Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co. Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, Divi-
sion and International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 10-RC-387. May 921,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
DIRECTING HEARING
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated August 14,
1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 11,
1957, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region among the
employees'in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following
the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which shows
that of 1,182 valid votes cast, 558 were cast for the Petitioner, 624
were cast against the Petitioner, and 6 were void. There were no
challenged ballots. On September 17,1957, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and. Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the Petitioner's objections
and on March 31, 1958, issued and duly served upon' the parties his
report on the objections in which he recommended that a hearing be
held in order to resolve the conflicting positions and factual conten-
tions of the parties with respect to the objections. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
In its objections the Petitioner alleged that the Employer:
(1) Threatened that it will discontinue business or move its
establishment if the Petitioner wins the, election;
(2) Made threats of discharge of anyone "they" knew to have
voted for the Petitioner;
(3) Made promises of benefits to vote against the Petitioner;
(4) Made speeches to groups of employees on the date of the
election; and
(5) Was engaged in other conduct which unlawfully interfered
with the election.
The Regional Director recommended that objections (4) and (5)
be overruled because objection (4) was not supported by evidence, and
objection (5) lacked sufficient specificity to warrant an investigation.
As no exceptions were filed with respect to these objections, we hereby
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule them.
1118 NLRB 1027.
120 NLRB No. 145.
MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING CO. 1061
The Regional Director's investigation reveals with respect to the
other objections:
Objection (1) : Nine affiants attested that: On separate occasions
between August 18 and September 10, 1957, the Employer's president,
7 of its foremen, and 1 of its assistant foremen, warned employees
that the Plant would close if the Petitioner won the election. The
Employer, in support of its denial of the alleged threats, submitted
affidavits from the 7 foremen, 2 of whom unequivocally denied the
threats were made; the others averred that they merely pointed out
the possibility that the plant could close should the Petitioner's
demands be excessive.
Objection (2) : The Petitioner offered a statement that one of the
foremen said in effect that when a certain union organizer left town
for good after the election he would not be the only one leaving as
there would be a "bunch of others that had had it too." The foreman
in question admitted stating to one employee that the union organizer
"could" leave town after the election, but denied having made the rest
of the statement.
Objection (3) : According to statements received by the Regional
Director, the Employer's foremen in five instances promised promo-
tions and lower production requirements for employees if they would
reject the Union. All of the foremen concerned categorically denied
making such promises.
During the investigation the Regional Director received evidence
that on one occasion during the 3-week period preceding the election,
the Employer's vice president called a group of employees into the
plant cafeteria and engaged in an antiunion address. During the
same 3-week period 3 of the Employer's foremen called into their
respective offices groups of from 6 to 8 employees and urged them to
reject the Petitioner. Also within this period, the Employer's fore-
men called in 28 employees, 1 at a time, and made antiunion remarks.
The Regional Director further found that such conduct, if it actually
.occurred, would constitute interference and would warrant setting
aside the election. However, the Regional Director stated that the
Employer denied that its agents engaged in the conduct in question.
The Regional Director recommended that the conflicting testimony
described above be resolved at a hearing through the examination
of witnesses and presentation of evidence. The Employer concurred
in the recommendation that a hearing be conducted, but did not "waive
or relinquish its exceptions" to the Regional Director's report.
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director
that material and substantial issues of fact are involved, and that the
conflicting evidence can best be resolved by a hearing. Therefore, we
shall direct a hearing herein.
t
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board ordered that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner,
to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, for the purposes of
determining the validity of objections (1), (2), and (3), and to de-
termine the circumstances of the Employer's conduct during the 3-
week period preceding the election. Such Trial Examiner shall serve
upon the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to
the disposition of such objections. Within ten (10) days from the
date of issuance of the report, either party may file with the Board
in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions, serve
a copy upon each of the other parties, and file a copy with the Regional
Director. If no exceptions are filed, the Board will adopt the recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.]
[The Board ordered the above-entitled proceeding referred to the
Regional Director for the purpose of arranging a hearing.]
Joe K . Miller, d/b/a K. M. & M. Construction Co.' and David S.
Davis and Locals 318, 318A and 318B , International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO,2 Party to the Contract
Locals 318 , 318A and 318B , International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, and its business representative, Stanley
Medley and David S. Davis and Joe K. Miller, d/b/a K. M. & M.
Construction Co., Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 14-CA-1561
and 14-CB-417. May 22,1918
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 30, 1951, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain' unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy; of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
1 Referred to herein as the Respondent Employer.
These Respondents are referred to collectively as Respondent Union.
As Respondent Employer filed no exceptions to the finding that it violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, we shall adopt the findings without comment except as
otherwise stated herein.
120 NLRB No. 140.