Hobart Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 203 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of HOBART MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL I.MPLEMENT WORT{ERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-796
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISTON AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE
ELECTION
November 22, 1950
On October 9, 1950, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Direction in the above-entitled proceeding, overruling
the challenges to the votes of Grover Sells, Norman. Kepner, Eva Shep-
herd, Art Schneider, and Clarence Barron and directing that the
Regional Director open and count the ballots of these eligible voters
and thereafter prepare and cause to be served on the parties a revised
tally of ballots, including therein the count of their ballots. The
Board deferred its consideration of the Petitioner's objections to the
conduct of the election until after the final results of the balloting
should have been disclosed..
On October 19, 1950, the Regional Director, in accordance with the
Board's instructions, issued and served on the parties a revised talley
of ballots, which shows that, of 162 eligible voters, 83 cast ballots
against the Petitioner and 79 cast ballots for the Petitioner.' Under
these circumstances, it now becomes necessary to determine the issues
raised by the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the election.
Upon the basis of the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the
election, the Regional Director's report on challenges and objections,
the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case,
the Board makes the following :
Supplemental Findings of Fact
The Activities of Foremen. Witwer, Warner, and Miller
The Regional Director made the following findings with regard to
the activities of Foremen Witwer, Warner, and Miller : In February
or early March 1950, Witiver told an employee that the Employer
1
On October 26, 1950. the Board issued .i Certification of Results of Election , which it
'revoked by order issued on the-same date.
'"92 NLRB No. 46.
203
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not build a new plant in Greenville if the.Petitioner "got.in the
plant" ; and that, if the Petitioner won the election, the Employer
would move to Troy. On February 16, 1950, Witwer interrogated
the same employee about the identity of other employees who had
previously approached the latter about joining the Petitioner's organi-
zation, and when that employee refused to answer, Witwer told him
that he did not think much of his job and that lie would have a job
longer if he did not join a union. Several weeks before the election,
Warner told a group of employees that if the Petitioner "got in," the
Employer might just as well close down and go back to Troy, and, on
several other occasions, including one about a week before the election,
he told another group of employees that, if the Petitioner came in,
there was a possibility of moving the dishwasher department from
Greenville to Troy or Dayton. On February 16, 1950, Miller specifi-
cally asked an employee regarding her attendance at a union meeting.
About 2 weeks before the election, Miller told a group of employees
that there was too iriuch empty space in Troy and that the Employer
could move to Troy if the Petitioner came in. He made substantially
similar statements to individual employees until about a week before
the election.
The Regional Director further found that the Employer made no
renunciation or disavowal of the afore-mentioned statements, although
the substance of those statements and the fact that the foremen who
uttered them were supervisors were common knowledge throughout
the plant. As these findings of the Regional Director are not denied
by the Employer, we hereby adopt them.
Upon the basis of the above findings, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the election be set aside if, after counting the ballots,
it should become necessary to pass upon the objections to the conduct
of the election. The Employer, contending that the Board should
disregard this recommendation, alleges that (a) the recommendation
is improperly based on issues not raised by the Petitioner, and (b)
the afore-mentioned statements of Witwer, Warner, and Miller do
not constitute substantial interference warranting the setting aside
of the election, because those statements were made by "lower echelon"
officials, were unaccompanied by other anti-union conduct of the Em-
ployer, were made too long a time before the election to have coercive
effect, and were indirectly disavowed by the Employer in a preelection
speech by its attorney, in the course of which the attorney generally
advised the employees of the Employer's neutral position 2 We find
2 In its objections , the Petitioner alleged that the speech delivered by the Employer's
attorney on or about the day of the election ' was coercive . The Regional Director found
that the attorney 's speech was privileged . Neither of the parties excepted , and we adopt
his findings on this issue.
HOBART MANUFACTURING COMPANY 205
no merit in these contentions. As to (a), it is well established that
the jurisdiction of a Regional Director in making a post-election in-
vestigation is not limited to the issues raised by the parties.3 As to
(b), we have, in similar circumstances, held that threats of reprisals
against employees in the event that a union wins an election constitute,
per se, sufficient grounds for setting aside an election,4 and that the
coercive nature of such threats, p Dintedly made during an organizing
campaign and continuing until a week before the election and there-
fore reasonably related to the time of the election, is not impaired by
reason of a' preelection speech which, although alleging the Em-
ployer's neutrality, does not specifically attempt to disavow respon-
sibility for the threats or the conduct of the persons making them.5
On the basis of the entire record herein, we conclude that the Em-
ployer's employees have been denied the right guaranteed them under
the Act to select bargaining representatives of their own free choice,
and that they are therefore entitled to a new election. Accordingly,
we shall set aside the election and shall direct that a new election
be held when the Regional Director advises that the tine therefor
is appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of April 5, 1950, conducted
among employees of Hobart Manufacturing Company, Greenville,
Ohio, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order Setting
Aside Election.
6 J. I. Case Company, Inc., 86 NLRB 12 ; Merrimac Flat Corporation, 85 NLRB 329.
4 Wilson ct Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 1; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 82 NLRB 160.
6 Wilson & Co., Inc., supra; U. S. Rubber Co. (Scottsville Plant), 86 NLRB 3.
929979-51-vol. 92-15