Stanley Aviation Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 461 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

STANLEY AVIATION CORPORATION 461
not believe , however, that this is sufficient to warrant departing from
the Board 's established policy of excluding office clerical employees
from a production and maintenance unit.8 We shall, therefore, ex-
clude the office clerical employees from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's plants at Billings and Miles City, Montana , and Worland,
Sheridan, and Powell , Wyoming, including driver-salesmen and
janitors, but excluding office clerical and management employees, su-
pervisors ,9 and guards, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
8 Dura Steel Products Company, 109 NLRB 179.
The record shows that the two distribution supervisors , the office supervisor, and an
employee who is engaged primarily in advertising and display work have authority to
hire and discharge employees . They are therefore excluded from the unit as supervisors.
Stanley Aviation Corporation and District Lodge No. 86, Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL, Petitioner . Case No.
30-RC-997. April 05,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on December 15, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on January 12, 1955, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the De-
cision. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties. The tally shows that of approximately 96 eligible voters,
89 cast ballots, of which 19 were for the Petitioner, 40 were for the
Intervenor,' 20 were against both participating labor organizations,
and 10 were challenged.
On January 18, 1955, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election. As the challenged ballots were
sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director investigated the challenges, as well as the Petitioner's objec-
tions, and, on March 2, 1955, issued and duly served on the parties
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders
2 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW-CIO
112 NLRB No. 61.
462 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his report on challenges and objections to election. In his report he
recommended that the challenges to the 10 ballots be sustained, and
that the Petitioner's objections be overruled. The Petitioner has
excepted to the Regional Director's report, and the Employer has ex-
cepted to that portion of the report dealing with the status of the
quality control employees.
The Challenged Ballots
As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation that the challenge to the ballot of Paul C. Fouchey be sus-
tained, we adopt this recommendation.
The Board agent challenged the ballots of nine employees because
they were not on the eligibility list submitted by the Employer.3
The Employer did not put their names on the eligibility list because
they were part of the quality control department, which was ex-
cluded from the unit found appropriate by the Board in accordance
with the stipulation of the parties. The Regional Director's investi-
gation revealed that for the most part the duties of these employees
consisted of inspection and testing. In addition, some employees
also checked tools against blueprint specifications. The Regional
Director, however, recommended that the challenges to these ballots
be sustained on the ground that these employees are part of the ex-
cluded quality control department, that they have separate supervi-
sion from the employees in the production and maintenance unit,
and that, while certain of them spend varying portions of their time
on inspection duties, they are not part of the production and main-
tenance unit defined in the Direction of Election.
The Petitioner does not take exception to the Regional Director's
factual findings, but urges that, on the facts as found, the Board
should not follow the Regional Director's conclusions and recom-
mendations. The Petitioner contends that these employees were in-
advertently excluded from the unit due to the fact that it was not
fully acquainted with the duties of the quality control employees
when it stipulated to their exclusion at the hearing. It asserts that
if it had knowledge that there existed classifications of employees
performing the work of those whose ballots were challenged, under
the designation of "quality control employees," it would not have
entered into a stipulation excluding them from the unit.
In its exceptions, the Employer requests the Board to hold a
hearing to determine the status of the employees in its quality control
department, asserting that the Regional Director's report leaves the
3These employees are William Sweet, Bernard Kendrick, Edwin Edwaids, Robert E
Ward, Jr, Donald Porter, William Ilawkesworth, Prank Malone, James Locker, and
George Lenz
STANLEY AVIATION CORPORATION 463
status of these employees uncertain. The Employer states that the
Regional Director's findings indicate that there may be some question
as to the ultimate propriety of including these employees in a bar-
gaining unit. The Employer is willing to abide by the Regional
Director's findings if the Board construes them to mean that the
quality control employees are not eligible, under the Act, to be repre-
sented by a labor organization. If, however, the exclusion is not on
that basis, then the Employer urges that the matter should be re-
manded for rehearing. The Employer further requests that, if these
employees are found to be within the unit, the election be set aside
and a new election held.
At the hearing in this proceeding, none of the parties sought the
inclusion of the employees in the quality control department, nor did
they adduce testimony concerning the duties of these employees. The
Board has a "well established policy of honoring concessions made in
the interest of expeditious handling of representation cases in gen-
eral."' We therefore consider it to be contrary to good administrative
practice to reopen the record at this postelection stage of the proceed-
ing to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard on the question
of the inclusion of the quality control department employees in the
unit .5 For this reason we deny the request of the Employer and the
Petitioner to hold a hearing to determine the status of the employees
in the Employer's quality control department. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the challenges to the ballots of William Sweet, Bernard Kend-
rick, Edwin Edwards, Robert E. Ward, Jr., Donald Porter, William
Hawkesworth, Frank Malone, James Locker, and George Lenz.
The Objections
The Petitioner's objections allege that: (1) The Employer granted
wage increases to employees in the unit immediately preceding the
election; (2) the Employer, by various conversations of its agents,
influenced, intimidated, and coerced employees in the unit; and (3)
the Employer influenced, intimidated, and coerced employees by
speeches and letters addressed to the employees.
The Regional Director's investigation showed that the Employer
instituted a merit-increase program when it started operations in
July 1954. At this time it was determined that employees would be
eligible for consideration for merit increases after 12 weeks of em-
ployment, and that monthly reviews of the employment records of
eligible employees would be made for the purpose of awarding merit
increases. The large number of increases granted in January 1955,
4 New York Shippiwp Association and its Diem hers , 109 NLRB 1075
6Cf Port Houston Icon Works, Inc, 103 NLRB 1489 , 1491 , Lockheed Aircraft Corpora-
tion, 78 NLRB 1064, 1065
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
just prior to the election, were caused by the large number of employ-
ees hired by the Employer during September 1954. The Regional
Director recommended that this objection be overruled on the grounds
that the merit-increase program was instituted at a time when there
was no union organizational activities, the program was not insti-
tuted for the purpose of influencing the free choice of the voters, and
that neither the timing, granting, not announcing of merit in-
creases was related to or conditioned upon the vote of the employees,
or the outcome of the election.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that, a few days
before the election, 1 of the Employer's supervisors discussed the elec-
tion with several employees eligible to vote, and asked about 4 em-
ployees how they were going to vote in the election. The Regional
Director found that this supervisor did try to influence employees
to vote against union organization, and expressed the view that there
would be no advantage to having a union, and that the employees did
not need one. He concluded, however, that the evidence did not
establish that there were threats of economic reprisal, or promises
of economic benefit, or that the employees were influenced, intimi-
dated, or coerced within the meaning of the Act, or that the election
result was adversely affected thereby. He therefore recommended
that this objection be overruled.
As to the third objection, the Regional Director's investigation re-
vealed that the plant manager issued a series of four letters to the
employees prior to the election. In addition, he delivered a series of
several speeches, and, in a few instances, answered questions which
employees put to him. The evidence, however, showed that the state-
ments, speeches, and printed letters did not exceed the bounds of the
privileged area defined by Section 8 (c) of the Act. The Regional
Director, therefore, recommended that this objection be overruled.
The Petitioner does not dispute the Regional Director's factual
findings, but takes exception to his conclusions and recommenda-
tions. The Petitioner contends that the interrogation of employees
together with letters and speeches by Employer representatives, cre-
ated an atmosphere which in itself coerced the employees, and cou-
pled with the granting of the wage increases, was bound to influence
the outcome of the election.
The Board will not reject what purports to be the choice of the vot-
ers in a Board-conducted election unless the registration of a free
choice is shown by all the circumstances to have been unlikely.' In
the circumstances of this case, we find that a free choice was not ren-
dered unlikely because of the conduct complained of. It is clear, and
we find, that the Employer was following a normal business course in
The Liberal Market, Inc., 108 NLRB 1481.
THE NEWTON COMPANY 465
granting the merit increases just prior to the election.7 We further
find that under all the circumstances of this case, the interrogation did
not reasonably tend to restrain or interfere with the employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.8 We believe that the fore-
going acts, whether they be considered singly or collectively, do not
provide ample basis for setting aside this election. Accordingly, we
find that the Petitioner's objections and exceptions do not raise sub-
stantial and material issues with respect to the conduct affecting the
results of the election, and they are hereby overruled. As the Inter-
venor has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify
the Intervenor as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
7 Cf Baird-Ward Printing Co , Inc, 108 NLRB 81.5; Detroit Aluminum R Brass Corpora-
tion, 107 NLRB 1411 , Universal Butane Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 1101, 1102-1103
8 Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB '591 : The Liheial Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 1481
Bull Insular Line, Inc , et al , 108 NLRB 900 , General Motors Corporation, Central Foundry
Division, 107 NLRB 1096
The Newton Company and United Garment Workers of America,
AFL. Case No.15-CA-6440. April 27,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegation of the
complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
112 NLRB No. 64.