Spartan Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1373 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SPARTAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY 1373
description 18 as defined by the parties and certified by the Board,
that the Hammond and Gary, Indiana, stores are included in the ap-
propriate unit for which the Independent has been certified as exclu-
sive bargaining representative.l9
18 The unit referred to in the Board 's certification is hereby found appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
19 We deem it unnecessary at this time to determine the extent or exact boundaries of
the metropolitan area described as "in and around Chicago," or whether the "100-mile"
contract provision adopted by the Employer and Independent falls within the scope of this
language . The question as to whether the unit includes any future stores which might
be opened outside the existing territorial unit area must be determined when and if it
arises upon a representation petition.
SPARTAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY and LOCAL 790, INTERNATIONAL AssoCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-1529.
March 31,1955
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
December 3, 1954,1 and election by secret ballot was conducted on
December 28, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Sixteenth Region, among employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of 358 votes
cast in the election, 149 were for the Petitioner, 173 against Petitioner,
1 was void, and 35 challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election. The Regional Director
conducted an investigation of the challenged ballots and in his report
thereon recommended that 11 of the 35 challenges be sustained on the
grounds that 10 of these ballots were cast by ineligible employees and
that 1 of them was cast by an employee who did not appear at the polls
until after the agreed closing time. He found it unnecessary to resolve
the issues as to the 24 remaining challenges as they are not determi-
native of the election. No exceptions have been filed to the Regional
Director's recommendations as to challenged ballots, and in the ab-
sence of such exceptions we hereby adopt his recommendations.
On December 31, 1954, and January 4, 1955, the Petitioner filed
timely objections and amendments thereof to conduct affecting the re-
sults of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objec-
tions and, on February 2, 1955, duly served upon the parties his report
on objections, in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objec-
tions concerning the Employer's conduct in sending known supervisors
to the polls and a leadman's action in engaging in electioneering at the
1 Not reported in the printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
111 NLRB No. 210.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
polling place during the election be sustained and that the election be
set aside. Thereafter the Employer filed timely exceptions to this
portion of the Regional Director's report.2
Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as follows :
The Regional Director's report discloses that pursuant to the Em-
ployer's request 30 leadmen and the shop foreman, whom the Board
had found to be supervisors, appeared at the polls and attempted to
vote ; that 1 of these supervisors, leadman Lloyd Tuck, displayed for
10 minutes while standing in the voting line, a 2 by 3 foot sign with
the inscription "VOTE NO" printed thereon, and that Tuck informed
eligible employee Campbell that there was no need for Campbell to
vote as he, Tuck, was going to cancel his vote. Tuck subsequently
qualified his remarks by saying that another eligible employee would
cancel Campbell's vote.
In opposing the Regional Director's recommendations, the Em-
ployer admits that it requested its 41 leadmen whom the Board had
found to be supervisors to appear at the polls and seek to vote, but as-
serts that the reason therefor was that in the event the Petitioner won
the election and the challenged ballots of the leadmen might be de-
terminative of the results, the Employer would refuse to bargain and
thus eventually cause the issue of their supervisory status to be tested
in the courts. In admitting that it requested these supervisors to ig-
nore the Board's ruling with respect to them, the Employer denies that
it authorized the electioneering conduct of leadman Tuck, but con-
tends that neither the presence of the supervisors nor the conduct of
leadman Tuck at the polling place had any effect upon the free ex-
pression of the eligible voter's choice.
At the preelection conference the Employer informed the Board
• agent conducting the election of its plans to have the leadmen attempt
to vote. The Board agent replied that these individuals would be de-
nied ballots and would not be allowed to vote challenged ballots be-
cause of the clear wording of the Board decision finding them to be
supervisors and specifically excluding them. Copies of the notice of
election were posted in 25 locations throughout the Employer's plant.
These copies plainly stated that the leadmen concerned were specifi-
cally excluded; that according to Board election rules "Voters will be
allowed to vote without interference, restraint, or coercion"; and that
"Electioneering will not be permitted at or near the polling places."
It is apparent that the conduct of leadman Tuck constituted a sub-
stantial and willful violation of the Board's rule against electioneer-
ing at the polling place as set forth in the notices of election. It is
well established that the Board will not attempt to evaluate the pre-
2 Regional Director found no merit in the Petitioner's other objections, and no ex-
ceptions have been filed to such findings. In the absence of exceptions , we hereby adopt
.them.
SPARTAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY 1375 ,
cise impact of improper conduct by one of the parties to an election
upon the exercise by the voters of their freedom of choice. Rather it is
sufficient that such conduct is reasonably calculated to have the effect
of interfering with a free choice.' The Board's rule against election-
eering at or near the polling place is designed to ensure an atmosphere
free from pressure or influence of any sort at the time and place where
the employees cast their ballots 4 That rule was violated in this case.
We believe it to be apparent, moreover, from all the circumstances
in this case, that the Employer's action in sending to the polls the lead-
men whom the Board had found to be supervisors and not entitled to,
vote was a principal circumstance directly contributing to the viola-
tion of the election rules in this case. Under all the circumstances,
we find, in substantial agreement with the Regional Director, that the
Employer's conduct in sending known supervisors to the polls and
leadman Tuck's action in engaging in electioneering at the polls went
beyond permissible bounds and that, as a result, this election did not
afford the employees an opportunity to exercise a free and untram-
meled choice while casting their ballots. We shall therefore set the
election aside and shall direct that a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held December 28, 1954.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.],
3 See, for example , McMullen Leavens Company , 83 NLRB 948 at 951 ; G. H. Hess, Inc,.
82 NLRB 463 at 465.
4 See Detrotit Creamery Company, 60 NLRB 178 at 180.
O