Sunbeam Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SUNBEAM CORPORATION, EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER
and, DIE AND TOOL MAKERS LODGE No. 113, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1031 and METAL POLISHERS, BUFF-
ERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 6 and
UNITED ELECTRICAL. RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 13-RC-763 and 13-RM-58
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 14, 1950
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the
Board on November 18, 1949,E separate elections by secret ballot were
held on December 13, 1949, in the appropriate unit 2 and the voting
group 3 described in the Decision, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region . Upon the con-
clusion of the elections , a separate Tally of Ballots with respect to
each election was furnished the parties in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the Board . With respect to the election in the
appropriate unit, the tally reflected that, of approximately 2,875
eligible voters, 2,785 cast ballots , of which 1 ,488 were ' for United
Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America ( hereinafter called
the UE), 1,016 were for International Brotherhood of Electrical
187 NLRB 123.
2 All production and maintenance employees, but excluding toolroom employees and
experimental toolroom employees , tool crib attendants , maintenance machinists and helpers,
machine repairmen and helpers, patternmakers, apprentices, and helpers, stationary engi-
neers, outside truck drivers, office, factory office, and shop clerical employees, draftsmen
and designers, cafeteria employees, stockchasers and checkers, watchmen and guards,
inspector-supervisors, setup men, line supervisors, foremen and assistant foremen, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
'All tool crib attendants employed in the confines of the toolrooms and on the toolroom
payrolls. By its Order and Supplemental Decision dated February 15, 1950, as corrected
February 17, 1950 , the Board severed Case No. 13-RC-763 from these proceedings , and added
these employees to the toolroom unit currently represented by Die and Tool Makers Lodge
No. 113, International Association of Machinists.
89 NLRB No. 81.
469
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers, Local 1031, 262 were against the participating labor organi-
zations, and 19 were challenged.
Thereafter the Employer filed timely objections to the election, in
connection with which it submitted supporting material. Thereupon
the Regional Director, in accordance with the Board's rules and reg-
ulations, investigated the matters raised by the objections and issued
and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which
he recommended that the objections be overruled and the UE be cer-
tified on the basis of the Tally of Ballots. The Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Report on Objections, and has also filed a supple-
mental motion. The UE has filed motions to strike the Employer's
exceptions and supplemental motion.'
The Employer has challenged the validity of the election and the
power of the Board to certify the UE as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees concerned, on grounds involving
(1) alleged perjury of certain affidavits, filed pursuant to Section
9 (h) of the Act, by the UE and its affiliated Local 1150; (2) refusal
of the Regional Director to furnish the Employer with certain infor-
mation regarding the compliance of Local 1150 with the filing require-
ments of the Act; (3) alleged impropriety of designating the UE on
the ballot, rather than Local 1150; (4) alleged loss of majority by
the UE since the election ; (5) alleged coercion of voters by the UE
and Local 1150; and (6) allegations that Local 1150 is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. The Employer has also
requested that certain qualifications be placed upon any certification
which may issue in this proceeding. The Board has considered the
Employer's objections, exceptions, motions, and supplemental mate-
rial, the Regional Director's Report on Objections, and the entire
record in this case, and finds the Employer's objections and exceptions
to be without merit, and that its motions should be denied.
The Employer's contentions are treated seriatim.
1. In its Decision and Direction of Elections, the Board conditioned
the participation of the UE and Local 1150 in the election upon the
timely compliance of Local 1150 with the filing requirements of the
Act. Local 1150 filed its affidavits within the time provided, and the
Regional Director accorded the UE a place on the ballot. The Em-
ployer alleges, however, that neither the UE nor Local 1150 was in
fact in compliance with the requirements of Section 9 (h) of the Act
at the time of the election, and that neither is in compliance at the
present time. It contends that, because of such alleged noncompli-
4 As any party may file timely exceptions to the Regional Director 's Report on Objections,
setting forth its contentions with respect to the. Regional Director 's findings , the UE's
motions to strike are hereby denied. Section 203.61 ( b), National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations , Series 5, as amended.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION 471
ante, the, election was' invalid, and that the Board is without power
to certify the UE as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees.
The Employer asserts, in support of these allegations, that (1) the
affidavit identifying the officers of Local 1150 was perjured, in that
it did not designate as officers of Local 1150 certain individuals who
allegedly exercised the functions of officers and who allegedly con-
trolled the nominal officers of the Local, and (2) the non-Communist
affidavits filed by certain of the purported officers of the UE and Local
1150 were perjured. In advancing this contention the Employer
would, in effect, have us overrule our earlier Decisions, in which we
have held that the determination of compliance is an administrative
matter not litigable by the parties,-' that the Board will not go behind
the affidavits identifying the officers of a labor organization to deter-
mine the truth thereof,6 and that it was the intention of Congress, in
enacting Section 9 (h), that the filing of affidavits be sufficient for the
Board's purposes, all questions of perjury with respect to such affi-
davits being within the province of the Department of Justice.' We
find nothing in this record 8 to cause us to alter our previously ex-
pressed opinions on these matters. 'Accordingly, we find this objec-
tion to be without sufficient merit,° and hereby overrule the Employer's
motion that further investigation be made into the matters raised by
its allegations of perjury.
2. The Regional Director refused the Employer's request that he
disclose to the Employer the names of the persons listed by Local
1150 as its officers, and the names of the persons who filed affidavits
as officers of Local 1150. The Employer contends that the Regional
5 See, for example, Trueman Fertilizer Company , 81 NLRB 72; Lion Oil Company, 76
NLRB 565.
6 The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, 82 NLRB 810. When
the Board has reasonable cause to believe that the designation of a position as an office
has been omitted from the constitution of a labor organization , for the purpose of evading
or circumventing the filing requirements of Section 9 (h), the Board may conduct an
investigation to determine the facts . ( Section 102 . 7.3 (c), National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 5, as amended in 1949. ) However, no such problem is
presented in this case.
7 American Seating Company , 85 NLRB 269 . In that case the Board accorded a union a
place on the ballot, despite a press statement attributed to an officer of that union, that he
had resigned from the Communist Party and intended to execute the affidavit required by
Section 9 (h) of the Act, but that he still believed in the principles and doctrines of the
Communist Party.
In deciding this question , we do not purport to pass upon the weight or sufficiency of
the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the Employer in support of its allegations
of perjury.
9 The Regional Director recommended that this objection be overruled on the ground,
inter alia, that the Employer had ample opportunity to raise it before the election, but
failed to do so, and that accordingly the objection was untimely . The Employer had no
reason to raise these issues until the UE was accorded a place on the ballot , following the
Board 's Decision and Direction of Elections in this case, and no opportunity, within the
limits of the Board ' s procedures , until after the election had been held . We therefore do
not adopt the Regional Director 's recommendation regarding the timeliness of the objection.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director's refusal was arbitrary, and deprived the Employer of due
process of law, and that the election is therefore invalid.
As we have held that the question of compliance is not a litigable
issue, the Regional Director's action is irrelevant to the issues of this
case. Accordingly, we find this objection to be without merit.
3. Although the Direction of Elections provided that "Local 1150,
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America," be ac-
corded a place on the ballot, subject to timely compliance being
achieved, Local 1150 was omitted from the ballot, and only the UE
appeared thereon. The Employer contends that the failure to desig-
nate Local 1150 on the ballot constituted an invalid variance from the
Direction of Elections. The Employer bases its contention on the al-
legation that all previous bargaining history and contracts have
involved only Local 1150, that the election campaign was conducted
principally by and on behalf of Local 1150, and that the employees
were thereby misled into thinking they were voting for Local 1150,
whereas they were in fact voting for the UE. Records of the Board
show, in this connection, however, that the UE, and not Local 1150,
was designated by the Regional Director on July 15, 1943, as the repre-
sentative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees,"
and that as recently as 1947, in a case involving these same plants, the
UE, and not Local 1150, was the Intervenor.11
Irrespective of the bargaining history, however, we believe that the
designation on the ballot was within the scope of our Direction.
When, as here, an International Union and its interested Local agree
that the International alone shall appear on the ballot, such a designa-
tion of the International is proper.12 We find, further, that the ballot
designation of the International did not confuse the voters as to the
identity of the respective rival unions participating in the election.13
If, under these circumstances, we had been requested by the UE and
Local 1150 to omit Local 1150 from the ballot, we would have granted
that request.14 It is immaterial, so far as the Employer is concerned,
that the request was directed to and granted by the Regional Director.
We conclude, therefore, that the designation of the International,
rather than Local 1150, did not affect the validity of the election. . Ac-
cordingly, we find this objection to be without merit.
10 Case No. 13-R-1844.
11Sunbeam Corporation , 74 NLRB 976..
19 See Lane Wells Company, 79 NLRB 252.
13 Cf . Certain-Teed Products Corporation, 49 NLRB 360 , in which the Board set aside an
election because of a variance from its Direction which caused confusion among the voters
as to the identity of the competing labor organizations.
14 Wells Manufacturing Corporation, 85 NLRB 23 ; United States Gypsum Company, 85
NLRB. 9. Cf. General Motors Corporation , Frigidaire Division, et al., 88 NLRB 450.
SUNBEAM CORPORATION -473
4. The Employer alleges that the UE has lost its majority status
since the election because of resignations of its employees from the UE
and Local 1150. It contends, accordingly, that the Board no longer
has power to certify the UE. The Employer has adduced no proof in
support of its allegations. The Board has, moreover, refused to con-
sider evidence of post-election loss of majority as sufficient reason to
disregard the results of a valid election.15 Accordingly, we find this
objection to be without merit.
5. The Employer alleges that the employees in the unit were coerced
by the UE and Local 1150, by reason of threats to specific named
employees, and by the general course of conduct of the UE and Local
1150 during and since a strike which occurred at the Employer's plants
in June 1.949. The Regional Director, upon investigation, found no
evidence to support the allegations of coercion. The employer merely
stated, in support of this objection, that it based such allegations upon
complaints of employees who would not make such charges lightly.
It alleged further that the Regional Director's finding with respect
to such allegations was the result of prejudice in favor of the UE.
We find that there is no substantial support for this objection. Ac-
cordingly, we find the objection to be without merit.
6. The Employer alleges that Local 1150 is not a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, because of the alleged domination of
Local 1150 by the Communist Party. This allegation is, in effect,
another facet of the compliance matter discussed above. The record
confirms that Local 1150 is, in the words of Section 2 (5) of the Act,
an "organization . . . in which employees participate and which
exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work." Accordingly, we.find this objec-
tion to be without merit, and deny the Employer's motion that we
require Local 1150 to show cause why we should not reverse our
previous determination that Local 1150 is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. In any event the UE is the labor organiza-
tion which was on the ballot and which we are certifying.
7. The Employer has moved that, if its objections in this matter be
overruled, any certification which might issue be so qualified that, in
the event it is later determined, either by this Board, by the Attorney
General of the United States, or by any court of competent jurisdic-
tion, that any of the affidavits on file at the time of the election were
perjured, the certific ition immediately become null and void. We
15 Teesdale Manufacturing Company , 71 NLRB 932, 935.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
see no reason for so qualifying our certification at this time. The
situation is protected by what the Board said in the Lane Wells case : 16
. . . the Board has the power to police its own certifications
and can thereby fully effectuate the policies of Section 9 (f), (g)
and (h). If changing circumstances should give rise to a sit-
uation in which the Board for policy reasons would not issue a
certification in the first instance, it has power, either on its own
motion or that of the Employer, to recall the certificate.
Accordingly, we hereby deny this motion.
As we have found the Employer's objections to be without merit,
and have denied its various subsidiary motions, we deny its motion to
set aside the results of the election in this matter. As a majority of
the employees in the unit have selected the UE as their bargaining
representative, we shall certify the UE in accordance with the Tally
of Ballots.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America has been designated and selected by a majority
of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plants
located at 5600 West Roosevelt Road, 5444 West Roosevelt Road, and
4433 West Alton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, but excluding too]room
employees and experimental toolroom employees, tool crib attendants,
maintenance machinists and helpers, machine repairmen and helpers,
patternmakers, apprentices and helpers, stationary engineers, outside
truck drivers, office, factory office, and shop clerical employees, drafts-
men and designers, cafeteria employees, stockchasers and checkers,
watchmen and guards, inspector-supervisors, setup men, line super-
visors, foremen, and assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
16 Lane Wells Company, 79 NLRB 252, 256.