Wagner Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 532 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wagner Electric Corporation , Chatham Division
and Local 102 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America . Case 22-RC-3571
September 22, 1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certificattion upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted by the Regional Director for Region 22
on March 23, 1967, among employees in the stipu-
lated unit. After the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of ap-
proximately 523 eligible voters, 465 cast ballots, of
which 243 were for the Petitioner, 203 were for the
Intervenor,' 11 were against the participating labor
organizations, and 8 were challenged. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Intervenor filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on April 28, 1967, duly served on the parties
his report on objections to the election, in which he
recommended that the objections to the election be
overruled in their entirety and that the Petitioner be
certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain 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 collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's plant at 630 West
Pleasant Avenue, Livingston, New Jersey, ex-
cluding salaried technical employees, profes-
sional employees, office clerical and sales em-
ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director's report, the recommendations, and the
entire record in this case, including the Employer's
and Intervenor's exceptions, and makes the follow-
ing findings:
The Petitioner's preelection campaign included
mailing to eligible employees a certificate of group
insurance supplying $500 life, up to $1,000 ac-
cidental death, and $100 funeral expense coverage,
and a number of leaflets describing the policy and
its application to employees who joined the Peti-
tioner. The Employer contends that all these
materials interfered with the election, while the In-
tervenor relies on the mailing of the group insurance
certificate and other items sent with it.
There is no dispute as to the basic facts of the
Petitioner's campaign insofar as this aspect is
concerned.2 On February 2, 1967, Petitioner dis-
tributed a leaflet which stated that "Signing up with
Local 102 will also automatically give you a $500
Life Insurance issued by Conn. General Life Ins.
Co. with an additional $100 Funeral Expense
Benefit Rider. You will also be entitled to Benefits
from the International Union." On February 14,
another leaflet advised employees that all who had
signed up with the Petitioner "are covered by a Life
Insurance policy of $500 plus a $100 Funeral ex-
pense benefit." And, on February 22, another
leaflet stated that "THE ONLY BENEFIT OF SIGNING
UP NOW IS THAT YOU AS A MEMBER NOW WILL BE
COVERED FOR UNION BENEFITS SUCH AS $500 LIFE
INSURANCE, $1000 ACCIDENTAL DEATH, EYEGLASS
SERVICE, LEGAL SERVICE AND OTHER BENEFITS."
On March 9 and 10, after it received the
Excelsior list, the Petitioner mailed a leaflet and
three enclosures: (1) the leaflet specifically stated
that the insurance company "has informed us that
they will cover all Wagner Livingston Employees
who are signed up in Local 102 as of March 1,
1967, provided that the enclosed Beneficiary card
is filled out and mailed back promptly"; (2) one
booklet was entitled "Your Group Insurance Plan"
and summarizes the terms of the policy and the
requirements for coverage, which include 60 days
of permanent full-time work, but does not sum-
' Local Union No 2195, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, intervened and participated in the entire proceeding
2 In view of our decision on this issue, we find it unnecessary to con-
sider the Intervenor's exception to the Regional Director's rejection of the
contention that the Petitioner 's announcements over a sound truck inter-
fered with the election
Like the Director, we find no ment in the Intervenor's position that a
cocktail party held by the Petitioner within a week of the election con-
stituted an attempt "to buy votes with canapes and unlimited liquor." The
Golub Corp., 159 NLRB 355, 362, Morris Se,dmon, et a!, dlbla
Southwester Co , I 1 1 NLRB 805, 814, 816.
167 NLRB No. 75
WAGNER ELECTRIC CORP.
marize the definitions of the certificate of insurance
which provides for coverage of such employees
when they are in a collective-bargaining unit
represented by the Petitioner who work for an em-
ployer who contributes or makes payroll deductions
for the coverage; (3) a second booklet was the Cer-
tificate of Insurance containing all the terms of the
policy; and, finally, (4) there was a printed business
reply postal card on which to supply information
concerning the insured and a designation of
beneficiary, the last line of which (before the signa-
ture) stated "This form also requests membership
in" the Petitioner.
The Regional Director found no misrepresenta-
tion by the Petitioner and no threats of reprisal or il-
legal promise of benefits. In recommending that the
objections be overruled, he cited the recent decision
in Dit-Mco, Inc., 163 NLRB 1019, which in-
volved a waiver of union dues and initiation fees,
and observed that although the objection here is not
based on the same waiver as was involved in Dit-
Mco, the Board's reasoning in that case can apply
here. The Regional Director further found that the
life insurance policy was merely an incident of
membership and that Petitioner would be remiss if
it did not extend to new applicants the benefits to
which all members were entitled. Again citing Dit-
Mco, the Regional Director stated that the sole dif-
ference between the affected employees here and
other members of the Petitioner is that for a limited
period of time they were not obligated to pay union
dues and initiation fees, an inducement held to be
harmless in the cited case. He, accordingly, recom-
mended that the objection be overruled since it did
not raise a substantial and material issue affecting
the results of the election.
An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 22 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the
Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director. The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No ex-
533
We do not agree with the Regional Director's
analysis of the problem presented by the objections
here, for we perceive a substantive distinction
between this gift of life insurance coverage and a
waiver of initiation fees, with which the Regional
Director equates it. Where there is a waiver of ini-
tiation fees, there is no enhancement of the em-
ployees' economic position, but merely an
avoidance of a possible future liability. Moreover,
such waiver is a customary practice in organizing
campaigns. In contrast, the gift of immediate life in-
surance coverage is a tangible economic benefit and
is most unusual.
It is our view that the gift of life insurance
coverage to the prospective voters is more akin to
an employer's grant of a wage increase in anticipa-
tion of a representation election than it is to a
waiver of union initiation fees and that it subjects
the donees to a constraint to vote for the donor
union . In this connection it is noted that coverage
was automatic and required no physical examina-
tion or medical report. We conclude that by such a
gift the Petitioner destroyed the atmosphere which
the Board seeks to preserve for its elections in order
that employees may exercise freedom of choice on
representation questions. Accordingly, we shall set
aside the election and direct that a second election
be held.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election in this
case conducted on March 23, 1967, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Section Election3 omitted from
publication. ]
tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex-
cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require-
ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob-
jections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 N LRB 1236.