The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (SPECIAL
PRODUCTS PLANT "C"), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS # 821 (AFL), PETITIONER
In the Matter of THE GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER COMPANY (SPECIAL
PRODUCTS PLANT "C"), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS # 821 (AFL), PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 8-RC-11 and 8-RC-45
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
July 11, 1949
On January 10, 1949, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Elections issued by the Board herein,' separate elections by secret
ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region among the employees in
voting group (1) consisting of powerhouse employees at the Employer's
Special Products Plant "C", Akron, Ohio, and in voting group (2)
consisting of employees in the maintenance department at this plant.
Upon completion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were issued and
duly served upon the parties.
The tallies show as follows :
(1) Of approximately 13 eligible voters in the powerhouse group,
all cast valid ballots, of which 5 were for the Petitioner and 8 were for
the Intervenor.
(2) Of approximately 55 eligible voters in the maintenance depart-
ment group, all cast valid ballots, of which 25 were for the Petitioner
and 30 were for the Intervenor.
On January 15, 1949, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the two elections. It asserted that certain activity
of the Employer, more fully set forth below, prevented a free choice
by the employees in the balloting, and requested that the elections be
set aside. The Petitioner also asserted that an official of the Intervenor
was permitted to act as an official observer during the elections, con-
1 80 N. L. R. B. 1347. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases
to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]
85 N. L. B. B., No. 22.
135
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trary to the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that this observer
talked to the voters in a coercive manner. In accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation.
On May 12, 1949, he issued and duly served upon the parties his
Report on Objections, in which he found that the objections raised no
substantial and material issues, and recommended that they be over-
ruled. On May 26, 1949, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
The Petitioner's request that the elections be set aside rests, in part,
upon the following undisputed facts : On October 16, 1947, the Peti-
tioner notified the Employer of its claim to representation of the
employees in both the powerhouse and maintenance department voting
groups. On October 20, 1947, and on November 24, the Petitioner
filed separate representation petitions for the employees in these
groups. In the meantime, on November 20, 1947, the Employer and
the Intervenor, by a memorandum of agreement, extended to Plant C
the provisions of a Nation-wide master contract covering the produc-
tion and maintenance employees in all plants of the Employer, which
had been executed on February 11, 1947, and a supplemental agreement
covering substantially similar categories in the Employer's Akron
plants, executed on May 5, 1947. Thereafter, and until June 1, 1948,
the expiration date of the afore-mentioned agreements, the Employer
implemented the provisions of all three of these agreements by apply-
ing them to the powerhouse and maintenance employees in Plant C.
On June 1, 1948, the parties executed a new master contract and a
supplemental agreement which are substantially similar to the old
master contract and supplements, in that they contain provisions
authorizing the posting of certain union notices by the Intervenor on
the Employer's bulletin boards, and providing for the issuance of
annual plant passes to certain officials of the Intervenor, permitting
them to enter upon the Employer's premises to investigate grievances
and conduct negotiations. These contracts are for a term extending to
February 10, 1950. From the date of execution of the new contracts,
and continuing through the date of the election on January 10, 1949,
the Employer continued to implement the provisions of those contracts
by applying them to the powerhouse and maintenance employees in
Plant C. Pursuant to the. provisions of both the 1947 and 1948 con-
tracts, the Employer permitted several of the Intervenor's officials to
enter various departments of Plant C for the purpose of transacting
business arising under these contracts. Likewise, the Employer
authorized the Intervenor to post routine notices of union meetings,
union elections, etc., while denying the same privilege to the Petitioner.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 137
We are here concerned with the foregoing facts only insofar as
they relate to the Petitioner's attempt to question the results of the
elections at this time. The Petitioner learned of the execution of the
November 20, 1947, memorandum of agreement extending the provi-
sions of the master and supplemental contracts to Plant C before
November 24, 1947, the date it filed its petition for the maintenance
department employees. Moreover, it must have known the detailed
provisions of all the 1947 agreements when those contracts were dis-
cussed at the hearing on January 21 and 22, 1948, more than 11
months before the elections. As mentioned above, all provisions
of the June 1, 1948, contracts material hereto were contained in the
1947 agreements, of which the Petitioner clearly was aware. Apart
from asserting at the hearing that the 1947 contracts did not consti-
tute a bar to this proceeding, the Petitioner did not protest the execu-
tion of the memorandum extending the provisions of the master and
supplemental contracts to Plant C, or the implementation of these
agreements before the election, nor did it file any unfair labor prac-
tice charges as a result of this activity,. Instead, it chose passively
to await the results of the elections. Without passing upon the ques-
tion as to whether the activity here objected to might, in other cir-
cumstances, be deemed to have constituted interference with the elec-
tions, we conclude that, in view of the facts herein, and because of
the Petitioner's past acquiescence, there is no warrant for setting
aside the elections on the ground that the Employer discriminatorily
implemented the provisions of the 1947 and 1948 agreements.2
The Petitioner alleges that the Employer permitted George D. Mill-
iron and Anton Sprenc, both of whom are officials of the Intervenor, to
engage in organizational activity before the elections at Plant C dur-
ing working hours, while refusing to grant a similar privilege to the
Petitioner's representative. The Regional Director's investigation
discloses that there is no evidence that the Employer had any knowl-
edge of such activity. Both Milliron and Sprenc, pursuant to the
collective bargaining agreement, were authorized to visit the plant
for the purposes of contract negotiations and the investigation of
R Matter of E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company , 81 N. L. R. B. 238 , and cases cited
therein . As stated in the duPont case , we find it unnecessary to decide at this time what
view we would take of similar activity under different circumstances. Cf. Matter of
Mid-West Piping and Supply Co., 63 N . L. R. B. 1060 ; Matter of Radio Corporation of
America, 74 N. L. R. B . 1729 ( Mr. Reynolds dissenting ). Although the contract between
the employer and a rival union in the latter case was executed after the Board hearing,
like the 1948 contracts involved herein , the facts in this case more nearly resemble those
in the duPont case . Here, the 1948 contracts merely continued the material provisions
of the 1947 contracts , which were executed before the hearing. Although the elections
herein were not held until more than 11 months after the hearing, no unfair labor practice
charges were filed by the objecting union.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complaints. Moreover, the 1947 and 1948 contracts specifically pro-
scribed organizational activity during working hours, and Sprenc was
advised by the manager of Plant C that he should not engage in
such activity while present in that plant on official union business.
In these circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director that
this objection is without merit.3
The Petitioner also objected to the election in the powerhouse vot-
ing group on the ground that the Employer postponed the transfer of
John Slikkerveer and Carl A. Bennett from positions in the Plant C
powerhouse to similar positions in Plant 1 until after the election, in
order to enable them to vote for the Intervenor. The Regional Di-
rector's investigation discloses that the transfers of these two em-
ployees were delayed for a period of several weeks after the election
only because Plant 1 was not yet ready to receive them before the
election. Accordingly, we find no merit in this objection.
The Petitioner further objects to the elections on the ground that
Sprenc, who is chairman of Division 7 (Engineering Division) of
the Intervenor, was permitted to act as an election observer in behalf
of the Intervenor, contrary to the Board's Rules and Regulations, and
that while serving in this capacity he engaged in coercive conversation
with the voters. The Petitioner asserts that the mere presence of a
union official as an observer interfered with the freedom of choice of
the employees voting and prevented fair and impartial elections.
The Regional Director's investigation reveals that Sprenc is employed
.as a part-time employee in Plant No. 1 and that there is no evidence
that he engaged in coercive conversation, or otherwise conducted him-
self in an improper manner during the elections. For the reasons
:stated in our supplemental decision in the United States Gypsum
case,' we therefore find no merit in this objection.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the objections filed
by the Petitioner do not raise substantial or material issues. We
therefore adopt the Regional Director's report; and, in accordance
therewith, we hereby overrule the objections. In its Decision and
3 The Petitioner , in support of its objections , also alleged that Sprenc , while engaging
In organizational activity at Plant C , discussed the possible outcome of the election with
four or five employees . In reply to a remark that the elections would be close , Sprenc
allegedly said that if such a statement were true , the employees had lied to him about
how they were going to vote and that "if the elections went AFL the production workers
would not work with . [ the maintenance department and powerhouse employees]." The
Regional Director found that the allegedly coercive nature of this remark was not within
,the scope of the Petitioner ' s objections , and hence that it was unnecessary to consider
its effect . As the Petitioner has not excepted to the Regional Director's omission of a
recommendation based on this statement , we shall adopt this portion of his report and
make no determination as to the coercive nature of Sprenc ' s remark.
4 Matter of United States Gypsum Company, 80 N. L . R. B. 1205.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 139'
Direction of Elections, the Board made no final determination as to.
the appropriate unit. The Board said:
If a majorty of the employees in either election designate the
Petitioner, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate bargaining unit. If a majority in either
election designate the Intervenor, they will be deemed to have in-
dicated their desire to be bargained for as part of the multiplant
production and maintenance unit now represented by the
Intervenor.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the
following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that (1) all powerhouse employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Special Products Plant "C," Akron, Ohio, excluding all super-
visors as defined in the Act, and (2) all employees employed in the
maintenance department at the Employer's Special Products Plant
"C," Akron, Ohio, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act,
have selected Local 2, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic
Workers of America, (CIO), as their bargaining representative. As
the Intervenor is now the recognized exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the multiplant production and maintenance
unit, and as the results of the elections show that the employees in
the powerhouse and the maintenance department groups at Plant "C"
have designated the Intervenor, the Intervenor may now bargain for
these employees as part of the multiplant production and maintenance:
unit which it currently, represents.