Kennametal, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the record that the skills required for these crafts are different and
the record further shows that the Petitioner's constitution treats them
as two distinct crafts Under all the circumstances, we believe that
the rubber printing plate makers may, if they so desire, constitute a
separate unit On the other hand, in view of the prior bargaining
history, they may also appropriately continue to be represented by the
Intervenor in the broader unit We shall, therefore, make no final
unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of
the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all rubber printing
plate makers at the Employer's Dayton, Ohio, plant, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
this unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining In the event
a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain
a part of the broader unit and the Regional Director will issue a
certification of results of election to such effect
(Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
Kennametal , Inc. and International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner Case No 7-RC-3420 August 8,
1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued June 26,
1957, in the above-entitled proceeding,' an election by secret ballot
was conducted on July 24, 1957, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region among the employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board Upon the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 53 eligible voters, 49 cast ballots, of
which 23 were cast for the Petitioner, 25 were cast against the Peti-
tioner, and 1 ballot was challenged The challenged ballot is insuffi-
cient to affect the results of the election herein Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election
Not published
121 NLRB No 59
KENNAMETAL, INC. 41T
On November 29, 1957, following an investigation, the Regional
Director issued his report on objections to conduct affecting the results
of election wherein he recommended that objection 2 be overruled
and that the election be set aside on the basis of objection 3; or, if
such recommendation were not adopted, that a hearing be held to
resolve issues raised in connection with objections 1 and 4. Excep-
tions were filed to certain of these recommendations, and on February
10, 1958, the Board issued an order directing hearing, in which it
adopted the Regional Director's recommendation as to objection 2,
and directed a hearing, and the preparation of a report, in connection
with objections 1, 3, and 4.
A hearing was duly held on March 11, 1958, before Herbert C.
Kane, hearing officer. At the close of the hearing, the parties filed
memoranda for the consideration of the hearing officer in making his
findings and recommendations. Thereafter, on May 16, 1958, the
hearing officer issued a report and recommendations on objections
to election. He therein found that there was no merit in objections
1 and 4, and none in objection 3 insofar as the latter, objection related
to representations by the Employer concerning the Petitioner's mem-
bership dues. As no exceptions have been filed to these findings, we
adopt them and hereby overrule objections 1 and 4 and also objection
3 to the extent involved.
To the extent that objection 3 alleged misrepresentation by the
Employer of the wage rates contained in a competitor's labor contract,
the hearing officer found merit in the objection and recommended that
the election be set aside. The Employer has excepted to this recom-
mendation. Under the circumstances, the sole issue remaining for
determination is whether the Employer's campaign propaganda relat-
ing to the wage scale in a competitor's labor contract so interfered:
with the election as to justify setting it aside.
On election eve, and perhaps on election day too,' the Employer
distributed handbills to employees of its Oak Park, Michigan, plant,
herein involved. The leaflets purported to set forth the wages "in
the most recently negotiated UAW contract with one of our large
competitors." In this connection, the record shows that the Employer
had in mind a Pennsylvania competitor and its contract with a local
of the Petitioner.
The hearing officer found that the Employer's leaflets inaccurately
represented as the maximum rates in the competitor's contract what
were in fact the minimum rates specified therein. The hearing officer
concluded that this was a misrepresentation which warranted setting
aside the election on the basis of the Gummed Products line of cases.3
We do not agree. The Gummed Products rule is applicable where it
2 In view of our determination herein, we find it unnecessary to resolve the conflicting
testimony on this factual point.
3 The Gummed Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appears that there has been a misrepresentation of a material fact and
that such misrepresentation has been made by a party that has special
knowledge of, or is in an authoritative position to know, the true
facts.' The existence of a party in the latter position serves to lend
credence to and impel belief in the statements involved. In the in-
stant case, even if we assume for decisional purposes that there was a
misrepresentation of a material fact contained in the Employer's
leaflets, we are unable to find that wage rates represented by the
Employer as being contained in an unnamed competitor's "UAW"
contract was information of the type which the employees believed
was authoritatively known to the Employer or concerning which the
Employer was likely to have first-hand knowledge. We therefore be-
lieve that the employees were capable of properly evaluating this elec-
tion propaganda and that their freedom of choice in the election was
not impaired thereby .5 Consequently, we overrule objection 3 in its
entirety.
As we have overruled the objections to the election and as the tally
of ballots shows that the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the
valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the
election.
[The Board certified that the majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO), and that said or-
ganization is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's
employees in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of
Election.
4 Montrose Hanger Company, 120 NLRB 88. See also F H. Snow Canning Company,
Inc., 119 NLRB 714, Dartmouth Finishing Corporation, 120 NLRB 262; Kawneer
Company, 119 NLRB 1460, Genei al Electric Company, 119 NLRB 944.
5Cases such as The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026 , and Reiss Associates, Inc,
116 NLRB 217, upon which the hearing officer relies in the instant connection, are plainly
distinguishable from this case In those cases , wage rates of employees elsewhere were
misrepresented by unions which were the contractual bargaining agents of such employees
and therefore in an authoritative position to know the true facts.
Crosby Chemicals , Inc. and International Chemical Workers
Union, AFL-CIO., Cases Nos. 15-CA-950, 15-CA-985, and
15-CA-995. August 11, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 22, 1957, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
'Herein called the Union.
121 NLRB No. 51.