The Lennox Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY and UNITED FARM
EQUIPMENT & METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O.
Case No. 18-R-1176
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 31, 1945
On March 19, 1945, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election,' in the above-entitled proceeding, directing that an election
by secret ballot be conducted among the employees of the Company
in the unit therein found appropriate, to determine whether they
wished to be represented by United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the C. 1. 0., by International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, A. F. L., herein called the A. F. L., or by United
Furnace Workers of Marshalltown, Iowa, unaffiliated, herein called
the Independent, or by none of these unions. Pursuant to the Deci-
sion and Direction of Election, an election was conducted on April
11, 1945, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota). Upon the con-
clusion of the election, Tallies of Ballots were furnished the parties in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board 2 No objec-
tions to the conduct of the election were filed by any of the parties
within the time provided therefor.
Inasmuch as the results of the election were inconclusive, a run-off
election in which only the C. I. O. and the Independent appeared on
the ballot was conducted on April 25, 1945, pursuant to Article III
of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Tally of Ballots, copies
of which were furnished to the parties upon the conclusion of the
election, showed that of the 317 employees eligible to vote in the run-
1 60 N. L R B 1329.
The tally showed that the votes cast were distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------------- 317
Total number of valid votes counted------------------------------- 284
Void ballots---------------------------------------------------- 1
Votes cast for the A P. L---------------------------------------- 23
Votes cast for the Independent------------------------------------ 129
Votes cast for the C I 0---------------------------------------- 129
Votes cast against participating organizations---------------------- 3
64 N. L. R. B, No. 115.
669
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off election, 272 cast votes, of which 142 were for the Independent,
126 for the C. I. 0., and 4 were challenged.
Thereafter, on May 2, 1945, the C. I. 0. filed Objections to the
Conduct of Election, alleging five separate objections to the conduct
of the run-off election and requesting that the run-off election be
set aside and a new election directed. On May 11, 1945, the Company
filed its Answer to the Objections. On May 16, 1945, the Regional
Director issued his Report on Objections, finding that there was no
substantiating evidence to support three of the objections but recom-
mending a hearing on the other two objections which he found raised
material issues and were supported by evidence. None of the parties
filed exceptions to this `Report. On May 28, 1945, the Board, having
duly considered the matter, issued an order directing that a hearing
be held on the objections which the Regional Director found to raise
material issues. On July 24, 1945, a hearing in which the C. I. 0.,
the A. F. L., and the Independents appeared and participated was
conducted at Marshalltown, Iowa, before a Trial Examiner. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. Subsequently, the Company, the A. F. L., and the Independ-
ent filed briefs with the Board.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no pre-
judicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At
the hearing, the A. F. L. moved 'that the original election, as well as
the run-off election, be set aside and that its name appear on the
ballot in the event a new election is directed. The Trial Examiner
referred that motion to the Board. For reasons hereinafter set forth,
that motion is hereby denied.
The Board has considered the objections of the C. I. 0., the respec-
tive briefs of the Company, the A. F. L., and the Independent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. In its objections, the C. I. 0. alleged, in substance, that the
Company, in order to defeat the C. I. 0., "laid off" a number of
employees and advised them that they were not eligible to vote, "thus
causing such confusion amongst such employees that they believed
they lost the right to vote and did, not vote when they otherwise would
have, and their votes would undoubtedly have been cast in large part
for the C. I. 0."
8 Prior to the bearing , the Independent filed a petition to intervene in which it requested
that the objections be overruled.
THE LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY 671
The record shows that on April 20 and 21, 1945, approximately a
week before the run-off election, the respondent reduced its force by
31 employees. The Regional Director in his Report on Objections
found that this reduction in force was attributable to a contract can-
celation and was motivated entirely by economic considerations. At
the hearing, the C. I. O. did not question the non-discriminatory
character of this reduction in force, but contended, merely, that the
affected employees had been laid off and not discharged, as the Com-
pany contended, and that they had been misled by the Company into
believing that they did not have the right to vote in the run-off election.
The record reveals that these employees had been summoned in small
groups before Personnel Director Wade Crone who informed them
of the action being taken with reference to their employment. Ac-
cording to employee Morden, who was among a group of five employees
called before Crone, Crone told her that "due to the cancelation of the
contract he would have to lay us off, and he said he wouldn't promise
us when we would get back; it would be maybe 30 to 60 days. . . . He
said he wouldn't make us any promises when we would get back to
work again." Other employees testified to substantially similar con-
versations with Crone. Crone, according to their testimony, volun-
teered no information as to their right to vote in the run-off election,
but, in response to questions of 2 of the employees as to whether they
would be eligible to vote, replied, "No." However, each of the 4
witnesses called by the Board admitted that, notwithstanding Crone's
comments, they voted in the run-off election. None was challenged by
the Company. The evidence does not indicate that any of the em-
ployees who were discharged or laid off 4 refrained from voting because
of Crone's statements.
Moreover, the record reveals that of the 31 employees involved in
the reduction in force, only 22 were eligible to vote, the others having
been hired after the eligibility date fixed in the Direction of Election.
Of these 22 eligible voters, 9 voted in the run-off election, and only 13
did not vote. Of the 9, 6 voted without being challenged, 1 was
challenged by the C. I. O., 1 by the Independent, and 1 by both the
C. I. O. and the Independent. Inasmuch as the C. I. O. polled 126
votes to 142 for the Independent it is highly improbable that the
C. 1. 0. was prejudiced by the alleged confusion. The C. I. O. required
17 more votes to win the election. Even if it be assumed that all 13
of the 22 eligible voters who did not vote would have voted but for
misinformation received from the Company, and that all 13 would
have voted for the C. 1. 0., we should have to make the further assump-
4 In view of our decision, it is unnecessary to decide whether the employees involved in
the reduction in force were laid off , as the C. I. 0 . contended , or discharged , as the Com-
pany contended.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, in order to conclude that this episode affected the outcome of the
election, that all-4 of the challenged ballots, including the 2, challenged
by the C. I. 0., were cast for the C. I. 0. Upon all the evidence, the
possibility that the Company's alleged conduct affected the results of
the election is too remote to warrant consideration. Accordingly, we
shall overrule the objection.
2. The C. I. 0. also alleged, in substance, that the Company assem-
bled the employees during working hours and on company property
and that certain company officials then delivered speeches to the
assembled employees in which they "attacked the C. I. 0. for purposes
of discouraging voting for the C. I. 0." It is admitted that the
speeches were made. However, all the speeches were delivered prior
to the election conducted on April 11, 1945, the original election.
Neither the C. I. 0. nor the A. F. L. filed objections to that election
within the time provided therefor. It was not until after the run-off
election, held on April 24, 1945, that the C.-I. 0. first contended that
the Company had been guilty of conduct which would interfere with
an election and it was still later that the A. F. L. requested that the
original election be set aside. There can be no question that the ob-
jection of the A. F. L. has not been timely made. Nor do we believe
that the C. I. 0. should now be permitted to urge that the run-off
election be set aside because of the speeches made by the Company's
officials. Those speeches preceded the original election, and if they
were of•any effect at all, affected the original election. Article III,
Section 11, of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides for a run-off
election "when no Objections are filed." Had the C. I. 0. filed objec-
tions, based on the speeches, after the original election, the run-off
election would not have been conducted, unless the objections were
overruled. The C. I. 0., however, chose to proceed with a run-off
election. We therefore find that the objection based upon the speeches
was not timely made, and, accordingly, we shall dismiss that objections
Inasmuch as the objections have been overruled, and since it appears
from the Tally of Ballots of the run-off election that the employees
have selected the Independent as their bargaining representative, we
shall certify the Independent.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended.
"In so doing , we note that had the record revealed objectionable conduct on the part of
the Company after the original election , a consideration of the Company 's entire course
of conduct , both before and after the original election , would have been proper.
THE LENNOX FURNACE COMPANY 673
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Furnace Workers of Marshall-
town, Iowa, has been designated and selected by a majority of the
Company's production and maintenance employees, including pattern
makers, laboratory workers, and the factory clerical employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, the foundry employees, time-study
employees, foremen, and all or any other supervisory employees with
the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a-) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive bargaining representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
MR. GrRARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives,
670417-46-vol 64-44