General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 574 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATON, ALLISON DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS- OP AMERICA, LOCAL 933, AFF ILIATED
WITH THE C. I. O. '
Case No. R-3739
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
December 31, 19.1t,Z°
On May 14, 1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in 'the ,above-
entitled proceeding,' directing that an election by secret ballot be con-
ducted among certain employees of General Motors Corporation, Alli-
son Division, herein called the Company, to determine whether they
wished to be represented by International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 9.:3,
affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the U. A. W., or by United
Aircraft Engine Workers, Inc., herein called the Independent, for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. Pursuant to the
Decision and Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted among such employees on June 2, 1942, under the direction
and supervision of the Board's Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region- (Indianapolis, Indiana).
On June 4, 1942, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to !Article
III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Riles and Regula-
tions-S.-ries 2, as amended, issued his Election Report, copies of which
were duly served upon the Company, the U. A. W., and the
Independent.
The Regional Director reported the results of the balloting as
follows : 2
'Matter of General Motors Corporation , Allison Division, etc, 40 N. L. R . B. 1387 ; 41
N. L R B. 197
2 Because of a regulation of the United States Army (War Department Circular No. 41,
dated February 11, 1942) designed to keep confidential information regarding the number
of employees now in the employ of the Company, and because of a stipulation among
the parties, the report does not contain a tally of the ballots cast, a tally of the total
number on the eligible list, or an exact count of the votes cast for any of the choices
on the ballot.
46 N. L. R. B., No. 67
574
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 575
Valid votes cast for Independent______________________ 59 percent
Valid votes cast for U A. W___________________________ 38 percent
Valid votes cast for Neither____________________________ 3 percent
On June 9, 1942, the'U. A. W. filed the following objections,to the
Election Report of the Regional Director :
The Company permitted, caused or assisted in the distribution
to its employees at the Allison Plant of the Labor Digest, a news-
paper published in the State of Michigan which has received the
financial support of the company; said newspaper attacked the
UAW-CIO and was designed and intended to influence its em-
ployees at the Allison Plant to vote against the UAW-CIO in
said election.
The Company has advised and informed its employees that
ally action, activity or conduct on behalf of the UAW-CIO would
result in discipline, loss of privileges or discharge; it has advised
its employees that the company was trying to keep the CIO out
of the company's plant; it has advised them that if they joined
the UAW-CIO they would not obtain benefits or advantages
which they would otherwise obtain by joining the United Aircraft
and Engine Workers, Inc.
On August 7, 1942, the Regional Director issued and served upon
all the parties his Report On Objections To The Conduct Of Secret
Ballot and Election Report, wherein he found that the obj 2ctions
raised no substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct
of the ballot.
On September 22, 1942, the U. A. W. petitioned the Board to review
the Regional Director's Report On Objections. On October 22, 1912,
it appearing that the objections filed by the U. A. W. raised substan-
tial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot and
.the Election Report, the Board ordered a hearing on the objections.
On October 30, 1942, the Company filed a motion with the Board to
set aside the order directing the hearing. This motion was denied by
the'B:)ard on November 3, 1942.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing on, said
objections was held on' November 24 and 25, 1942, at Indianapolis,
Indiana, before Will Maslow, Trial Examiner. The Board, the Com-
pany, the U. A. W., and the Independent appeared, participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard,,to examine and cross-
10 examine witnesses, and- to introduce evidence otn all the issues.
During the course ofthe hearing, the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
On or about December 11, 1942, the Company, the U. A. W., and
the Independent filed briefs which have been considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case,3 including the Election Report,
the Objections of the U. A. W., the Regional Director's Report On
Objections and the record previously made, the Board makes the
following :
SUPPLEMENTAL-FINDINGS OF FACT
The evidence adduced by the U. A. W. at the hearing in support of
its objections may be discussed under the following headings :
1. Interference with U. A. W. members by, company super-
visors;
2. Discriminatory enforcement of the company rule forbidding
solicitation;
3. The sponsorship of the Independent by the Company at a
patriotic rally; and
4. The alleged gift by ,the Company to the Independent of a
mailing list of the employees.
1. Interference with U. A. W. members by company supervisors
(a) In April or. May 1942,4 Henry Monroe, a top committeeman of
the U. A. W., i. e., a member of its highest' ranking committee in the
plant, and also a group leader, was accused by Richardson, night
superintendent in charge of the night, shift in Plant 4,5 of soliciting
for the C. I. O. on company time. Monroe denied it. Richardson
then remarked that it did not look "so good" for a group leader to
wear a U. A. W. badge. Monroe• insisted that he was going to wear
it, whereupon Richardson, replied : "You keep on the C. I. O. and we
will fire you, we fired you once before and we will do it.again."
Group leaders were eligible to vote in the election, although foremen,
and assistant foremen were not, and they were likewise eligible for
membership in both the U. A. W. and the Independent. Monroe was
paid $1.10 an hour; his duties were to show new men how to do the
work and "just keep them going."
On another occasion, in March or April 1942, Monroe complained to
Richardson that two members of the Independent were soliciting for
the Independent on company time. Monroe asked why the Independ-
ent was allowed to do that while the U. A. W. was not. Richardson
5 On December 14, 1942, a stipulation, signed by all parties , was filed with the Board,
providing for the correction of an error in the transcript . The stipulation is hereby made
a part of the record and the transciipt is corrected accordingly
4 The U. A , W filed its petition in this proceeding on January 16, 1942; the first
hearing was held on April 18, 1942.
S The Company operates four adjoining , plants in Indianapolis , collectively known as
the Allison Division.
I
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION '._,--'_',(,°.1 577
replied that he had put the, Independent . there and was going to keep
it in ' there if he possibly could. The two Independent members -con-
tinned to , solicit in every one of the six departments in Plant ' 4,nightly
until the election .6 • _ . , ' • ,
(b) Albert Bender, employed in Department 387, testified that 4
or 5"d4s before the election Foreman James McGinnis showed him
a list of wage rates which McGinnis stated would go into effect if
the Independent won the election ; that he looked for the wage rates for
turret lathe operators ,but failed 'to find them listed, whereupon Mc-
Ginnis explained that the rate for turret lathe operators was the same
,as for lathe operators ; that McGinnis then pointed out a rate of $1.25
to $1.35 an hour for .lathe operators and said : "That is what you -will
get if the Independent Union is elected ." Bender was then earning
$1.15 an hour . , • : • • ---
McGinnis was asked at the hearing whether .he recollected making
such a statement to Bender and testified : "No, sir, I didn't have any
rates, I didn't know what the proposed rates were they were trying
to get or , anything." - McGinnis , had been a member of , •the Inde-
pendent's bargaining `colnmittee before he became a foreman in July
1941. •
We find the testimony of Bender more credible than that of McGin-
nis and accordingly find that McGinnis made the remarks attributed
to him by Bender.7
(c) Kelton Scott , who worked in Department 366, was discussing
unionism in the plant with Joe Mehlman , a fellow employee ,. a week
or two before the election . As the foreman , Charles Bartell, ap-
proached , Mehlman turned to Bartell and asked whether he could
imagine anyone favoring unions. Bartell replied : "Well, 'I don't,
know . If you didn't , have your Union, when your foreman turned
down a raise that would be as far as you can go with it; the way it is
now, if the foreman turns down a raise you can go over his head."
.When Scott replied -that if the "front office" turned down a raise, the
U. A. W. made it possible to go over their heads, Bartell rejoined: '
"Well , I don't know anything about that , but if you belong to the
C. I. 0. you belong to the Communist Party whether you know it or
not." Scott disagreed and Bartell accused the Reuther brothers in
6 The above findings in paragraph (a) are based on the testimony of Monroe ; Richardson'
was neither called as a witness by'the Company or Independent , nor was any explanation
offered for the failure to do so.
' In an election appeal sent to the employees on May 29, 1942 , a few days before the
election , the Independent wrote :
we have a tentative agreement on 'a contract that will increase our pay from 10 to 25
cents an hour-a benefit we will enjoy over and above present benefits.
'ihe Independent and the Company had entered into a contract on May 22, 1941 , whereby
the Independent n as recognized as the exclusive , bargaining representative of the Allison
employees. This contract contained an automatic renewal clause and was so renewed on
May 22, 1942.
504086-43-vol. 46-37
l
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Detroit [International officers of the U. A. W.] of having Communist
affiliations.8
(d) John Woolley, a committeeman for the U. A. W., testified that
in April or May 1942 his foreman, John Vander Veer,' asked him
to remove his,U. A. W. button and to work for the Independent, saying
that,they all would benefit greatly by it' and that if it were done,
Woolley would have a job after the war was over. A day or so later,
according to Woolley's testimony, Vander Veer approached him while
he was working with a group of inen and said in a loud tone : "Do you
know that $1.05 is the top [rate] over at the, Chevrolet?" 9 Woolley
was then earning more at the Allison Division. Woolley testified
finally,that Vander Veer "talked against the C. I. O. at all'times, not
only-to me, but to the other fellows there," these conversations taking
place during working hours from March' 1942 until the election.
Another employee, Charles J. Murray,•testified that about 2 weeks
before the election his foreman, Vander Veer, offered him the job of
group leader on trial; later that day Vander Veer noticed him wearing
his U. A. W. button and removed it, saying that he did not think "that
would be the best thing in the world for a group leader to be wearing
buttons of that Union." (underlining added) No other group leaders
in that department wore union buttons.
Vander Veer admitted at the hearing making the remarks attrib-
uted to him by Murray, explaining that he did not believe that "any
one pertaining to supervision" should indicate his preference for
either union in any way. He admitted knowing at the time that
group leaders were eligible to vote at the election.1°
Vander Veer testified that he had not asked Woolley to join the
independent, but failed to deny or -mention in his testimony the
remark about the wage rates at the Chevrolet plant. He likewise did
not deny that he had asked Woolley to take off his U. A. W. button.
Finally he did not deny that he had spoken against the U. A. W. con-
tinually from March to the election. On cross-examination,, Vander
Veer in addition admitted that he had "kidded" Beaman, another em=
ployee in his department, about the U. A. W. and Beaman's U. A. W.
button, in the presence of several other employees. Vander Veer had
been a member of the Independent before he became foreman.
We do not credit-Vander Veer's qualified denials and find he made
the remarks attributed to him by Woolley and Murray.
B The above findings in paragraph ( c) are based on the testimony of Scott . Bartell
was not called as a witness by the Company, its counsel stating that Bartell had "gone
back to college " Mehlman did not testify
° General Motors Corporation operates a Chevrolet plant in Indianapolis under a Co.,
tract with the parent body of the U A. W -
1° Superintendent Harry wheeler, Vander Veer's superior , testified that he saw "no
harm" in group leaders wearing small buttons 'during the election campaign as long as
they contained no "advertising."
-GENERAL MOTORS CORP ORATION - 579
°(e) George White, employed in Department 368, testified that. his
foreman , Robert Gantz, in May 1942• had -given him a copy of an
anti-union pamphlet entitled "Join the C. I. 0. and Help Build a
Soviet America" and had said : "Oh, the C. I. O. isn't anything but a
Communist's Organization, why should any one want to belong to
the C. I. 0."; that White replied that he was not a Communist, yet
belonged to the C. I. 0., whereupon Gantz passed the pamphlet around
the department to all the employees saying: "He is a Communist, we
have got a Communist in our department."
Gantz testified that he had never seen the pamphlet-before the day
of the hearing and denied that he had ever called either the C. I. 0.
or White a Communist.
We credit the testimony of White and find that Gantz- made the
remarks ,attributed to him by White. -
(f) Robert Meeks; employed in Plant 3, was a member of. the "top
committee". of the'U.- A.W. ',Two weeks before the election , Foreman
Reuben Fuller approached him in the plant during working hours
and :'stated that if the U. A. W. ever gained, a contract with the Com-
pany, the department would be shut down when prodiiction slackened
and there would be no transfers to other departments. Meeks argued
with Fuller while several employees a few feet away listened to the
conversation . Meeks and Fuller were the best of friends and often`
discussed unions while at work, Meeks himself frequently initiating
the discussion. During one of these conversations, Fuller told Meeks
that it made no difference to him which union the latter belonged to.11
(g) John Durban, employed in Department 389, was wearing a
U. A. W. committeeman's button in February 1942, when his fore-
man, Van Skyke, approached him and said it would never do Durban
any good to wear such buttons. When Durban remarked that he
thought there was a good chance of winning the election, Van,Skyke
replied : "Well; it never did do me any good, I belonged to the C. I. 0,
before' I came here. It never did me any good." As Durban kept
on arguing, Van Skyke said : "Well, you will be better off, you will get
along better, a lot better and further around here if you pull them
things off-and throw them"away, and leave them off." 12 . -
(h) Clifford Wilson, a 'witness called by the Independent, testi-
fied that on'the day of the election his foreman,. George Russell, asked
him' to vote for the U. A. W. and after the balloting inquired whether
he had done so. Russell was called as a witness by the Company' and
in response to questions asked by its counsel denied that he had asked
Wilson to vote for the U. A. W. We credit Russell's denial.
"The above findings in paragraph ( f) are based on the testimony of Meeks. ' Fuller
testified as a witness for the Company, but (lid not mention these conversations with Meeks-
The above findings in paragraph ( g) are, based on Dnrhan 's testimony ; Van Skyke
was not'called as a 'witness by the Company or Tndependent , nor•'}vas any explanation,
made for the failure to do so
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Discriminatory enforcement of the company rule forbidding
solicitation
In the company booklet containing the plant rules distributed to
the employees is the following rule :
Soliciting from or the selling of any merchandise, or, the dis-
tribution of literature for any cause, and by any person, without
permission of the management, is forbidden in the factory and
on the company property.
The U. A. W. offered testimony to show that the rule was strictly
enforced against it, whereas its enforcement was relaxed or disre-
garded with respect to the Independent .13 1
(a) On June 1, 1942, the day before the election, someone stuck
a sticker about 3 inches by 2 inches with the inscription' "Vote the
C. I. 0." upon the work shirt of employee Willard Noel. Foreman
One Smith insisted that the plant rules- forbade solicitation and re-
quired Noel to remove the sticker. When Noel protested that the
Independent was distributing its pledge cards and tags in the depart-
ment, Smith contended he had not seen such distribution. Noel 'testi-
fied that during the discussion he complained about a "fellow" col-
lecting dues on company time, but Smith replied: "I don't aim to see
that kind of stuff."
Wilbur Maim, another employee, testified that 1 week before the
election Foreman One Smith directed him to remove a C. I. 0. sticker)
on his arm. Mann refused, protesting that only 15' minutes earlier
Ruddell, a member of the Independent who was notI employed in
Smith's department, had passed out pledge cards for the Independent.
Mann testified further that Smith replied that he would go 'to the
office and see about it and, upon returning from the superintendent's
office, once more asked Mann to remove the sticker, explaining that
he had "made arrangements that there would be no more soliciting of
membership by the Independent." Mann removed his sticker.
Within half an hour, according to Mann, Ruddell returned to the de-
partment and-openly distributed pledge cards "directly in fr'ont-of
the foreman's desk."
. Smith testified that he had told Ruddell not to come in, the depart-
ment without a pass but denied knowledge of any subsequent solicita-
tion. Smith did not deny the remark attributed to him that he did
not "aim to see" such things.
-We find, that Foreman Smith allowed solicitation by members of
the Independent in his department while forbidding members of the
C. I. 0. to do so.
"The findings set forth above in Section 1, paragraphs ' (a), (d), (e), and (g) are
likewise relevant in, this connection: "^•'-"
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 581
(b) George White, a committeeman for the U. A. W., testified that
for '2 weeks before the election Padden and Wiseman, representatives
of the Independent, were distributing pledge cards in the department;
and that when he complained to. General Foreman W. C. Johnson
about it 1 week before the election, the latter replied, "Well, I haven't
got anything to do with it. I get my $100 a week no matter what
Union is in this plant." White testified further that during the dis-
cussion he pointed to Padden, who was at that very moment dis-
tributing cards, but Johnson replied, "It don't make no difference to
me what Union be in here, just forget it." White testified finally that
during the discussion Johnson admitted that no one was supposed to
solicit for either union on the job.
On Saturday, May 23,';1942, White, however, was directed byi
Superintendent Virgil Grimes to remove his cap which contained the
inscription : "Vote right. 'Vote UAW-CIO." 14
At the hearing, Johnson gave his version of the conversation be-
tween him and White, which omitted any references to his indifference
to solicitation. He denied that he had ever seen the pledge cards of
the Independent or that White had complained about the distribution
of ple_lge cards. Johnson had been a member of the Independent in'
1939. He was not asked while on the witness 'stand whether he had
seen any solicitation in his department. We do not credit Johnson's
blanket denials' and credit White's testimony.
(c) Andrew Pelfrey, a committeeman of the U. .A. W., testified
that a few days before the election he saw an election, leaflet of the
Independent distributed "openly" in his department. By "openly"
the witness testified he meant from man to man, from bench to bench,
at one time within 6 feet from where the foreman, Burt Lange, stood.
Burt Lange was not called to testify, the respondent's counsel stating
that Lange was sick. We credit Pelfrey's testimony.
,(d) Robert Webb testified that at 9 a. in. on June 1, 1942, he saw
Carpenter, a foreman from the experimental department, wearing a,
button of the Independent. As has been found, foremen were not ,4
eligible to membership in the Independent. Webb and Coffin, a top
committeeman of the U. A. W., visited the personnel department and
requested of a Mr. Herbert there that Carpenter be directed to remove
his button. Herbert, however, replied that the personnel department
had nothing to do with the experimental department and there was
nothing therefore that he could do about it. About 11 o'clock in, the
morning, Coffin and Webb returned to the personnel office and renewed
their request. Shortly thereafter Carpenter appeared in the depart-
ment without his button.lg
k
14 Grimes did not testify at the hearing.
15 The above finding is based on the testimony of Webb ; neither Carpenter nor Herbert
was called to the witness stand. ,
582 ,DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regardless of the technical merits of Herbert's claim of lack of juris-
diction, we are convinced that a 'sincere effort on the part of the Com-
pany to preserve a strict neutrality between both competing unions
called for more vigorous action by the personnel department to prevent
Carpenter from continuing to wear the Independent's button and
thereafter to make known` to the employees that Carpenter's- act did
not represent company policy.
(e) Three days before the election someone pasted a C. I. 0. sticker
on the tool box of employee Albert Bender. That day he was asked
-both by Foreman Latham and Superintendent Brevick to remove the
,sticker. When he refused he was sent home16
(f) John Woolley testified that, in May 1942 he saw Miller, the
president of the Independent, and, one of its committeemen, soliciting
membership in Plant 417- Accompanied by several U. A. W. mem-
bers, Woolley called on Harry Wheeler, the plant superintendent, and
asked whether such- solicitation was permissible. Wheeler replied that
it was forbidden to both unions. Woolley testified that 10-minutes
later Wheeler instructed all the foremen in the plant' that no man
could leave his department without a pass. Woolley continued :
"..' , after that the U. A. E. W. [the Independent] solicited member
ships right just helter skelter, and of course, we were tied down."
He testified further that thereafter Independent pledge cards were
distributed, but that he could not take up the matter with Wheeler
because he could not get an interdepartmental pass.
Wheeler testified that he had been told by Woolley of solicitation
and had, informed him that all solicitation was forbidden. He denied
issuing instructions, immediately after Woolley's,visit, that employees
could not come directly to his office, but stated it had always been a
.rule that employees' wishing to see him should first consult their fore-
man. He. testified, however, that he had "probably" renewed -these
instructions after Woolley's visit.
We credit Woolley's testimony that the interdepartmental pass rule
was renewed directly after his first visit to Wheeler and that the Inde-
pendent continued to solicit membership in the plant after such visit.
We see no reason, however, why Woolley or the U. A. W. could not
have brought the renewed solicitation by the Independent to the Com-
pany's attention despite the interdepartmental pass rule.
(g) Robert Meeks testified that 3 weeks prior to the election he saw
employee Downs circulate an anti-C. I. 0. pamphlet in the depart-
ment and that he had seen Foreman Reuben Fuller look at the pam-
phlet while standing at Downs' desk. At the hearing Fuller denied
ever seeing the pamphlet before. We do not find it necessary to
Io This finding is based on the testimony of Bender . Neither Latham nor Brevick
testified.
17 Miller " did not deny or mention this solicitation in his testimony.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 583
I esolve the conflict in this testimony since in any event it does not
establish that Fuller was aware of any 'distribution of the pamphlet
in his department.
(h) We likewise disregard the testimony of four employees (John
Hempfling, Noble Adams, Robert Webb, and Robert Chamberlain)
that there was solicitation by Independent members during working
hours; since there was no credible testimony that such solicitation was
observed by or called to .the attention of the Company's supervisors.
(i) Charles Beaver testified that Independent pledge cards were'
circulated in his department in view of the foreman, 2 or 3 nights
before the election. He testified further that he complained to his
foreman, Charles Green; who replied that he had not seen any. Green
denied having any conversation with Beaver about the pledge cards
and testified that he was "off sick a week before the election." We
credit Green's denial.
(j) The Company offered testimony that 2 to 4 days before the elec-
tion, the top executives of the Company met and decided to instruct all
of the supervisory staff, including foremen, to maintain a neutral posi-
tion between both unions, indicating neither their views nor prefer-
ences. These instructions were thereupon transmitted by the super-
intendents to all of their foremen. This was the first time such
instructions had been given on a plant-wide basis. The employees,
however, were not advised of such instructions. Obviously such in-
structions, not communicated to the employees, cannot, absolve the
Company of, interference or discrimination by the foremen, and par-
ticularly not of violations occurring prior to the day the instructions
were given.
(k) The Independent offered testimony by seven witnesses that the
U. A. W. carried on solicitation in the plant during working hours.
These witnesses, however, failed to testify that such solicitation was
carrie•l on in the presence of supervisors. Moreover, two of these wit-
nesses testified that when they complained of such solicitation to the
supervisors, it was discontinued. Obviously the Company cannot be
said to have condoned violations of its no solicitation rule unless such
solicitation came to its attention.
3. The sponsorship, of the Independent by, the Company at a
patriotic rally 18
In -connection with a drive to sell" United States Government War
Bonds the Company staged a patriotic rally at the plant on May 30,
18 At the hearing the Company and the Independent objected to any consideration of this
item, since it was not specifically mentioned in the U. A. W . objections filed June 9, 1942.
It was, however , called to the Regional Director 's attention by the U A. W. when be
investigated the objections and, was discussed with representatives of the Company prior
to its being considered in the Report on Objections . The Trial , Examiner overruled the
objections . His ruling is hereby affirmed.
584' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1942, 2 days before the election, in which representatives of the Treas-
ury and War Departments participated. The ceremonies lasted about
1 hour and employees on the day shift were excused from work so that
they might attend. They were, however, paid for time lost from work.
About half of all the Company's employees attended the rally.
Among the half-dozen speakers ,was William Miller, who 'was in-
troduced by the vice president of the Company as the president of the
Independent "who was representing the Allison employees." Miller
was presented with a;banner on behalf of the employees and made' a
30-second speech of acceptance. No reference was, however, made to
the Independent in any of the speeches at the rally. Miller was
selected for this honor by 'the Company's personnel director. No
representative of the U. A. W. was on the speakers' platform or other-
wise participated in the ceremonies.
The U. A. W. contends that singling out the Independent's presi-
dent at the rally was an act of favoritism which indicated'the Com-
pany's sponsorship of the Independent to its assembled employees only
3 days before the election.19
The Company contends that since the Independent enjoyed exclu-
sive bargaining rights under its contract, the Independent was entitled
to be recognized as the employees' representative. Nothing in the'
contract,20 however, prevented the Company from having the Inde-
pendent and the U. A. W. jointly participate as the employees' reps
resentatives.
We find that by inviting the Independent's president to participate
in the bond rally without extending a similar invitation to the
U. A. W., the Company evidenced its favoritism to the prejudice of
the U. A. W.
4. The alleged gift by the Company to the Independent of a mailing
list of the employees
The U. A. W. contends that the Company shortly before the elec-
tion gave the Independent a list of the names and addresses of the
employees. In support of its contention the U. A. W. offered 'the
following evidence :
(a) A week and a half before the election a committee of the In-
dependent met in the plant and decided to mail an election appeal to
10 The parent body of the U. A. W., which enjoyed an exclusive bargaining contract at
the nearby Chevrolet plant owned by General Motors Corporation, requested the manage-
ment of that plant to stage a bond rally for it similar to the one in the Allison plant.
During the discussion , the Chevrolet management representative , commenting on the
Union's insistence , stated : ".. . You would think we were having an election at the
Chevrolet plant." '
21 The contract itself, although renewed automatically on May 22, 1942, must be deemed
to have been renewed subject to the implied condition subsequent that the Independent
win the election of June 2, 1942.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPOIIATION 585
all the employees in the plant. Brown, who presided at the meeting,
told the committeemen to turn in the names of all employees- who
might attend an Independent rally. When James Cooper, a com-
mitteeman present, told Brown that Cooper had forgotten his "book,"
Brown replied that Cooper could go out to the office and got the names
that he wanted. Cooper then left the meeting. In about an hour,
Robert Yeisley, one of the committeemen, went to look for Cooper
and found him in an office in Plant 3 talking to someone at a desk.
Yeisley observed Cooper and the other man copying names and ad-
dresses from a notebook. Cooper returned to` the meeting with either
two sheets full of names and addresses or, one sheet written on 'bothi
sides which he gave to those present at the meeting.
In the office in which Yeisley saw Cooper there were a couple of
women working, but Yeisley could not say whether there were any
supervisors present. It was about 6:30 in the evening when he saw
Cooper copying the names.n
(b) Seven other U. A. W. witnesses testified that although they
were not members of the Independent and had never given it their
addresses, they received an election appeal from the Independent on
May 29, 1942. Some of these testified that their names were not listed
in the telephone or city directory. In addition, Andrew Floyd Pelfrey
testified that although he was commonly known as Floyd Pelfrey and
was so listed in the city directory, on the employer's records he *as
listed as Andrew Pelfrey. Nevertheless, on May 29, 1942, he received
an election appeal from the Independent addressed "Andrew Pelfrey."
George W. White testified that he was commonly known as George
White and had so listed his name on the Independent's records. He
testified, however, that on the Company's records he was. listed as
George W. White. In January 1942 he received a letter from the
Independent addressed to ' George White, but on May 29,-1942, he
received an election appeal addressed George W. White.
Representatives of the Company and of the Independent testified
that no list of names and addresses of employees had been given by
the Company to the Independent. It was testified to in addition
that the mailing list of the Independent was made up' from a seniority
list furnished semi-annually by the Company pursuant to the con-
tract (but which contained no addresses), supplemented by addresses
obtained by personal inquiry by the Independent members.
While the testimony as to Cooper indicates that Cooper did copy a
list of names and addresses from the Company's records, it does not
in our opinion establish that the Company was aware of his activities.
" The above findings are based on the testimony of Yelsley , a witness called by the
U. A. W. Neither Cooper nor Brown was called to testify by any party nor was Yeisley's
account contradicted or disputed by any witness.
0
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABO'R RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the receipt of Independent mail by U. A. W. members,
the evidence is too tenuous to establish the gift of a mailing list by
the Company to the Independent.
5. Conclusions
The Company and the Independent contend that if there was any
interference or discrimination against the U. A. W. it was localized
in only a few departments and that such acts could not have affected
sufficient employees to change the outcome of the election.' We find no
merit in this contention. As we recently stated, to require a "nice
measurement of the actual coercive or intimidatory effect of miscon-
duct on the results of the election would place an undue burden on
the objecting party and the Board." 22 It is sufficient if, during a
pre-election campaign, the employer or agents whose conduct can
fairly be imputed to him have in substantial measure departed from the
strict and scrupulous neutrality they are required to observe.
On the basis of the whole record, we find that because the hostility
displayed by the Company's supervisors toward the U. A. W. and
its members, the discriminatory enforcement of the rule against
solicitation in the plant to the prejudice of the U. A. W., and the
improper exclusion of the U. A. W. at the bond rally ceremonies of
May 30, 1942, the election does not. fairly reflect the untrammeled
wishes of the employees and did not constitute a -fair test of the
employees' desires as to, representation. For these reasons we sustain
the U. A. W.'s objections to the conduct of the election and shall set
aside the election held on June 2, 1942. When the Regional Director
shall advise us that the time is appropriate, we shall direct that -a
new election be held among the Company's employees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board hereby vacates and sets aside
the election held in this proceeding on June 2, 1942, and the results
thereof. -
42 Matter of The Kilgore Manufacturing Company and United Mine Workers, District
50, Local No. 12461, 45 N. L. R. B., 468.
0