Heintz Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER 1
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITE!) AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 4-RC-1583 and 4-
RM-104. March 19, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On January 14, 1953, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Di-
rection of Election,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region, among the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees, to determine whether or not the said employees wished the
UAW, the Intervenor,3 or neither to represent them for purposes of
collective bargaining. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally
of ballots was furnished the parties, in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that of approxi-
mately 1,870 eligible voters, 1,001 cast ballots in favor of the In-
tervenor, 823 cast ballots in favor of UAW, 7 cast ballots for neither,
37 ballots were challenged, and approximately 25 ballots were im-
pounded.4
Thereafter, on January 21, 1953, UAW filed timely objections to
the conduct of the election, alleging, in general, (1) that the In-
tervenor had electioneered at or in the vicinity of the polling place,
(2) that the Employer had furnished its employees with transpor-
tation to work and the polls on the day of the election, and (3) that
the Employer's supervisory employees had expressed a preference
for the Intervenor. Thereafter, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and on February 9, 1953, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections.
'Herein called UAW On January 9, 1953, the Board permitted the substitution of
the UAW on the ballot for the United Steelworkers of America , CIO, the petitioning union
in the original Decision and Direction of Election herein, 100 NLRB 1521.
2 100 NLRB 1521 , as amended on November 10 and December 2, 1952, and January 9,
1953
3 Heintz Employees ' Union.
4 After the close of the hearing in that case , but prior to the issuance of the Board deci-
sion, Local 98, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, APL (hereinafter called
IBEW ) filed a "Motion to Reopen Record and Permit Intervention ," alleging that at the
time of the hearing it represented a unit of electricians . As the IBEW had acquired a
sufficient representative status before the close of the hearing and had not been previously
notified of that proceeding, the Board directed that the electricians ' ballots in the forth-
coming election be impounded , pending a determination as to whether the unit sought by
IBEW was appropriate (See footnote 4 of that case.)
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was conducted , the unit requested by IBEW
,was found to be inappropriate , and IBEW's petition was dismissed Case No. 4-RC-1648,
unpublished . As the number of votes cast by the electricians was insufficient to affect the
results of the election , the Board did not direct that these impounded ballots be opened.
103 NLRB No. 99.
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 769
He found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain allegation
(1) ; that allegation (2) was true, but did not constitute interference
with the election, particularly because the Employer had planned for
a full week prior to the election to furnish such transportation, in
preparation for a citywide transit strike which had been scheduled
for and did commence on the day of the election; and that allegation
(3), if it did occur, did not occur at or near the polling place. He
concluded that the objections raised no substantial or material issues.
and recommended that the objections be overruled, and that the In-
tervenor be certified as bargaining representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit. On February 18, 1953, UAW filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's conclusions and recommenda-
tions contained in his report.
The Board 5 has reviewed UAW's objections to the conduct and
results of the election, the Regional Director's report, and the ex-
ceptions thereto. The Board accepts the Regional Director's findings
and concludes that there is no substantial evidence which would war-
rant a finding that either the Intervenor or the Employer had engaged
in electioneering at or near the polling place. As the Employer's
offer of transportation to work and to the polls was available to all
employees, who were free to accept or reject the offer, we do not believe
that the Employer thereby interfered with the conduct of the election 6
Nor do we believe that an employer's expressed preference for 1 of
2 competing unions, unaccompanied by any coercive statements or
conduct, constitutes interference with the election.? The Board, there-
fore, finds that UAW's exceptions raise no substantial and material
issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and they are hereby
overruled.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Heintz Employees' Union has been
designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the above-
named Employer, in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be
appropriate, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the afore-
said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
° Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
° See John S . Barnes Corporation, 90 NLRB 1858.
' Stewart-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1153.