Radio Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1989 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA (VICTOR DIVISION),
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-4611
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
August 17, 1950
On May 18, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tions,2 an election by secret ballot was conducted at the Employer's
Camden, New Jersey, plant, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in
the unit found appropriate in Case No. 5-RC-461 in the Decision
and Direction of Elections. Upon the conclusion of the election a
Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally shows that 5,539 ballots were cast, of which 2,857 were
for International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, CIO, Local 103, herein called the IUE, 2,532 were for United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 103, herein
called the UE, 120 were challenged, and 30 were against the participat-
ing labor organizations.
The UE filed timely objections to the conduct of the election,
alleging in substance : (1) That the Employer, during the period prior
to the election, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
their rights freely to choose a -bargaining representative; (2) that
during the course of the election the agents of the Board pursued a
course of conduct which interfered with the election and prevented a
free choice of a bargaining representative; (3) that the IUE's repre-
sentatives conducted themselves in such manner as to interfere with
the election and to coerce workers in the free choice of a bargaining
I This case , although .consolidated by an order of the Board with Case No. 5-RC-545, is
hereby severed therefrom.
2 89 NLRB 699.
90 NLRB No. 291.
1989
1990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative; and (4) that during the course of the election, em-
ployer agents, foremen, and supervisors, engaged in discriminatory
and coercive activities against the UE so as to interfere with the free
choice of a bargaining representative.
After an investigation, the Regional Director issued on June 27,
1950, his report on objections setting forth his conclusion that none
of the objections raised substantial or material issues with respect to
the conduct of the election. He therefore recommended to the Board
that all of the objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certi-
fied as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board. On July 6, 1950, the UE timely filed
exceptions to the report on objections by the Regional Director,
claiming bias and prejudice on the part of the Regional Director
and alleging, inter alia,3 that the Regional Director failed to make a
complete and impartial investigation of all the facts upon which the
objections were based. The Board, upon consideration of the excep-
tions, remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director, and directed
that he prepare, issue, and serve upon the parties, a supplemental re-
port on objections setting forth in greater detail, particularly with
respect to those matters raised by the UE's exceptions, the basis for
his findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
On July 22, 1950, the Regional Director issued and served upon all
parties his supplemental report on objections 4 Thereafter, on July
27, 1950, the UE filed with the Board exceptions to the Regional
Director's supplemental report on objections. In these latest excep-
tions, the UE raises no new issues 5 and merely incorporates by refer-
ence the exceptions previously filed to the original report on objec-
tions, with a renewal of the request made at that time for a hearing
on objections.6
The Board has carefully considered the Intervenor's objections to
election, the Regional Director's report on objections, the, Inter-
3 The other grounds upon which the UE based its contentions that the Regional Director
was biased and prejudiced consist of : ( 1) An allegation that the Regional Director mis-
represented the position alleged , by the UE with respect to the conduct of the Company, the
IUE, and agents of the Board on the day of the election ; and (2) that the Regional Director
.uniformly sustained statements by the Employer , the IUE, and the Board agents in the
absence of other supporting testimony.
6In his supplemental report on objections, the Regional Director , in addition to amplify-
Ing his original findings, points out that all . the witnesses whose affidavits were submitted
by the UE in support of its objections as well as persons named in the affidavits , were there-
after interviewed in private by Board agents who obtained from each witness a signed
affidavit under oath.
B The UE reiterated its claim that prior to the election the Employer favored IUE shop
stewards and discriminated against UE shop stewards. The UE further claims that the
finding by the Regional Director in the supplemental report that the Employer allowed
both old and new shop stewards to function Is without foundation in fact.
e For reasons stated hereinafter the motion for hearing on . objections is denied.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1991
venor's original exceptions thereto, the Regional Director's supple-
mental report, and the Intervenor's exceptions to the supplemental
report. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board,' for reasons
hereinafter stated, finds that the objections and exceptions raise no
substantial issues with respect to the conduct of the election.
As noted above in its original exceptions, the UE contended that
the Regional Director had failed to make a complete and impartial
investigation of all the facts upon which the objections were based.
In support of its contention, the UE pointed to various affidavits not
referred to by the Regional Director as setting forth facts inconsistent
with the findings in the report on objections. However, in view of
the fact that substantially all of the persons with minor exceptions
from whom the UE obtained affidavits, together with the persons
named in such affidavits, were subsequently interviewed and their
affidavits taken by Board agents, we find nothing to indicate that the
Regional Director has failed to make a complete and impartial in-
vestigation of the facts relating to the objections.
As a further ground for its contention that the Regional Director
was biased and prejudiced in his investigation of the objections, the
UE alleges that the Regional Director misrepresented the UE's posi-
tion with respect to the conduct of the Employer, the IUE, and the
Board agents on the day of the election, by uniformly sustaining state-
ments of : (a) Company supervisory personnel; 8 (b) IUE adherents;
and (c) Board agents,10 given in the presence of contradictory testi-
mony. In support thereof, the UE cites as examples of evidence which
the Regional Director failed to consider, certain alleged acts 11 which
will be considered hereinafter.
7 Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock did not participate in the decision herein.
8 As examples thereof the UE relies upon : (1) An incident occurring between Foreman
Hnoferl and Sara Russo; (2) an incident in which UE adherents were allegedly given dis-
agreeable jobs by the Employer in order to discourage and intimidate these UE adherents
(3) an incident involving a UE shop steward (Van Dyke) who was discharged; (4) an
allegation that certain foremen (Lev, Harris, and Berry) were permitted to stand in a
roped-off area leading to the voting room ; and (5) an incident of electioneering in the
polling area.
"As examples thereof the UE cites and relies upon incidents involving UE adherents
Buckley, DiBenedetto, and Crawford.
10 In support thereof the UE relies upon two incidents wherein: (1) Employees on sick
leave were not permitted to vote; and (2) UE adherents were required by a Board agent
to remove their overseas hats before voting at the Wellsbach plant.
"The acts alleged are : (1) That the Employer openly allowed and permitted IUE
representatives to threaten UE members and adherents with physical violence and reprisal ;
(2) that company representatives placed restrictions upon the time of voting and the
opportunity to vote in departments in which employees were predominantly UE adherents,
but did not place similar restrictions in effect on predominantly IUE sections ; and (3) that
throughout the day of the election, IUE-CIO representatives conducted themselves in such
a manner as to interfere with the conduct of the election.
1992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As regards that portion of the exception which alleges generally
that the Regional Director "uniformly sustained" affidavits of the
persons named above, as against those submitted by the UE, the
supplemental report shows that the Regional Director's conclusions
and findings were based upon affidavits which as indicated above were
taken by Board agents after interviewing in private persons who
had submitted affidavits accompanying the UE's objections, as well
as others named in the affidavits and the objections. The Regional
Director's supplemental report further indicates that the affidavits
taken by the Board agents were in many instances inconsistent with
the affidavits obtained from the same individuals which affidavits
accompanied the UE's objections. Insofar as there are discrepan-
cies between the affidavits submitted by the UE, and those given
by the same affiants to the Board agents, we regard the latter as the
more credible because given under circumstances tending to make
them less subject to distortion.
With respect to the incidents which the UE claims demonstrate
that the Regional Director uniformly sustained statements by com-
pany supervisory personnel, the UE relies upon the following incident
which occurred between employee Sara Russo, a UE adherent, and
Foreman Knoferl.
According to the findings of the Regional Director, Russo stated
that about a week before the election she went upstairs at 8: 35 p. m.
to tell another shop steward that she wanted to see her at 10 p. m. She
states that about the time that she came up to the floor, Knoferl, a
foreman, was sitting at his desk with another foreman and a UE shop
steward, Henrietta Woessner. Russo shouted to Woessner, "Will you
please tell Sylvia Muth that I want to see her at 10 p. m." Woessner
then went over to Russo and stated, "Knoferl said for you to get the
bell off the floor." Russo's reply, as set forth in her affidavit, was
that "when she told me that I told Knoferl that he could kiss my rear
end as I was not on his floor but at the door; I told him that further-
more I never did come up on his floor and never did make a habit
of leaving my floor." 12
The Regional Director found that it was unnecessary to resolve
the slight question or credibility in this incident. He stated assum-
ing that the foreman did tell Russo to "get the hell off his floor"
where she apparently had little or no legitimate business; there was
no showing made that the Company thereby intended or did engage
in activity interfering with the election which is the UE's claim in
this incident. In view of the above disposition made by the Regional
12 As regards this incident , Foreman Knoferl states, in part, "There was no profane
or abusive language used by either Russo or myself."
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1993
Director, we find that this incident fails to support the UE's allega-
tion that the Regional Director uniformly sustained the statements
of company supervisory personnel because of bias and prejudice.
With regard to the allegation that the Employer assigned UE adher-
ents to disagreeable jobs in order to discourage and intimidate them,
the following incident and statement of Nick Olivo is relied upon
by the UE to support its allegation :
Nick Olivio, a UE adherent, stated that almost every Monday his
production line was not fully manned and, therefore, men on the line
filled in positions elsewhere; that for a few Mondays in a row the
Company had put Herman Gill, a UE member, and himself on load-
ing and unloading freight cars, and that the foreman and leadmen
liked the way they worked and asked for them ; that on one Monday
in April they went over to help load and unload, and Ed Berry, the
foreman, called them back and told them they couldn't work there
as they were "on his s --- list"; that Olivo asked him why, and Berry
stated that he didn't know why and that they were on "his or some-
body's s --- list." Olivo further states that he (Berry) then put
them to work on the assembly line which, according to Olivo, was
easier work than loading and unloading freight cars. Olivo stated
that he liked the loading work because it relieved the monotony of
the production line. Olivo then stated that about the week follow-
ing the incident, after nobody else wanted the loading and unload-
ing job, they (Olivo and Gill) were put back on that job.
The Regional Director found that even if the statement of the UE
witness alone was considered, the evidence did not sustain the claim
that the Company, through its supervisors, intended or did engage in
activity interfering with the election by the alleged conduct. We agree
with finding, and accordingly, find no merit in the UE's contention
that the Regional Director's ruling in this incident is an indication of
bias and prejudice.
With respect to the "Van Dyke incident," the UE alleges that on
May 8, 1950, Foreman Sharp was notified that a UE steward (Van
Dyke) had been designated in that area. It is further alleged that
Sharp, on being notified that this employee was to be a steward, im-
mediately notified the employee that he was discharged.
The report of the Regional Director, in which respect it is uncon-
tradicted, shows that Van Dyke, in the 10 days prior to his discharge,
had spoiled two jobs, one of which cost the Company in excess of $100,
and that the other, had cost the Company an estimated 8 hours of
lost production time. The report further shows that Van Dyke had a
poor production record, in the departments in which he had worked
1994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prior to his discharge;13 that about May 1, Sharp, a foreman, advised
Loughlin, a foreman over Sharp, that Van Dyke was not making
proper progress; that on May 4, Sharp, after reviewing Van Dyke's
record with Night Foreman Powell, recommended to Loughlin that
Van Dyke be released for inefficiency and poor quality of work; that
on May 5,14 at the start of the shift Sharp notified Van Dyke that he
was through; that on May 8, Van Dyke reported for work wearing a
UE shop steward's button and told Sharp that he was the new UE
shop steward; that Sharp advised him, that he had received no notice
from personnel; that it had no bearing on Van Dyke's status; and
that he was still laid off as of that evening.
Without passing upon whether or not the evidence would sustain
a violation. of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act with respect to this dis-
charge, and in view of the fact that no unfair labor practice charges
have been filed, we find that no bias or prejudice is indicated by the
Regional Director's ruling in this instance.
With regard to the "Lev, Harris, and Berry incident," the. UE al-
leged in its objections that Board agents permitted Foreman Lev,
Harris, and Berry to stand in a roped-off area leading to the voting
room examining voters as they, passed and that throughout the day
IUE representatives were allowed to enter the area, whereas whenever
UE representatives entered the area, even on official Board business,
they were ordered out of the area.
In its exceptions the UE states :
The Regional Director dismissed this objection solely on the
basis of the fact that, "... the foreman denied that they stood
in the roped off area."
An examination of the Regional Director's original report shows
that his findings were based on three grounds : (1) That at no time
did any UE representative complain to any Board agent concerning
the activity of company supervisors during the course of the elec-
tion; (2) that no evidence had been produced to show that foremen
examined any voters as they passed; and (3) that the foremen denied
that they stood in the roped-off area. The only evidence submitted
by the UE with respect to foremen was the statement that a UE
witness saw Foreman Lev, Harris, and Berry in the roped-off area
13 The Company records show that Van Dyke 's efficiency ratings for the various weeks
he worked were 62 , 62.5, and 77.5 percent , whereas ' the efficiency rating for the milling
machine group varied from 94.4 percent to 126.7 percent . The efficiency rating in the
machine shop as a whole was at no time dropped below 111 percent and at times was higher
than 120 percent.
"The UE's letter to the Company naming Van Dyke as shop steward is dated May 5.
In its exceptions , the UE claims this letter is dated May 4. The UE excepted to the
original report alleging that the Regional Director credited the supervisor that Van Dyke
was discharged on May 5, rather than Van Dyke who claims he was terminated on May 8.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1995
while voters went through to vote, and that they were. seen there for
at least 15 minutes.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that some of the
foremen named have work areas that extend in and around the roped-
.off area and that it is possible that they entered it or might have ap-
peared to enter it in the course of their duties. It further appears
that at one time Foreman Lev entered the area at the request of the
Board agent to have the door to the polling place unlocked. As pre-
viously indicated, there was no evidence submitted with respect to
foremen "examin voters as they passed." UE adherent, Reed, states
merely ; "There were some foremen in the group talking with ME
people and the voters."
The Regional Director found this objection to be without merit.
We agree in view of the obvious failure of the UE's evidence to sup-
port its charge that foremen examined voters as they passed, and
the fact that foremen, if improperly present in the area, were not
there for an appreciable length of time. Consequently, we find that
this incident does not support the allegation that the Regional Di-
rector through bias and prejudice uniformly sustained company su-
pervisory' personnel in opposition to the sworn affidavits submitted
by the UE.
With respect to the allegation of electioneering in the voting area,
the UE contends that IUE observer, Francis Buckley, stationed at
Polling Place "C," campaigned in behalf of the TUE in the presence
of Board agents; in support of this contention, Henderson, the UE
observer, who sat near Buckley, stated that from time to time Buckley
would raise his hand and make a circle with his index finger and his
thumb, which is the commonly known symbol for "it's in the bag," in
a fashion that could be seen by the voters; that at another time, when
she moved her foot to kill a roach, Buckley said, "This is what we
are going to do to Leto when we get in and you are killing him."
Henderson further alleges that the Employer's observer at that time
stated to her that that was going too far; that she immediately told
the UE chairman of the incident and he complained to the Board
agent, who in turn reprimanded Buckley. Buckley stated that the
only thing he ever did was to acknowledge greetings and that at. no
time did he make any symbols with his hand. He further stated that
at one time a roach passed across the floor and the UE observer asked
him to kill it; that he moved his chair aside and told her to kill it.
The Employer's observer stated that at no time did he observe Buckley
campaigning in behalf of the IUE; that during the course of the day
Buckley did say "hello" to various employees that he knew, but he
1996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not say anything in favor of the IUE or in disparagement of
the UE.
In his supplemental report, the Regional Director stated as
follows :
Considering the affidavits of the UE witnesses only, it is clear
that the evidence submitted does not support the allegation that
Board Agent engaged in activity preventing the free choice of
representatives. Nor were the activities objected to of such a
character as to require the overturn of the election.
He therefore found the objection to be without merit and recom-
mended that it be overruled.'-'
We not only agree with the Regional Director's finding and con-
clusion with regard to this objection, but also we fail to perceive how
this statement can support the contention that "the Regional Director
uniformly sustained statements by IUE adherents denying the sworn
affidavits submitted by UE even though there was no supporting testi-
mony." Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention.
We are brought next to the specific contention of the UE that the
Employer openly allowed and permitted IUE representatives to
threaten UE members and adherents with physical violence and re-
prisal. In support of this contention the UE relies on several inci-
dents alleged to have occurred prior to the election. In one incident,
it alleges that on the day preceding as well as on the day of, the elec-
tion, Joseph Massa and Russell Bartlett, both IUE adherents, threat-
ened Betty Chambers and Gladys Robinson with the loss of their jobs
if the IUE won the election." In another incident, Joseph Massa is
alleged to have threatened to slap Evelyn Zurich, a UE shop steward.
In still a third incident, Roger DiBenedetto, a UE steward, alleges
that "on numerous occasions Polak, Tommey and Crowson, IUE rep-
resentatives threatened me with bodily injury in the plant because
of my loyalty to the IUE.... " 17
As regards the "Chambers-Robinson incident," the Regional Direc-
tor found in his supplemental report that the isolated character of
the incident was not sufficient to warrant invalidating an election in-
volving 5,700 employees."' Although the Board in some cases has
is The original report on objections does not show that the Regional Director either
credited or discredited the allegation of witness Henderson.
16 Although Chambers and Robinson submitted a joint affidavit which accompanied the
objections of the Intervenor , at the time of the investigation only Robinson submitted an
affidavit. Robinson ' s affidavit in this respect alleges that Massa and Bartlett stood at the
end of the aisle where she worked and told her that "if I went UE I would not have my
job but that if I went IUE I would. I said I would go the way I think best."
17 The foregoing statement is quoted from the affidavit which accompanied the objections
to election submitted by the UE.
18 As further basis for his finding this incident to be insufficient to invalidate the election,
the Regional Director noted that the Union did not possess the power to effectuate such
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1997
found that under the circumstances presented, isolated instances of co-
ercion are sufficient to invalidate an election, it may be contended that
such cases are inapplicable to an election of the size and with the back-
ground 1° of that involved in this proceeding. However, without pass-
ing upon the validity of the Regional Director's conclusion based upon
the isolated character of the present incident, we are of the opinion
that whatever may have been the normal result of such a threat upon
the minds of the employees concerned, such threat was effectively
neutralized by the Employer's statement published and circulated to
each employee on the day preceding the election, in which statement
the Employer not only promised that it would not discriminate against
employees for their participation in the election, but also assured all
employees that they would be protected against any claims to the
contrary2°
With respect to the "Zurich incident," the Regional Director found
that on May 10, 1,950, John Leto, president of UE Local 103, decided to
go to Zurich's floor at her request. In her affidavit, Zurich relates the
argument which then occurred between herself and Massa, an IUE
adherent and shop steward. The following is an excerpt from
Zurich's affidavit :
Massa approached foreman Knoferl and asked him to throw
Leto off. Leto asked Knoferl why Massa was up and the fore-
man said he was on a grievance. Words started to fly and I got
into it. I told Massa to stop being so ignorant as he was attracting
everybody's attention. Massa called me a Communist, shook his
fist at my face and threatened to bat me, and then he stopped.
Lou Knoferl told me to go back to my position and Leto told the
a threat, short of the Union 's obtaining a legal union-shop contract and the employees'
further failure to tender the customary dues and initiation fees.
'0 The background of the election as disclosed by the Regional Director 's supplemental
report, clearly indicates that the employees concerned , particularly those represented by
the UE, are well experienced in campaign tactics from which may be inferred their equal
ability to evaluate in their true proportions any threats arising in the course of election-
eering. Thus , the high degree of competence on the part of the UE membership in evaluat-
ing statements arising out of elections , is attested by the fact that when the IUE, at the
conference preceding the election , renewed its previous proposal that there be no election-
eering, the UE representative not only refused to enter into any agreement , but stated
that "my people know what to do." [Emphasis added.]
20 Pertinent portions of the Employer 's statement to its employees are as follows :
It is our publicly announced belief that each employee who will vote by secret
ballot in the coming election has the American choice and obligation to make his own
free choice as to which union he desires to have represent him.
This is an important decision for each of you to make and you have a further right
to make it ;
1. Free from fear of discrimination by the Company and
2. With the assurance that regardless of the outcome of the election you will
not lose any vacation, insurance, seniority, or other benefits which you now enjoy.
The Company gives you such assurance and any claims to the contrary are false.
[Emphasis supplied.]
1998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman he wanted me where I was. Leto and I walked away.
21
From the foregoing statement of Zurich, we agree with the Regional
Director's finding that the gravamen of the UE objection, namely,
that company supervisors "allowed and permitted" threats of physical
violence against UE people, was not sustained. Clearly, Zurich's affi-
davit shows that at least in this incident the foreman attempted to
settle the argiunent. Moreover, from the facts as related, the argu-
ment appears to have been provoked by the parties now complaining
of the identical activity in which they themselves had been engaged.
In these circumstances, we find no merit to the UE's contention either
that this incident warrants setting aside the election or that the Re-
gional Director failed to give adequate consideration to Zurich's
affidavit.
As regards the "DiBenedetto incident," DiBenedetto, in an affidavit
given to a Board agent, alleges that about May 12, 1950, he went to
Building 3 to tell the workers that they would not get their vacation
pay until May 19, 1950. Kavanaugh, an IUE.shop steward, told the
employees that DiBenedetto was there to force a sit-down strike.
Subsequently, Toomey, DeFelice, and Crowson, IUE shop stewards,
arrived and Crowson shouted, "throw the bum out." 22 At that time,
Polak, the IUE chairman, arrived and said to him, "Why don't you
get out of here and stop causing all the trouble here." Foreman
Riefstack arrived and asked DiBenedetto to leave the floor. Rief-
stack then said to the IUE persons involved, "Come, let's get this fel-
low out of here," whereupon the bell sounded for the 12 o'clock
lunch period, and the incident was closed .23
As previously indicated, we do not believe that there is any basis
for the contention that the Regional Director, in his treatment of
this matter, failed to consider any evidence relevant thereto. Since
there is nothing in the affidavit of DiBenedetto, as given to the Board
agent,24 to indicate that the foreman was remiss in his duty to protect
21 Regarding the Incident , Massa states that Zurich threatened him by stating , "I ought
to smack you" and was then told that she would tell her husband " to give me a lacing to
take some of the cockiness out of me."
22 It is on this occasion that DiBenedetto alleges Crowson threatened to throw him out
"bodily."
23 In DiBenedetto ' s affidavit submitted by the UE, he states : "On about May 12, in Bldg.
3, first floor , at about 11 : 45 a. m., IUE representatives . . . and others provoked a loud
incident in.which they shouted , in the presence of Nat Zausner and Larry Riefstack, both
foremen, 'Throw the bum out ,' referring to me. All the workers could hear this. The
foremen did not try to stop them but instead ordered me out."
24 It is clear from the affidavit of DiBenedetto that Foreman Riefstack took reasonable
steps to break up the argument by asking DiBenedetto to leave the floor.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1999
personnel in the plant,25 we find no basis for the UE's contention that
contrary to findings of the Regional Director, the Employer had dis-
criminated against the UE in its handling of preelection disturbances
on company property.
With regard to the UE's allegation that employer representatives
placed restrictions upon the time of voting and the opportunity to
vote in departments in which employees were predominantly UE
adherents, but did not place similar restrictions in effect on predomi-
nantly TUE sections, the UE relies on several instances in which UE
shop stewards were attempting to have employees vote ahead of
the time scheduled for them to vote 26 The foreman involved in the
.incidents told the employees that they would not be permitted to vote
ahead of the posted scheduled time and that if they did, they would
not get paid. In one instance, the foreman's order was counter-
manded by his superior and the employees were permitted to vote
ahead of the scheduled time. In another instance, the foreman
involved countermanded the order and permitted the employee
involved to vote ahead of the scheduled time. From all the circum-
stances in the case, we do not believe that the Employer's position with
respect to the incidents alleged was unreasonable, in view of the
fact that the foreman involved were abiding by the schedule as posted
throughout the plant .27 Accordingly, we find this incident does not
support the UE's contention that the Regional Director failed to give
consideration to evidence relevant to its objections.
With respect to the UE's contention that throughout the day of the
election, IUE-CIO representatives conducted themselves in such it
manner as to interfere with the conduct of the election, the UE in its
exceptions relies upon an incident in which Michael Cahill, an IUE
representative, is alleged to have cursed and sworn at Stanley Craw-
ford, a UE representative,.and threatened him with physical vio-
lence. In the affidavit submitted by Crawford to the Board agent,
Crawford stated that Cahill said something to him but he had no
idea what he said.28 We find that Crawford's statement fails to sup-
port the UE's contention as set forth in its exceptions.
25 Insofar as DiBenedetto's affidavit given to the Board agent is inconsistent with the
affidavit supplied by the UE, we agree, for reasons previously stated, with the Regional
Director's findings and conclusions based on the affidavits taken by the Board agent.
10 Some of the incidents occurred even after the Board agent in charge of the election
made an announcement requesting all employees to vote as scheduled and stating that all
employees would get paid for their voting time.
27 We do not regard the affidavit of Joseph K. Reed, referred to in the UE's exceptions,
as militating against the Regional Director's findings in this respect.
zs Crawford's affidavit to the Board agent is as follows : "I had to, pass Cahill to go to
the room, lie said something twice, but I have no idea what he said. I turned around and
said 'what?' He repeated it in a low voice and pointing his head down said, 'well, aren't
you going to say or do anything about it? I look at him and with a half laugh I went on."
2000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There remains for consideration the UE 's contention that Board
agents pursued a course of conduct which interfered with the election.
In its exceptions , the UE relies upon two incidents . In the first, it
is alleged that 1 minute after the time set for the lunch hour, several
employees on sick leave appeared to vote and were refused a ballot;
that in contrast therewith , when the Company requested that an ele-
vator operator be permitted to vote, the Board agent granted such
request . In another incident , it is alleged , that despite an agreement
among the parties and the Board , the Board agent at the Wellsbach
Plant required all UE voters to remove their overseas caps and UE
buttons.
With respect to the first incident , the evidence reveals that the polls
were scheduled to be closed from 11: 30 a. m. to 12 noon. It further
appears that at 11:35 two , three, or four employees 29 on leave of ab-
sence appeared to vote at the challenge table. At that time , the ballot
box at the challenge table at which all such employees were to vote
had been sealed over and signed . Some of the observers objected to
these employees being allowed to vote, as they (the observers ) claimed
they had only about 20 minutes left for lunch . However, the UE ob-
server requested that they be allowed to vote . At the same time, an
elevator operator appeared to vote and as all parties agreed that
she should vote, she was then sent to another polling table which was
not yet closed, and there voted.
The Regional Director found that aside from the fact that.the
votes involved cannot affect the results of the election , the action of
the Board agent was not improper under the circumstances. As the
report shows , the voters involved had less than a half hour to wait
in order to vote properly, and it was not unreasonable to request that
they return when the polls reopened . On the other hand, as all of the
parties agreed that the elevator operator be permitted to vote, and
there was a proper ballot box available, the action permitting the vote
was proper. Accordingly , we find this contention to be without merit.
With regard to the second incident , the UE observer at the Wells-
bach plant stated that the Board agent on his own initiative told the
voters that they would have to take their UE overseas hats off while
they were voting, but that nothing was said about buttons . However,
at the end of the first -shift voting this rule was countermanded. The
Board agent denies that he gave any such . instructions to any voter.
The Company and the IUE observers stated that the private side
agreement among all parties was that the voters should not wear UE
hats; that the UE observer asked voters to remove their hats; and
29Each of the persons giving affidavits recalls a different number. The UE affiant recalls
four employees.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 2001
that the Board agent reprimanded the UE observer for talking to
voters in line. Assuming without deciding, that such incident did
occur, we find nothing prejudicial in the conduct of the Board agent
in this respect, nor do we believe that such conduct, even if true, is
sufficient interference with the conduct of the election or the employees'
free choice of representatives to warrant setting aside the election.
Accordingly, we find this contention wholly without merit.
As we have found that the objections and exceptions raise no sub-
stantial or material issues affecting the conduct of the election, they
are, therefore, insufficient to warrant setting aside the election. The
objections and exceptions30 are, therefore, overruled.
As it appears from the tally of ballots that the Petitioner has
secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the challenged
ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election, we shall
certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, CIO, Local 103, has been designated and se-
lected by a majority of the employees in the unit found appropriate
in the Decision and Direction of Election herein, as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
au In our consideration of the exceptions to the supplemental report , we have not con-
sidered the subsequent letters submitted to the Board by the UE as they were untimely filed.
903847-51-vol. 90-m--127