Louis Marx Co. Inc. of Penna.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1242 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of LOUIS MARX CO. INC. OF PENNA. and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL' IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. 6-R-1398 and 6-R-1440.-Decided September 6, 1946
DECISION
ORDER
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
AND'
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
I STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 27, 1946, International Union of United Automobile, Air-,
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
herein called the U. A. W., filed with the Regional Director for the
Sixth Region, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an amended petition and a
petition, respectively, alleging that questions affecting commerce had
arisen concerning representation of employees of Louis Marx Co. Inc.
of Penna., Erie, Pennsylvania, herein called the Employer, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives, pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. On
May 22, 1946, the Employer, the U. A. W., Toymakers Lodge #1520,
International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M.,
and a representative of the Board executer la "STIPULATION FOR
CERTIFICATION UPON CONSENT ELECTION" ,in each of
the cases above.
On June 3, 1946, elections were conducted in the above matters in
accordance with the stipulations and the Rules and Regulations of the
Board. Upon the conclusion of the elections, a Tally of Ballots for
each election was furnished the parties in accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations. The Tallies show that, of the 630 eligible
voters- in the production and maintenance voting unit in Case No.
6-R-1398, 465 cast ballots, of which 215 were for the U. A. W., 239
for the I. A. M., 7 against the participating labor organizations, and
4 challenged; while, of the 33 eligible voters in the toolroom unit
in Case No. 6-R-1440, 31 cast ballots, of which 2 were for the U. A.
W., 28 for the I. A. M., and 1 challenged.
70 N. L . R. B.; No. 110.
1242
Louis MARX CO. INC. OF PENNA. 1243
On June 6, 1946, the U. A. W. filed a number of objections to the
conduct of the elections, requesting that the elections be set aside.
These objections were as follows:
1. Insufficient time for production and general maintenance
employees to vote during their regular working hours.
2. Officers and members of the International Association of
Machinists were permitted, contrary to the election agreement,
to circulate and distribute literature^to employees on the date of
election, and while the employees were in line to vote.
3. Officers and members of the International Association of
Machinists circulated and' distributed on Company time and
property during voting hours, literature saying, "If you want your
increase in pay retroactive to May 1, 1946, mark your vote right,"
arrow indicating I. A. of Al.
4. The plant manager failed to stop distribution of literature
during working hours and on Company time on election day,
and during the voting period. When requested to do so by the
C. I. O. Committee, he stated the literature was only a sample
ballot and it instructed the workers how to vote.
5. The plant manager selected one of the most active I. A.
of M. members to notify the workers when to vote, contrary to
the election agreement.
6. Contrary to the election agreement, the three runners chosen
by the Unions and Companywere confined to the Polls area dur-
ing the voting period.
7. While the workers. were being lined up to vote, the plant
manager was present talking to the workers and laughingly
stated the Tool Room workers had voted first.
On July 8, 1946, the Regional Director, following an investigation,
issued a Report on Objections, in which he found that the objections
raised substantial and material issues and recommended a hearing
on the objections. Thereafter, on August 1, 1946, the I. A. Al. filed
exceptions to the said Report on Objections.
'Upon the entire record in the case, including the Stipulations, the
Tallies of Ballots, the objections filed by the U. A. W., the Report on
Objections, and exceptions filed by the I.'A. M., the Board makes th
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The First Objection
The I . A. M. has been the recognized exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all employees of the Employer since,1937. On April 23,
1946, the U. A. W. filed its original petition in Case No. 6-R-1398.
Following a conference among representatives of the Employer, the
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U. A. W., and the I. A. M., it was agreed that two units were appro-
priate,1 whereupon the U. A. W. filed the petition in Case No. 6-8-
1440 and the amended petition in Case No. 6-R-1398, and the parties
entered into the stipulations mentioned above.
At the conference which resulted in the signing of the election stipu-
lations, the employer representatives estimated that there were
approximately 450 employees in the production and maintenance unit
and 30 or 35 in the toolroom unit, and that the bulk of all the em-
ployees worked on the day shift, ending at 3: 30 p. in. The employer
representatives indicated their willingness to permit employees to vote
during working hours, and it was agreed that the polls would be open
from 1: 30 to 5: 30 p. m. It was further agreed that employees would
be released in groups in accordance with a schedule to be worked out
by the employer representatives, in order that the polls would-not be
congested at any time, and in order that all eligible employees would
have an opportunity to vote during working hours. When the polls
were opened on June 3, 1946, it appeared that no detailed time schedule
had been submitted by the Employer. A representative of'the Em-
ployer suggested to the Board agent that employees in the toolroom
vote first, followed by employees in the press room, the lithograph
department and the assembly department, in that order. After the
voting began, it was discovered that the employer representatives'
estimate of the number of eligible production "and maintenance
voters-450-was considerably lower than the actual number-630. A
substantial number of day-shift employees in the assembly department,
the last department on that shift to vote, were not released to cast
ballots until about the end of their shift, at 3: 30 p. in. Many of these
employees were deterred from voting because of the extremely long
line at the polling place after 3: 30; Employees of the assembly de-
partment were the only ones who did not have an opportunity to vote
during working hours. An analysis of the eligibility lists and the
observers' lists reveals that only 70 percent of the eligible voters in
the assembly department voted. A larger percentage, ranging from
76.47 to 93.94, voted in each of the other departments. The U. A. W.
alleges that it was common' knowledge throughout the plant that the
I. A. M. was weakest in the assembly department. We find it unneces-
sary to determine whether or not there is merit in this allegation. For
the assembly department is by far the largest department of the Em-
ployer,2 and these employees did not have the same opportunity as
the employees in the other departments to vote during working hours.
' One of production and maintenance employees , generally, and the other of toolroom
woi kers
2 The number of employees in the assembly department eligible to vote was 410. There
were 220 eligible voters in all other departments in the production and maintenance
voting unit
LOUIS MARX CO. INC. OF PENNA. 1245
We are of the opinion that an election should be held which will give
employees throughout the plant the same voting opportunity. It
appears that the U. A. W.'s first objection, relating to the sufficiency of
time to vote during regular working hours, is limited only to the elec-
tion in the production and maintenance voting group. In any case,
it is clear that this objection is valid only with respect to the employees
in this voting group, inasmuch as all eligibles in the toolroom voting
unit were afforded equal opportunity to vote during working time.
B.' The Remaining Objections
The remaining objections to the elections by the U. A. W. allege,
as indicated above, various electioneering practices by the I. A. M.,
failure of the Employer to stop such practices, favoritism evinced
by the Employer, and confining observers 3 to the area of the polls, as
bases for setting aside the elections. It is apparent, however, that
the I. A. M. and the U. A. W. were both guilty of electioneering on the
day of the elections. Furthermore, the Employer, in failing to stop
such electioneering, treated both unions in the same manner. In addi-
tion, we are not convinced that the Employer, exhibited favoritism to
the I. A. M., either prior to or during the elections, or that confining
observers to the polling place, even if done by Board agents, warrants
the invalidation of either election.
C. Conclu,