Union Twist Drill Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1361 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of UNION TWIST DRILL Co., EMPLOYER and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. I-RC-1205.Decided March V0, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Following the filing of a petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the parties entered on September 19, 1949, into a
"Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election." In accordance
with the said Stipulation and the Rules and Regulations.of the Board,
an election was conducted among all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Athol, Massachusetts, plant, including
shipping and receiving room employees, but excluding executives, office
and clerical employees, professional employees, draftsmen, guards,
foremen, assistant foremen, and supervisors. The Tally of Ballots
showed that of approximately 540 eligible voters, 237 cast ballots for
the Petitioner, 274 cast ballots against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was void,
and 22 ballots were challenged.
On October 18, 1949, the Petitioner filed a Protest of Election,
alleging unlawful conduct affecting the results of the election and
requesting that the election be set aside and that a new election be
ordered. Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's rules and Regu-
lations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on
January 11, 1950, issued and duly served on the parties his Report on
Objections, in which he found that certain of the objections raised
substantial and material issues with respect to the election and recom-
mended (1) that these objections be sustained and (2) that the elec-
tion be set aside and a second election be held at a later date: On
1 The Regional Director further recommended that the Board overrule the Petitioner's
objection based on alleged threats made by the Employer , to the effect that the employees
would lose their jobs if the Petitioner won the election . No exceptions were taken to
these findings and recommendations . We therefore adopt the Regional Director 's findings
and overrule this objection.
88 NLRB No. 265.
1361
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
January 17 , 1950, the Employer timely filed its Exceptions to Regional
Director 's Report on Objections.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner objected to the conduct of the election, in part, upon
the following grounds : For more than a month prior to the election,
and without the knowledge of the Petitioner, the Employer, during
working hours, sponsored a Workers' Committee and subordinate
Department Committees which, in the presence of the Employer's
foremen, propagandized employees in each department against the
Petitioner.
In his Report on Objections, the Regional Director found that
between the date of the filing of the petition in the instant proceeding,
on September 7, 1949, and the election, on October 11, 1949, the Em-
ployer sought to foster its own grievance procedure for its employees.
In furtherance of its purpose, the Employer, on or about September 15,
1949, organized a committee of its foremen to study grievance proce-
dures in other plants and to make recommendations to the Employer.
On September 27, 1949, one Robert Moore, the head of this foremen's
committee, conducted a meeting of 70 employees, after working hours,
but on the Employer's premises, at which he advised the employees of
the work done by the committee. The Employer also sent to the
employees at their home a letter dated September 23, 1949, advising
them of its proposed grievance procedure, and another, dated October
7, 1949, 4 days before the election, attached to a copy of the Employer's
publication known as the "Union Twist," referring to the proposed
grievance procedure contained therein and requesting the employees
to fill out and return an attached ballot form stating their preferences
with regard to the adoption of that proposal on a trial basis. The
Regional Director further found that for 3 weeks prior to the election,
employees Provost and Pease spent 5 to 6 hours of their daily working
time, without objection by the Employer, endeavoring to create interest
among the employees in the Employer's grievance procedure and
polling employees in several departments regarding their selections of
representatives to implement the grievance procedure. As none of
these facts are denied by the Employer, we hereby adopt the findings .
of the Regional Director.
We agree with the Regional Director that, under the circumstances
disclosed herein, the Employer is responsible for the activities of
Foreman Moore and employees Provost and Pease.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]
UNION TWIST DRILL CO. 1363
We find, in accordance with the Regional Director, that the Em-
ployer, by the conduct above set forth, endeavored to effectuate a
change in the working conditions of its employees during the pendency
of an election. Such action constitutes improper interference with
the exercise of the employees' free choice of a bargaining representa-
tive.3 We shall, therefore, set the election aside. We shall direct a
new election at such time as the Regional Director advises us that an
election may properly be held.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of October 11, 1949, conducted
among employees of Union Twist Drill Co., Athol, Massachusetts, be,
and it hereby is, set aside.
3 Schwarzenbach Huber Company, 85 NLRB 1490.
882191-51-87