Muntz Television, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1155 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MUNTZ TELEVISION, INC. 1155
voters to execute affidavits with respect to eligibility.13 Here, how-
ever, the Employer did not refuse to furnish such list to the Board.
On the ; contrary, the Employer's representatives for several weeks
prior to the election, led the Board agents to believe that a proper
-list would be furnished. As the improper list, which was finally fur-
nished, was presented to the Board just before the polls opened, it
was manifestly impracticable to require affidavits of prospective voters
or obtain other evidence of eligibility. Where a list of 700 names,
in' which about half the employees listed are eligible, is submitted
just before an election, many ineligible employees could vote
unchallenged ._14
We therefore find that due to the confusion resulting from the use
of the Employer's eligibility list, the Union had no reasonable oppor-
tunity to exercise its right of challenge, and that the balloting was,
for this reason, not conducted under conditions conducive to a fair
and orderly election. Under the circumstances, and in accordance
with the recommendations of the Regional Director, we shall direct
that the impounded ballots be destroyed and that the election be set
'aside.- We shall direct a new election at such time as the Regional
:Director advises us that the circumstances permit the holding of a
proper election in accordance with Board standards.
Order
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on March 23, 1951, among
the employees of the Employer's Whittaker Division plant, at Citrus
Avenue, Hollywood, California, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
13 Stonewall Cotton Mills, 78 NLRB 28.
is General Petroleum Corporation, 81 NLRB 749.
The Union has asserted several other reasons for setting aside the election , including
the charge that supervisors acted as observers and that a letter addressed to each
employee to his home contained threats of reprisals and promises of benefits if the Union
won. In view of our holding herein , we find it unnecessary to consider these objections.
Schwarzenbach Huber Company , 85 NLRB 1490.
MUNTZ TELEVISION, INC. and UNITED ELE. CTRICAL,, RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UE, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-1425.
June 7' .1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board. on November, 9, 1950,1 an election by secret ballot was held on
November 30, 1950, at Long Beach, California, under -the direction
of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region. Upon the con-
Muntz Television , Inc., 92 NLRB 29.
94 NLRB No. 176.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties
in accordance with the Rules and Regulations'of the Board. The,
tally shows that of approximately 28 eligible voters, 26 voted; 12
.for the Petitioner and 14 for Local Union No. 196 and Local Union..
No. 88, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and, Helpers of America, AFL, the Intervenors. There
were no challenges. .
Thereafter, on December 4, 1950, the Petitioner filed objections to
the election. The Acting Regional Director investigated the. ques-
tions raised by the Petitioner's -'objections and on January 24, 1951,.
issued his report wherein he recommended that the objections be over-
ruled. On February 2, 1951, the Petitioner filed its exceptions to the
report on objections.
Upon the Petitioner's objections to the conduct of the election, the
Acting Regional Director's report on objections, the Petitioner's ex-
ceptions to the report, and upon the basis of the entire record, the
Board finds :
On July 21, 1950, when the Petitioner filed its petition for certifica-
tion in this case, it also filed charges against the Employer alleging
violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. A few days
later the Petitioner filed charges against the Intervenors alleging vio-
lations of 8 (b) (1) and (2). Approximately 1 month later the Peti-
tioner- requested the withdrawal of all its charges. The Regional
Director granted this request on August 28, 1950, and proceeded with
the processing of the petition for certification.
The Petitioner's charges were based principally upon the alleged
unlawfulness of union-security provisions in the contract between the
Intervenors and Employer. Two days before the scheduled election
the Petitioner again filed these same charges against the Employer
and Intervenors and asked the Regional Director to postpone the
elections. The Regional Director denied this request, and proceeded
with the election. As set forth above, the Petitioner lost the election..
At sometime after the election the Regional Director notified the Peti-
tioner of his refusal to issue a complaint on the charges filed by it.
No appeal to the General Counsel was taken by the Petitioner fron
this action.
In its objections the Petitioner embodies substantially' the same
matters that formed the basis. of its charges. It also alleges that the
Intervenors coerced and intimidated the employees by threats of a
boycott and threats of refusal to honor a picket line if the Petitioner
should be successful in the election and should resort to picketing iii
any dispute it might have with the Employer. As to that portion
of its objections which rely on matters that were the subject of its
charges, the Acting Regional Director's dismissal, recommendations is
MUNTZ TELEVISION, INC. 1157
based on his finding that the Petitioner, having ' full knowledge of the
recognition granted by the Employer to the Intervenors and the con-
tract existing between these parties, nevertheless elected to withdraw
its unfair labor practice charges and to proceed on its representation
petition.2 As to the allegation of threats by the Intervenors, the Act-
ing Regional Director found only that, in answer to an employee
question, a representative of the Intervenors said that he had been
instructed to inform the employees that members of the Intervenors
would not honor a picket line established by the Petitioner. In the
light of his investigation, the Acting Regional Director concluded
that there as no evidence of interference, restraint, or coercion by
representatives of either the Employer or Intervenors.'
As to the Intervenors' statement that they would not cooperate
%ith the Petitioner by honoring its picket line, in the event one should
be established during a dispute, the Board affirms the Acting Regional
Director's conclusion that this was not interference or coercion such
as to justify setting.,aside The election. The Intervenors would be
privileged to refrain from this type of economic activity, if they
should so choose. This announcement, in advance, of intent to re-
frain from such a course of action does not rise to the stature of
coercion.
The Board likewise finds no merit in the Petitioner's objection
based on the Regional Director's refusal to postpone the election
despite the refiliilg by the Petitioner of its charges a few days before
the election was scheduled to take place. In the light of all the facts
appearing in the case, including the original filing of charges con-
currently with the representation petition, the subsequent withdrawal
of such charges, and the refiling of the charges only 2 days before the
scheduled election, we are satisfied that the Regional Director did not
abuse his discretion in refusing to postpone the election. ' It has long
been established practice not to conduct a representation election
while charges of unfair labor practices are pending, unless the party
filing such charges-specifically waives them as the groundof possible
objections to the election. In the present case, the Petitioner filed no
waiver but completely withdrew its charges, thus enabling the proc-
essing of its representation petition. As the charges, when refiled,
presented no issues that were new or differed substantially from those
2IIe further found that there was no instance in which the union-shop provisions had
in fact been enforced against any employee . The 'Petitioner , however, has excepted
specifically to this finding , asserting that at a meeting of employees shortly after the
contract was executed, the Employer ' s representative informed them that , in accordance
with the contract , those not joining the Intervenors would be discharged.
'The Regional Director also recommended dismissal of the objections on the ground
that there was no proof that copies of the objections were served on the other parties as
aequired by the Board's Rules and Regulations . The Petitioner has excepted to this
finding. In view of our dismissal of the objections on other grounds , we find it unnecessary
to resolve this issue.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the original charges that had been withdrawn, we believe that the
Regional Director was justified in relying upon the Petitioner' s elec-
tion to utilize the Board's representation process that was implicit
in the earlier withdrawal of its charges. It was thus not improper
for him to proceed with the election despite the Petitioner's eleventh-
hour effort to postpone it.'
As the Board has found that the Petitioner's object ions to the elec-
tion are without merit, and as the Intervenors have obtained a majority
of the ballots cast at the election, we shall certify t lie. Intervenors as
the duly elected representative.
Certification of Representatives
It is hereby certified that Local Union No. 196 and Local Union No.
88, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL, have been designated and selected
by a majority of the Employer's employees at its Long Beach, Califor-
nia, branch, including office and clerical employees, installation and de-
livery men and helpers, warehousemen, parts clerks, outside service
men, dispatchers, technicians, benchnlen, furniture finishers, but ex-
cluding professional men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining, and
that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
"Cf. West-Gate Sun Harbor Company, 93 NLRII 830.
In so finding , we have not considered the matters allegod In the charges that were
incorporated by the Petitioner in its objections . These charges were dismissed by the
Regional Director after the election and , as set forth above , this action has become final
in the absence of any appeal therefrom by the Petitioner to the General Counsel. Cf.
Times Square Corporation, 79 NLRB 361 ; Columbia Pictures Corporation , 85 NLRB 1085.
CHASE AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. anal INTh:RNvriONAE UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICL71: rumt. i I PLENI : A;N'l' WORKERS Or
AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 181, PETITIONER . (rase No. 4-RIY-1068. June
7, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold Kowal, hearing of-
94 NLRB No. 165.