Wesco Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 901 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WESCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 901
tioner b Although the shop-committee members, along with the CIO
Intervenor 's representative , signed a supplement to the contract on
May 22, 1951 , after this meeting took place, the employees have never
rescinded the action taken at the March 2, 1951 , meeting. The CIO
Intervenor remains as an active , functioning union.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case , and for the reasons
set forth in the Boyle -Midway case ,6 we conclude that no schism has
occurred within the Intervenor , and that the current contract between
the Intervenor and the Employers bars a new determination of repre-
sentatives at this time. Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Amalgamated Local
102, United Automobile Workers , AFL, be, and it hereby is , dismissed.
The examination of the Petitioner's witness, Hazel Correa, was as follows :
Q. Was this a meeting of Local 102 of the Automobile Workers?
A. Yes.
Q. This was not a meeting of the Textile Workers?
A. No, this was it meeting of the Automobile Workers.
Q. Now, Mrs. Correa, you have stated that this meeting which took place on March 2,
1951 was a meeting of Local 102 of the UAW-AFL, is that correct?
The WITNESS. That is what I stated, but I made a mistake. I meant to say that it
was a meeting of the employees of Home Curtain, Rex Curtain and Superba with 102
[the Petitioner].
Boyle-Midway, Inc., 97 NLRB 895.
WESCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and CANVAS, TENT AND AWNING
WORKERS, A. F. L., LOCAL 15, PETITIONER . Case No. ;?1-RC-0098.
December 29, 1951
Decision and Order
On October 4, 1951, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among employees in the stipulated unit. Upon the com-
pletion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties.
The tally reveals that of approximately 136 eligible voters, 103 valid
ballots were cast, of which 51 were for and 52 against the Petitioner,
none was challenged, and 1 was void.
Thereafter, on October 8, 1951, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to the conduct of the election. In accordance with the rules and regu-
lations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion, and, on November 8, 1951, issued and duly served upon the
parties his report on objections to the election. In his report the
97 NLRB No. 134.
986209-52-vol. 97-58
902 RECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director found that the Petitioner's objections raised no
substantial or material issues which would justify setting the election
aside, and recommended that the objections be overruled. The Pe-
titioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's determina-
tions as to the objections.
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-mem
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
In substance, the Petitioner's objections alleged the following:
(1) That the Employer did not make available a list of the employees
eligible to vote until 30 minutes before the election, and that the Pe-
titioner was thereby precluded from publicizing the election to 21
employees who had been temporarily laid off; (2) that the Employer
failed to notify these employees in time to get to the plant and vote;
(3) that the Employer's lists of terminated employees was question-
able; and (4) that the Employer "used threatening language against
employees if they voted for the Union."
As to the first objection, the Regional Director found that the Pe-
titioner did not ask the Employer to furnish the eligibility list until
the morning of October 3, 1951, the day before the election. As the
purpose underlying the Board's policy permitting the checking of the
eligibility list is to allow verification of the correctness of the list, and
the Petitioner had, in fact, sufficient time to do so, we find no merit
in this objection.)
The second objection, in our opinion, is likewise untenable. The
Employer sent night letters to 21 laid-off employees the day before
the election. Nineteen of the night letters were delivered, 1 was
returned undelivered because the addressee had gone to Mexico, and
the other was not delivered because of an error in address made by
the telegraph office. As to the Petitioner's contention that 2 other
eligible employees did not receive telegrams, the Regional Director
found that 1 of the employees had been working until September
30, 1951, when he left on vacation, and the other had quit on Sep-.
tember 21, 1951, to return to school. The notices of the election had
in fact been posted in the plant since September 26, 1951-8 days
before the election. Of approximately 136 eligible voters, 104 ac-
tually cast ballots. As the Employer was not required, in any event,
under Board procedure to send the night letters to the employees in
question, we find no merit in this objection.
As the Regional Director's investigation did not establish that
the list of eligible voters was incorrect or that any ineligible person
voted, we agree with his determination that the third objection is
likewise without merit. As to the fourth objection, it seems clear
2 Gerber Products Company, 95 NLRB 1300.
VALHALLA MEMORIAL PARK 903
from the report on objections that the Petitioner offered no evidence
to Support its contention that the Employer threatened employees
if they voted for the Petitioner or engaged in other acts of interference.
The Petitioner's exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on
objections go beyond its initial objections. Among other things, it
is contended in the exceptions that the Employer caused the tempo-
rary layoff for the purpose of influencing the results of the election.
The Petitioner fails, however, to offer any evidence that the tempo-
rary layoff was actuated by other than economic reasons. The Peti-
tioner alleges that the Employer's officials delivered a prepared speech
the day before the election. However, no evidence was offered to
demonstrate that the speech was coercive or that the Petitioner re-
quested and was denied a similar opportunity to address the em-
ployees.2 Finally, the petitioner contends that one Albert Martinez
was not permitted to vote because his name was not on the eligibility
list. It is clear from the Regional Director's report that Martinez
was discharged on September 21, 1951, and replaced the following
working day. Under the circumstances, even if this allegation were
true, it would not affect the election.
Accordingly, we shall, in agreement with the Regional Director,
overrule the objections.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the tally
of ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been
chosen, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
2 Cf. Bonl wit-Teller, Ino., 96 NLRB 608.
VALHALLA MEMORIAL PARK, VALHALLA PROPERTIES , AND PIERCE
BROTIIERS and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABOR-
ERS AND AFFILIATED LABORERS LOCAL No. 300, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 31-RC-2004. December 29, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
07 NLRB No. 137.