The Holtite Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 385 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

THE HOLTITE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. , 385
The -Holtite Manufacturing Co., Inc . and United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 5-RC-4384. March 17, 196.E
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 23, 1963,
,under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the
conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 747 eligible voters, 702
•cast ballots, of which 426 `were ,for' the Petitioner; 270 were for the,
Intervenor, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and 2 were
.against both unions. Four^ballots were challenged. The challenged
ballots were not sufficient in, number to -affect the results of the elec-
tion. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the election.
The Regional Director investigated the election and on November
12, 1963, issued his report on objections in which he recommended
'that the objections be 'overruled in. their entirety and that the Peti-
tioner. be certified. The Employer filed timely exceptions to these
recommendations.' - '
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers 'in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Fanning].
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 certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in' accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production 'and maintenance employees, including shipping
room employees; powerhouse employees, and truckdrivers employed
at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, plant, but excluding all of-
fice clerical employees, salesmen, laboratory and technical personnel,
guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
.146 NLRB No. 46.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. In objection No.1 the Employer alleges that the Petitioner falsely
advised the employees of wage increases which it, claimed it had
obtained for its members. The Regional Director found that, 3
days prior.to the election, the Petitioner distributed to the employees-
involved a printed leaflet entitled "This Is What We've Won For
Our Members." The Petitioner stated in .the leaflet that it had ob-
tained.a.10-cent per hour wage increase in 1960 for its 200,000 mem-
bers; a wage, increase of up to 141/2 cents per hour in two steps in 1961
and 1962; and a wage increase of up to 16 cents per hour in two steps-,
in 1963 and 1964. The Employer asserts that the, true general in-
creases which were obtained by the Petitioner for its members in the
rubber heel and sole industry, with which the Employer is identified,.
were 91/2 cents per hour in 1960; 71/2 cents in 1961 and 1962, and 13,
cents in 1963 and 1964. The Regional Director concluded that the,
title of the pamphlet makes it clear that these general wage increases.
were won for members of the petitioning labor organization, who
were covered by contracts in several industries other than the rubber-
heel and sole industry, and as the Petitioner did not claim that the
general increases were for workers solely within. this industry, the-
leaflet allegations were not false. The Employer excepted to the,
Regional Director's findings, contending that the pamphlet, in fact,,
did allege that the wage increases covered the employees in. the Em-
ployer's industry as it did not explicitly exclude them, and the lan-
guage used was so general as to, embrace them. We agree with the l
Regional Director that the representations in the pamphlet do not
constitute grounds for setting aside the election. The pamphlet, un-
like other propaganda by the Petitioner which specifically refers to-
the rubber heel and sole industry, on its face does not allude to that
specialized industry, but on the contrary specifically mentions con-
tracts with five large rubber companies and other unnamed companies.
in the cork, linoleum, and plastic industries. Moreover, for the years,
1961 through 1964, the wage increases were described as "up to" certain
amounts, thus reflecting a maximum range within unspecified classifi=
cations rather than- the amount of a. general wage increase -for all em-
ployees. We' accordingly find no material discrepancy exists between,
the rates listed by the Petitioner and.the-Employer. We shall there-
fore overrule objection No. 1.1
The- Employer alleges that the Petitioner on August 22, 1963, circu-
lated a leaflet entitled "Wishing-Won't Make It- So," which contained'
false and-misleading. statements concerning job rates at three rubber-
heel and sole plants having contracts with the Petitioner The
Regional Director found it unnecessary to: determine, the, validity of
the rates quoted, except those for certain maintenance and warehouse
and shipping classifications which were actually additions-to.a similar-
1 See Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221.
THE HOLTITE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 387
leaflet distributed to the employees on June 26, 1963. The Regional
Director concluded that there was no election interference as all the
-quoted rates, except the additions, had been presented early in the
:organizing campaign when the Employer would have learned, about
-them in ample time to make an effective reply correcting any mis-
representations. With respect to the additional rates set forth in
-the August leaflet the Regional Director concluded that they did not
constitute such a substantial departure from the truth as to warrant
setting aside the election. We agree with the Regional Director that
most of the alleged misrepresentations occurred at a time when the
Employer could have made an effective reply? We likewise agree
with the Regional Director that the inaccuracies concerning the main-
tenance, shipping, and receiving classifications are too insubstantial
-to justify setting aside the election. Accordingly, we shall adopt the
Regional Director's recommendation and overrule objection No. 2.
The Employer alleges in objection No. 3 that the Petitioner mis-
represented the laws of the United States to the-employees prior to
-the election. On August 20, 3 days before the election, the Employer,
in a letter to its employees, stated, "Remember, too, that when we sit
-down to negotiate a new contract, we start all over again with wage
rates, holidays, vacations and other benefits." The Petitioner, in
reply to this letter, on August 22, 1963, circulated a leaflet to the
,employees entitled "Did It Just Happen?" containing, inter alia, the
following comment : "Let's go to the paragraph on wage rates, holi-
days and other benefits when they sit down to negotiate a contract
with the URW, AFL-CIO. NOT ONE BENEFIT WILL BE
LOST BY YOU WHEN THE URW IS CERTIFIED AS YOUR
BARGAINING AGENT. This fact is assured by the laws of the
United States of America and any statement to the contrary is a- false-
-hood." The Employer claimed that this statement was misleading
,and deceived the employees because there is no law which prevents
the -negotiation of a wage decrease or reduction in benefits. The
Regional Director, although in agreement with the Employer that
the Petitioner's statement was not legally correct and was misleading,
found that the issue and the statement were not such as would be likely
to have any real impact upon the election. We agree with the Re-
gional Director, particularly -in view of the Employer's earlier letter
which stated in effect that if the Petitioner came in, the Employer
would withdraw certain benefits and bargain from scratch. When
viewed in this light, we believe the Petitioner's leaflet amounts to
no more than a reasonable response to the Employer's propaganda
2 The Employer asserts in its exceptions that it did not see the June leaflet . In view of
the widespread distribution of the leaflet in question which occurred almost 2 months be-
fore the election , we infer from all the surrounding circumstances that the Employer had
knowledge of its contents. - -
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and was intended only to convey the fact that the employees could
not be discriminated against by law because they joined the Petitioner..
We shall therefore overrule objection No. 3.1
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and the Petitioner
has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we
shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit,
found appropriate.]
8 See Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., supra.
Communications Workers of America , Local 1104, AFL-CIO and
Frederick Bond , d/b/a Bond Electric Company, Charging
Party and New York Telephone Company and Local 25, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Parties
to the Dispute. Case No. 2-CD-276. March 19, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, following the filing of charges under Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Evan
J. Spelfogel on October 15, 17, and 18, 1963. All parties who ap-
peared at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs were filed by all the parties who appeared at the hearing and
have been duly considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 2 makes the follow-
ing findings :
1. The New York Telephone Company, herein referred to as Telco,
is a New York corporation engaged in the business of providing
1 Subsequent to the hearing, Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO , filed a motion with the Board to incorporate an additional exhibit into the
record. All other parties, except Bond Electric Company, opposed the motion. The
motion is hereby granted. As the matter contained in this exhibit is relevant to the issues
in this proceeding and as it appears that the exhibit did not come into the possession of
Local 25, IBEW, until after the close of the hearing, the record is hereby reopened and
the proffered exhibit incorporated into the record.
$Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [,Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Brown].
146 NLRB No. 50.