The Crosley Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 623 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE CROSLEY CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS or AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 9-R-1417
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
Febi-uar°y 15, 1945
On June 28, 1944, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding.' Pursuant to the Direction of Election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 25, 1944, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). On July 26, 1944, the Regional Director
issued and duly served upon the parties an Election Report.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported
as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------- 830
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------- 676
Votes cast for United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America, CIO-------------------------------------------- 307
Votes cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local B-1127, A. F L------------------------------------- 345
Votes cast against participating unions ---------------------- 24
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------ 5
Void ballots----------------------------------------------- 0
On July 29, 1944, the UE filed objections to the conduct of the
election and petitioned the Board to set aside the results of the election
on the following grounds :
(1) that foremen and group leaders of the Company, prior to the
election, urged employees not to join the UE but to vote for the
IBEW; (2) that the Company permitted officers and representatives
of the IBEW to circulate freely through the Company's plant prior
to the election, and that such representatives solicited employees to
support the IBEW; (3) that representatives of the IBEW were per-
156 N. L. R. B. 1722.
60 N. L. R. B., No. 115.
623
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mitted to talk to employees in the plant during working hours; (4)
that the IBEW on the morning of the election distributed campaign
literature "in violation of long established election rules of the Board;"
(5) that the Company, upon demand of the IBE«T made subsequent
to the filing of the UE petition, discharged employees because they
favored the UE; and (6) the Company permitted the IBEW to dis-
tribute leaflets on company property but denied the same privilege
to the UE. On October 19, 1944, the Regional Director, having in-
vestigated the matter, issued and duly served upon the parties his
Report on Objections. On November 5, 1944, it appearing that the
said objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to
the conduct of the ballot, the Board ordered a hearing on said objec-
tions.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 5 and 6, 1944,
at Richmond, Indiana, before R. N. Denham, Trial Examiner. The
Board, the Company, the UE, and the IBEW appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be•heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded oppor-
tunity to file briefs. On January,5, 1945,-the Trial -Examiner, pursu-
ant to an Order of the Board, issued a Report on Objections to Election.
Thereafter, the UE filed exceptions to the Report on Objections to
Election and a supporting brief. Oral argument, in which all parties
participated, was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on
January 25, 1945.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Election Report, the objec-
tions of the UE, the Report on Objections, and the record previously
made, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is clear from the record, and admitted by the Company, that dur-
ing the several weeks preceding the election, officers, members, and
representatives of the IBEW were permitted to distribute literature
freely at the Company's guard office as the employees entered or left
`the plant. No comparable facility was extended to the UE. The
guard office is located approximately 150 feet from the public highway
at the end of a concrete sidewalk leading from the guard office to the
highway. On either side of the sidewalk and between the guard
office and the highway are large parking lots used by the Company's
-employees. The lots are Company property. All persons engaged in
the distribution of leaflets on behalf of the UE were not employees
of the Company and they were required to remain off all Company
property, including the parking lots. This rule was strictly enforced.
THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 625
In addition, many of the public buses bringing employees to the plant
discharged their passengers on Company property. Although the
UE distributors attempted on several occasions to distribute literature
on the Company's premises, they were immediately removed from said
premises by guards of the Company. The IBEW was allowed the
unrestricted privilege of distributing its campaign literature on Com-
pany property. Although the Company admits that the disparity
of treatment, as set out above, occurred, it states in support thereof
that the IBEW distributors were all employees and known to the
Company while those engaged in behalf of the UE were unknown to
the Company.
Since the selection of bargaining representatives is the exclusive
concern of the employees, the Board requires that an employer during
and before an election shall observe a policy of scrupulous neutrality
and shall refrain from any action which may be interpreted as favor-
ing any contestant in the election. We are of the opinion and find
that the Company's failure to restrain the IBEW from using its
premises for literature distributing purposes, or, in the alternative,
to accord equal privileges to the UE, constituted a discriminatory and
improper assistance to the IBEW in its election campaign and did
interfere with the exercise by the employees of their free choice of
bargaining representatives. For these reasons and to the extent indi-
cated above, we sustain the Union's objection No. 6 to the conduct of
the election, and shall direct that the election be set aside. We shall
not, however, direct a further election until such time as the Regional
Director advises that one may appropriately be held among the em-
ployees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate.
Inasmuch as the sustaining of the UE's objection No. 6 is sufficient
to void the election conducted on July 25, 1944, we find it unnecessary
to pass upon its other objections.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby vacates and sets aside the election held in this
proceeding on July 25, 1944, and the result thereof.
628563-45-vol. 60-41