The Singer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 211 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

THE SINGER CO. 211
The Singer Company and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 11-RC-2727
April 2, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director for Region 11 on
July 30, 1968, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on August 29, 1968, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 1,110 eligible voters, 1,052 votes were
cast, of which 267 were for, 770 against the
Petitioner, 3 ballots were void, and 12 ballots were
challenged. The challenged ballots were not
sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. On September 3, 1968, the petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on December 4,
1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his
Report on Objections recommending that the
Petitioner's Objection 16 be sustained' and,
therefore, that the election be set aside. On January
8, 1969, the Employer filed a Motion for Hearing
and for Reconsideration of Report on Objections.
On January 29, 1969, the Regional Director issued
an Order on Motion for Hearing and for
Reconsideration in which he found that the
Employer's Motion failed to raise any issue which
would warrant a hearing. Furthermore, he concluded
that the Report on Objections correctly
recommended setting aside the election on the basis
of the Employer's failure to comply with the
Excelsior rule.' Thereafter, on February 3, 1968, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report and to his denial of a hearing, and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the Regional Director's
Decision and Direction of Election, we find that 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
including sampling inspectors, tool and die
inspector, scrap and salvage repairmen, salvage
group leaders, quality control technicians, tool
and gauge inspectors, gauge room leadmen,
quality audit inspectors, power house engineer,
power house attendant, outside expediter,
expediters and plant clericals employed at the
Employer's Pickens, South Carolina, operations
but excluding office clericals, employees of the
research and development department, production
coordinators, tool designers, apprentice tool
designer, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director's Report, his Order on Motion for Hearing
and for Reconsideration, the Employer's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
finds as follows:'
The Petitioner's sole remaining objection alleges
that the Employer submitted a faulty Excelsior list,
thereby making it impossible for the Petitioner to
determine the eligibility of the employees or to
communicate with them. In substance, the Excelsior
list was alleged to be defective for the following
reasons: (1) the list contained only the initials and
surnames of the employees, along with their
addresses, rather than full first names (2) the list
contained squeezed type which caused the Petitioner
to misread some of the names listed and (3) the
Employer submitted a supplementary list of 30
names only 2 days before the election, making it
impossible for the Petitioner to communicate with
these employees. The Regional Director found it
significant that the Employer had used full first
names, zip codes, and employee timeclock numbers,
in its mailings. He then noted the Employer's late
submission of the supplementary list and concluded
that the Employer was either negligent or had
intentionally denied the Petitioner full access to all
eligible employees. The Regional Director therefore
recommended that the election be set aside. We do
not agree.
The record reveals that the Petitioner received the
Excelsior list on August 4, 1968. On August 19, it
The other objections filed by the Petitioner were subsequently
withdrawn
'Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236.
'In view of our holding herein we do not find it necessary to pass upon
the Regional Director ' s Order denying the Employer ' s Motion for Hearing
and for Reconsideration
175 NLRB No. 28
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mailed campaign literature to the names listed. Out
of a unit of approximately 1,110 eligible voters, 73
envelopes were returned to it by the United States
Post Office as undeliverable for various reasons The
Regional Director's Report contains a listing of 29
of the 73 returnees with their names as they
appeared on the Petitioner's mailing compared with
the names as they appeared on the Employer's
mailing list. The comparison shows that in only one
of the 29 names involved was there a discrepancy
between the surnames. In all other instances, the
discrepancy related solely to the first or middle
initial Such a discrepancy would not appear vital to
the delivery of the communications involved It is
not alleged, nor does the record indicate, that the
Employer provided the Petitioner with addresses
which were less accurate than it used for its own
purposes. Rather, the Petitioner's objection was
found valid primarily because the Employer utilized
full first names, zip codes, and timeclock numbers in
its mailings and filed to provide similar information
to the Petitioner' The claim that the Excelsior list
contained squeezed type, thereby causing errors in
transcription and contributing to the percentage of
Petitioner's undelivered letters, is largely
unsubstantiated by the record. While the Excelsior
list does contain some distortions in type, the names
listed are, in the vast majority of instances,
sufficiently legible to permit accurate transcription.
Furthermore, the Regional Director's Report also
notes that the Employer received 50 to 60 returns
from most of its mailings (a number comparable to
the number of returns the Petitioner received
herein).
The Excelsior rule requires that an employer
furnish a list containing all information necessary,
for expeditious communication, and, in other
circumstances, we might well find the failure to
provide full first names to be violative of those
requirements. However, in the instant case, the
record indicates that the supplying of full first
names would not have been of material benefit in
assisting delivery of the Petitioner's
communications. Therefore, we shall not find that
this omission by the Employer violated the
requirements of Excelsior herein.
Similarly, the record indicates that the vast
majority of the employees listed lived in
communities designated by a single zip code
Each mailing list is compiled by extracting the necessary information
from computer cards at the time such a list is needed There is no master
list which the Employer regularly uses for its mailings
number, so that the use of a zip code number would
not appear to be of any assistance in insuring
delivery once the mail was delivered to the proper
city. By the same token, timeclock numbers would
not appear necessary to effectuate the delivery of
Petitioner's communications. In any event, despite
the purported deficiencies in the Excelsior list, the
Petitioner's percentage of returns was similar to that
customarily experienced by the Employer in its
mailings. Under these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the original Excelsior list provided
information comparable to that available to, and
utilized by, the Employer.
The supplementary list of 30 names submitted by
the Employer 2 days before the election is urged as
an additional reason for setting the election aside
The Employer admits that it inadvertently omitted
three names from the original list. It claims that the
other 27 employees are individuals whom it believe
were not included in the unit. The record before us
appears to raise a substantial question regarding the
eligibility of these employees We do not believe that
the late submission of the 30 names can be ascribed
to a lack of good faith by the Employer As we have
noted on several previous occasions there is
"nothing in Excelsior which would require the rule
stated therein to be mechanically applied.i' In this
case, which involved a unit of over 1,100 eligible
voters, we shall not find that submission of the
supplementary list of 30 names only 2 days before
the election shows substantial noncompliance with
the requirements of Excelsior Accordingly, contrary
to the Regional Director, we shall overrule
Petitioner's remaining objection.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Union has
not received a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election, we shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of valid votes
have not been cast for International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
in the election held herein , and that said Union does
not constitute the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
'See Telonic Instruments , A Division of Telonic Industries . Inc , 173
NLRB No 87, and the cases cited in fn 3 therein