Verson Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

V_ERSON MANUFACTURING CO. - - 1297
all have the same responsibility toward the employees under their di-
rection. In these circumstances, we find that the subforemen are
supervisors and exclude them from the unit.
We therefore find that all production and maintenance employees
of the Employer at its Geneva, New York, cutlery manufacturing
plant, including cafeteria employees and probationary employees, but
excluding office, clerical employees, time-study employees, first aid
employees, the registered nurse, professional employees, guards, spe-
cial assistant to the plant manager, departmental foremen, subforemen,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act 6
5. The Employer contends that the petition was prematurely filed
because of the contemplated expansion of 200 employees at the plant
herein involved. In this connection, the Employer also filed a motion
for reopening the record and oral discussion, indicating an anticipated
"production increase" within 18 months. The record indicates that
the Employer currently employs approximately 400 employees in
many different categories and there is no showing that any new cate-
gories of employees will be added to the existing classifications. Fur-
ther, the record shows that the contemplated expansion is to take place
"sometime in the near future." In these circumstances, we find that
the date of the expansion is indefinite and speculative, even if it should
occur within 18 months, and that the Employer's present employee
complement is substantial and representative of those to be employed
in the near future. Accordingly, we find that the petition was not
prematurely filed and we deny the Employer's motion.?
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
6 The record is inadequate to determine whether the cafeteria cashier is a supervisor
and the three watchmen-firemen are guards. Accordingly, we will not determine at this
time their unit placement but will permit them to vote subject to challenge. Management
Services, Inc., 108 NLRB 951, 953.
a American Brake Shoe Company, 109 NLRB 1282, 1283.
Verson Manufacturing Co. and District 126, International As-
sociation of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1736.
December 6, 1955
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
approved on August 24, 1955, an election by secret ballot was con-
114 NLRB No. 196.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted on August 26, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employees in
the stipulated unit. Upon conclusion of the election there was fur-
nished the parties a tally of ballots which shows that, of approxi-
mately 118 voters, 112 cast valid ballots, of which 48 were for the
Petitioner, 63 were against the Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged.
The challenged ballot was not sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election.
On August 31, 1955, the Union filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the
Union's objections and, on September 26, 1955, issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections. In this report, the Regional Di-
rector found that the objections were without merit and recommended
that they be overruled. On October 14, 1955, the Union filed with the
Board its motion for review and appeal of the Regional Director's
decision, which motion the Board has interpreted as exceptions to the
report on objections. Thereafter, the Employer filed a reply to the
Union's motion.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings of fact :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and 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 plant clerical
employees, employed at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant, but ex-
cluding guards, professional employees, leadmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. In conformity with the Regional Director's recommendations, we
find no merit to the Union's objections.
The principal objection 1 of the Union is based upon its allegation
that the Employer, at captive meetings conducted on the day prior to
the election, intimidated and coerced its employees so as to deprive
them of a free election by knowingly misrepresenting and misstating
the contents of a contract in his possession between a rival company
1 The other minor objections and exceptions to the Regional Director 's report do-not
raise any substantial issues and are not of sufficient significance to warrant extended
consideration thereof other than as noted herein.
VERSON MANUFACTURING CO. 1299
and the petitioning Union, which contract the Employer claimed had
been given to it by a representative of the Union.
The Regional Director's investigation reveals that the Employer
conducted meetings with various groups of its employees on company
premises during working hours on August 25, 1955, the day before the
election ; and that the last of such meetings terminated 45 minutes
before the ban of the 24-hour period under Peerless Plywood 2 became
effective. The Regional Director found no evidence of threat of in-
timidation or coercion during the course of the Employer' s speeches 3
to its employees, nor did he find any evidence of supervisors having
made independent statements containing threats, intimidation, or
coercion. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Regional
Director's finding that the Employer's noncoercive speeches made prior
to the proscribed period were permissible under the rule as enunciated
in Peerless Plywood'
With respect to the alleged misrepresentations by the Employer as
basis for setting aside the election, the record in this case 5 discloses
that on August 22, 1955, a company official received from the president
of the Folsom Company, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, a copy of a collective-
bargaining contract, thought by him and reported to him as having
been'reached between the latter company and the Union.6 On August
23,,1955,', the Folsom -Company, Inc., and the Union signed the con-
tract. Subsequently, on August 25, 1955, at the various meetings
above referred to, the Employer, in making reference to this contract
as submitted to it by the Folsom Company, Inc., read as part of the
contract provisions relating to job description and qualification, and
commented upon the adverse applicability of such provisions to the
Employer's employees. These job description and qualification pro-
visions appear to comprise a separate document titled Exhibit "B"
which' is not, and never was, a part of the signed agreement. The
Union contends that the Employer knew that this document was not
a part of the signed contract at the time that he made the speeches,
and that this conduct constitutes a deliberate and planned attempt on
the part of the Employer to alienate its employees from engaging in
collective bargaining.
2 Peerless Plywood Company , 107 NLRB 427.
a Although the Union questions the completeness of the Employer's tape recording of
these speeches , it does not support its objections with any evidence that the Employer
willfully omitted from such recording any portion of the speeches that might be found
coercive by the Board. In the absence of such evidence , we find no merit in this portion
of the Union' s objections . See footnote 1, supra.
4 See Jewett d Sherman Co , 111 NLRB 534, 535
5 The record includes exhibits in the form of affidavits submitted by the Union. The
latter 's contention that the Regional Director failed to give sufficient consideration to the
Union's affidavits in his investigation of the objections is without merit, as it appears
that such affidavits raise no substantial questions of fact inconsistent with the Regional
Director's findings and conclusions.
6 The president of the Folsom Company, Inc., told the Employer' s official that the
document would be the effective contract between his company and the Union.
387644-56-vol. 114-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Without determining whether or not the Employer had the knowl-
edge attributed to it by the Union, we are of the opinion that the
representations made by the Employer fall within the scope of cam-
paign propaganda and are not so misleading as to justify the Board
in setting aside the election.' The Board has held that it will not
undertake to police or censor ordinary campaign representations, but
leaves to the good sense of the voters the appraisal of such matters, and
to opposing parties the task of correcting inaccurate and untruthful
statements.' Moreover, the Union, having been a party to the con-
tract in question, was in a position to correct the alleged misrepresen-
tations made by the Employer by attempting to call attention to the
exact terms of the contract. There is no showing here that the Union
made any such attempt. As the Employer's statements were, there-
fore, neither made nor reaffirmed in the face of specific contradic-
tion by the Union, such statements are not entitled to unusual weight
over and above that to be accorded ordinary campaign propaganda.9
Accordingly, under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the Employer's misrepresentations, even if wilful, were not such as
to influence employees improperly or to prevent their exercise of a free
choice in the election.
In view of the foregoing, and as the Petitioner failed to receive a
majority of the valid ballots cast , we shall certify the results of the
election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for District 126, International Association of Machinists, AFL,
and that this Union is not the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees at the Dallas, Texas, plant of Verson Manufacturing Co.,
in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
0 Horder's, Incorporated, 114 NLRB 751; Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB
183; Gong Bell Manufacturing Go, 114 NLRB 342 See also, Merck & Company, Inc.,
104 NLRB 891
8 Stewart-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1153, 1158.
8 See Horder's, Incorporated , supra.
Local 1139, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America, Ind. and International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America , CIO. Case No. 18-CB-73.
December 7, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 12, 1955, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
114 NLRB No. 202.