Motec Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MOTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. 711
Motec Industries , Inc. and United Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of America (UE), Petitioner and Local 1146 and
Local 1132 , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW , AFL-CIO . Cases Nos.
18-RC-4756 and 18-RC-4757. Marcia 29, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On November 3, 1961, Clarence A. Meter, the Acting Regional Di-
rector for the Eighteenth Region, issued a Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled proceedings, in
which he overruled objections Nos. 1 and 2, to conduct affecting the
results of elections which had been held in two units theretofore
found by the Board to be appropriate, and he certified the Intervenor
as the bargaining representative of the employees in both units.
'Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the
Board a timely request for review of the Regional Director's dispo-
sition of objection No. 1.
The Board by telegraphic order, dated December 15, 1961, granted
the request for review. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs in support
of their positions as to the issues under review.
The Board has considered the Regional Directors supplemental
decision insofar as it relates to objection No. 1, the request for review,
including the attached letter of October 6, 1961, mailed by the Em-
ployer to employees in the units before the election, and the briefs
filed by all of the parties, and makes the following findings:
The letter above referred to states as follows :
DEAR FELLOW WORKERS IN MOTEC INDUSTRIES : Yes, we are
fellow workers in MOTEC because we have the same desires and
ambitions for ourselves and for the Company. I want to see
MOTEC, as a company, grow, expand, and prosper; and I want
to see MOTEC workers keep with the Company so they enjoy
a better standard of living and greatest security for themselves
and their families. This can be accomplished for our common
good by increased sales and business, and only by increased sales
and business.
I have been told that in the dispute that is presently going on
between two unions that some MOTEC workers' jobs have been
threatened by one faction if they win the forthcoming election.
Let me make it very plain that I will personally guarantee the
safety of any employee's job as far as taking a position and ex-
pressing himself in this campaign.
136 NLRB No. 74.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Now, let's talk about the future of MOTEC workers. It's my
opinion that Thursday, October 12th, will be one of the most
important days in the work-life of MOTEC workers. Why do I
say this? Let me explain.
We've begun to secure defense orders from the United States
Government, the biggest buyer in the world. We have only
scratched the surface and are now seeking the sophisticated, top
level contracts that I know we can handle. These contracts we
seek will help keep us busy around the clock and throughout the
year. But Uncle Sam is a tough customer. He can place con-
tracts with your Company, or he can withhold them without
giving a reason. He is today more wary than ever before in
selecting his contractors. The wrong vote could jeopardize our
ability to get as much of this work as we need.
Because of the issues involved, I have studied the matter very
carefully and must at this time conclude that a vote for the UE
would be detrimental to our mutual best interests.
I hope that my opinion is accepted in the spirit in which it is
offered.
Objection was made to the Employer's assertion in this letter of the
possibility-and its prediction-that selection of the Petitioner as
representative in the elections would jeopardize the Employer's
chances of obtaining future defense contracts from the U.S. Govern-
ment. The Regional Director found that the Petitioner had sufficient
opportunity to-and did-respond to the Employers' assertions.
Thus, the Petitioner distributed to employees two open letters, one
undated and the other dated October 8, 1961. In the first, the Pe-
titioner pointed out that, "members of the UE all over the USA do
more defense work in proportion than members of any other union,
including UAW." Petitioner also asserted that "thousands of loyal,
patriotic UE members have been repeatedly commended by the armed
forces for their cooperation." In the second letter, the Petitioner
stated that "The best defense contracts we ever had at Minneapolis-
Moline [the name of the Employer prior to a reorganization] was
when we were in UE."
Like the Regional Director, we conclude that in the circumstances,
the employees were capable of evaluating the Employer's letter.
There is no showing that the employees otherwise were prevented
from exercising their free choice in the elections. For these reasons,
we hereby overrule objection No. 1.
Accordingly, as the objections have been overruled and as the tallies
of ballots show that the Intervenor received a majority of the votes
cast in both elections, we shall certify the Intervenor as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate units.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 713
[The Board certified Local 1132 , United Automobile , Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , UAW, AFL-CIO, as
the designated collective -bargaining representative of the employees
at the Hopkins, Minnesota , plant of Motec Industries , Inc., and
certified Local 1146 , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, as the designated
collective -bargaining representative of the employees at the Lake
Street, Minneapolis , Minnesota , plant, Mohawk Foundry Division,
and Motec Engineering Division , of Motec Industries , Inc., in the
units herein before found appropriate by the Board.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision on Review and Certification of Representatives.
United Parcel Service, Inc. and Vincent G. Guertin . Case No.
1-CA-3535. March 30, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 8, 1962, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report-
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,.
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner."
1 The following is to be inserted in the notice below the sentence beginning "This
notice must remain posted . . .": Employees may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building , 24 School Street, Boston 8,
Massachusetts , Telephone Number LAfayette 3-8100, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
136 NLRB No. 68.