Photon, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 257 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

PHOTON, INC. 257
Photon , Inc. and International Union of Electrical , Radio &
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5508.
July 29, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated March 24,
1959,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 14, 1959,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
First Region among the employees in the appropriate unit. Follow-
ing the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a
tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 69 eligible
voters, 30 cast valid ballots for, and 35 against, the Petitioner. There
were four challenged ballots which together with two other ballots
discussed below were sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On April 21, 1959, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election and to the action of the Board
agent in counting two ballots as negative votes. In accordance with
-the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation of both the objections and the challenged ballots.
On June 2, 19591 he issued and served upon the parties his consolidated
report on objections and challenged ballots in which he recommended
that the objections be overruled. He considered six of the ballots as
challenged, of which he sustained three and overruled three, recom-
mending that the latter not be opened and counted, as they could not
affect the results of the election. No exceptions were filed as to the
Regional Director's rulings on the challenged ballots. However, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the overruling of its objections.
The Board 2 has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional
Director's report, and the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and hereby
adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director.3
i Unpublished.
2Pursuant 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning].
8 The Petitioner, in its exceptions , alleged that the Employer' s statement , in its letter
dated April 8, 1959, circulated among employees , that It is "still looking for our first
profitable year," is untrue . As support therefor, the Petitioner states that the Employer,
in 1950 , operating under a different name but with essentially the same corporate struc-
ture, earned substantial profits . However, even if such be fact, we do not believe it
to be sufficient to change the Regional Director's conclusion that the objection relating
thereto is without merit because the statement is the type of propaganda which the
Board does not police or censor . Like the Regional Director, we consider as propa-
ganda the Employer's references to the probability of a strike and its statement on fringe
benefits, and note that Petitioner answered the latter by characterization as "the big-
gest whopper of the century." See Merck & Company, Inc., 104 NLRB 891, 892 ;
cf. Kawneer Company, 119 NLRB 1460.
124 NLRB No. 31.
525543-60-vol. 124-18
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, as it appears that the Petitioner did not receive a ma-
jority of the.valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, and that said Union is not the exclusive representative of
the Employer's employees in the unit found appropriate.]
Musgrave Manufacturing Company and Mast -Foos Manufactur-
ing Company, Inc.' and International Union , United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3618. July £9,1959
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 Harry D. Camp, hearing
.officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Mast-Foos and Musgrave each operates 'a plant in Springfield,
Ohio. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of the production and main-
tenance employees employed at these two plants. The two companies
contend that they are separate employers under the Act, that the re-
quested two-plant unit is, thus, not appropriate, and that separate
units limited to the employees at each plant are alone appropriate.
There is no history of collective bargaining on either a two-plant or
single-plant basis for the companies here involved.
Mast-Foos is an Ohio corporation with its main office and plant at
1305 Innisfallen Avenue, Springfield, Ohio. Musgrave, likewise, is
an Ohio corporation, with its main office and plant at 2755 Columbus
Avenue, Springfield, Ohio. The distance between the two plants is
about 6 miles. Orly Musgrave and his wife own all the outstanding
stock of the two corporations. Orly Musgrave is the president and
treasurer of each corporation, while his wife is the vice president and
i Herein called Musgrave and Mast-Foos, respectively.
124 NLRB No. 32.