Hercules Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

{
In the Matter of HERCULES, MOTORS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER ,
Case No. 8-R-1904
Si `PPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
April 29, 194'
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the,
Board on December 7, 1945,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
on January 28,, 1946, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region. Upon-the conclusion of the
election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties by the Regional
-Director.
The Tally indicates that of 4032 eligible voters, 2411 cast votes, of
which 715 were for the Union, 1648 against the ,Union, and -48 were
challenged.2 Ten ballots were void.
On February 1, 1946, the Union filed objections to conduct of the
Employer allegedly affecting the results of the election. Thereupon,
in accordance with the Board's • Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation and issued and duly served upon
the parties a Report on Objections, dated April 18,1946. The Regional
Director concluded upon the facts -recited in his Report that the Em-
ployer had interfered with the conduct of the election' and recom-
mended that the election results be set aside: The Employer thereupon
filed Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report.
Upon notice duly served, a hearing on the objections was held before
James A. Shaw; Trial Examiner, on July 26, 1946, pursuant to Board
direction. All parties appeared and participated. The Trial Exam-
iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss
the Union's Objections to the conduct of the election and the Regional
164 N. L. R . B. 1252.
2 It is unnecessary to make any disposition of the challenged ballots inasmuch as they
are insufficient to affect the election results.
73 N. L. R. B„ -No . 123.
650
HERCULES MOTORS CORPORATION 651
Director's Report on Objections. For the reasons stated hereinafter,
this motion is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case', the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The Regional Director's Report sets forth five bases as reason for
setting aide the election results.
1. Surveillance of union meetings: Employee, Weddell testified thgt
shortly after December 7, 1945, while he was en route to a union meet-
ing, lie observed Sergeant'Eysen, a member of the Employer's police
department, in an automobile that was parked opposite the entrance
to the Union Hall; that upon his arrival at the meeting, Weddell
reported the incident to- Fowler, a union representative, and that
Fowler thereupon left the Hall in the company of another union repre-
sentative, Didisse. Both Fowler and Didisse then engaged_Eysen in
conversation and were assured by Eysen, according to the latter's
testimony, that he was not checking on the employees entering the
Union Hall but was engaged in his, own private business. Fowler
thereupon invited Eysen to the union meeting but Eysen declined and
the parties separated.3
The uncontradicted evidence also shows that Eysen's car was parked
225 feet from the Union Hall on the night in question and that the
night was dark and rainy. Roscoe Rice, a civil engineer in Canton,
Ohio, testified that he subsequently went to the place where Eysen's
car had been parked on the. afore-mentioned occasion and that he was
unable to identify anyone walking toward him from the entrance
of the Union Hall until the person came to a point about 80 feet from
him.. Upon consideration of all the evidence relating to this inci-
dent, "we find that Eysen did not engage in surveillance of the Em-
ployer's employees.
Weddell also testified that he had observed Assistant Foreman
Rezos 4 near 'the Union Hall on several occasions when union meetings
were in progress, and that Rezos had mentioned to him the names of
some of the employees who attended meetings. Rezos admitted that
he frequently walked by the Union Hall but denied that he had ever
engaged in surveillance. He testified that he resided in the neigh-
borhood of the Hall and often passed it on his way to a nearby shopping
center. Rezos also testified that he and Weddell were old friends,
chat Weddell had often urged him to join the Union, and that he had
accompanied Weddell to at least two union meetings. We credit Rezos'
denial and find that he did not engage in surveillance of union meetings.
Neithei Fowlei nor Didisse testified concerning this incdent
a The record sho as that assistant f.iemen were eligible to vote in the election
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we do not find that the Employer engaged in surveil'-
lance of union meetings.
-2. Alleged coercive statements:. Evidence was adduced to the effect
that Supervisor Urbanski had declared that "Unions probably weren't
so bad but that it would cause so much trouble if we Would have a union
in there"; that Supervisor Owens stated in response to an employee's
question on the election, that if the union won the election, there would
be a' strike within 30 days; that Supervisor Carpenilli asked an em-
ployee how he felt about the coming election; that Assistant Superin-
tendent.Burkhardt advised another employee, after pointing out the
advantages of dealing directly with the Employer, "[to] get on the
right side of the fence and to go out and plug"; that Assistant Foreman
Petrine, one of the eligible voters, accepted a ten dollar bet from an-
other employee on the outcome of the election ; and that Foreman
Switzenberger announced that "Hercules did not need a Union .. .
[and that] there wasn't an employee -. . . that had a kick coming."
Employee Petroski also testified in this' connection that approxi-
mately 3 weeks before the election, he had been reprimanded by Fore-
man Wenzel for leaving leis department during working hours, and
that Wenzel had warned him, "You had better stay up in your depart-
ment. You know that you are pretty active in this Union here, and
you are on the spot. You watch your step." Petroski further testi-
fied that he was not an active union member at the time. Wenzel
gave a different version of his remarks to Petroski on the occasion
in question. He testified' that while he' was reproving Petroski for
leaving his place of work, he observed that the latter was wearing a
union button and he thereupon undertook to explain to Petroski that
the reproof,was administered because Petroski had violated a com-
pany rule and not because of his union activities. Both Petroski and
Wenzel testified that later that day Wenzel told Petroski that he
regretted having had to reprimand Petroski. We credit Wen'zel's
testimony with regard to this incident.'
We are of the opinion that on the record before us,-the afore-
mentioned utterances were not reasonably likely to have restrained
the employees' choice of a bargaining representative.
3. The wage increase: While the Regional Director alleged in his
Report on Objections that the Employer had granted its employees
a 10-percent wage increase on August 27, 1945, the Board's order
directing the hearing herein specifically limited the issues to platters
arising after issuance of -the Direction- of Election on December 7,
5 We do not credit the testimony of Employee Eller to the effect that Foieman Hagan
made scurrilous remarks about the union, one of which she-allegedly overheard about a reek
before the election ,, The record shows, as Eller admitted , that she was absent from the
plant from December 18. 1945 , to March 4 , 1946 , because of illness . Furthermore, Hagan
denied that he had ever mnade any anti-union remarks.
HERCULES MOTORS CORPORATION 653
1945. We therefore find that this matter is beyond the scope of this
supplemental proceeding.6
- 4. The assumption of partial control of the mechanics of the elec-
tion: This finding in the Report on Objections is based on charges
that:
(a) Supervisors lined up the employees in their departments pre-
paratory to releasing them to vote and checked their names against
a list;
(b) Supervisors directed their employees to go to the polls before
the Board agent in charge of the election dispatched notice that they
were to be released;
(c) Supervisors supplied transportation to the polls to employees
who were temporarily laid off.
As to the charge that supervisors lined up employees, the Em-
ployer contends that this procedure was followed to facilitate the
balloting- and that the Board agent first assigned to conduct the
election 7 had approved the plan when discussing the details of the
election. The record shows that the election notices, which were
posted throughout the plant, listed the time and place that the em-
ployees in each department were to vote. The Employer, moreover,
advised the supervisors of the voting time of their employees and
informed then that a runner would come to their respective de-
partments and conduct the employees to the polls at the scheduled
time. The runners, who were selected from the observers by the
-Board agent in charge of the election, did in fact escort the em-
ployees from their departments to the polling places. A union
observer, who acted as a runner at the election, testified. that he re- -
ceived the following instructions from the Board agent: "We were
to go to the departments and they are supposed -to be ready to come
out to vote when we got there." There is no showing in the record
that the afore-mentioned supervisors in any way attempted to in-
fluence or hinder any eligible voter from exercising his free choice in
the election.
As to the charge that supervisors released employees before the
arrival of- a runner, the evidence discloses that only one foreman
engaged in' such conduct. The employees in his department had
been scheduled to vote at. 10:00 a. in. and when, at the appointed
hour, -no runner appeared, the foreman sent the employees to the `
polls on his own initiative. There' is no indication in the record
'that by this conduct the employees were deprived of the right to
vote or that the foreman in question sought to influence'their selec-
tion of a bargaining representative.
The Petitioner's motion to broaden the scope of the Board's order is hereby denied
Another Board agent was subsequently assigned to conduct the election
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
The Employer admits that it supplied transportation to the polls
for a number of its employees . However, the evidence does not
show that this service was rendered - exclusively to non-union em-
ployees. Moreover , there is no showing that the supervisors driv-
ing the automobiles were guilty of any improper action or that they
otherwise attempted to influence the employees in the election.
We are of-the opinion that the evidence adduced at the hearing
does not substantiate the allegation that the - Employer improperly
assumed partial control of the mechanics of the election 8 , ,
'5. The publication of anti-union statements: During the month
of January 1946, the-Employer undertook to make known to the
employees its views regarding their unionization . It did so by means
of notices and letters . The Employer therein characterized the Union's
organizational efforts as an attack upon the mutual interests of, the
Employer and the employees',- and, after listing various benefits
granted the employees such as wage increases , bonuses, insurance bene-
fits, and vacations , the Employer avowed its intention of continuing'
these benefits . The employees were urged to "judge for themselves
where their individual . welfare lay" and were advised that the elec-
tion gave them an opportunity to decide whether to continue their
lot with "proven , responsible management- or cast it with irrespon-
sible outside labor organizations ." In a letter dated January' 24,
1946, the Employer expressed the view that it did not believe any
"radical departure -from our present course will- preserve the mutual
benefits we have worked together to achieve"; it concluded with -the
announcement that "Management cannot tell you how to vote-.
We can only state our position , refer you to' the record and- trust
to the sound judgment [of the employees] to affirm or deny what
the company sincerely believes to be an inherently fair and workable
policy." -
While the afore-mentioned documents indicate the Employer's dis-
approval of -the Union, they are not per se coercive or of a nature war-
ranting setting aside the election results.
We are satisfied and find that the record as a whole does not estab-
lish such interference by the Employer with the conduct of the elec-
tion or with the-exercise of a free choice of representatives by the em-
ployees participating therein as would warrant setting the election
aside, at this time.
The results of the election held before the hearing among the em-
ployees of the Employer show that the Petitioner has not secured a
majority of the valid votes cast. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition herein.
We note in this connection that the Certificate of Conduct of Election was signed by
representatives of all parties and no reference is made to anv of the afore-mentioned charges
HERCULES MOTORS CORPORATION 655
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of employees of Hercules Motor Corpora-
tion, Canton, Ohio, filed by International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 010, be,
and it hereby is , dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took 'ino part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
789926-47-vol. 73-43