The W. H. Reisner Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaster patterns, they were not qualified to make other pat-
terns required for Kirksite dies. Thus, whenever wood patterns
were needed for these dies, the pattern shop was called upon
to furnish them. As a result, in October 1952, plaster form
making was returned to the pattern shop, and the two employees
in the development shop were restored to their former duties
and classification of sheet metal workers in the production
and maintenance unit.
Although the work of plaster form making requires a
relatively short period of -training, it is apparent from the
foregoing that employees engaged in such duties must, at
least to the extent that wood patterns are used for Kirksite
dies , either have the skill of wood patternmakers or work in
close association with these craft employees. Accordingly,
we find that the employees currently assigned the duties of
making plaster forms for Kirksite dies should be included
in the craft unit represented by the Pattern Makers League.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certifications of repre-
sentatives issued in the instant cases be, and they hereby are,
amended to include in the wood and metal patternmakers unit
and exclude from the production and maintenance unit em-
ployees making plaster forms for Kirksite dies.5
5 This Order is not to be construed as a recertification.
THE W. H. REISNER MFG. CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its
LOCAL 824, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1187. April 30,
1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec -
tion between the Employer and the Petitioner, an election was
held under the supervision of the Regional Director on Novem-
ber 7, 1952. A tally of ballots furnished to the parties shows
that out of approximately 94 eligible voters 46 cast ballots for
and 45 against the Petitioner, 3 of the ballots having been
challenged.
On November 10, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. As the challenges
were sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director caused an investigation to be made concerning the
challenged ballots and the Petitioner's objections, and on
December 30, 1952, issued his report on challenges and objec-
tions . As to the 3 challenged ballots, the Regional Director
recommended that the challenges to 2 of them be sustained and
that the challenge to the other be overruled and this ballot be
104 NLRB No. 85.
THE W. H. REISNER MFG., CO., INC 605
opened and counted . He found merit in one of the Petitioner's
objections and recommended that, if a revised tally of ballots
did not show the Petitioner to have received a majority, the
election be set aside . The Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director ' s recommendation concerning one of the
challenges that he found should be sustained , and to his finding
that there was merit in one of the Petitioner ' s objections. No
other exceptions were filed.
The Board affirmed those portions of the report to which no
exceptions were filed , sustained the challenge to one ballot,
overruled the challenge to another and ordered that it be opened
and counted . The Board further ordered that if the revised
tally of ballots should not show that the Petitioner had received
a majority , a hearing should be held on the issues raised by
the exceptions as to the remaining challenged ballot. The
challenged ballot found to be valid was then opened and counted;
and the revised tally revealed that the election remained un-
determinative . Thereafter the Petitioner, for the purposes of
this proceeding , withdrew its challenge to the remaining
challenged ballot, and consented that it be opened and counted.
A second revised tally shows that the Petitioner failed to receive
a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election . In these
circumstances , it becomes necessary to determine the issues
raised by the Petitioner ' s objection.
The Board' has considered the Petitioner ' s objections, the
Regional Director's report and recommendations , and the Em-
ployer's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record finds:
The Regional Director reported that on or about October 24,
1952, approximately 2 weeks before the election , the Petitioner
asked the Employer for an opportunity to address the employees,
if the Employer chose to address them. The Employer did not
respond to the Petitioner ' s letter . The Petitioner asserts that
before 10 a.m. on the day preceding the election , having learned
that the Employer intended to address the employees at its
plant, the Petitioner ' s representative telephoned the Employer
and asked him for an opportunity to likewise address the em-
ployees after the Employer had done so . The Employer did
address its employees on company time and property the day
before the election , referring to the coming election and re-
minding the employees of the benefits the Employer had in the
past conferred on them . The Employer did not honor the
Petitioner ' s request for a similar opportunity to address the
employees. These facts are not controverted . The Employer
contends , however, that the Petitioner itself held ameeting for
the employees in a separate hall on the evening on that day,
and that the Petitioner then had opportunity to answer any
arguments or unfavorable comments by the Employer. The
Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside
on the ground that the Petitioner had no opportunity to address
'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 Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees "under circumstances which reasonably ap-
proximate equality."
We agree with the recommendation of the Regional Director.
The Board has repeatedly held that where an employer ad-
dresses its employees shortly before an election on company
time and property, and does not afford the union the opportunity,
when requested, to address the employees under the same
conditions, it is such an interference with the rights of the em-
ployees to self-organization, as to warrant setting the election
aside.2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the electionheldon November
7, 1952, among the Employer's employees, be, and it hereby is,
set aside; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time
as he believes the circumstances permit a free choice of a
bargaining representative.
t Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1559; Gastonia Weaving Company, 103
NLRB 1137.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and LOCAL
547, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL, Petitioner
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, Petitioner
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS,
LOCAL 32, AFL , Petitioner . Cases Nos . 7-RC-2003, 7-RC-
2012, and 7 -RC-2045. May 1, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, consolidated hearings
were held before Emil L. Farkas and Herman Corenman,
hearing officers t The hearing officers' rulings made at the
I On January 12 and 13, 1953. a hearing was held in Cases Nos. 2003 and 2012 on the
petitions of Local 547 , international Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called
Operating Engineers , and International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW-CIO, herein called UAW-CIO. On February 5, 1953,
pursuant to a petition filed by the international Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local
32, AFL, herein called Firemen and Oilers , the Board ordered that the record be reopened
and that a further consolidated hearing be held on all three petitions. The reopened hearing
was held on February 17 and 18, 1953.
104 NLRB No. 87.