Steel Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1158 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be adduced so long after the disputed work had been completed.2 Ac-
cordingly, we shall vacate the Determination of Dispute, dismiss the
complaint based thereon, and quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board vacated and set aside the Decision and Determination of
Dispute, dismissed the complaint, and quashed the notice of hearing.]
2 See Panama City Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Marvin Ray
and Albert Ray, partners , d/b/a Ray Fabricating and Manufacturing Company), 136
NLRB 1002.
Steel Equipment Company and International Union, United
Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-4422. Feb-
ruary 7, 1963
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
October 11, 1961, among the employees in the unit described below.
After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that, of approximately 62 eligible voters, 61 cast valid
ballots, of which 34 were against, and 27 for, the Petitioner. The
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results and
conduct of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on November 24, 1961,
issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he
recommended that objection No. 1(d) be sustained and that all other
objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c)
(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and we find that all production and main-
tenance employees, including group leaders and shipping and receiv-
ing clerks, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, profes-
140 NLRB No 122.
STEEL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1159
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. In its objection No. 1(d) the Petitioner contended that certain
representations made by the Employer concerning wage rates as-
sertedly negotiated by a union at the Lewis Welding Company, were
false in that the rates had not been arrived at through collective bar-
gaining. The Regional Director, noting that the Employer subcon-
tracted a substantial amount of work to the company in question, found
that Lewis had two plants, one at Euclid, Ohio, where the employees
were unrepresented, and one at Bedford, Ohio, where there was a union
with a collective-bargaining agreement. He also found that the rates
quoted by the Employer were in fact those rates in effect at the Euclid
plant, and that the wage rates quoted were in two specific instances in-
correct. Relying on the Employer's relationship with Lewis Weld-
ing, and its obvious effort in a leaflet to stress to the employees that it
had authoritative knowledge regarding the jobs and wage rates at
Lewis, the Regional Director found that the statements were material
misrepresentations constituting grounds for setting aside the election.
The Employer, in excepting to this finding, points out that the
Euclid plant was in fact organized and that Shopmen's Iron Workers
Local No. 468, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, had been recognized by Lewis
as the bargaining representative of the employees at the Euclid plant
approximately 1 month prior to the circulation of the disputed wage
rates and job classifications. The Employer also notes that the wage
rates cited by it were in fact incorporated into the agreement entered
into between the Iron Workers and Lewis approximately 1 month after
the Employer's circulation of the disputed figures. The Employer
further contends that the Regional Director erred in not finding at
least five of the seven classifications were in existence at the Bedford
shop.
We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Em-
ployer's statements in a leaflet, received by the employees 1 or 2 days
before the election, contained a substantial departure from the truth in
indicating that the quoted wage rates for Lewis Welding were the
product of a collective-bargaining agreement. We reach this conclu-
sion even assuming the correctness of the Employer's statement regard-
ing the disputed rates and job classifications.
The Employer's message in the leaflet declared that Lewis Weld-
ing's plant "is unionized" and invited each employee to check with the
Company's own vice president if he had any question concerning the
"union rates" at Lewis Welding. Thus by failing to identify which
plant it was referring to and by its statements in the leaflet, the Em-
ployer conveyed the impression that the rates set forth, which were dif-
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ferent from those at the Bedford plant, and lower than its own, were,
the result of a bargaining contract, when in fact there was no agree-
ment on wages until a later time.
In Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc.,' we set aside an election
where a union made a similar misrepresentation. The rule of that
case is equally applicable here. Accordingly, this conduct of the Em-
ployer is sufficient ground for setting aside the election.
The Regional Director further found that other statements of the
Employer were typical campaign propaganda which the employees
were capable of evaluating. We do not agree. A careful review of
these assertions shows that they were designed to implant in the minds,
of the employees a fear of economic and physical suffering, the prob-
ability of a loss of benefits, and the hazards of collective bargaining..
Specifically, the Employer indicated that the employees could expect
a strike if the Union won the election. To show its economic power-
in this situation the Employer implied that when this occurred, it
would subcontract all its production work, thus threatening the em-
ployees with loss of employment. This statement constitutes a sep-
arate, additional ground for setting aside the election 2
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Employer's conduct
interfered with the employees' freedom of choice and warrants setting
aside the election. Accordingly, we shall set the election aside and,
order a second one.'
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RoDGERS, concurring :
I concur in setting aside the election herein, but only for the reason
set forth by the Regional Director.
1140 NLRB 221.
2 Somismo, Inc ., 133 NLRB 1310.
In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's
recommendations that objections Nos. 1 ( a) and ( c), 2(a), (b ), ( c), (e), and (f), 3(a)
and (b ), and 4 be overruled . In view of our decision h erein, we find it unnecessary to
rule on the issues raised by Petitioner in its exceptions to the Regional Director's recom-
mendations as to objections Nos. 1 ( e) and 2(d).
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company ( Hinde & Dauch Divi-
sion , Detroit Plant ) and United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 998. Case No. 7-R-2254.
February 7, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
On April 29, 1946, the Regional Director for the Seventh Region
issued a consent determination of representatives determining that the
140 NLRB No. 110,