The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1644 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Electric Wheel Company, Division of The Firestone Tire & Rub-
ber Company and International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 14-RC-3308. June 25, 1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On January 16, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon
completion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally
of ballots. The tally shows that of approximately 507 eligible voters,
489 cast ballots, of which 239 were for the Petitioner, 7 were for the
Intervenor,' 210 were cast against participating labor organizations,
and 33 were challenged. The challenges were sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election.
On January 21, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to the
election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on
April 9, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on
objections and challenged ballots. In his report, the Regional Di-
rector found the objections to be without merit and recommended that
they be overruled. The Regional Director further recommended
sustaining the challenges to 19 ballots cast by laid-off employees in
view of the agreement of the parties that there was no reasonable
expectancy of their recall in the foreseeable future, and that the Peti-
tioner be certified since the remaining 14 challenges were insufficient
in number to affect the results of the election. On April 21, 1958, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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 and maintenance garage
employees at the Employer's Quincy, Illinois, wheel, wagon, rim, and
accessories plant, excluding office clerical and plant clerical employees,
Lodge No 822, International Association , of Machinists , AFL-CIO.
120 NLRB No. 208.
ELECTRIC WHEEL COMPANY 1645
such as, but not limited to, production planning and record clerks,
shipping platform clerks, steel storage and requisition clerks, guards,
watchmen, plant-protection employees, foremen, assistant foremen,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The objections :
Objections 1, 2, and 3 allege, in substance, that Petitioner's ob-
servers, although directed to do so by a Board agent, refused to remove
from their clothing campaign insignia which urged voters to "Vote
UAW-CIO," thereby violating Board rules and regulations governing
the conduct of Board elections.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the propriety
of wearing campaign buttons by UAW observers was first discussed
by the parties at a preelection conference with a field examiner the day
before the election. At that time, the field examiner advised the
parties that the official Board badge would be worn by election ob-
servers, and that the campaign buttons then being worn by the UAW
representatives would not be permitted 2 Despite this announcement,
the UAW International representative stated that UAW observers
would wear the small campaign button since its attorneys had advised
him that they were entitled to do so. The Board agent replied that
the UAW should think the matter over and indicated that wearing
the buttons might provide grounds for objecting to the election.
On the morning of the election, one'of the Employer's observers
called the same Board agent's attention to the fact that UAW ob-
servers were wearing the small campaign buttons. The Board agent
then asked the UAW observers to remove the buttons, whereupon they
showed him that the words "JOIN" and "VOTE" had been cut out
of the badges, leaving only the flags and "UAW." At the afternoon
voting session, an Employer observer called- the Board agent's at-
tention to the fact that, in addition to the badges, two UAW observers
were wearing pencils to which were attached campaign buttons, where-
upon he approached them and asked them to remove the pencils. The
Regional Director found that the two observers did not comply, but
instead buttoned their coats so that the_ pencils and the attached badges
were not visible.
On these facts, the Regional Director, relying on Board precedent,
found that the wearing of the "modified" campaign buttons by the
UAW observers was not objectionable.' He further found that
whether the Board agent expressly directed the UAW observers to
2 Each of the UAW representatives at this meeting wore one or more UAW campaign
buttons. One button was 4 or 5 inches in diameter, and another smaller one was about
1'/ inches in diameter . Printed on the large badge was "VOTE UAW-CIO," while the
small badges had two crossed United States flags in color, with "VOTE" or "JOIN"
at the top , and "UAW" at the bottom.
s Fug niture City Upholstery Company, 115 NLRB 1433 ; R. H Osbrink Manufacturing
Company, 114 NLRB 940; Western Electric Company, Inc , 87 NLRB, 183 ; Craddock-
Terry Shoe Corporation, 80 NLRB 1239.
1646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remove their campaign badges, as contended by the Employer, or
whether he merely suggested that they do so, as contended by the
UAW, was not material since it is clear that they were entitled under
the cases cited above to wear such campaign buttons at the polls.
In its exceptions the Employer does not question the Regional Di-
rector's conclusion that the buttons described above from which the
words "vote" and "join" had been removed were proper. It contends
only that the findings of the Regional Director that the pencil badges
were promptly covered up by the UAW observers is contrary to the
affidavits of its own observers, and that such affidavits show also that
the pencils themselves bore the legend "VOTE UAW," and like the
badges remained visible to the voters. Under these circumstances,
argues the Employer, the cases cited by the Regional Director are in-
apposite, as they hold only that observers may wear identifying
insignia, but do not involve the wearing by observers of insignia
urging a vote for one of the parties in the election. Petitioner ex-
cepts to the Regional Director's report only insofar as it implies that
the word "VOTE" remained on the pencil badges, contending that
"VOTE" was, in fact, removed from the pencil badges worn at the
election, as it was from the other buttons described above.
The foregoing exceptions thus present a question of fact, i. e.,
whether the observers displayed to the voters the above-described
pencils and the buttons attached thereto. However, we need not
resolve this issue. As indicated,by the Regional Director, the Board
has heretofore held that the wearing at the polls by observers of but-
tons or other insignia merely bearing the name of their union is not
prejudicial to the fair conduct of the election.4 The question for deter-
mination here is whether the wearing by observers at the polls of
insignia which contains the word "VOTE" in conjunction with the
name of a union warrants a different conclusion. We do not think so.
We are of the opinion that the impact on the voters is not materially
different whether the observers wear "union" or "vote" buttons.-, As
the Board stated in the Western Electric case, suprat, in sanctioning the
wearing by observers at the polls of buttons bearing the name of their
union, "the identity of election observers, as well as the fact that they
represent the special interests of the parties is generally well known
to the employees." The addition to "union" insignia worn by such
representatives of an appeal to vote for their union merely makes ex-
plicit what was already implicit in their wearing of such "union"
insignia.
Therefore, whether the observers closed their coats, as found by the
Regional Director, or removed the word "VOTE" from the pencil
badges, as contended by the UAW, or "VOTE" remained clearly
' Western Electric Company, Inc , supra; R. H Osbr,nk Manu facturing Company, supra.
Cf. Furniture City Upholstery Company, supra , and Western Electric Company, Inc.,
supra.
ELECTRIC WHEEL COMPANY 1647
visible on the badges and pencils, as contended by the Employer, is
immaterial. For we find that, in any event, the action of the observers
did not constitute interference with employee freedom of choice. Ac-
cordingly, we find no merit in objections 1, 2, and 3.
Objection No. 5 (c)-Incident 1: The Employer alleged that
about a week before the election a member of the UAW organizing
committee threatened an employee by telling him that, if he did not
vote for the UAW, he would find himself "out on the street."
The employee who was allegedly threatened recalled that the com-
mittee member told him "I don't see why you don't wear a button
and sign up with the rest of us. You might find yourself on the out-
side looking in." He admitted that he is friendly with the committee
member and was not certain whether this remark was a threat or not.
The committee member denied that he made any threat to the em-
ployee involved. The Regional Director found that the remark, even
if made as described by the employee, was too ambiguous to constitute
a threat. The Employer excepts on the ground that substantial and
material issues of fact are raised which should be determined only
after a hearing. However, we agree with the Regional Director that
the foregoing remark, even if made would not, in view of its ambiguity
and the circumstances under which it was made, constitute inter-
ference with the election.
. Other Evidence-Incident No. Q:, The Employer alleged that
Robert Meyer, an employee prominent in the UAW organizing
campaign, threatened to turn over an employee's car if he did not
vote for the UAW.
The Regional Director found that the incident furnished insuffi-
cient basis for finding interference with the election because there
was substantial conflict as to whether the incident actually occurred,
and as to the date and place of the alleged statement. The Employer
excepts on the ground that this incident involves substantial issues
of fact which should be determined only after a hearing. We agree
with the conclusion reached by the Regional Director, but rely solely
on the lack of any showing that Meyer was acting as an agent for
the Union at the time of the incident in question. The fact that he
was prominent in the Petitioner's organizing campaign is not suffi-
cient to establish such agency.6
We also agree with the Regional Director that the other alleged
instances of misconduct on the part of the Petitioner do not constitute
grounds for setting aside the election as they occurred prior to the
signing of the stipulation for certification upon consent election, or
because they were not supported by any evidence, or because they
were not sufficient in law to constitute interference with the election.
9 Dornback Furnace & Furniture company, 115 NLRB 350, 353; Shorehne Enterprises
of America , et al , 114 NLRB 716, 718
1648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director's recommenda=
tions, we hereby overrule all the objections. As the Petitioner has
secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the
Employer, in the stipulated unit set forth in paragraph 4 herein.]
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting :
I disagree with my colleagues insofar as they would permit ob-
servers designated by any party to wear insignia, apart from insignia
which merely identifies, at the polls during polling hours. If such
insignia partakes of electioneering and urges the voters to vote for
or against a party to the election it should, in accordance with past
Board practice, be removed from the person of the observer. Sanc-
tion of the wearing of such insignia will make it impossible to control
electioneering at the polls by insignia, placards, signs, and other
devices and will only serve to open the door to a multitude of prac-
tices to which objections will be filed'and to which valid criteria can
no longer be applied. This decision, together with the Board's recent
decision in George K. Garrett Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 484, effec-
tively impair the authority of the Board agent to impose proper
standards of conduct upon the parties at the polls.
Arcata Plywood Corporation , Fortuna Veneer Company, Orleans
Veneer and Lumber Company 1 and Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Warehousemen & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 684, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-3463. June
25,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Schneider,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case , to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Bean].
2 The name of this employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
120 NLRB No. 205.