"M" System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1725 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

"M" SYSTEM, INC. 1725
In addition to the objections discussed above, the Petitioners , after the time
for filing objections , submitted information which they alleged had the effect of
emphasizing the wage increase of March 1 , 1956.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Regional Director concludes and finds that the Employers ' conduct as
hereinabove described did not raise substantial and material issues affecting the
results of the election . It is, therefore , recommended that the objections be over-
ruled in their entirety and a certification of results of election be issued.
i These incidents were raised by the Petitioners in support of a general 8 (a) (1) charge
against the Employers (32-CA-531, filed March 29, 1956) upon which the Regional DL
rector has refused to issue complaint.
"M" System , Inc., Mobile Home Div., Mid-States Corp. and Lodge
1243, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 16-RC1773. December 7, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
DIRECTING HEARING
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on May 14, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
June 12, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region among certain employees of the
Employer. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of 115 eligible
voters, 112 cast ballots, of which 41 were for, and 68 were against,
the Petitioner. There were 2 void ballots and 1 ballot was challenged.
On June 18, 1956, the Petitioner filed five objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of election. In objections 1 and 3, the Petitioner
alleged that the Employer' s general manager sent letters to the eligi-
ble employees and made a speech to them prior to the election which
contained promises of economic benefit to the employees if they voted
against the Petitioner and which threatenec' loss of existing benefits
if the Petitioner was selected as their bargaining representative. In
objection 2, the Petitioner alleged that the Employer's supervisors
interrogated the employees as to their voting intentions and threat-
ened them with economic reprisal if they voted for the Petitioner.
In objection 4, the Petitioner alleged that supervisors were present
in the voting area during the election and made campaign state-
ments to the voters. Finally, in objection 5, the Petitioner alleged
that the Employer interfered with the election by directing an em-
ployee whose eligibility was challenged to leave the voting line and
report to the Employer's offices.
Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector investigated the objections, and, on August 16, 1956, issued
and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to election.
116 NLRB No. 254.
1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this report, the Regional Director recommended that objections
1, 3, and 4 be sustained and the election be set aside on these grounds.
In view of this recommendation, the Regional Director did not rec-
ommend that a hearing be held on objection 2 although he intimated
that this objection raised substantial and material issues of fact.
Finally, the Regional Director recommended that objection 5 be over-
ruled. As no exceptions have been taken to the Regional Director's
recommendation overruling objection 5, it is hereby adopted. There-
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections.'
With respect to objection 2, the Petitioner alleged that supervisors
were instructed by the Employer's general manager to interrogate the
employees as to their voting intentions and to threaten employees
with economic reprisal if they voted for the Petitioner. Regarding
objection 4, the Petitioner alleged that supervisors were present in
the voting area while the election was in progress and one supervisor-
cautioned a voter not to "bite the hand that's feeding you." The Re-
gional Director found, on the basis of his investigation, that the
Employer's supervisors engaged in the foregoing conduct. In its ex-
ceptions, the Employer denied that its supervisors indulged in such
conduct and submitted affidavits from its supervisors which cate-
gorically contradict the Regional Director's findings of fact in this
regard. The Employer therefore urges that its exceptions raise sub-
stantial and material issues of fact concerning the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations on objections 2 and 4 which should be
resolved by a hearing on those issues. In view of the affidavits sub-
mitted by the Employer, and the entire record before us, we find that
the Employer's exceptions to, the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations concerning objections 2 and 4 raise substantial and
material issues of fact which can best be resolved by conducting a
hearing thereon. We shall accordingly direct that a hearing be held
on these issues.
In objections 1 and 3, the Petitioner alleged that, shortly before
the election on June 12, 1956, the Employer addressed certain letters
i In its ecceptions , the Employer contended , inter alia, that the Petitioner 's objections
should be dismissed because they were not timely filed In support of this contention, the
Employer states that Section 102 . 61 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations requires that
objections be filed within 5 days after service of the tally of ballots upon the parties.
The Employer therefore argues that, as the tally of ballots was furnished on June 12,
1956, and as the objections were not filed until June 18, 1956 , the objections were untimely.
Section 102. 83 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations provides that "In computing any period
of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, the day of the act, event or default after
which the designated period of time begmns&to iun, is not to be included . . . When the
period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Sundays and holi-
days shall be excluded in the computation . For the purposes of this section a Saturday
on which the Board's offices are not open for business shall be considered as a holiday . . .
In the instant case , June 16 and 17 fell on a Saturday and a Sunday , respectively . Exclud-
ing these 2 days, and also excluding the date on which the tally of.ballots was served (June
12), the Petitioner therefore had'until June 19, 1956 , on which to file its objections The
Petitioner having done so on . June 18 , we find no merit in the Employer ' s contention that
the objections should not be entertained by the Board because they were not timely filed.
- "M" , SYSTEM, INC. 1727
and, a speech to its employees in which the Employer made promises
of economic benefit to the employees if they refrained from selecting
the Petitioner as their bargaining representative. Specifically, in its
letter of June 8, 1956, and in a speech delivered on that date, the
Employer stated that
Paid holidays were increased from 4 to 5 by adding New Year's
Day as a paid holiday. You will be paid in 1956 for New Year's
Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christ-
mas-provided, of course, you work the scheduled day before
and after the holiday. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Employer further stated that
"M" System has already entered an expansion program which
will result in more "line" jobs; more supervisory jobs which will
be filled by promotions from our employees; more opportunities
for advancement; and, more benefits for all.
In addition, the Employer set forth various other programs on which
it was working. The letter and speech then conclude :
The gains you have made at "M" System in the past 18 months
have been great. They will continue to grow IF we are lef t
alone to work together. For this reason, phis the other reasons
I have mentioned, I sincerely feel that a union is not needed here
and YOU can help keep trouble, ill will and distrust out of our
plant by voting NO in the election next Tuesday.
The Regional Director found that the language immediately quoted
above interfered with the employees' free choice of a bargaining rep-
resentative because the Employer did not indicate at the same time
that the "gains" would "continue to grow" even if the employees
selected the Petitioner, and recommended that the election be set aside
on this ground. We are persuaded that the other statements made
in the letter and the speech which are set above, when read together
with the language upon which the Regional Director relied, raise
issues as to whether the benefits promised were made contingent upon
the outcome of the election or were made retroactive (as in the case
of the additional holiday payment for New Year's Day in 1956)
solely because of the pendency of the election. Under the circum-
stances, we believe that a hearing should also be held on objections 1
and 3 to determine whether the benefits promised in the Employer's
letter and speech had already been made known to the employees well
in advance of the election and pursuant to an established company
policy, or whether these benefits were first made known to the em-
ployees at the time of or just before the election.
While the investigation of the Petitioner's objections was being
conducted, the Petitioner filed a charge against the Employer in Case
1728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 16-CA-906. This charge has reference to matters on which the
Petitioner's objections herein are bottomed. The Regional 'Director
advises that a'complaint based upon this charge will issue. In view
of these circumstances, we shall direct that a hearing be held before
a Trial Examiner to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner to
resolve the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations regarding the Petitioner's
objections 1 through 4, and that such hearing may be consolidated
with a hearing in Case No. 16-CA-906. In the event the hearing in
Case No. 16-RC-1773 is consolidated with the hearing in Case No.
16-CA-906, the duly designated Trial Examiner is hereby directed
to include in his Intermediate Report and Recommended Order rec-
ommendations with respect to the issues raised by the Employer's
exceptions to the Regional Director's report concerning objections
1 through 4. In the event that such consolidation of cases is not made,
the Board then directs that the Trial Examiner designated for the
purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to
the disposition of the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to
the Regional Director's report concerning objections 1 through 4.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner
to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner to resolve the issues
raised by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's find-
ings and conclusions respecting Petitioner's objections 1 through 4,
and that such hearing may be consolidated with the hearing in Case
No. 16-CA-906; and, in the event the hearing in Case No. 16-RC-1773
is consolidated with the hearing in Case No. 16-CA-906, the duly
designated Trial Examiner is hereby directed to include in his Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order recommendations with re-
spect to the issues raised by the Employer's exception to the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations concerning Petitioner's ob-
jections 1 through 4. However, in the event such consolidation is not
made, then
IT IS ORDERED that the Trial Examiner designated for the purpose
of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon
the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of wit-
nesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to
the disposition of said issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to
the Regional Director's findings and recommendations on objections
1 through 4. Within the period provided for in the Board's Rules
and Regulations, any party may file with the Board in Washington,
AVON PRODUCTS, INC. '1729
'D. C`, an original and six copies'of exceptions thereto. Immediately
"upon filing of such exceptions, the party 'filing they same shall serve
'a 'copy thereof upon each of the other' parties; and shall file a copy
with the' Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the
Board will adopt the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
IT IS, FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it
hereby is, referred to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
for the purpose of arranging such hearing, and that said Regional
Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue'early notice thereof.
,Avon, Products, Inc., Petitioner and Local 781, Warehouse Em-
ployees Union, IBT, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-ISM--.90. Decem-
ber 7, 1956
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
'entered into by the parties on August 20, 1956, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on August 24, 1956, among the employees at the
Employer's Morton Grove, Illinois, plant, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region. At
the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 201 eligible voters, 169
cast ballots, of which 56 were cast for the Union, 113 against the
Union, 10 ballots were challenged and 1 was declared void. A ma-
jority of the valid votes was cast against the Union.
On August 31, 1956, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, copies of which were served upon the
Employer. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on
October 30, 1956, issued his report on objections, in which he found
that the objections were without merit and recommended that the
objections be overruled. On November 9, 1956, the Union filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following findings of fact :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
116 NLRB No. 252.
405448-57-vol. 116-110