The Electric Auto-Lite Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1407 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
LAMP WORKERS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING -ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER.
Case No. 9-RC--583
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 17,1950
On November 18, 1949, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' Pursuant thereto an
election by secret ballot was conducted on December 16, 1949, in the
above-entitled matter under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Ninth Region. A tally of ballots, furnished
to all parties, showed that none of the parties on the ballot received a
majority of the votes cast.2 Pursuant to Section 203.62 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 5, the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region conducted a runoff election on January 6, 1950, between the
Petitioner and the UAWV CIO. Thereafter a tally of ballots for the
runoff was furnished the parties. The tally shows that there were
approximately 2,100 eligible voters and that 1,950 cast ballots, of which
1,111 were for the Petitioner, 680 for UAW-CIO, 149 ballots were
challenged, and 10 ballots were void.
On January 11, 1950, UAW-CIO filed objections to the election,
alleging unlawful conduct affecting the results of the election and
requesting that the election be set aside. Thereupon, in accordance
with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director con-
i The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 87 NLRB 129. 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 [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
2 The tally showed that there were approximately 2,300 eligible voters and that 1,747 cast
ballots, of which 749 were for the Petitioner, 530 were for International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called
UAW-CIO, 215 were for the International Association of Machinists , 117 were for Metal
Trades Department , AFL, 24 were against all participating organizations , and 112 ballots
were challenged.
89 NLRB No. 176.
1407
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted an investigation and, On March 14, 1950, issued and duly
served on the parties his report on objections, in which he found
that certain of the objections raised substantial and material issues
with respect to the election and recommended that these objections
be sustained and that the election be set aside.' On March 20, 1950,
the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report on objections.
In its objections UAW-CIO alleged (1) that the Employer know-
ingly permitted the Petitioner's committeemen to roam throughout
the plant during the period of the original election and prior to the
runoff election for the purpose of campaigning and electioneering
for the Petitioner while on the Employer's time and property, and (2)
that the Employer knowingly permitted Petitioner's committeemen
to check in as working in the plant on the date of the election when
such committeemen were, in fact, engaged in transporting off-duty
employees to the plant for the purpose of voting.
1. In his investigation of the first of these objections, the Regional
Director found the following :
The Employer formerly conducted its operations at two separate
plants. The employees of each plant were represented by two sepa-
rate labor organizations, under contracts which were to expire in May
1950. However, in August 1948, the Employer consolidated the oper-
ations of the two plants into a single plant at a new location. The
present Petitioner was formed at that time by consolidating the two
organizations which had represented the employees at the Employer's
former plants. The Petitioner functions through a committee, and it
is the activities of the members of this committee, hereinafter referred
to as the committeemen, that constitute the basis of the objections
under consideration.
At all times since the consolidation of the plants in 1948, the Em-
ployer has dealt with the committeemen in regard to grievances. The
committeemen have been permitted to leave their respective depart-
ments at will on the Employer's time for the purpose of processing
grievances, and to absent themselves fromp their employee-duties for
"committee work" with no loss in compensation for the time so spent.'
However, the Regional Director found no evidence to support the
contention that the Employer discriminatorily permitted adherents of
, The Regional Director found no merit in such of those objections as alleged that certain
supervisory employees were permitted to wear Petitioner ' s campaign buttons, to influence,
coerce, intimidate, and compel employees to vote for the Petitioner, and, to make unwar-
ranted challenges against any employee suspected of desiring to vote for UAW-CIO, for
purposes of coercion and intimidation . He recommended that such objections be overruled.
No exceptions were taken to this finding and recommendation , and we shall , therefore, adopt
such recommendation.
4 The president of the Petitioner spends at least one-third of his time in performing "com-
mittee work" on the Employer's time and property.
THE. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1409
the Petitioner to campaign for the Petitioner on company time and
property. To the contrary, the Regional Director found that adher-
ents of IT<,W-CIO, as well as of the Petitioner, campaigned for their
respective organizations during working hours and on the Employer's
property, free from disciplinary action.
2. In his investigation of the second of these objections, the Regional
Director found the following:
On the day of the runoff election, 11 committeemen transported
off-duty employees eligible to vote to the polls. Only 1 of the commit-
17
teennen reported to his department prior to engaging in the above
activity, but production cards of 10 committeemen, showing 8 hours
work for that day, were turned in to the respective foremen. "Com-
mittee work" was marked on 8 of these cards. Ten of the 11 commit-
teemen received full pay for the day in question. However, upon
learning, 3 clays later, that the committeemen had not worked on the
day of the runoff election, the Employer directed its payroll depart-
ment to deduct the amount of that day's pay from subsequent pay
checks of the committeemen. This action was taken before the UAW-
CIO filed its objections. The Employer took no other disciplinary
action against the committeemen. The Regional Director found no
evidence to support UAW-CIO's contention that the Employer had
actual knowledge of or permitted the committeemen to absent them-
selves from the plant to transport eligible voters to and from the polls.
He concluded, however, that the status of these employees was such
that they were privileged to leave their work stations at will to engage
in "connnnittee work."
On the basis of his findings with respect to the two foregoing objec-
tions, the Regional Director recommended that the Board set aside the
election. The Petitioner excepts to this recommendation.
We do not agree with the Regional Director's recommendation.
Upon the facts in this case, we find that neither the action of the Em-
ployer in dealing with the Petitioner's committee concerning griev-
a,nces, occurring as it did over a period of nearly 18 months prior to
the runoff election and carried out pursuant to the contracts entered
into by the Employer with the Petitioner's predecessors, nor the
above-described activity of the committeemen on the date of the run-
off election, restrained or interfered with the employees in their choice
of a bargaining representative. It is clear that the committeemen
acted upon their own accord in not reporting to work on that day, and,
although 10 of them were initially paid for 8 hours work, the Em-
ployer, upon learning of the committeemen's absence from work and
prior to the filing of UAW-CIO's objection, ordered that the commit-
teemen, in effect, refund the pay so received. Accordingly, we find no
basis for assuming that the Employer promoted or encouraged the
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committeemen in their activities on the day of the runoff election. At
best, it may be said that the Employer did not object to the committee-
men engaging in such activities, but, as already stated, the Employer
also did not object to the activities of UAW-CIO's adherents in cam-
paigning for that organization, and there is no indication that the
Employer denied such adherents an opportunity to transport em-
ployees to the polls on the same terms as the Petitioner's committee-
men.5 We shall, therefore, contrary to the Regional Director's recom-
mendations, overrule the 2 foregoing objections.
The UAW-CIO contends, finally, that the Petitioner is not a labor
organization in that it is financed, promoted, controlled, and domi-
nated by the Employer. As the Regional Director recommended that
the election be set aside upon other grounds, he found it unnecessary
to pass upon this objection. The foregoing allegation, in effect,
charges the Employer with a violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
We will not, in a representation proceeding, determine whether the
Employer has so violated the Act. If the UAW-CIO has been ag-
grieved, it may obtain appropriate redress by filing unfair labor prac-
tice charges against the Employer. The objection is therefore,
overruled.
Under all of these circumstances, we 'find merit in the Petitioner's
exceptions. We shall, therefore, overrule the objections. As the
Petitioner obtained a majority of the ballots cast, we shall certify the
Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit.
IT is Id.EREBY CERTIFIED that Lamp Workers Collective Bargaining
Association has been selected by a majority of the production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Lockland, Ohio, plant, in-
cluding factory clerical employees, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, tool, die, jig, and fixture makers, machinists and their appren-
tices and helpers, all maintenance employees in the construction and
maintenance shop, power, vehicle and auto-truck departments, boiler-
house and power plant employees, operating engineers, metal polishers,
buffers, platers, and their apprentices and helpers, and all professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, as their rep-
resentative for the purpose of collective bargaining and that pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
5 Harry Manaster & Bros., et al., 61 NLRB 1373. See Charroin Manufacturing Co., 88
NLRB 3S; Gray Drug Stores, Inc., 79 NLRB 1140. Of. Big Lake Oil Company v. N. L. R. B.,
146 F. 2d 967 (C. A. 9) ; Joshua Hendy Iron Works Division, 53 NLRB 1411.