General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1096 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer filed a motion, dated October 13, 1953, for a rede-
termination of the compliance status of the Petitioner and for
revocation of the certification herein. On December 10, 1953,
the Board issued a notice to show cause to the Petitioner why
the Board should not determine that the Petitioner had never
been in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act and why, if
such determination was made, the Board should not revoke
the certification issued herein.
On January 14, 1954, the Board determined that the Petitioner
was not in compliance at times material hereto. No sufficient
cause has been shown why the Board should not proceed as in-
dicated in the notice to show cause.
[The Board set aside the entire proceedings and revoked the
certification of representatives issued therein.]
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Order.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CENTRAL FOUNDRY
DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-
3426. February 8, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 28,
1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region . At the conclusion of the
election a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which
showed that of approximately 36 eligible voters , 34 cast
ballots, of which 17 were for the Union , 16 were against, and 1
was marked void.
Thereafter, on July 31, 1953, the Employer filed timely
objections to the tally of ballots, alleging that the ballot
marked "void" was a valid ballot and represented a "No"
vote. In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director duly investigated the issue raised by the
Employer's objections and, on August 7, 1953, issued and
served upon the parties his report on objections in which he
concluded that the ballot in question was valid and constituted a
vote against the Union and recommended that the tally of ballots
be revised accordingly and that the petition herein be dismissed
because the Union had failed to obtain the required majority.
To this report the Union filed timely exceptions.
Thereafter , on August 10, 1953, the Union also served and
filed its objections to conduct affecting the election , alleging,
107 NLRB No 232.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CENTRAL FOUNDRY DIVISION 1097
in substance , that the Employer interfered with the election by
means of preelection acts of intimidation and coercion and by
promises of benefit. Following this , the Regional Director duly
conducted an investigation regarding the allegations of the
Union ' s objections and, on December 7 , 1953, issuedand served
upon the parties his report on the Union ' s objections , in which
he recommended that the Board order a formal hearing to
resolve issues of credibility in order to ascertain whether the
objections were meritorious . To this report on the Union's
objections , the Employer filed timely exceptions.
The disputed ballot : The Regional Director ' s report dis-
closes that the ballot marked void is the usual type designed to
give the voter the opportunity to vote for or against the only
labor organization involved . As marked, it contains a clearly
pencilled " X" under the word "No" and a partially erased
diagonal line ( obviously the beginning stroke of the letter "X" )
under the word "Yes ." The Regional Director concluded, and
we agree, that despite the markings on the ballot in the "Yes"
box, and the attempted erasure thereof , the intention of the voter
to vote "No" is abundantly clear. i Accordingly , we find that the
disputed ballot is valid and should have been counted with the
other valid votes as a vote against the Union.
The alleged interference : The Union , in its objections, 2
alleged certain preelection acts of interference by the Em-
ployer. The report of the Regional Director on the Union's
objections discloses that shortly before the filing of the petition
herein the Employer instituted wage increases for the laboratory
employees at 2 of its 3 plants, and had planned to do so at its
third plant , the one herein involved , located at Danville,
Illinois . The petition herein , seeking a unit of the Employer's
Danville laboratory employees , was filed before the Employer's
plan was effectuated at the Danville plant, and , upon advice of
counsel, the Employer did not proceed . The Union ' s objections
to the election are based on the testimony of several employees
that 3 supervisors told them that they would receive the increase
regardless of the outcome of the pending election . Two of the
supervisors categorically deny making such statement; the
third admits having done so, but only upon inquiry being made by
the employees . The only other alleged act of interference was
an alleged single instance of the questioning , on the day before
election, by a supervisor of an employee as to how the employee
was going to vote. This allegation is likewise denied by the
supervisor involved.
We do not agree with the ' Regional Director that a hearing
on the issues of credibility thus raised is necessary, for we
IN. L. R. B. v. Whitinsville Spinning Ring Company, 199 F 2d 585 (C A 1); Denver and
Ephrata Telephone and Telegraph Company, 106 NLRB 1134.
2Because the Union's objections were served and filed within 5 days after the service on
the parties of the Regional Director 's report on the Employer's objections, we agree with
the Regional Director that they were timely filed inasmuch as the report recommended a
change in the results of the election and revision of the tally of ballots.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are satisfied that the alleged objectionable conduct, , assuming
that it did occur, does not constitute interference with the
election . Prior to the filing of the instant petition, it was
common knowledge among the employees herein involved that
their counterparts at the Employer's other plants had already
received an increase, and that the Employer had planned to
treat them in like fashion . In such a situation , it is well settled
that notwithstanding the pendency of the petition, the Employer
would have been privileged to have given the wage increase to
the Danville employees; 3 but, to maintain absolute neutrality,
the Employer decided to withhold the wage increase , pending the
election . In these circumstances , the fact that certain super-
visors may have assured employees that the wage increase
would be forthcoming regardless of the outcome of the election
could hardly be regarded as improperly influencing the em-
ployees against the Union . Nor do we agree that the alleged
single instance of interrogation could have constituted inter-
ference with the election.4
Accordingly, we find that the Union's objections do not raise
substantial and material issues regarding the conduct of the
election , and, because the counting of the disputed ballot as a
vote against the Union results in the Union ' s failure to receive
the required majority of votes necessary for certification, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissred the petition.]
3 Eisner Grocery Co., 93 NLRB 1614; United Screw and Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916.
4Peter Paul, Inc., 99 NLRB 386; Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99 NLRB 422.
NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY and L. A. YOAST,
et als., Petitioners and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO. Case No. 39-RD-Z8. February 9, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. Burst,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and three other operating engineers, for
whose sole benefit this petition is brought , assert that the
Union is no longer their representative . The Union is a labor
107 NLRB No. 231.