Telechron, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 648 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of TELECHRON, INC., EMPLOYER and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE)., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1452
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
December 12, 1950
On August 10, 1950, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region.
At the conclusion of the election, t'i'e parties were furnished with a
tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 865 employees
eligible to vote, 47 cast votes in favor of United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America (UE), the Petitioner, 49 cast votes
for an Intervenor, International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL, 276
cast votes for the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, (hereinafter
called the Steelworkers) the other Intervenor, 400 votes were cast
against the participating labor organizations, and 8 votes were
challenged.
On August 16, 1950, the Steelworkers filed objections to the con-
duct of the election upon the grounds that the Employer: (1) Dis-
tributed letters and made speeches to the employees which amounted
'to coercion; (2) refused to permit a viewing of the voting facilities,
prior to the election; and (3) coerced its employees by threats to the
employees which were made by the Employer's supervisors. There-
after, the Regional Director investigated the objections and on Sep-
tember 18, . 1950, issued and served upon the parties a report on
objections. He found without merit, or unsubstantiated by evidence,
the objections described under (2) and (3) above, but found as to
item (1) that a letter of August 8, 1950, distributed to the employees
contained threats of reprisal and promise of benefits, and therefore
.recommended that the election be set aside and that a new election
be directed. Thereafter, on September 22, 1950, the Employer filed
with the Regional -Director a motion to "Reconsider Report on Ob-
jections and To Open the Investigation For the Reception of New
190 NLRB 931.
92 NLRB No. 113.
648
i
TELECHRON, INC. 649
Evidence." This request was granted and on September 27, the Em-
ployer submitted additional evidence which consisted of other
speeches it had made, union campaign literature, and articles per-
taining to the election which appeared in the local press. The Re-
gional Director on September 29, 1950, after duly considering this
additional evidence reaffirmed. his report on objections, recommend-
ing that the election of August 10, 1950, be set aside. The Employer
thereafter filed exceptions to the report on objections and to the
ruling on the motion to reconsider. No exceptions were filed by the
Steelworkers.
Upon the basis of the entire record 2 in this case, the Board 3 makes
the following findings :
The Employer admits, and we find, that a letter of August 8, 1950,
signed by Bernard Nolan, the Employer's labor relations director,
.was distributed to the employees involved herein 2 days before the
election. This letter contained the following statements, under the
heading "What can you expect from any Union?":
3. To have wage increases, insurance and other benefits held
up. For example-Ashland Telechron employees now repre-
sented by UE are being prevented right now from enjoying your
recent wage increase and insurance benefits. You'd have an im-
proved pension plan now too if both UE and CIO were not today
making it impossible for us to give it to you and other Telechron
employees. This improved pension plan would provide a mini-
mum pension of $100 to $125 per month to people with 25 years of
service.
The above-quoted portion of the August 8 letter constituted, in our
opinion, a clear statement that certain significant employee benefits
had been withheld because of union activity and a promise that if and
when such activity is ceased these benefits would be forthcoming.
If the Employer's purpose in making these statements was merely
to advise its employees of the normal delays which may be caused by
collective bargaining as against unilateral action, or to suggest that
the delays had been caused by the risks involved in granting benefits
while representation petitions are pending before the Board, such
purpose was not expressed at any point in the Employer's statements,
and we need not decide what result we would reach if that purpose
2
We find no merit to the Employer's contention that it was denied a fair hearing during
the Regional Director's investigation of the objections to the election because no formal
hearing was held. Our agreement herein with the recommendation of the Regional Director
is based upon a letter whose existence and distribution to the employees is not denied
by the Employer. As such, there is no issue of fact to be resolved by a hearing.
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
929979-51-vol. 92-43
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been made clear. It is sufficient that in the instant case the state-
ments were made without qualification, and, as such, could only be
construed as a promise that the rejection of all three of the unions
participating in the election would be followed by immediate economic
benefits to the employees. In these circumstances we conclude that the
statements noted above exceeded protected expressions of opinion,
and were reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees' free
choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.4
We shall therefore set the election aside and shall direct a new
election at such time as the Regional Di `rector advises us that the
circumstances permit a free choice of bargaining representative
among these employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on August 10, 1950,
among employees of the Main Street plant of Telechron, Inc., in
Worcester, Massachusetts, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
4 As we have found the statements quoted above a sufficient ground for setting aside
the election , we need not pass upon the Regional Director's finding that other portions
of the letter of August 3 likewise interfered with the election.