The B.F. Goodrich Co

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 1250 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

A
In the Matter of THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMER-
ICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-20497.-Decided May 22,1947
Mr. C. D . Russell, of Troy, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Thomas A. Murray , of Dayton , Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. John Thomas , of Sidney , Ohio, for the Intervenor.
Mr. Benj. E . Cook, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
February 19, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among the em-
ployees in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner or the United Electrical
Radio & Machine Workers of America (CIO), herein called the In-
tervenor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
The Tally revealed that there were approximately 75 eligible vot-
ers and 74 valid votes were counted, of which 33 were for the Peti-
tioner, 21 for neither labor organization, and 20 were for the Inter-
venor. At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished
the parties. Inasmuch as the results of this election were inconclu-
sive, a run-off election was held on March 7, 1947, between the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor. At the close of the election, a Tally of
Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally revealed that there were
approximately 71 eligible voters and that 61 valid votes were counted,
of which 30 were for the Petitioner and 31 for the Intervenor; there
were 8 void ballots.
Thereafter, an appropriate hearing was held at Troy, Ohio, on
April 3, 1947, before John W. Irving, hearing officer. At the com-
mencement of the hearing, the hearing officer permitted the repre-
sentative of a group of 25 employees to participate in the hearing.'
' This group of employees is admittedly not a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act ; their representative appeared solely for the purpose of protesting exclusion of
"neither" from the run -off ballot See discussion in Section v, infra.
73 N. L . ZZ B., No. 222.
1250
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1251
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The B. F. Goodrich Company is a New York corporation, and since
October 1946, has operated a plant at Troy, Ohio,2 where it manu-
factures wheel and brake assembly for aircraft. It is estimated that
the raw materials to be used by the Employer at its Troy. plant during
the calendar year of 1947 will exceed $400,000 in value, over 50 percent
of which will be shipped from points outside the State of Ohio. The
finished products for the same period are estimated to exceed $1,000,000
in value, of which 50 percent will be shipped to points outside the
State of Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.3
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, herein
called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
2 Although this proceeding involves only the plant at Troy, Ohio, the Employer operates
many plants throughout the United States.
8 Although the Petitioner participated in both elections, and Notice of Hearing was
served upon its designated representative, no one appeared to represent the Petitioner at
the hearing in the-instant proceeding.
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Troy, Ohio, plant, including watchmen, receiving and shipping em-
ployees, but excluding all office and clerical employees and all or any
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer contends that because a greater number of employees
voted for "neither" in the original election than for the Intervenor,
"neither" should have appeared on the ballot in the run-off election
instead of the Intervenor's designation. The Board's Rules and
Regulations provide that when each of the two participating labor
organizations receives at least 20 percent of the total votes cast and
the combined vote of the two representatives constitutes a majority of
the votes cast, "neither" shall be dropped from the ballot and the run-
off election shall be between the two contending labor organizations.'
The afore-mentioned rule is predicated upon the reasoning that when
the combined votes for the two labor organizations constitute a ma-
jority of the votes cast, the employees have thereby indicated a desire
for collective bargaining privileges through some labor organization .5
Accordingly, the Employer's motion is hereby overruled.
Since the results of the run-off election held prior to the hearing
show that the Intervenor received a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall certify the Intervenor as the collective bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
supra.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of the production and maintenance employees of The B. F.
Goodrich Company, Troy, Ohio, including watchmen, receiving and
shipping employees, but excluding all office and clerical employees, and
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, .promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
a
l Section 203 56, Subsections ( c), (1), and (5). !
1 See N. L R B Y Standard Lime & Stone Co, 149 F. ( 2d) 435 (C C A 4).
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1253
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.
PAUL M. HERZOG, CHAIRMAN, concurring specially :
I join in the result , believing myself bound in this case by the exist-
ing Board Rules and Regulations concerning run-off elections,° long
since promulgated and in existence when these elections were con-
ducted. Were I free to hold otherwise , however, I should be dis-
posed to agree with the Employer 's objection to the exclusion of the
"neither" choice from the run-off ballot where, as here , it was the
preference of the second largest number of employees in the initial
election . It would seem to me more logical, and more consistent
with accepted practice in American political elections , to permit
participants in run-off elections to select between the two choices that
received the highest number of votes in the original balloting.
I think it highly speculative to assume , as the promulgators of the
present Rule evidently did, that a majority of votes for two unions
taken together necessarily signifies that those employees who selected
one of them would surely prefer to bargain through the other rather
than refrain , temporarily , from selecting any bargaining representa-
tive.7 A comparison of the results of the two elections conducted
in this very case indicates that the assumption is open to sufficient
question to make it unwise for this Board to depart from the practice
to which our fellow -citizens have become accustomed in other types
of elections . Were this a matter of discretion, I should hold accord-
ingly. But as it is not, the Rule must prevail as long as it remains
the Rule.
"Section 203.56, Subsection (c) (1)
7 See the separate opinion' of former Chairman Madden in Matte of R K LeBlond
Machane Tool Co., 22 N. L. II B 465, 470 The Circuit Court's Standard Lime decision
(149 F ( 2d) 435 ) is not an endorsement of so much of the Board ' s practice as excludes
the "neither" choice from run-off ballots when it comes in second in an original election,
i'oi in that case it came in third and last