Terry Coach Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 754 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE) and its Local No. 751 has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees of the General Electric
Company at its Niles Glass Works, Lamp Division, Niles, Ohio, in the
unit heretofore found by the Board to be appropriate in Case No.
8-RC-1533 as their representative for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended,,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
TERRY COACH MANUFACTURING, INC. AND AFFILIATES and WOODWORK-
ERS LOCAL UNION No. 530, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 21-RC-2743.
March 17, 1953
Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on September 30, 1952, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. There-
after , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of
approximately 64 eligible voters, 63 cast valid ballots, of which 19
were for the Petitioner and 45 were against . On October 3, 1952, the
Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the matter raised by the Peti-
tioner's objections and, on October 31, 1952, issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the
objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to con-
duct affecting the results of the election, and recommended that the
Board set the election aside and direct that another election be held.
Thereafter, on November 7, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the
report on objections.
103 NLRB No. 81.
TERRY COACH MANUFACTURING, nvc. 755
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
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 Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
located in South Gate, California, excluding guards, clerical em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of Election
In his report the Regional Director found no evidence to support
objections 3 and 4. As no exceptions were filed to this portion of his
report, these objections are overruled. We will therefore consider
only objections 1 and 2.
In objection 1, the Petitioner contends that the Employer sent to all
of its employees two letters, one dated September 17, 1952, and the
other mailed September 27,1952, for the purpose of inducing and coerc-
ing its employees to vote against the Petitioner. The Regional Di-
rector in effect found that the letter of September 27, when considered
in its entirety, interfered with the employees' free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
Objection 2 relates to alleged coercive remarks by supervisors to
employees before the election. In his report, the Regional Director
recited conflicting evidence disclosed by his investigation as to whether
such remarks were made by two supervisors, Lankford and Olquin,
without, however, expressly resolving such conflict. The Employer
in its exceptions to the Regional Director's report denied that either
of the supervisors made the statements attributed to them.
In conclusion, the Regional Director recommended that the election
be set aside. The Employer excepted to this recommendation.
Objection 1: The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's
findings that its letter of September 27 interfered with the employees'
freedom of choice. We find merit in this exception. While the let-
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ter states, in effect, that any increase in wages will depend on the
Employer's ability to pay,' the Employer does not state that it will
refuse to bargain about wage increases with the Petitioner if it wins
the election, or that it will not grant the Petitioner's demand for
such increases. We find, therefore, that this portion of the letter
does not warrant setting the election aside.2 Although the letter
states that the Employer will "never agree to force [the employees]
to join a union against [their] will," we do not believe that such a
statement per se interfered with the employees' freedom of choice.3
We find, therefore, that the letter in its entirety did not interfere
with the employees' freedom of choice.
Objection 2: The Board on December 10, 1952, remanded the case
for hearing as to the issues raised with respect to this objection.
A hearing was held on January 8, 1953, at Los Angeles, California,
before Irving Helbling, the hearing officer duly designated by the
Regional Director. All parties appeared and participated in the
hearing. On February 4, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report,
in which, after finding that certain conduct of the Employer's super-
visors constituted interference affecting the results of the election, he
recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, on February
13, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made at the hearing by the
hearing officer and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The hearing officer in his report found that there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that the alleged coercive statement at-
tributed to Olquin was in fact made. As no exceptions to this finding
were filed, we adopt it.
The hearing officer found, however, that Lankford made statements
to certain employees which were designed to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce them in their selection of a bargaining representative, and
that Lankford's purpose in making the statement was to start a rumor
which would prevent all the employees from exercising a free choice
in the election. The hearing officer therefore recommended that the
election be set aside. The Employer excepts to the foregoing findings
and recommendations of the hearing officer. We find merit in these
exceptions.
It appears from the record that some time after the Petitioner
began its organizational campaign, and several weeks before the elec-
'The letter states, "Regardless of what fancy claims they may make, the Union organ-
izers know very well that they cannot get any real changes in your wage scale unless
the Company's business will permit the payment of increased wages . . . It has been our
policy and will continue to be whether we have a union or not, to pay as good wages as
the condition of the business will permit."
' See Hinde I Dauch Paper Company, 78 NLRB 488.
3 M. T. Stevens d• Sons Company, 68 NLRB 229.
TERRY COACH MANUFACTURING, INC. 757
tion was held, Lankford and Kleinberg, the foreman and assistant
foreman in the cabinet shop, respectively, held a lunch-time conver-
sation in the cabinet shop, in which they discussed between them-
selves the effects that a union victory in the election would have
on the cabinet shop and on their jobs. In this connection, Lankford
expressed the view that overtime work in the cabinet shop would
probably be eliminated in the event of an increase in production costs.
He also stated to Kleinberg that, as salaried employees, their jobs
would be unaffected. Shiffermiller, an employee and a close personal
friend of Lankford's, overheard the reference to the reduction of over-
time and, on the occasion of a social visit to Lankford's home shortly
thereafter, asked him about it. Lankford's reply, according to Shiff-
ermiller's own testimony, was that there was nothing to it, that there
might be a reduction in overtime and there might not. Lankford
testified that he told Shiffermiller on this occasion that overtime
might have to be cut down if costs increased. We find, therefore, con-
trary to the hearing officer, that the substance of Lankford' s statement
was that any reduction in overtime would depend solely on an increase
in costs.' A few days after this, another employee, Titsworth, asked
Kleinberg what he thought about a possible reduction in overtime.
Kleinberg's reply was that it would depend upon the need for cab-
inets and not on whether the Petitioner won the election.
The hearing officer found that Lankford's statements to Kleinberg
and Shiffermiller were made for the purpose of instigating a rumor
that the Petitioner's success in the election would lead to elimination
of overtime, thereby interfering with the employees' free choice of
a bargaining representative. We do not agree. The mere fact that
the conversation was held in the shop and was overheard by one em-
ployee does not support the conclusion, in the face of unrefuted
testimony to the contrary by Lankford and Kleinberg, that the remark
was intended to be heard by other employees.
Furthermore, we find nothing in the subsequent statements made
to Shiffermiller and Titsworth which indicates any intent to interfere
with the election. Both statements were made in response to ques-
tions from the two employees, and, from the evidence before us, tended
to negate any inference that there would be a reduction in overtime
or that such reduction would be related to the outcome of the pending
election. Upon the entire record, we find that whatever possible
adverse effect Lankford's overheard statement may have had on the
* The hearing officer found that Lankford told Shiffermiller that if the Petitioner got
into the plant the employees probably would be permitted to work only 40 hours a week.
This finding is contrary to the testimony of Shiffermiller and Lankford cited in the text,
above, and is supported only by a reply of the former to a leading question by the Peti-
tioner 's counsel on direct examination we do not attach any weight to such evidence,
in the face of Shiffermiller ' s prior, inconsistent testimony.
257905-54-vol 103-49
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' freedom of choice, such effect was counteracted by the
subsequent assurances given Shiffermiller and Titsworth by Lankford
and Kleinberg. Moreover, in view of these subsequent assurances,
and upon the entire record, we find, unlike the hearing officer, that the
Employer is not chargeable with any rumors in the plant that the
Petitioner's success in the election might lead to elimination of over-
time, and we find that the Employer did not intend to propagate
such rumors.
Upon the entire record, we find that the statements of Lankford
and Kleinberg do not establish any interference by the Employer
with the employees' freedom of choice in the election. Accordingly,
we will not adopt the recommendation of the hearing officer that the
election be set aside.
As we find no merit in any of the Petitioner's objections, and as
the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast,
we shall certify the results of the election.
Certification of Results of Election
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots has not
been cast for Woodworkers Local Union, No. 530, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees of
the Employer, in the unit heretofore found appropriate, within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 17-
RC-1485,1 17-RC-1490, 17-RC-1491, 17-RC-1492, 17-RC-1493-
March 18,1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
103 NLRB No. 71.