Western Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 183 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of WESTERN ELECTRIC CODIPANY, INCORPORATED, Em-
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL INTO. 1290, A. F. or L., PETITIONER
Case No. 18-RC-398
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
ORDER
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 01, 1949
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the
National Labor Relations Board on August 4,1949,1 elections by secret
ballot were conducted on August 31, 1949, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, among
the employees of the Employer in the voting groups described in the
said Decision.
Following the elections, the parties were furnished with Tallies of
Ballots. The tally in Voting Group 1 shows that of the approximately
74 eligible voters in this group, 69 cast valid ballots, of which 1 was
for the Petitioner, 49 for the IAM,2 11 for the CWA, and 8 were cast
against the participating labor organizations.
The Tally of Ballots in Voting Group 2 shows that of the approxi-
mately 1,002 eligible voters in this group, 921 cast valid ballots, of
which 373 were for the Petitioner, 82 for the CAVA, 466 against the
participating labor organizations, and 5 ballots were challenged. The
number of challenged ballots was not sufficient to affect the results
of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election, alleging that the Em-
ployer, the UE, and the CWA had interfered with the conduct of the
election.
1 85 NLRB 563.
2 As in our previous Decision in this proceeding , District Lodge No. 77 of International
Association of Machinists is referred to herein as the IAM ; Communications Workers of
America, C . I. 0., as the CWA; and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America, Local 1117, C. I. 0., as the UE.
87 NLRB No. 26.
183
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on September 27,
1949, issued his Report on Objections, reconunending that the objec-
tions be overruled on the ground that they do not raise substantial
or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. There-
after, the Petitioner filed timely Exceptions to the Regional Director's
Report.3
The objections and exceptions of the petitioner are in substance as
follows :
1. The Petitioner alleges that front August 29, 1949, to and includ-
ing the date of the election, the Employer permitted the UE 4 actively
to campaign in the plant but denied similar privileges to the Peti-
tioner. In a memorandum issued by the. plant superintendent on
March 1, 1949, and at various meetings held before the election, the
Employer advised its supervisors that they were to "maintain an atti-
tude of complete neutrality . . ." In addition, on August 29, 1949,
2 days before the election, the employees were notified that "All,
supervisors have been instructed not to interfere in any way or advise
employees with respect to the election." Before the election, the
Employer advised its supervisors, and they in turn instructed the
employees, that there was to be no electioneering in the plant. Al-
though adherents of the UE violated this rule, it was also violated,
though less extensively, by the adherents of the Petitioner, and the
Employer stopped all such activity which came to its attention and
reprimanded the employees involved, without regard to their union
affiliation. We are of the opinion that the Employer did not apply
the no-electioneering rule discriminatorily, but that, on the contrary,
it took reasonable steps to insure the equal treatment and freedom of
choice of all employees irrespective of union affiliation.5
2. The Petitioner contends that the fact that an ooserver for the
CWA wore a button bearing the initials "CWA" during the election.
unfairly influenced the result of the election. This button was ap-
proximately 11/2 inches in diameter and was worn on the observer's
belt. The Board has held that the wearing of buttons or similar in-
signia at an election by participants thei.ein is not prejudicial. to the
3 The ILIA, which was not on the ballot in Voting Group 2, filed a brief in support of the
Regional Director's Report.
4 As noted in our original Decision and Direction of Elections herein, the UE was permitted
to intervene by reason of its contractual interest, but was not accorded a place on the ballot
as it was not then in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) of the Act.
In connection with this objection, the Petitioner submitted the names of various wit-
nesses to the electioneering activities of the president of the UE local. In its exceptions,
the Petitioner alleged that the Regional Director did not interview an adequate number of
these witnesses. In view of the Regional Director's finding that the UE -president did
engage in such activity, we are of the opinion that for the Regional Director to have inter-
viewed additional witnesses would have been merely cumulative.
WESTERN 'ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 185
fair conduct of the election." As the identity of election observers, as
-well as the fact that they represent the special interests of the parties,
is generally known to employees, we do not believe that the fact that
the CWA button was worn by an observer prejudiced the result of
the election.
3. During the preelection campaign, the UE urged the employees
to vote for "neither" on the ballot, advising them that if the "neither"
vote prevailed, the UE would continue to represent them under its
contract With the Employer. The UE also publicized a statement al-
legedly made to a UE committee by the Employer's plant manager to
the effect that if "neither" was selected, the Employer would continue
to honor the UE contract. The plant manager denied making, the
statement attributed to him and the Petitioner, in its Exceptions to the
Regional Director's Report on Objections, admitted that it could not
adduce proof that the statement had in fact been made-7 Furthermore,
we have frequently held that, in the absence of violence or other gross
misconduct," the Board does not undertake to police -union campaigns
or to consider the truth or falsity of official union utterances .9 We are
of the opinion that the statements of the UE were in the nature of legit-
imate campaign propaganda, and that they do not warrant setting
aside the election.
Neither the facts disclosed by the investigation of the Regional Di-
rector, nor the facts alleged in the Petitioner's objections and excep-
tions, show that the employees were prevented from exercising a free
and uncoerced choice at the polls. Accordingly, we hereby adopt the
Regional Director's recommendation and overrule the Petitioner's
objections.
In the original Decision and Direction of Elections, we made no
final unit determination, stating that such determination would de-
pend in part upon the results of the elections. The Tallies of Ballots
show that a collective bargaining representative has been selected in
Group 1, and that no collective bargaining representative has been
selected in Group 2.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following:.
, SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that all employees of the Employer's St. Paul, Minnesota,
plant, engaged in the installation, repair, and maintenance of tools,
6 Craddock -Terry Shoe Corp ., 80 NLRB 1239.
7 We need not , therefore , pass upon the effect , if any , of such a statement if actually made.
8 Cf. Stern Brothers, 87 NLRB 16 ; G. H. Hess, Incorporated, 82 NLRB 463.
9 Kroder-Reubel Company , 72 NLRB 240 ; General Armature & Manufacturing Company,
71 NLRB 413.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
machinery, and equipment, including tool makers, machinists, lathe
operators, jig borers, tool and gauge inspectors, grinding machine op-
erators, milling machine operators, heat treaters, detail makers, and
welders, but excluding utility men, tool keepers, oilers, belt men, clerk
typists, technical investigators, electricians, and all other production
employees, office and professional employees, guards, all group, sec-
tion, and department chiefs, and all other supervisors, as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act, as amended.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certification of repre-
sentatives of employees filed by the Petitioner herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it pertains to the employees in Voting Group 2.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that District 77 of International Association
of Machinists has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees of the above-named Employer, in, the unit hereinabove
found by the Board to be appropriate in the section entitled "Sup-
plemental Findings of Fact, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Certification of
Representatives.