Oaktron Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

OAKTRON INDUSTRIES, INC. 1297
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form , join, or
assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
We WILL offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or similar positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of discrimination against him:
Billy Greene Leonard Clevenger
Ruble Ball Mermel J. Valentine
Dallas Shults
All our employees are free to join, form , or assist any labor organization, and to
engage in any self-organization or any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such rights are affected by an agreement
made in conformity with Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
BULLARD INDUSTRIES , INC. and HELICAL
TUBE CORPORATION,
Employers.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Oaktron Industries , Inc. and International Association of Ma-
chinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5638. Janu-
ary 13,1958.
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
dated August 2, 1957, and approved August 12, 1957, an election was
conducted on September 17, 1957, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the
employees at the Employer's Monroe, Wisconsin, plant. At the con-
clusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots
which showed that of approximately 114 eligible voters, 112 cast
ballots, of which 48 were for Petitioner and 57 against. There were
7 challenged ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results of the
election. Two ballots were void.
On September 18, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. On November 8, fol-
lowing an investigation, the Regional Director issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on objections, a copy of which is attached
119 NLRB No. 157.
476321-58-vol. 119-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereto, in which he found that the Petitioner's objections were with-
out merit and recommended that they be overruled, and that a cer-
tificate of results be issued.. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
Petitioner's exceptions, and on the entire record in this case finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
All production and. maintenance employees at the Employer's
Monroe, Wisconsin, plant, excluding office clerical and plant clerical
ineering department employees, professional employees,employees, engt, 17
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner's objections and exceptions do not raise material
or substantial issues respecting the results of the election. We there-
fore adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director and hereby
overrule the Petitioner's objections.' Accordingly; as the Petitioner
failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify
the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for the International Association of MachinistsAFL-CIO, and
that said Union is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's
Monroe, Wisconsin, plant in the unit stipulated by the parties to be
appropriate.]
1One of the regional Director's recommendations is to dismiss an objection alleging
that two voters occupied an election booth at the same time. As no exceptions were filed
to this recommendation , it is adopted pro forma.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election dated August 12,
1957, an election by secret ballot was held on September 17, 1957, between the hours
of 12:30 to 1:30 p. m. in the unit set forth in the stipulation for certification upon
consent election. The results of the election were as follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------------- 114
Void ballots--------------------------------------------------------- 2
OAKTRON INDUSTRIES, INC. 1299
Votes cast for Petitioner---------------------------------------------- 48
Votes cast against participating labor organization------------------------- 57
Valid votes counted-------------------------------------------------- 105
Challenged ballots --------------------------------------------------- 7
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------------------- 112
The tally of ballots reveal that a majority of the valid votes counted plus chal-
lenged ballots were not cast for the Petitioner. On September 18, 1957, the Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election which
were duly served on the Employer.
Pursuant to Section 102.61 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 6, as amended, the Regional Director, after reasonable notice
to all parties to present relevant evidence, has completed the investigation of the
objections, has reviewed all statements made by witnesses, and carefully considered
all other evidence submitted by the parties and hereby issues his report thereon.
Objection 1: The International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein=
after referred to as the Union, alleges the eligibility list submitted by Oaktron Indus-
tries, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Company, was defaced to the point it was
impossible to determine who was eligible to participate in the election.
Investigation reveals the parties, during the informal joint conference at which
the instant Agreement was executed, agreed that the Union would inspect the eligi-
bility list when it was available, and a copy of said list would be furnished the Board
agent when he arrived to conduct the election. Approximately one-half hour before
the election was to commence, the union representatives arrived at the Company and
were allowed to inspect the eligibility list, which consisted of 5 typewritten pages;
double-spaced, containing the names of approximately 110 individuals, including 10•
individuals whose names had been stricken beforehand by the Company due to the
termination of their employment. The union representatives requested and the Com-
pany agreed to the inclusion on the list of approximately 4 names and agreed that
they were eligible to vote. These names were added in longhand. The Union at
that time raised no objection concerning the form or clarity of the list. The Com-
pany and Union observers who used this list during the election were afforded the
opportunity by the Board agent to adequately identify the prospective voters. Fur-
ther, these observers challenged all persons about whom they had doubts as to their
eligibility status. The investigation failed to produce evidence that any eligible voter
was denied his right to vote as a result of difficulty arising from the form or clarity
of the eligibility list. To the contrary, investigation revealed all eligible voters were
permitted to vote as well as all individuals whose eligibility status was in doubt and
who voted under challenge.
In view of the apparent ability of the observers adequately to identify and chal-
lenge all prospective voters and in view of the Union's failure to register a complaint
prior to the election concerning the form or clarity of the list, it is the opinion of the
Regional Director the state of the eligibility list did not prejudice any party or inter=
fere with the voting rights of any prospective voter.
Accordingly, the Regional Director recommends Objection 1 be overruled.
Objection 2: The Union alleges the Company defaced official notices of election
by placing thereupon various papers and documents.
The investigation reveals the election was originally scheduled for August 19,
1957, and the Company posted six notices of election in various areas of the plant
on or about August 13, 1957: to wit, time clock bulletin board, main bulletin board,
coil room maintenance department, packing department, and warehouse. On
August 16, 1957, the Regional Director informed the parties by telegram that this
election was canceled due to the filing of unfair labor practice charges by the
Union and requested the Company to post the telegram. Evidence indicates at
least two copies of this telegram were posted by the Company on or about August
16, one attached to the bottom of the notice of the election posted in the warehouse,
and the other placed on and covering the center portion of the notice of election
posted in the coil room. On August 27, 1957, the Regional Director informed' the
parties by letter the election was rescheduled to be held on September 17, 1957;
with all other details remaining the same, and requested the Company to change
the election notices accordingly. Thereupon, the Company utilized 8 x 12 inch
sheets of paper to notify the employees the unfair labor practice charges filed by
the Union had been withdrawn and that the election was scheduled for September
17, 1957, with all other details remaining the same. These typewritten notices
were posted by the Company on or about August 28, 1957, adjacent to the various
1300 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices of election except for those posted in. the coil room and time clock bulletin
board. In the latter two areas, the typewritten notice of the new election date was
placed upon and approximately in the lower left center of the coil room notice of
election and in the center of the time clock notice of election. In addition, at an
undetermined date prior to the election, an unidentified person posted a "thank
you" note in approximately the center of the time clock notice of election. This
"thank you" note was attached to the August 28, 1957, company notification of the
rescheduled election date which, as described, was placed upon that notice of
election. The Union at no time prior to the election notified the Board that the
notices of election had been covered by other papers. The photographs of the
notices of election in question, which are attached to the original of this report, were
taken on or about October 2, 1957, by the Company after the notices of election
and attached documents had been removed and then reassembled to the best recol-
lection of the Company. The Union witnesses' descriptions of these notices of
election and attached documents substantially agree with the reassembled version.
As the tally of ballots shows further 112 of approximately 114 eligible voters cast
ballots.
It is the opinion of the Regional Director the free choice of the voters was not
impaired by virtue of the Company placing these papers upon the notices of
election because (1) the subject papers informed the voters of changes in the
election date; (2) the Regional Director had requested the Company to inform the
employees of these changes; (3) evidence did not disclose that the extraneous "thank
you" note was posted by the Company; (4) the content of the complained-of
documents did not constitute electioneering; and (5) the representative vote in the
election.
Accordingly, the Regional Director recommends objection 2 be overruled.
In addition to objections 1 and 2, the Union on or about September 27, 1957,
presented further allegations at a time subsequent to the expiration of the 5-day
objection period. Although the Board's specificity rule is well defined,' the Regional
Director believes it necessary to consider the additional issues because a question
is raised as to the manner in which the Board agent conducted the election?
Specifically, the Union alleges two voters occupied an election booth at the same
time during an election.
The investigation reveals two inspection booths were used as election booths
with curtains. These booths were located adjacent to each other with their separate
entrances on opposite sides and facing at right angles to the table where the
observers and Board agent were situated. Although the entrances to the booths
were not in full view of the observers and Board, agent, these individuals were in
a position to observe persons entering and leaving the booths. During the course of
the balloting a voter received her ballot and was directed to a booth by the Board
agent. Shortly thereafter the Board agent directed a second voter to the same
booth on the mistaken assumption the booth was vacant. When the second voter
entered the booth this voter found the booth already occupied. For the length of
time it took the first voter to turn and leave the booth, the two employees jointly
occupied the booth. The only conversation between the voters consisted of an
apology by the intruding individual. The observers and Board agent did not see
the incident transpire. This incident was not brought to the attention of the Board
agent or the observers during the election by either of the voters and neither the
voters nor the observers raised an objection concerning the incident.
The Regional Director believes this incident does not warrant setting aside the
election because (1) no evidence was adduced there was interference with the
employees' free or secret choice; (2) electioneering did not occur in the booth;
(3) the intrusion was not intentional; and (4) neither the voters nor the observers
complained of the incident to the Board agent during the election. Accordingly,
the Regional Director recommends this portion of the Union's objections be
overruled.
In conclusion, the Regional Director recommends the objections in their entirety
be overruled and that a certification of results be issued.
1 Don Allen Mid-Town Chevrolet, Inc., 113 NLRB 879.
New York Telephone Co., 109 NLRB 788.