Harry Davies Molding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1737 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

HARRY DAVIES MOLDING CO. 1737
Harry Davies Molding Co . and International Union , United In-
dustrial Workers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-59f21.
May 23,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed October 11, 1956, an election by secret ballot was held under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region on November 1, 1956, among certain employees of the
Employer. At the close of the election, a tally of ballots was fur-
nished each of the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations. The tally showed that out of approximately 132 elegible
voters, 67 voted for the Intervenor, Local 1031, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 50 for the Petitioner, and
13 ballots were challenged. The challenges were not sufficient in num-
ber to affect the results of the election. A majority of the ballots cast
were for Local 1031, IBEW-AFL-CIO.
On November 5, 1956, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. On February 11, 1957, the
Regional Director, after investigation, issued his report on objections,
recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Inter-
venor be certified. On February 21, 1957, the Petitioner filed excep-
tions to the report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Jenkins].
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.
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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ingof Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Chicago, Illinois, plant, excluding office and plant clerical employees,
professional employees, executives, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
117 NLRB No. 223.
1738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The objections to the election include a number of allegations
which may be considered as a group.'
Of the matters remaining to be considered are objections Nos. 1
and 6. In objection No. 1, it is alleged that a week before the election,
the Employer sent a letter to its employees containing half-truths
and lies by which it coerced the employees and created an atmosphere
detrimental to the conduct of a free election.
The investigation shows that in this letter the Employer compared
the Petitioner and the Intervenor to the detriment of the Petitioner,
and made it clear that it preferred the Intervenor. The letter con-
tained no threats of reprisals or promise of benefits. Accordingly, the
Regional Director recommended that this objection be overruled. As
the exceptions fail to state any facts to substantiate the contention
that the letter contained lies or threats, we adopt the Regional Di-
rector's recommendation.
The same is the case concerning objection No. 3, which alleged that
the Employer's attorney made a speech the day before the election
between 10: 45 a. in. and 11: 15 a. in. in the plant on working time.
The Regional Director found that the speech was noncoercive in char-
acter and did not violate the Board's 24-hour rule, since the election
did not begin until 2 p. in. the following day. He therefore recom-
mended that this objection be overruled. As the exceptions state no
facts to gainsay the findings and conclusions of the Regional Director,
we adopt his recommendation.
The last objection, No. 6, alleges that : Shortly after the polls opened,
the Employer's attorney entered the polling area and protested
loudly against the presence of one Damin Vance, who had been dis-
charged about 10 days prior to the election; the attorney insisted
Vance was a trespasser and must leave the building immediately or
be arrested; after the Board agent determined Vance would be per-
mitted to vote under challenge, the attorney said that the Employer
would withdraw from the election and would not recognize the re-
sults of the election; thereupon the attorney removed the eligibility
list from the polling area and returned it after some delay, after
which the Board agent completed the election. All this took place in
the presence of the 8mployees who were waiting to vote. The Peti-
tioner contended that under these circumstances the election was not
conducted under standards of fairness as required by the Board, and
that for this reason the election should be set aside.
1 Objection No 2 alleged that the Employer granted representatives of the Intervenor
access to the plant and to the employees during working hours, but refused access to
representatives of the Petitioner . Objection No. 4 claimed that the Employer , during
the preelection period, circulated authorization cards for the Intervenor and that super-
visors sought to sign employees up for the Intervenor Objection No. 5 contended that
during the preelection period the Employer distributed buttons for the Intervenor. The
Regional Director overruled these objections As no exceptions were filed , we adopt the
Regional Director 's rulings.
LOCAL 1016 1739
The Regional Director found the facts as alleged. However, the
eligibility list was out of the possession of the Board agent no longer
that 10 or 15 minutes and, despite the Employer's protests, Vance was
permitted to vote under challenge. The Regional Director, while not
condoning the attorney's conduct, found that as this behavoir did not
favor the Intervenor and affected both unions equally, that the Inter-
venor should not be penalized by having the election set aside. We
agree with the Regional Director's conclusions. As Vance was per-
mitted to vote despite the protests of the Employer's attorney and as
the eligibility list was out of the control of the Board agent for only
a few minutes, we do not believe that the Petitioner was prejudicially
affected by this incident.2 Therefore, in agreement with the Regional
Director, we find that the election should not be set aside. As the
Intervenor has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall
certify the Intervenor as representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
[The Board certified Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of the Employer in the appropriate
unit.]
2 See General Electric Company , 115 NLRB 300, 307.
Local 1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO ; Donald Hawkins, business agent of Local 1016,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO; and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO and Booher Lumber Co., Inc . Case No.
3-CC-53. May 24,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23, 1956, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety , as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 finds merit in the General Counsel's exceptions for the
reasons hereinafter set forth.
117 NLRB No. 210.