Weil-McLain Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

WEIL-McLAIN COMPANY 19
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of
the above-named Union , or any other labor organization, except to the extent that
said right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 ( a)(3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
KEYSTONE FLOORS, INC. D/B/A KEYSTONE
UNIVERSAL CARPET COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Weil-McLain Company and Pattern Makers ' League of North
America, So . Bend Association and Michigan City Branch,
Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7066. February 6, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 7, 1960,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
July 29, 1960, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the ap-
propriate voting group defined by the Board. Following the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed that
of approximately 10 eligible voters, 10 cast valid ballots, of which 5
were for the Intervenor, International Molders and Foundry Workers
Union of North America, Local 316, AFL-CIO, and 5 were for the
Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election.
After an investigation the Regional Director on October 14, 1960,
issued his report on objections in which he recommended that objec-
tions numbered 2 and 3 be overruled, but he found that objection
numbered 1 raised material and substantial issues concerning conduct
affecting the election results and recommended on this basis that the
election be set aside. Timely exceptions to this finding and recom-
mendation were filed by the Employer. No exceptions were filed by
the other parties.
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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Kimball].
The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire
record in the case, makes the following findings:'
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2 As no exceptions were filed with respect to the Regional Director ' s recommendations
that objections numbered 2 and 3 be overruled , such recommendations are adopted pro
forma.
130 NLRB No. 2.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In objection numbered 1, the Petitioner alleged that during the
crucial period before the election the Employer threatened employees
with economic reprisals if they selected the Petitioner as their repre-
sentative. The Regional Director found that the Employer wrote
letters to employees in the unit on July 21 and 23, 1960, and delivered
a prepared speech on July 27, 1960, in which it stated its opposition
to severance of the patternmaker group from the plantwide unit
represented by the Intervenor. In the first letter, the Employer
pointed out that over the previous year about 40 percent of the
patternmaker group's income came from work which was not strictly
patternmaking or pattern repair, and posed the question, "How regu-
lar will my pay check as a `patternmaker' be if I should lose the
opportunity I now have of also doing work which is not strictly
patternmaking?" It added that this was a particularly important
question at that time when no patterns for new boilers were scheduled
for the immediate future.
In the second letter, the Employer stated that under the existing
setup, when there was not enough actual patternmaking to occupy
the patternmaker group, it was able to shift them onto maintenance
or other work, but that if they voted for severance, "it is probable
that this flexible interchange between actual patternmaking and the
other type of work will end." It added that "it is not likely that the
Molders Union would sanction maintenance, production, or other
non-patternmaking work being done by employees in a separate unit
who are represented by a different union, because this would reduce
the job opportunities of the employees the Molders Union continues
to represent." Finally, it stated that, "It is a plain fact that if your
group chooses separate representation you cannot fall under our con-
tract with the Molders Union with all its provisions, which have been
negotiated over so many years, for paid vacations, holiday pay, shift
differentials, pensions, etc. and for seniority in relation to non-
patternmaking work."
In the speech, the Employer stated, among other things, that about
half of all patternmakers in the area were out of work and that there
were layoffs of patternmakers at specified plants where the Pattern
Makers League was their representative; and that if the Petitioner
won, its bargaining demands might be so costly that it might be less
costly to have its patternmaking done at jobbing shops. Finally, it
represented that the Board, in effect, said to them (in its Decision
and Direction of Election) :
You can, if you want, have separate representation for your
patternmaking work, but maintenance, production and other work
which is not patternmaking stays in the plantwide production
and maintenance unit represented by [the Molders Union].
WEIL-McLAIN COMPANY 21
The Regional Director concluded that the Employer's statements,
relative to loss of nonpatternmaking work if the Petitioner won, taken
in their entire context, constituted threats of economic reprisal. The
Employer excepted to this conclusion on various grounds. We find
merit in the exceptions for the following reasons.
We think it is clear that the statements made by the Employer
herein were merely representations of fact and expressions of opinion
as to the economic consequences of severance. To the extent that such
statements constituted misrepresentations as to the effect of the sen-
iority provisions of the Intervenor's contract upon the assignment of
nonpatternmaking work to the patternmaker group, as to the position
which the Intervenor would take with respect to such assignments, or
as to the import of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election
relative to this matter, they were not misrepresentations as to matters
peculiarly within the knowledge of the Employer. The Petitioner
had full opportunity-which it chose not to use-to rebut these state-
ments, and the employees themselves were capable of evaluating them a
Unlike the Regional Director, we do not construe the Employer's
statements as containing threats, either express or by clear implication,
that it would itself discontinue its past practice of assigning non-
patternmaking work to the patternmaker group in the event of the
establishment of a separate patternmakers' unit. Rather, we see in
the statements, viewed as a whole, an expression of the Employer's
opinion as to the possible economic consequences of a decision by the
voters to sever from the existing broader unit.' We conclude that the
Employer's statements did not exceed the bounds of permissible cam-
paign propaganda. Objection numbered 1 is for this reason hereby
overruled.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections, and the tally of
ballots indicates that the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the
valid ballots cast in the election, the employees involved shall remain
a part of the existing unit represented by the Intervenor and we shall
certify the results to this effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Pattern Makers' League of North America, So. Bend Asso-
ciation and Michigan City Branch, and that said labor organization
is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the voting group
defined in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election herein.
Accordingly, as there has been no severance, such group therefore
' See Unity Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 21; Kennametal, Inc, 121 NLRB 410;
The Baltimore Luggage Company, 123 NLRB 1289; The Cross Company, 123 NLRB 1503,
1506; Stewart-TVarner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1153, 1157-1158.
4 See La Pointe Machine Tool Company, 113 NLRB 171, 172. The case of Aeronca
Manufacturing Corporation, 118 NLRB 461, relied upon by the Regional Director to sup-
port his conclusion, is in our opinion inapposite. .
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remains a part of the existing unit presently represented by Inter-
national Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America,
Local 316, AFL-CIO, at Michigan City, Indiana, plant of Weil-
McLain Company.]
Field Paper Box Co. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products
Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen
& Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Box Finishers , Inc. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products
Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen
& Assistants Union of North America, AFL -CIO,' Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 13-RC-7379 and 13-RC-7398. Feb7ua7 y 6, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION*
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Rush F. Hall,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and
Kimball].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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. Field Paper Box Co., an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of paper boxes at its plant at 1740 North Pulaski Road,
Chicago, Illinois. Box Finishers, Inc., an Illinois corporation, has
a plant at 4455 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, for the
finishing of paper boxes. The Petitioner appears to have taken the
position at the hearing that it now seeks a single production and
maintenance unit comprising both plants, but it would continue to
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
*On February 23, 1961, the Board approved a stipulation of the parties in which they
asserted that it was , and is, the intention of all parties to this proceeding to exclude, not
include, plant clericals from the voting unit at both plants of the Employer herein in-
volved In view of the above action, it becomes unnecessary for the Regional Director,
before proceeding with the election , to determine that the Petitioner has an adequate
showing of interest in the larger unit originally found appropriate
130 NLRB No. 7.