Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of our employees , by discriminating in any manner in regard to hire, tenure, or any
other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL OFFER to Guillermo Ortega immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from engaging in any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of any labor organization , except to the extent above-stated.
EL MUNDO BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC.and DISTRICT 98,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO and UNITED ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA. Case
No. 4-RC-2113. June 10, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 12, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election , an election was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region among the production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's York, Pennsylvania , plant . At the conclusion
of the election , it appeared that none of the 4 choices on the
ballot had received a majority of the valid votes cast . Accord-
ingly, on October 26, 1953, the Regional Director conducted a
runoff election with the Intervenor , United Electrical , Radio &
Machine Workers of America, herein called UE, as the only
labor organization on the ballot. The tally of ballots prepared
at the conclusion of the runoff election showed that 9 ballots
challenged by the UE were determinative of the outcome of the
108 NLRB No. 182.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS. INC. 1283
election. On November 2, 1953, timely objections to the runoff
election were filed by the Employer and the UE. On December
22, 1953, the Regional Director issued a report on objections
and challenged ballots, in which he recommended that the
challenges to the 9 ballots be overruled, that the ballots be
opened and counted, and that if a determination of the challenges
rendered the objections material to the outcome of the election,
the Regional Director would issue a supplemental report on
objections. On February 8, 1954, the Board adopted the Regional
Director ' s recommendations as to the challenges and ordered
that the 9 challenged ballots be opened and counted. On February
15, 1954, a revised tally of ballots was issued by the Regional
Director. The tally showed that there were 103 ballots cast, of
which 51 were cast for the UE, and 52 were cast against the
UE. On February 19, 1954, the Employer requested permission
to withdraw its objections; permission is hereby granted.
Following an investigation of the UE's objections, the Regional
Director, on April 8, 1954, issued and duly served upon the
parties his supplemental report on objections, which is attached
hereto. In his supplemental report, the Regional Director found
that the UE's objections raised no substantial and material
issues with respect to the runoff election, and recommended
that the objections be overruled. On April 16, 1954, the UE
filed timely exceptions to the supplemental report on objections;
and on April 19, 1954, the Employer filed a brief in support of
the supplemental report on objections.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's supple-
mental report on objections, the UE's exceptions thereto, the
Employer's brief, and the entire record in the case , and here-
by adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional
Director in his supplemental report on objections. Accordingly,
as it appears that none of the participating labor organizations
has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the original
and runoff elections, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Supplemental Report on Objections
Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon consent election , executed
on September 24, 1953, an election was conducted on October 12, 1953. As no choice received
a majority of the valid ballots cast, a runoff election was held on October 26, 1953, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board. The tally of ballots prepared at the conclusion of this election showed that
nine ballots, challenged by the UE, were determinative of the results of the runoff election.
Thereafter, on November 2, 1953, both the Employer and the UE filed timely objections to
election. On December 22, 1953, the Regional Director issued a report on objections and
challenged ballots, in which it was recommended that the challenges to the nine ballots be
overruled , but the Regional Director refrained from making any findings or recommendations
concerning the objections filed by the Employer and the UE for reasons given therem. In this
report, the Regional Director alsostatedthata supplemental report on objections would issue,
in the event that a determination of the challenges rendered the UE's objections material to
the outcome of the election.
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A Board order was issued on February 8, 1954 , directing the Regional Director to open and
count the ballots of the 9 employees challenged . Accordingly , a revised tally of ballots was
issued on February 15, 1954 , showing the results of the election of October 26, 1953, to be as
follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters ............................................................... 106
Void ballots ................................................................................................... 0
Votes cast for ................................................................................................ 51
Votes cast against participating labor organization ............................................... 52
Valid votes counted .........................................................................................103
By letter dated February 19, 1954 , the Employer requested permission to withdraw without
prejudice the objections filed on November 2, 1953.
Acting pursuant to paragraph 5 of the stipulation and Section 102.61 of the Board 's Rules
and Regulations , the undersigned Regional Director has investigated the objections and hereby
reports as follows:
The UE's objections are based upon a speech delivered by an employer representative to all
employees in the bargaining unit at a meeting held on company property during working hours
on Friday , October 23, 1953 . The following facts are undisputed:
A prepared speech, antiunion but noncoercive in character , was made on Friday, October 23,
1953, by an executive of the Employer on the Company ' s property to two groups , assembled be-
tween 3:30 p. m. and 4 p. m. for first-shift employees and between 4 p. m. and 4:30 p. m. for
second-shift employees . OnOctober 24,1953, a telegram was received by the Employer from a UE
field representative requesting the opportunity to address employees under the same circum-
stances on company time no later than 1 p. in. on October 26, 1953 . On October 25, 1953, a telegram
was sent by the Employer ' s plant manager to the UE representative: " It is our considered opin-
ion that you have had ample opportunity to explain your position to the employees ." The Employer
received a telegram from the Union on October 26, 1953, which stated , " Your answer totally
unsatisfactory . Labor laws and regulations require granting Union right requested in our pre-
vious telegram We demand UE be granted opportunity to address workers not later than 1 00
p. m., Monday , October 26, 1953." There is no evidence that a reply was made to this telegram.
The election was held on Monday, October 26, 1953, between 3 p. in and 4:30 p. m
There is some question as to the practice followed in enforcing the Employer 's no-solicita-
tion rule. The Employer contends that , since the beginning of operations at its York, Penn-
sylvania plant , there has been in effect an unwritten rule prohibiting the solicitation of em-
ployees on company property only during working hours , and that at no time during the elec-
tion campaign was any employees precluded from soliciting during the nonworking hours. The
UE controverts this by the claim that the personnel supervisor stated to employees sometime
in September 1953 that no union would be allowed to solicit on company property , and that the
assistant personnel supervisor on one occasion prohibited the distribution of union leaflets on
company property ; in support of the latter claim the UE submitted the affidavit of an organizer,
who in August 1953 alleges he was told that in distributing leaflets he would have to stand off
company property.
The Board has held in Peerless Plywood Company , 107 NLRB 427, that it will set aside
elections whenever employers or unions conduct election speeches on company time to massed
assemblies of employees within 24 hours prior to the scheduled time for the election. Here,
however , the Employer and the UE disagree onthe application of the Board's rule in Peerless
Plywood concerning the coverage of the 24-hour period to the facts in the case herein. The
UE argues that the proscribed period of time should be confined to working days rather than
calendar days and , further, should exclude nonregular working days . The Employer takes the
contrary view that the last portion of the speech ending at 4:30 p . m. on October 23, 1953,
occurred almost 71 hours before the scheduled election at 3 p . m. on October 26, 1953. The
Employer further argues that , if only working hours are counted , the Board 's rule does not
apply because on October 24, 1953 , the Saturday i following the speech , 36 employees worked
on the day shift and 10 were employed on the second shift , and that on Sunday , October 25,
1953, only 3 watchmen were employed.
The Board also stated in Peerless Plywood that "... last-minute speeches delivered to
massed assemblies of employees on company time have an unwholesome and unsettling effect
iA practice followed on each Saturday between September 5 and November 7, when between
21 and 64 employees in the bargaining unit worked.
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY 1285
and tend to interfere with that sober and thoughtful choice which a free election is designed to
reflect." The Board, in the same decision, refers further to the timing of the speech in rela-
tion to the election by stating, "We believe that the real vice is in the last minute character
of the speech.. ." and, ". . . the delivery of such speeches on the eve of the election tend
to destroy freedom of choice and establish an atmosphere in which a free election cannot be
held." In view of the emphasis given, it seems that the proscribed period refers only to the
24-hour period immediately preceding the election and that, if, as here, a nonworking day
falls between the speech and the scheduled election, the Employer has not experienced such
an advantage as would warrant setting aside the election.
It is, therefore, the finding of the Regional Director that the speech of October 23, 1953,
made by the Employer to two assembled groups of employees did not interfere with a free and
untrammeled expression of the employees' choice in the election of October 26, 1953.
It is recommended that the UE's objections be overruled as it is concluded that the objec-
tions raise no substantial and material issues with respect to the election and that the
Employer's request to withdraw its objections be approved.
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, LOCAL UNION
NO. 716, Petitioner . Case No. 39 -RC-661. June 10, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence L.
Stephens, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
Since Board certification on January 10, 1949, the Intervenor
has continuously represented the Employer's employees in a
production and maintenance unit. On August 28, 1953, the
Petitioner filed the petition herein seeking to sever therefrom
a craft unit of electricians and their helpers. However, on
August 12, 1953, prior to the filing of the petition, the Employer
and the Intervenor executed their most recent collective-
bargaining agreement covering the production and maintenance
unit, including the electricians. Contrary to the Petitioner, the
Intervenor and the Employer contend that the contract is a bar
to this proceeding. The contract contains no specified expiration
date, rather it provides:
'Oil Workers International Union. CIO , Local 367, herein called Intervenor , was permitted
to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its existing contract with the Employer.
108 NLRB No. 185.