Good-All Electric Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 72 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
direct that the election directed herein be held during the Employer's
peak season, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director.'
[Text of Direction of Election 10 omitted from publication.]
' The Employer contends , inter alie, that the petition is premature because filed before
the peak season . However , there is no requirement that petitions for seasonal employees
be filed during the peak season. It suffices that , as here, the election is not held until
the peak season.
10 As a Federal labor union, the Federal Union is affiliated directly with the AFL-CIO
in contrast to a union which is affiliated with an international union. However , the Fed-
eral Union and the Brewery Workers request that their names appear jointly on the ballot
in any election directed herein on the ground that the Federal Union has applied for a
charter from the Brewery Workers and that their affiliation with the Brewery Workers
will be completed in the near future . The Petitioner acquiesced in this request . Accord-
ingly, we shall place the names of these two unions on the ballot jointly in the election
herein directed . See Adams Packing Association, Inc., supra.
Good -All Electric Mfg. Co. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1525 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
17-RC-0228. January 1 7, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 5,
1956,1 an election was conducted on July 18, 1956, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region,
among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. At the
close of the election a tally of ballots was furnished each of the parties
in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally
shows that 127 valid ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 382 valid bal-
lots were cast against the Petitioner, 42 ballots were challenged, and
4 ballots were declared void.
On July 20, 1956, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election, and requested the right to with-
draw its petition. On October 1, 1956, the Regional Director, after
investigation, issued his report on the objections, recommending that
the election be set aside, and that the Petitioner's request to withdraw
its petition be approved. On October 18, 1956, the Employer filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit
in the Employer's exceptions.
In June 1955, the Employer announced to its employees that it had
established a profit-sharing trust fund for them, and that it was
making an initial payment to that fund based on the employees' earn-
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 21.
GOOD-ALL ELECTRIC MFG. CO. 73
ings for the fiscal year ending May 31, 1955. On July 16, 1956, the
Employer announced to the employees that it was making a further
payment to the trust fund based on the employees' earnings for the
fiscal year ending May 31,1956. The election was held 2 days later on
July 18,1956.
The Petitioner concedes that the employees were entitled to the
1956 trust fund benefit and should have received it, but contends that
the announcement of the benefit should have been made on a date con-
sistent with the announcement of the 1955 benefit or after the election
of July 18, 1956. In apparent agreement with this contention, and
apparently also because the 1956 announcement made reference to the
Petitioner's organizing campaign, the Regional Director found that
the announcement of this benefit was "more than mere temporal coin-
cidence" with the election, and constituted improper interference with
the election. We disagree.
Under the trust fund agreement, the Employer assumed a contrac-
tual obligation to pay to the trust, with respect to each fiscal year
ending May 31 of each year subsequent to 1955, a contribution in an
amount equal to 25 percent of the net income of the Employer for such
fiscal year, subject to the limitation that such contribution should not
exceed 15 percent of the employees' earnings. Thus, the benefit in
question was not only one which had been previously granted, but,
as conceded in effect by the Petitioner, was one which would be an
annual practice. The first question raised by the Petitioner is why
the 1956 announcement of a payment to the trust fund was made in
July rather than in June as in 1955. The Employer offers a valid
and reasonable explanation for this departure from past practice.
In brief, this explanation is that certain prior collateral litigation
required an audit of its books which made it impossible to determine
its profits and the amount of the 1956 contribution to the trust fund
until the audit was completed, and that as soon thereafter as possible
the announcement of the 1956 contribution was made. Thus, the
delay in the 1956 announcement of the benefit can in no way be attrib-
uted to the Employer or any design on its part to interfere with the
election. There remains for consideration only the contention that
because such announcement was already a month or more late, it
should have been delayed for 3 more days until after the election.
In 1955, the Employer announced the trust fund benefit as soon as
possible after the May 31 closing date on which the contribution was
based. The same practice was followed in 1956 after the delay over
which the Employer had no control. Moreover, the 1956 announce-
ment made no change in the established benefit for it reflected the
same contribution as had been made a year earlier. In such circum-
stances, we find that the Employer was following a normal business
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
course, which it was not under any obligation to depart from by de-
ferring the 1956 announcement until after the election, because of the
fortuitous circumstance that the election was only 2 days away? Nor
do we consider the announcement's reference to the Petitioner's organ-
izing campaign as showing a design to interfere with the election,
in view of the fact that the Petitioner had previously raised the
matter of the trust as an issue in the campaign and the Employer
was simply countering with its view of the trust'fund. Accordingly,
we reject the Regional Director's recommendation that the election
be set aside, and we hereby overrule the Petitioner's objections.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the tally
of ballots shows that the Petitioner lost the election, we shall issue a
certification of results of election to that effect. Accordingly, we deny
the Petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1525,
AFL-CIO, in the election held herein, and that said organization is
not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the
appropriate unit.]
MEMBER MulmocK, dissenting :
In my opinion, the Employer's action here was calculated to, and
did, interfere with a free election.
Assuming arguendo the validity of the Employer's explanation for
its announcement of the 1956 payment to the trust fund a month or
more later than its announcement of the 1955 payment to the" fund,
the Employer offers no valid explanation for its haste in making the
1956 announcement after there had already been a considerable post-
ponement of the announcement beyond the established time for mak-
ing it. If the announcement was already a month or more late, surely
the Employer could have waited just 3 more days until after the
election to make it. There is no evidence that the trust fund agree-
ment precluded it, or that there were any other compelling reasons
for not doing so. Having already deviated considerably from its
established practice with respect to notice of contributions to the trust
fund, I fail to see how a very slight further deviation would have
been prejudicial to either the Employer or the employees. Moreover,
the announcement also makes an antiunion reference to the Petitioner's
organizing campaign, stating that: "No union was responsible for
the establishment of the trust. No union can help us work together
to achieve the success which means employment, security and income
to Good-All employees." In view of the foregoing, I would find that
the announcement of this employment benefit with such "haste after
2 See Detroit Aturrninnm d Brass Corporation, 107 NLRB 1411.
WYMAN-GORDON CO. 75
delay" 2 days before the election, accompanied by antiunion state-
ments, was calculated to, and did, interfere with a free election.3
I would therefore, set aside the election.
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
3 See Le Rot Company, 105 NLRB 309.
Wyman -Gordon Co., Ingalls Shepard Division and International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO I and International Union,
United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO,2 Petitioners . Cases Nos. 13-RC-4916
and 13-RC-4997. January 18,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Rush F. Hall, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
1 Herein referred to as the Boilermakers.
z Herein referred to as the UAW.
3 The Employer moved that the UAW's petition be dismissed and that the petitions herein
not be consolidated because the UAW's showing of interest was untimely made. The
Board has consistently held that showing of interest is a matter fbr administrative de-
termination and cannot be litigated in a representation proceeding California Furniture
Shops, Ltd, 115 NLRB 1399 . Moreover, we are administratively satisfied with the UAW's
showing of interest in this proceeding.
The Employer also contends that both petitions are barred on the ground that a peti-
tioner who withdraws a petition is prohibited from again filing a new petition affecting
the same employer and employees for a period of 6 months The Board 's records show
that the Boilermakers and the UAW did file and withdraw petitions less than 6 months
prior to their filing of the petitions herein , but the withdrawals in both cases were made
without prejudice to the filing of new petitions . We find no merit in the Employer's con-
tention as the limitation alleged by ' the Employer applies only to cases where the Peti-
tioner's withdrawal has been with prejudice
4 The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and the briefs
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
5 Employees Independent Union of Wyman -Gordon, hereinafter called the Independent,
was permitted to intervene in both cases on the basis of its contractual interest. The
UAW intervened in Case No . 13-RC-4916, on the basis of a showing of interest.
The Employer would not stipulate that the Boilermakers and the UAW are labor organ-
izations . Moreover , the Boilermakers and the UAW refused to stipulate as to the Inde-
pendent's status as a labor organization . The record reveals that all three organizations
exist for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of their members with Employ-
117 NLRB No. 23.