Gong Bell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 342 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

342.. DECISIONS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All produetioW and maintenance en ployees -employed at_the Em.-
plover's FIoricon, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all salai=ie ein la ees
office clerical employees, shop clerks, watchmen and guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 13-RC-4512.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Gong Bell Manufacturing Co. and International Association of
Machinists, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC 4048. October 11,
1955
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election en-
tered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the First
Region on June 9, 1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
June 17, 1955, under the supervision of the Regional Director, among
the employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's East Hamp-
ton,, Connecticut, plant. Upon completion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approxi-
mately 120 eligible voters, 61 valid votes were cast for the Petitioner,
54 against, and 1 was challenged.
On June 24, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In its objections, the Employer
alleged as improper conduct the Petitioner's circulating among em-
ployees, at a time the Employer could not effectively reply, statements
concerning the Employer which statements the Employer charac-
terized as false, misleading, inflammatory, and highly material. In
accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector conducted an investigation and on July 15, 1955, issued and
duly served upon the parties his report on objections and recom-
mended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the
Petitioner as the bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Thereafter, on August 2, 1955, the Employer filed its excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report on objections and a supporting
brief.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. '
2. The labor organization involved claims,to represent certain em-
-ployees of the Employer.
114 NLRB No. 68.
GONG BELL MANUFACTURING CO. 1343
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.
4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Em-
ployer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's East
Hampton, Connecticut, plant, excluding executives, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. Inconformity with the Regional Director's recommendation, we
find no merit in the Employer's objections.
The Employer submitted to the Regional Director a card, replicas
of which were distributed by the Petitioner among employees in the
unit on the morning of the day of the election. Printed on the card
was the following : "Don't be fooled again. They gave with one hand
and then, took more away with the other. Don't let it happen again.
Vote I. A. M.-A. F. L." [Emphasis supplied.] The Employer con-
tends that the card referred to certain benefits it bestowed upon its
employees in March 1954, and that it did not take "more" from its
employees than it gave them at that time. The Regional Director
concluded that such alleged misstatements would not be grounds for
setting aside the election.' In this regard he relied upon the rule set
forth in Merck d Company, Inc.,2 where the Board held that normally
it would "not undertake . . . to consider the truth or falsity of of-
ficial union utterances, unless the ability of the employees to evaluate
such utterances has been so impaired by the use of . . . campaign
trickery that the uncoerced desires of the employees cannot be de-
termined in an election." The Employer contends, however, that the
timing of the distribution of the cards on the morning of the election
when it could not effectively reply under the rule of Peerless Plywood 3
constituted "campaign trickery" within the meaning of the Merck
case. We disagree. In Peerless Plywood the Board expressly re-
served to the parties the privilege of distributing campaign literature
on company premises at any time before an election 4 Furthermore,
the Board in Comfort Slippers rejected the contention that under
Peerless Plywood the distribution of union campaign literature must
' The Regional Director found, contrary to the Employer's contention that the language
on the cards could not be held to have necessarily referred to the March 1954 benefits.
However, we need not decide this question, for even if we accept the Employer's construc-
tion of the cards, we, nevertheless, find no merit in the objections, for the reasons stated
above.
a 104 NLRB 891. See also Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB 183.
3107 NLRB 427. Under the rule of this case the employer was precluded from address-
ing any massed assembly of its employees on company time within 24 hours of the election
for the purpose of influencing their vote in the election.
See also Crown Drug Co., 110 NLRB 845.
a Sups a.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be so timed as to afford an employer the opportunity to reply. 'More-
over , on its face , the exception to the rule of the Merck case quoted
above refers to "campaign trickery" that renders the employees in-
capable of evaluating the utterances in question ; it does not refer to
conduct which may place an employer at a disadvantage insofar as
replying is concerned. Mere the alleged false statements involved
only the Petitioner's characterization of certain actions of the Em-
ployer affecting the terms and conditions of employment of the very
employees to whom the campaign propaganda was directed and who,
therefore, were in a position to evaluate it.6 Thus, we find that the
Petitioner did not engage in "campaign trickery" within the meaning
of the above exception and accordingly adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation and overrule the objections.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the tally
of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid
ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the International Association of Machinists,
AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the appropriate unit described in para-
graph numbered 4, above.]
9 The Employer in support of its position relies on Gummed Product8 Company, 112
NLRB 1092 , in which the Board set aside an election on the basis of certain union mis-
representations . That case involved a petitioner 's misstating to employees of the employer
the wages it had secured through negotiations with another company. The petitioner
reiterated its misinformation in the face of the employer 's denial of its accuracy. How-
ever , that case is clearly not applicable here for as pointed out in the decision therein the
petitioner was dealing with information peculiarly within its own knowledge. In the
instant proceeding , as noted above , the alleged false statements dealt with matters of
which the employees had personal knowledge. In this respect the case at bar is distinguish-
able from N. L R B v . Trinity Steel Co. , 214 F. 2d 120 ( C. A. 5), cited by the Employer.
Robberson Steel Company and Shopman's Local Union 546 of
the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-1689.
October 11,1955
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election en-
tered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region on June 1, 1955, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on June 6, 1955, under the supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor among the employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, plant. Upon completion of the election,
114 NLRB No. 65.