General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1035 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1035
the sales counselors was not adequately litigated at the hearing we
shall permit them to vote subject to challenge.'
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All distributors and swingmen at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we shall exclude distributors' helpers
as casual employees.
General Electric Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
5-RC-f354. May 19,1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region on
November 25, 1957, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At
the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that of the approximately 1,115 eligible voters,
1,062 cast valid votes, of which 676 were for the Petitioner, 17 were
for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
and 369 were against both labor organizations. There were four void
ballots and no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re-
gional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objec-
tions and on February 7, 1958, issued and duly served upon the par-
ties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the
objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
report on objections.
Upon the entire record, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
120 NLRB No. 144.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All hourly rated
production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's
Industry Control plant in Roanoke County, Virginia, excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees,
technical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer's objections and exceptions relate to statements
made by Al Hartnett, the Petitioner's secretary-treasurer, on Novem-
ber 24, 1957, the day before the election, during a question-and-answer
type television program sponsored by the Petitioner, which was car-
ried on two local Roanoke, Virginia, stations. The questions were
asked by employees and the answers were made by, Hartnett. The
statements, which the Employer contends constituted unlawful inter-
ference with the conduct of election, related to initiation fees and a
wage increase.
(a) Initiation fees: The Employer relies on the following question
and answer :
Q. Al, there's been a rumor around the plant that the initiation
fee will be $30. What about this?-A. Well, that sounds like
another GE rumor. If they were to tell you the truth, they
would tell you that the initiation fee cannot be more than $10.
It is prevented from being more than that by our international
constitution. They would also have to tell you, if they were to
tell you the truth, that the amount of the initiation fee will be
decided upon by the people here in Roanoke. That is not decided
upon by anybody else. If they were to tell you even more of the
truth, they will tell you that not one single person who votes for
the IUE in this election will be required to pay an initiation fee
for membership in the I UE. I want to make that point abun-
dantly clear-there will be no initiation fee charged to anyone
who votes for the IUE in this election and, number two, there will
not be any initiation fee set by the national IUE. It will be set
here locally by the people in Roanoke and cannot possibly be
$30 . . . can't be any more than $10. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Employer contends that, in view of the Board's decision in
Lobue Bros., 109 NLRB 1182,,the emphasized portion of Hartnett's
statement contained a promise of benefit contingent on how the em-
ployees voted in the election and therefore impaired their freedom of
Choice. It is true that the Board in that case held objectionable a
union's preelection offer of membership free of initiation fees, if the
union-won the election, because-such offer. was contingent on how the,
employees voted.' However,- in. view of the surrounding circum-
' See also Gruen Watch Company; 108 NLRB 610, 612; Otis Elevator Company, 114-
NLRB 1490, 1493
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1037
stances which prompted it, the Petitioner's statement in the instant
case, does not, in our opinion, constitute interference with the election.
Thus, the context in which the statement was made includes : (1) the
Petitioner's publicizing to the employees of its policy of waiving
initiation fees for all potential members during its election campaign
.and for new locals which are normally not established until after an
,election and certification; (2) its statement to employees the day
before the televised program that no employee, according to the law
of the State of Virginia, is required to join a labor organization and
therefore initiation fees are not required of all employees; and, (3) it
was made in rebuttal to a rumor that the initiation fee would be $30.
Under the circumstances, when viewed in the total context, we find,
as did the Regional Director, that the alleged objectionable statement
was not a promise of free initiation fees to those employees who voted
for the Petitioner. Rather, it was part of an explanation of the Peti-
tioner's position that fell within the scope of legitimate campaign
propaganda which did not impair the employees' freedom of choice
in the election.
(b) The wage increase: We agree with the Regional Director's
finding that there is no merit in the Employer's objection that Hart-
nett, during the same television program referred to above, made mis-
leading statements by remarking that if the Petitioner won the elec-
tion it would negotiate a wage increase for the employees at the
Employer's Roanoke plant.
The Employer contends that Hartnett's reference to a wage in-
crease was a deliberate misrepresentation in view of a national agree-
mentbetween General Electric Company and the Petitioner, which
the Employer alleges does not permit the negotiation of a general
wage increase for employees at the Roanoke plant until October 1960.
The Employer relies on a provision of the national agreement, effec-
tive from August 1955 to October 1960, which states that the agree-
ment is in settlement of wage increases for existing locals of the Peti-
tioner and such other locals "as may hereafter be certified as collective
bargaining representatives of Company employees." The Employer
argues that Hartnett's statement was so misleading as to fall within
the rule of the Board's decision in The Gummed. Products Company,
112 NLRB 1092, wherein it was held that false statements by a union
concerning wage rates in a nonexistent contract with another em-
ployer interfered with the employees' free choice in an election, as the
employees were incapable of evaluating the assertions.
The national agreement is not clear with respect to the interpreta-
tion of its provisions as to new locals of the Petitioner. In fact, one
of the clauses permits negotiations on a plant basis where a question
affects hourly rates, piece-work rates, or salary rates of individuals or
groups of employees. Moreover, the parties have been in dispute as
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Petitioner's right to negotiate new wage increases at other'
plants of the Employer and the Petitioner has successfully negotiated
wage adjustments during the term of the national agreement. In our
opinion, the Petitioner's statements represent, in part, its interpreta-
tion of the agreement. Both the Employer and the Petitioner had the'
right to, and did over a period of time, publicize their respective
and differing interpretations. Accordingly, we find, in agreement
with the Regional Director, that the remarks did not mislead the
employees so as to vitiate their free choice in selecting a bargaining'
representative.'
In view of the foregoing and the entire record, we hereby overrule
the Employer's objections and shall certify the Petitioner as the bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining
representative of the employees at the Industry Control plant in
Roanoke County, Virginia, in the unit found appropriate.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 See AW -Chalmers Manuufacturing Co, 117 NLRB 744, 748
Plankinton Packing Company , a division of Swift & Co. and
Office Employees International Union , Local' 9, AFL-CIO. Cases,
Nos. 13-CA-2452 and 13-CA-2471. May 20, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 4, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Inter-
mediate 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. The
Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, in-
cluding the exceptions and brief, adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
120 NLRB No. 143.