The Fairbanks Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 864 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and HENRY C.
FRICKS, AN EMPLOYEE , PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION
Case No. 10-RD-25.-Decided February 18, 1949
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election"
in the above-entitled decertification proceeding, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on July 15, 1948, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia).
Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows that, of the approximately 98 eligible voters, 91 cast
valid ballots, of which 48 were for the Union and 43 against the Union.
No ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, on July 20, 1948, the Employer filed Objections to the
Conduct of the Election. On September 30, 1948, the Regional Direc-
tor issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections,
in which he found that the Employer's objections raised no substantial
or material issues, and accordingly recommended that the objections
be overruled. On October 11, 1948, the Employer filed Exceptions to
Report on Objections and a brief in support thereof.
In its objections, the Employer alleged that the Union had inter-
fered with the results of the election by informing the employees that
they would receive an immediate 15 percent wage cut and would lose
their vacation pay if the Union lost the election,' and that the Union
' The Employer alleged that on the morning of the date set for the election a representa-
tive from the office of the Union 's District Director came to the office of the manager of the
Company's plant for the "stated purpose" of learning at what time a representative of the
National Labor Relations Board was expected at the Company office . It further alleged
that this representative , upon leaving the plant office , told a group of employees of the
Company, including the chairman of the shop committee of the Union , that, if they voted
the Union out, there would be a wage cut immediately , and that he had seen papers in the
Company office stating the time and amount of the wage cut. These statements were widely
disseminated throughout the plant and came to the attention of the plant manager at about
3: 30 p. m., when the election manager of the National Labor Relations Board arrived.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 132.
864
THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY 865
thereby "coerced" a large number of employees into voting for the
Union in the decertification election. Upon being apprised of this
situation, the Employer at 4 p. m. posted on its bulletin board a denial
of the statements attributed to it by the Union .2 The election was
thereafter held from 4: 40 to 5: 45 p. m., under the supervision of a
representative of the National Labor Relations Board.
Without deciding whether this conduct on the part of the Union
constituted such interference as would otherwise provide cause for
setting aside the election, we find 3 that the notice published at 4 p. m.
by the Employer was sufficient to offset any effect that the statements
attributed to the Union might have had upon the employees by way
of interfering with the free expression of their desires in the election.
In view of the foregoing, and as the Tally of Ballots shows that a
majority of the valid votes were cast in favor of the Union, we shall
certify the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the stipulated appropriate unit.
CERTIFCATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO,
has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of
the Employer, in the unit stipulated to be appropriate, as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, said organization is the ex-
clusive 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.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting :
In his report on the Employer's objections to the conduct of the
election, the Regional Director found that on the morning of the date
of the election a "top Union official," upon leaving the plant office, told
a group of employees, including the Union's shop committee chair-
man, that he had seen papers in the manager's office which would effect
a wage cut if the Union lost the election, and these statements were
widely disseminated throughout the plant. The union's conduct
under these circumstances could not help but improperly influence the
' The Employer 's notice read as follows : "To all employees . I have heard that some peo-
ple have been saying that if the Union is voted out today there will be a wage cut in 30 days.
I want to say that this is a straight -cut lie and the person making such a statement is not
worthy of belief. Signed S. L. Hancock, Jr., Plant Manager."
B 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-man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees ' free choice of a bargaining representative . Nor, in my
opinion, could such improper influence be adequately dissipated by
the published denial posted by the Employer only 40 minutes before
the election.
I would accordingly set the election aside and direct that another
election be conducted.