union, AFL."
1 The Respondent 's motion to dismiss the Union's exceptions because they were not
accompanied by a supporting brief is denied. Section 102 .46 of the Board 's Rules and
Regulations permits , but does not require , the parties to file briefs in support of their
exceptions.
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
103 NLRB No. 7.