Veeder-Root, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 967 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

VEEDER-ROOT , INCORPORATED 967
after the election rather than 2 days before. In these circumstances,
we believe, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Em-
ployer has failed to show that the timing of the announcements of
the split bonus and the extended sale and the disclosure of an increased
bonus through the partial payments were governed by factors other
than the pendency of the election. Accordingly, we find that the tim-
ing of the announcements and the disclosure were calculated to and
did interfere with the election of October 2, 1957, and we shall set it
aside and direct a new election to be conducted .5
[The Board set aside the election held on October 2, 1957.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
6Bata Shoe Company , Inc., supra ; Knickerbocker Manufacturing Company, Inc., 107
NLRB 507.
Veeder-Root, Incorporated , Altoona Branch and International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No..
6-RC-1967. May 14, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the.
Board on September 13, 1957, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on October 10, 1957, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Sixth Region. After the election the
Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which.
showed that of approximately 278 eligible voters, 271 cast ballots,
of which 105 were for, and 148 were against, the Petitioner, and 18
ballots were challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient to
affect the election results.
On October 17, 1957, the Petitioner timely filed objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director
investigated the objections and, on February 14, 1958, issued and
duly served upon the parties his report on objections, recommending
that the objections be sustained, the election be set aside, and a new
election directed. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its,
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Petitigner's first objection asserted that the Employer had
interfered with, intimidated, and coerced the employees before the
election because of their activities in behalf of the Petitioner. It is
120 NLRB No. 127.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undisputed that during the 2-week period before the election 4 of
the Employer's supervisors systematically interviewed practically all
of the employees at their work stations. In the course of those inter-
views the supervisors asked more than half of the employees whether
they were going to vote for the Petitioner in the election. It is also
undisputed that a general foreman summoned 45 to 50 employees
from their work stations to his desk (which is located in an unen-
cldsed area near the center of the Employer's plant), spoke to them
privately about the Petitioner, and advised them that he opposed
selection of the Petitioner as the employees' bargaining representa-
tive. The Regional Director found that the interrogations and the
interviews at the general foreman's desk interfered with the em-
ployees' free choice in the election.
The Employer asserts that the primary purpose of the interviews at
the employees' work stations was to discuss the employees' welfare
and to refute the Petitioner's campaign propaganda. The Employer
claims that the questioning of employees with respect to their voting
was only incidental to that primary purpose. As to the interviews
conducted at the general foreman's desk, the Employer claims that
such conversations in an unenclosed area near the center of the plant
are not equivalent in their effect upon employees to interviews in an
"office" or "private area," which latter the Board has held interfere
with employees' free choice in elections. The Employer argues that
all the supervisors' discussions with employees involved herein were
within the proper exercise of the right of free speech guaranteed to
the Employer under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
Contrary to the Employer, the questioning of employees here as
to their voting in the election was interrogation which interfered
with their free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative
and consequently was not free speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act.'
Moreover, we agree with the Regional Director that the general fore-
man's practice of calling employees individually to his desk and
urging them to reject the Petitioner also constituted conduct which
interfered with the conditions necessary to a free choice by the em-
ployees in the selection of a bargaining representative.2 The mere
fact that the general foreman's interviews of individual workers
were conducted in an unenclosed area does not change the fact that
the employees were summoned to speak to their general foreman in
his private domain-the "office" from which he directed the em-
ployees' work activities. The impact upon employees of such a sum
i San Diego Glass & Paint Company, 117 NLRB 59. -, , ,
2 Campbell Steel Company, at al., 120 NLRB 168 ; Peoples Drug 13$ores, Inc., et al.,
119 NLRB 634 . Member Jenkins , for the reasons set forth in: 'his dissent! in Peoples
Drug Stores , Inc., would not set the election aside on this ground.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR 969
mons to the "boss' office" is not lessened by the nonexistence of phys-
ically enclosing walls.
In these circumstances, we adopt the Regional Director's recom-
mendations and shall set aside the election and order a second
election.3
[The Board set aside the election of October 10, 1957.-]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
8 As the Employer's exceptions, raise no substantial issues of fact, we reject the Em-
ployer's contention that the issues raised herein should be resolved in an unfair labor
practice proceeding. The Hum.ko Co., Inc., 117 NLRB 825.
4 Accordingly, we find, as did the Regional Director, that it is unnecessary to consider
at this point the disputed issue raised by the Petitioner's assertion that various of the
Employer's supervisors promised wage increases to employees if they voted against the
Petitioner.
American Federation of, Labor and Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations and Field Representatives Federation , Petitioner.
Case No. 5-RC-2393. May 144 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis S. Wallerstein, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to a notice
of hearing, oral argument was heard before the Board on April 1,
1958. Both parties were represented by counsel and participated in
the argument.
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 petitioning labor organization claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer's
Department of Organization classified as organizers or field repre-
sentatives. The Employer agrees that, if the Board finds no merit
in its various contentions, the requested unit is appropriate. It main-
tains, however, that the employees involved are managerial employees
who, under Board decisions, are not accorded collective-bargaining
rights either as part of a unit comprising other employees or as
separate units. It also urges that the Board in deciding this issue
should consider the fact that the Employer is a labor organization
engaged in rendering services, on a nonprofit basis, to employees
throughout the Nation and that it would be contrary to the best in-
120 NLRB No. 134.