Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
(UE), PETITIONER
Case No. 6-RC-474.-Decided October 16, 1950
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election,
.an election by secret ballot was held on February 3, 1950, under the
-direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixth
.Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the. Board. The tally'reflected that, of approximately 1,088 eligible
voters, 1,068 cast valid ballots, of which 509 were for the Petitioner,
.545 were for the Intervenor,' 12 were against the participating labor
organizations, and 2 were challenged.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed 12 separate objections to the conduct
of the election, and to conduct affecting the results of the election. In
.accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
-Director investigated the matters raised by the objections and issued
and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which
he found that objections 1, 4, 8, and 9 raised substantial and material
issues with respect to the election, and recommended that the Board
direct a hearing thereon. He also found that the remaining objections
were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. The
Petitioner, the Intervenor, and the Employer filed exceptions to the
report on objections and supporting briefs.
Thereafter, the Board 2 ordered that a hearing be held before a hear-
ing officer with respect to certain aspects of objections 1, 4, 8, and 9
and that the hearing officer prepare and cause to be served on the
parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses,
.findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations.. Pursuant to
notice, a hearing was held before Gerald P. Leicht, hearing officer,
who thereafter issued and duly served upon the parties his report
on objections to election, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which
' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, Local 201.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the' Act, the Board has delegated its
Towers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Mem,
hers Houston and Styles].
91 NLRB No. 150. 955
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he recommended that the Petitioner's objections be overruled, and that
the Intervenor be certified. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions
to the hearing officer's report and a supporting brief and the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor filed briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the
reports of the Regional Director and the hearing officer,-3 the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby overrules
the Petitioner's objections, for the following reasons :
Objection 1. The Petitioner alleges in substance that supervisors
of the Employer engaged in acts of interference and coercion in favor
of the Intervenor and against the Petitioner. The Regional Director
found that the alleged acts of interference and coercion, which con-
sisted of statements allegedly made by various supervisors, if made,
were noncoercive expressions of opinion and did not interfere with
the election. The Petitioner has excepted to this finding.
We agree with the Regional Director that the statements attributed
to supervisors were noncoercive expressions of opinion, which did
not interfere with the election,4 particularly when viewed in the light
of the Employer's neutrality statement of January 30, 1950 . -1 Accord-
ingly, we find this objection to be without merit.
Objection 2. The Petitioner alleges in substance that the Employer
and the Intervenor influenced and coerced a local ministerial associa-
tion to campaign for the Intervenor and against the Petitioner. The
Regional Director found that representatives of the Employer and
the Intervenor 6 met with members of the association to discuss the
3 The Petitioner excepts to the hearing officer's failure to make findings resolving the
credibility of witnesses , as directed by the Board in its order directing the hearing in this
matter. The record reveals that, in most instances , there is no substantial conflict in the
testimony of the witnesses . Where such conflicts exist we have , for the purposes of this
Decision , accepted as most credible the testimony which supports the contentions of the
Petitioner . Accordingly, we find this exception to be without merit.
4 For example , Foreman Nunamker 's statement to an employee that the employees in the
Beaver plant were making as much or more than the employees in the Employer ' s Pitts-
burgh plants , which were then under contract with the Petitioner ; his similar refutation
of a statement by an employee that it would be financially better for the employees if the
Petitioner won the election ; and his statement on the day of the election to an active
adherent of the Petitioner , "You'll soon know whether you've thrown away your vote."
The Employer posted on the employee bulletin boards a notice to "All Production and
Maintenance Employees ." Insofar as it is material to this issue , the notice stated :
The position in this matter of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and its repre-
sentatives is one of strict neutrality . We will recognize ang bargain collectively with
any union which is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining agent for an appropriate bargaining unit following a secret ballot election
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
See Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 89 NLRB 943.
6 The association initially proposed that a representative of the Employer meet with it..
At the suggestion of the Employer ' s representative , an invitation was also extended to a
representative of the Intervenor.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 957
forthcoming election at the Employer's plant, in relation to alleged
Communist leanings of the Petitioner. He also found that the Peti-
tioner was invited to send a representative to a subsequent meeting of
the association, but that the Petitioner decided not to accept the invita-
tion. He further found that the association considered issuing a state-
ment with respect to the election and/or on the subject of communism,
but ultimately decided neither to issue such a statement nor to take
a public stand with respect to the election. The Petitioner does not
except to the Regional Director's findings of fact. Accordingly, we
agree with the Regional Director that this objection is without merit.
Objection 3. The Petitioner alleges in substance that an official of
the Employer distributed in public places literature' attacking the
Petitioner. The Regional Director found that the alleged distribution
consisted of one incident in which an official of the Employer showed
a pamphlet attacking the Petitioner to an individual who was not
an employee of the Employer. We agree with the Regional Director
that this objection is without merit.
Objection 4. The Petitioner alleged in substance that the Employer
discriminated in favor of the Intervenor in the enforcement of its
rule which prohibited bringing union literature into the plant. The
Regional Director found that the Employer had issued instructions
not to permit union literature to be brought into the plant and to pre-
vent its distribution in the plant. He further found that this rule was
impartially enforced against both the Petitioner and the Intervenor.
He concluded, however, that the mere existence of a rule prohibiting
the distribution. of literature pertaining to the election on the Em-
ployer's property during nonworking time may have constituted a
material interference with the election. In substantial accord with
the Regional Director's recommendation, the Board directed that a
hearing be held with respect to the "application and enforcement of
the Employer's rule against distributing literature on the Employer's
property." T
The Employer's plant is located outside the city limits of Beaver,
Pennsylvania, and approximately 2 blocks from the populated portion
of the city. It is bounded on three sides by public highways. The
plant gate which is used by the substantial majority of the Employer's
employees is separated from the public highway by -a large parking
lot, which is also on the Employer's property. Most of the employees,
who live in Beaver and surrounding communities, arrive at and leave
the plant in automobiles which are parked in the parking lot.
'The Petitioner excepts to the failure of the hearing officer to consider whether the
mere existence of such a rule constituted a material interference with the election. As we
are considering this question , infra, we find this exception to be wtihout merit.
'958 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record established that the Employer's rule against the distri-
bution of literature had two facets: (1) It prohibited the distribution
.of union campaign literature anywhere on company property, in-
eluding the parking lot as well as the gate separating the parking lot
from the plant proper. Accordingly, literature could be distributed
to employees outside the plant proper only on the highway at or near
the entrance to the parking lot by throwing such literature into the
employees' automobiles as they passed, or as they were waiting to turn
into the parking lot. (2) It prohibited bringing literature into the
plant proper, in bulk, and the distribution of such literature within
the plant proper. It did not, however,. prohibit individual employees
from bringing three or four sheets of literature into the plant. More-
over, as found by the hearing officer, despite the existence of the rule,
substantial quantities of literature of both unions was brought into
the plant," where it was available to all employees who desired to
read it.
The record amply supports the finding of the Regional Director and
the hearing officer that the rule was impartially applied and enforced
against both of the competing labor organizations 9 Nor do we find
any other aspect of the rule to have constituted such an interference
with the free choice of the voters as to warrant setting aside the
election in this case. Insofar as the rule prohibited bringing litera-
ture into the plant proper and the distribution of literature within
the plant, we have held that such a rule constitutes a permissible limi-
tation by an employer upon the campaign activities of unions.10 In-
sofar as the rule prohibited the, distribution of union campaign
literature anywhere on the Employer's property, we need not here de-
cide whether such a rule would have constituted an unfair labor
practice," or whether, in another context, it would have constituted
a material interference with the election. We are satisfied that it did
not constitute a material interference with the election under the
circumstances of this case.
In so finding we, of course, do not imply that we are able to deter-
mine that no votes were affected by the enforcement of the rule in
question. If, in fact, that rule had substantially interfered with the
opportunity of either union to campaign for its cause, it could not be
8It appears that such literature was brought into the plant, in small quantities, by
employees who had received it off the Employer's property, and also, in larger quantities, by
employees who violated the rule against bringing literature in bulk into the plant.
P As found by the hearing officer, the Employerprevented adherents of both the Petitioner
and the Intervenor from bringing literature into the plant, in bulk, in all instances in
which attempts to evade the rule came to its attention. In addition, in the only instance
of its kind which appears in the record, an adherent of the Intervenor was warned to cease
distributing literature in the plant.
10 Tabtin-Picker d Co., 50 NLRB 928, 930.
u Cf. Le Tourneau Company of Georgia, 54 NLRB 1253.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 959
protected by showing, if such were possible, that no employee would
have voted otherwise in the absence of the rule. It is clear, however,,
that in the circumstances of this case we cannot find that the rule did
materially interfere with the campaign activities of either union.
The record establishes that despite the rule substantial quantities of
campaign literature did make its way into the plant. Whether .this. .
was achieved by making use of the avenues of distribution permitted
by the rule, or by violating the rule, is inmmaterial. It is sufficient.
that in practice the rule in this case did not interfere with the employ-
ees) opportunity to secure information on the issues in the election..
As such, we find no basis in ' its . existence or enforcement for setting
aside the election. Accordingly, we find this objection to be without
merit.
Objection 5. The Petitioner alleges that the Employer and the In-
tervenor coerced owners and lessees of places which the Petitioner,
had rented for preelection campaign meetings into withdrawing pre-
viously granted permission for the use of such places. The Regional
Director found that although such permission was withdrawn in two
instances, there was no evidence that officials of the Employer or the .
Intervenor were involved in the incidents. As the Petitioner does not
controvert the Regional Director's findings of fact, we agree that this
objection is without merit.
Objection 6. The Petitioner contends that two election observers :
selected by the Employer were supervisors. At a conference held on
January 20, 1950, in which the Petitioner participated, the Employer
advised that it would designate these individuals as observers and
outlined their duties. These observers, who have the job title of "In-
terviewer," interview applicants for employment, record information
concerning their qualifications, and assist them to fill out the Em-
ployer's application forms. On the basis of such interviews, they
eliminate applications of apparently unqualified applicants and keep
a file of applications of apparently qualified applicants, from which
names are referred' for employment to the foremen of the various' de-
partments. The interviewers have no authority to take or recommend
personnel action.
We agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the inter-
viewers are not supervisors, as defined in the Act. We find, therefore,
that the Petitioner's objection, which was based on the alleged super-
visory status of these .employees, is without merit. Accordingly, we
deem it unnecessary to pass on the Regional Director's alternative con-
clusion that the Petitioner, by failing to object until after the election:
to the Employer's designation of these observers, had waived its right
to assert this ground as an objection to the election.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection 7. The Petitioner asserts that the use, as ballot boxes,
of cardboard boxes which bore on one side the name of the- Employer
interfered with a free election. These boxes also had affixed to them a
sticker bearing the legend "Official Ballot Box National Labor Rela-
tions 'Board." Like the Regional Director, we find that the use of
these ballot boxes did not tend to create doubt as to the official charac-
ter of the election, or otherwise interfere with the conduct or results
thereof.12 Accordingly; we find this objection to be without merit.
Objection 8. The Petitioner alleged that the Intervenor, in "con-
nivance" with the Employer, coerced employees and interfered with
their free choice of representatives. In substantial accord with the
recommendation of- the Regional Director, the Board directed that a
hearing be held to determine whether "agents of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers engaged in interference and coer-
cion against employees."
The hearing officer found that, with two exceptions, the alleged in-
stances of interference and coercion were no more than campaign argu-
ment and propaganda. We agree with this conclusion. He also found
that (1) Lewis, an adherent of the Intervenor, told Sweikowski, an
adherent of the Petitioner, that she was wearing the wrong button, and
to wake up or she would be out of a job; and (2) Davis, one of the Inter-
venor's line stewards, told Rini, an adherent of the Petitioner, during
the course of an argument, that it would be "tough for him" until the
election and thereafter. He concluded that these incidents did not
interfere with the election because they were isolated, the employees in-
volved were still employed, and there was no evidence that the bal-
lots of any employees were affected thereby. We agree with the hear-
ing officer's conclusion, but for different reasons.
The record establishes that Lewis was merely a rank-and-file em-
ployee. He held no official position with the Intervenor; nor was he
one of its chief protagonists. Accordingly, we do not consider his
statement, in the context in which it was uttered, to be coercive.13
Although Davis was an official of the Intervenor, his statement was;
made during the course of a private argument and did not contain a
clear threat of discrimination. In view of these facts, and in view of
the Employer's neutrality statement,"' we find that Davis'' statement
to Rini did not constitute interference or coercion.15 Accordingly,. we
find this objection to be without merit.
Objection 9. The Petitioner alleged in substance that the, Employer
permitted the Intervenor to electioneer on company.time and prop-
12 See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 89 NLRB 938.
13 Minneapolis Knitting Works, 84 NLRB 826.
14 See footnote 5, supra.
11 See Radio Corporation of America ( Victor Division ), 90 NLRB 1989.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 961
erty, but denied a similar opportunity 'to the Petitioner. In substan-
tial accord with the Regional Director's recommendation, the Board
directed that a hearing be held to determine whether "the Employer
permitted electioneering on behalf of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers while denying a similar opportunity to United
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America."
The hearing officer found that the Employer reiterated 16 and at-
tempted to enforce its rule against electioneering on company time and
property. He further found that although the Employer stopped all
such electioneering , whenever it was brought to its attention, irre-
spective of the union affiliation of the employees involved , nevertheless
adherents of both the Petitioner and the Intervenor engaged in elec-
tioneering, in violation of the rule, on occasions when none of the Em-
ployer's supervisory personnel were present. On these facts he con-
cluded, and we agree, that the Employer did not discriminate in the
application of its no-electioneering rule 17
The Petitioner asserts, however, that by virtue of the steward sys-
tem, initiated pursuant to the contract between the Intervenor and the
Employer, representatives of the Intervenor were enabled to roam at
will throughout the plant, and to electioneer on company time and
property, whereas representatives of the Petitioner had no similar
opportunity. We find no merit in this contention.
It is true, as the Petitioner asserts, that by virtue of the contract,
representatives of the Intervenor had greater opportunity than the
average rank-and-file employee to converse with other employees in
the plant.18 However, the record establishes that the Employer warned
the Intervenor's stewards to refrain from electioneering when they
were engaged in activities permitted under the contract, and broke
up conversations when it had reason to believe that its instructions
were being violated. Although certain of the stewards violated the
Employer's instructions, such violations occurred without the Em-
ployer's knowledge or consent.. As the Intervenor, which had previ-
ously been certified by the Board as the representative of the employees
involved herein, derived its greater opportunity to contact such em-
ployees by virtue of its valid contract with the Employer, we find
that such opportunity, even though it may have been abused without
16 The Employer 's neutrality statement of January 30, 1950 ( footnote 5, supra), con-
tained the following statement material to this issue:
The Beaver Plant rule against union organizing or campaigning during working hours
will -be enforced impartially among all parties.
14 See Western Electric Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 183.
18 It Is also true , as found by the hearing officer, that certain adherents of the Petitioner
also, by virtue of their employment , had similar opportunity to converse with other em-
ployees In the plant , and that they also took advantage of such opportunities to electioneer.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer's knowledge or consent, does not constitute a basis for
directing .that the election herein be set aside.19
We find, therefore, that this objection is without merit.
. Objection 10. The Petitioner alleges that despite an agreement that.
only a Board representative would release employees for the pur-
pose of voting in the election herein, the employees were in fact re-
leased for voting by supervisors of the Employer or representatives.
of the Intervenor. The Regional Director found that the agreement
provided that a Board agent would supervise the release of the em-
ployees, but that supervisors would actually release the employees
according to the voting schedule. He further found that all employees.
were released according to schedule. The Petitioner does not assert
that any employees were actually prevented from voting by virtue of
the procedure adopted.20 Accordingly, even assuming that the pro-
cedure adopted varied from the agreed procedure, we find that such.
variance did not prejudice the Petitioner. We find, therefore, that.
this objection is without merit.
Objections 11 and 12. The Petitioner alleges that the election was.
improperly and fraudulently conducted, in. that (1) prospective voters.
were not required to submit proper identification data, being asked
only their names and, in some instances, their clock numbers; (2)
more votes were cast than the number of eligible voters, when con-
sidered in connection with the number of eligible voters who did not.
vote because of illness or other reasons, allegedly indicating either
that persons were permitted to vote who were not on the eligibility
list, or that ballots purportedly cast by eligible voters were in fact
cast by others; (3) the eligibility list prepared by the Employer con-
tained the names of ineligible voters who were nevertheless allowed
to vote; and (4) the names of eligible voters were omitted from the
eligibility list. The Regional Director found that all parties were
represented at the election by observers, that normal diligence was
exercised in requiring proper identification of voters, and that the
number of votes cast did not exceed the number of eligible voters,
when considered in connection with the number of absentees who- in
fact voted 21 He further found that the objections relating to the com-
10 The Electric Auto -Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1407 ; Nicholson Transit Company, 89 NLRB
1278.
20 As noted hereinbefore , 1,068 employees voted out of a total of approximately 1,085
eligible voters.
21 As stated above , 1,068 valid ballots , including 2 challenged ballots, were cast out of a
total of approximately 1,088 eligible voters. In addition, 2 void ballots were cast, making
a total of 1,070 ballots cast. The Petitioner asserts that at least 1S named employees who
were on the eligibility list did not vote in the election. The Regional Director found that
33 eligible employees did not work on the day of the election, but that nevertheless 17 of
them voted . In either event, it does not appear , solely on the basis of the figures, that any
Ineligible voters east ballots.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 963
position of the eligibility list constituted post-election challenges,
which the Board will not entertain. He concluded that the election
was not fraudulently or improperly conducted.
We agree with the Regional Director's conclusion. The Petitioner
was represented at the election by observers who had the right to
challenge any prospective voters of doubtful identity. Accordingly,
it was not prejudiced by the method adopted- for identifying eligible
voters 22 There is no showing that any individuals not on the eligi-
bility list were prevented from voting, under challenge, by any actions
of either the Board agent 23 or the Employer.24 Like the Regional
Director, we regard the remaining facets of these objections, which,
pertain in essence to the propriety of counting certain individual but
unidentifiable ballots, as post-election challenges which present no
basis for setting aside the election.25 Accordingly, we find these
objections to be without merit.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the Inter-
venor has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election,
we shall certify the Intervenor as the representative of the employees
involved. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, and on the
entire record in this case, the Board hereby makes the following :
Supplemental Findings of Fact
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, Local
201, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
. All production anal maintenance employees at the Empployer's•
Beaver, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding salaried office and shop clerical
employees, technical employees, confidential secretaries, interviewers,
time-study employees, buyers, attorneys, physicians, nurses, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 89 NLRB 938.
28 Compare Bonita Ribbon Mills and Brewton Weaving Company , 87 NLRB 1115.
24 The Petitioner asserts that three employees who were not on the eligibility list were told
by an individual "whom they regard as a Company supervisory employee" that they could
not vote, and for that reason they did not attempt to vote. The Petitioner does not assert,
however, that this individual was in fact a supervisor . Cf. Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
88 NLRB 238.
25 N. L. R. B. v..&. J. Tower Company, 329 U . S. 324.
917572-51-vol. 91-62
'964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Brotherhod of Electrical
Workers, AFL, Local 201, has been designated and selected by a
.majority of the employees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate,
as their representative for the purposes of. collective bargaining and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed on January 16, 1950, by United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America (UE) (hereinafter called the UE), the UE,
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, Local 201 (herein-
after called the IBEW), and Westinghouse Electrical Corporation (hereinafter
called the Employer) on January 20, 1950, entered into a stipulation for
certification upon consent election whereby the said parties agreed and stipu-
lated that an election be conducted among certain employees of the Employer
at its Beaver , Pennsylvania , plant under the supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). On February 3,
1950, pursuant to said stipulation , an election was conducted under the super-
vision of said Regional Director . On the same day a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties by the Regional Director which showed that of approxi-.
mately 1,088 eligible voters, 1,070 cast ballots, of which 2 were void, 509 were
for the UE, 545 were for the IBEW , 12 were against participating labor organi-
zations, and 2 were challenged.
On February 9, 1950, the UE. filed with the Regional Director objections to
the conduct of the election and to the conduct affecting the results of the
election and moved to set aside the election on 12 specific grounds. On April
13, 1950, the Regional Director following investigation issued a report on
objections finding that "Objections 1, 8 and 9 insofar as they relate to election-
eering on behalf of the IBEW with the knowledge and permission of, and
participation by, supervisory employees while such opportunity was, lEnied. to
the UE, and Objection 4 insofar as it relates to the Employer's prevention of
the distribution of union literature on the Employer 's property during non-
working time raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election,"
and recommending that the Board direct a, hearing thereon. Thereafter, the
UE filed a brief in support of objections to the election , the IBEW filed exceptions
to the Regional Director 's report on objections , and the Employer filed exceptions
to said report and a brief in support of exceptions.
On May 9, 1950 , it appearing to the Board that said objections -raised sub-
stantial and material issues of fact, the Board ordered that a hearing be held
.before a hearing officer on :
1.. So much of objections 1, 8, and 9 which allege: (a) that agents of .the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers engaged in interference
and coercion , against employees , and (b ) that the Employer permitted
electioneering on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers while denying a similar opportunity to United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America ;
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 965
2. The application and enforcement of the Employer's rule against distrib-
uting literature on the Employer's property ;
and that the hearing officer "prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a
Report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact,
conclusions, and recommendations to the Board in this matter."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 24, 25, 26, 31. and June 1, 2,
12, and 13, 1950, at the County Courthouse in Beaver, Pennsylvania, before
Gerald P. Leicht, hearing officer duly designated for that purpose, at which
the Employer, the UE, the IBEW, and the Board appeared and participated,
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of the
hearing, the parties chose not to argue orally but declared their intention to
file briefs with the hearing officer, who granted an extension for the filing
thereof until July 5, 1950. Thereafter, a further extension was granted until
July 12, 1950. Counsel for the UE, the IBEW and the Employer have sub-
mitted briefs which have been considered. A subsequent motion for correction
of record (that certain typographical errors be corrected) was filed by the
Employer. No opposition was entered thereto.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Background
The Employer took possession of the Beaver plant (Standard Control Division)
In March 1947. This plant is located about 2 blocks from the populated por-
tion of Beaver, Pennsylvania, and is outside its corporate limits' Employees
live in Beaver and surrounding communities. - The first employees were em-
ployed in June 1947. Union organization (by both Unions) started in the fall
of 1947 when approximately 150 to 200 employees were employed. There was a
strike at the plant (of UE members) from March 8 to June 21, 1948. A
Board election was held on May 11, 1948, with only the IBEW on the ballot, re-
sulting in a tie'vote, 266 for the IBEW and 266 against. Following objections
to the election, a new election was held on August 5, 1948, which was won by the
11BEW.' Thereafter, following the IBEW's certification by the Board, a Local
Supplement was executed on November 12, 1948, between Local 201 of the IBEW
and the Employer, with respect to the National Agreement between the IBEW
and the Employer dated May 1, 1947, as amended by Supplement I to that agree-
ment dated May 1, 1948. This Local Supplement covered the plant and bar-
gaining unit involved in the instant proceeding. The contract between the Em-
ployer and the IBEW was in effect until April 30, 19,50 .3 Since that time there
has been no bargaining representative for the employees involved. Westinghouse
Electric Corporation has a number of other plants throughout the country and
employees at other plants ate represented by a number of unions, including the
lTE and the IBEW 4
"According to Board Exhibit No. 2, the Beaver plant consists of six buildings, providing
.490;000 square feet of floor space, and covering 75 acres.
2 The UE campaigned for a "no" vote in the two prior elections.
s Copies of the Local Supplement and National Agreement are in evidence, designated
Iletitioner's Exhibit 2 and 3, respectively.
4 A copy of the National Agreement between the UE and the. Company covering the
employees represented by it is in evidence, designated Company Exhibit No. 4.
917h72-51^vol. 91-59
O
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The UE's allegation that agents of the IBEW engaged in interference and
coercion against employees
Very little testimony was adduced with respect to this allegation and the UE
does not allude to it in its brief. There is evidence, of course, of proponents of
both Unions discussing the merits and demerits of the respective Unions in the
plant, and that some of these discussions developed into arguments. Such dis-
cussions, however, are in the category of campaign argument and propaganda and
does not constitute interference with the employees' right to register a free and
untrammeled choice of a bargaining representative.5
Only two instances are noted in the record as being worthy of mention in this
regard, or upon which any contention of interference or coercion could be made.
Rosemond Sweikowski, a UE adherent, testified in response to questions of the
undersigned, that Paul Lewis, a repairman (with no supervisory authority) told
her the day of the election that she was wearing the wrong button and to -wake
up or she would be out of a job. When she told him to leave her alone he did so.
No one else saw or heard the conversation and no complaint was made about it.
Lewis, who had no. official position in the IBEW, admitted that in passing on the
way to a job on a machine he noticed that Sweikowski had five or six UE buttons
on and that he told her "she was on the wrong side of the fence," but denied
saying anything about losing her job.
Abraham Rini, a UE adherent, also in response to questions of the undersigned,
testified that a couple of days before the election Howard Davis, a benchman in
Rini's department and an IBEW line steward, came up to the tool window, where
Rini was working, to draw some tools, that they engaged in an argument about
which Union would win the election' and, that when`the argument' became. very.
heated, the term liar was used, and Davis told Rini that it would be tough for
him until the election and thereafter. Rini replied, "Well, we will wait and see."
Rini thereupon protested to Foreman Rasp that Davis was campaigning and
threatening his job and that he wanted the same privilege, and Rasp replied
that he had not had any complaints yet and didn't "care or give a damn." Rasp
denied making the latter portion of such statement. The record indicates that
Davis, a rank and file employee, had no more authority than Rini. Rini is still
employed. At the time of the hearing, Davis was confined to the hospital and
did not testify.
C. The DE's allegation that the Employer permitted electioneering on behalf of
the IBEW while denying a similar, opportunity to the DE
1. The steward system
One of the UE's principal arguments in support of this allegation is that,
through the operation of the grievance or steward machinery, representatives of
the IBEW had free run of the plant in the processing of grievances and union
business, and that in so doing were permitted to electioneer, while the UE was
denied such opportunity.
The National Agreement provides in part as follows : (Article IV, Sec. 1)
Shop stewards shall be allowed to conduct their union duties within their
regularly scheduled working hours within their assigned areas of representa-
tion. Union representatives shall be granted permission to leave their work-
ing sections on Local Union business, unless it is inconsistent with production
demands, by their immediate supervisor or foreman..
5 See NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc., 75 NLRB 1269, and cases cited therein.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 967
The National Agreement applied to all Local Unions and also provided that
the Local Union and Local Management "shall negotiate Local Supplements to
this Agreement for each individual unit covering matters involving the in-
dividual unit. The Local Supplement also provided for steward organization and
-procedure and .grievance procedure.
In practice at the Beaver plant Local IBEW officials were not "docked" for
time spent on union business. Stewards were also required to secure the permis-
sion of the foreman of the department to which he was entering if his union
business required that he leave his own department. The Local Supplement
(Article III) also required stewards to fill out an approved time report for any
union business conducted with management personnel. The subject of requir-
ing time slips for all union business was also discussed by the contracting parties
Lut no agreement was ever reached. Each foreman, however, was instructed "to
insist that the plant rules be followed meticulously" and to keep track of "what
people are in his department and know what they are doing," which was one of
the plant rules. The record shows that instructions were issued to foremen
orally and in writing in past elections, and in the instant election, that "they
were to maintain a strictly neutral position in all campaigning, that they en-
force the company policy impartially against campaigning during working hours,
that they break up any gatherings that might occur regardless of the people
that were involved in these gatherings, and that they were to maintain discipline
.as they normally would at any other time."
. There were 2 chief stewards, 1 for the day shift, and 1 for the night shift,
5 departmental stewards on the day shift, and 40 line stewards . All stewards
handled grievances at the appropriate stage. Executive board members did not
actually handle grievances but reviewed them in final stages.
The crucial question involved. however. is not whether the steward system
-was liberal, or for some other reason objectionable, but whether IBEW officials
under such system were permitted to electioneer on company time and property
with company knowledge and consent (express or implied), during the election
period. To answer this question, it becomes necessary to analyze the evidence
in some detail.
2. Testimony with respect to activities of specific IBEW officials
1. Joseph Gallio.. Gallio, the highest rated maintenance machinist in the plant,
inspected and repaired machines, made parts, and instructed operators in the
proper operation of machinery. His,work took him to all parts of the plant.
He was one the first IBEW organizers and was a member of the executive
board. In the latter' capacity, he had no authority to discuss grievances with
employees, although he was occasionally asked questions by other officials of the
IBEW. He testified, however, that this was rare and that he did not spend over
10 minutes a week on union business in the plant.
Sweikowski testified that she thought Gallio was a steward and that he worked
-on machines in her department. However, she alleged that he did not work in
her department during the election period and that she observed him talking
to operators, naming Lillian Romanich and Hildegarde Deemer, although she
did not hear what was said and she made no complaint about it. Gallio testified
that he did work in that department (C-1) and that it was the busiest area for
him since so. many machines were located there. He admitted he may have
worked on Romanich's machine but denied talking to her for any length of time.'
Romanich was not called-as a witness,
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both he and Deemer admitted that he spoke to Deemer , although . they testified
that the conversation related to the health of Deemer's husband, who was a friend
of Gallio . Adam Diklich , a UE adherent , complained about this conversation
to Deemer 's foreman , Berger, who reprimanded both of them and cautioned
them about campaigning , although they all testified that the subject of the con-
versation'was explained to him. Diklich also testified that when he complained
to Berger , Berger replied , "You are right . Neither side should have favoritism.
I will ask the man to leave."
Rudolph Becka , a UE adherent , who drove an electrical delivery truck around
the plant, at the time 'of the election , stated that he saw Gallio around the
plant but he was not working, and also that Gallio handed out AFL badges.
He did not name any specific occasions or individuals involved . Gallio denied
Becka's allegation and stated that he did just as much work during the election
as before.
Rini, a tool attendant in A-1, testified that Gallio was one of the group of
IBEW officials who came regularly to his department to talk. Gallio denied
holding "meetings " in that department although he did often work in the depart-
ment. Rini admitted that Gallio drew tools "once in awhile."
Diklich, who worked in the C-6 storeroom , in addition to the Deemer incident,
also: testified he saw Gallio talking to employees but did not hear the conversa-
tions. Gallio denied conversing with operators except in the course of business.
Frederick W. Olson , a UE adherent , and a machine operator in B-2, testified
that he observed Gallio in his department talking to employees twice a day for
periods up to an hour but doing no work at all. He testified that on one occa-
sion, Gallio got into an argument with Kfrk , that Petrelli told Gallio to leave
and also reported him to Foreman Fable. Gallio admitted he came into B-2
frequently but that he did ' a lot of work there . He also admitted talking to
Kirk , who was a member of the IBEW and a friend 'of his, but explained that
he bawled Kirk out because of faulty machine operation and that there was no
electioneering involved . Fable denied that he had had any complaint about
Gallio. Kirk and Petrelli did not testify.
Anna Slawianoski , who worked in C-5, testified in her deposition that on
the day of the election she saw.Gallio talking to two IBEW officials who worked
in her department . Gallio testified that he did work in C-5.
Gallio testified that he carried on his work during the election period the same
as at any other time. He was corroborated in this by Ralph Capo and a number
of.foremen ( Daudet, Ferguson , Krause, and Fable ), as well as by a tabulation
of his work assignments prepared from company records, indicating what requi-
sitions were handled, sections involved , and the time spent for each day during
the 2-week election period. Written requisitions we're made only for the
major jobs , many jobs being handled by oral requisitions , or by none at all, as
the situation required . The record also indicates that Gallio was cautioned by.
his foreman prior to the election campaign that as he was required to go all over
the plant , he should refrain from electioneering , and that other supervisors also
warned him , not because of specific complaints, but because he was a known
IBEW leader. The Deemer incident has already been noted .. On another occa-
sion Begley , a UE adherent , engaged him in an argument . Foreman Hepner
broke it up and reported it to Foreman Ferguson who also cautioned Gallio
about any possibility of electioneering.
2. Oliver MacKeage . MacKeage has been employed as safety observer since
February 1948, in which capacity he patrolled the plant in search for any hazards,
human or mechanical , and took whatever steps were necessary to promote safety.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 969,
He has been president of the IBEW Local since September 1948. In such capac-
ity, he was an integral part of the grievance machinery, set up under the contract,
discussing grievances with stewards and with management. Rini testified that.
MacKeage was one of the group of IBEW officials who came to his department
and entered into lengthy discussions. Rini stated that he did not hear the
conversations nor were any other employees alleged to have participated.. His
testimony was uncertain, however, as to whether MacKeage did so during the
first few days of the election week. MacKeage testified that he worked out
of A-1 and drew tools which fact Rini admitted, that he was not in the plant
the week of the election until Thursday noon ; and that he held no meetings withi
other IBEW officials in the plant, although he did have occasion to talk briefly
with one or two officials about union business. MacKeage also testified that in,
his travels around the plant, visiting each department five or six times a day,
advice was often sought by employees with respect to complaints or grievances,.
and that during the election period, the number of such questions and complaints.
increased somewhat, although the number of actual grievances remained about
the same.
Lawrence Gillespie, a UE supporter employed in C-1, on direct testified that
MacKeage started an argument with him about unions the day before the election..
It appeared, however, that MacKeage had been called in about a complaint of am
employee, that as he was leaving he noticed a defective machine and was talking
with the operator about it when Group Leader Smith, a UE adherent, accused
MacKeage of electioneering. At this point Gillespie entered the conversation
which developed into an argument and MacKeage left. No foreman was present:
and no complaint was made about the matter.
3. Raymond Buckley. Buckley was a tool maker in A-1 and from October
1949 was working on a special development job. This job regularly took him to,
various parts of the plant, including the toolroom and storerooms. He was.
a departmental steward, having 2 line stewards under him, and about 150 em-
ployees in his area.
Rini named Buckley as being one of the IBEW officials who conversed in his
department. Buckley admitted that while waiting for tools he talked with
other employees. It is not disputed that it was often necessary to wait in line.
for tools for 15 minutes or more and that there was naturally talking among
employees during such delays. Rini did not bear any specific conversations and'
did not establish any specific incidents of electioneering on these occasions.
Diklich testified that he saw Buckley talking to people in G5 and B-3' (later
corrected to C-3) although he did not hear the conversations. Buckley testi-
fied that he had occasions to be in these departments in his work and that he
may have also answered questions of stewards in those sections, although he
denied electioneering. The record also shows that Buckley was cautioned by
several foremen (Gordon, Grove, Hepner, and Sell) to stay on the job and not
to campaign.
4. Raymond Stephens. Stephens was a group leader in C-5. He was a mem-
ber of the IBEW executive board and a member of the negotiating committee
and, as already noted, was named by Rini as being in the group of IBEW offi-
cials who had discussions in his area. Stephens testified that his work takes
him into various departments and that he always answered any questions about
the Union:....Diklich testified that he saw him in C-5 and C-3, talking to em-
ployees. He did not hear the conversations, although, on one occasion, Ste-
phens engaged in an argument with Diklich and employees Caltury and Tufts
in C-3 about their union, but no foreman was around. He testified that Ste-
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phens did come to the storeroom to get materials. Stephens testified that Dik-
lich called him names and accused him of campaigning and that he denied it,
alleging that he could answer questions about the Union. Stephens also test!-
fled that on. several occasions, when he was not discussing unions, he was
stopped and told to move on by Foreman Zischkau and Helmer.
5. Patrick Cummings. Cummings was a painter in A-5 and chief steward for
the IBEW on the day shift. Rini included him in the group 'of-W\T fficials;
although, as noted, no foreman was present.' There was one occasion when
Sell "walked over part way and these people that gathered together saw him
'coming and he walked back to his desk." Cummings testified that while walk-
ing through A-1, he occasionally stopped and talked to MacKeage about union
business but that these conversations only involved IBEW members.
Rudolph Schunk, UE adherent and group leader in D-5, testified that he re-
ported Cummings to Ziscbkau one time before the election for talking to Bob
Ttoser and that Zischkau broke it up.
Cummings testified that on another occasion while working Bill Loll came
by, and that he had a heated argument with him about something derogatory
relating to Cummings appearing in a UE paper, when Foreman Daudet came
up, grabbed his arm, pulled him away, and told him to break it up. Cummings
admitted, however, engaging in union activity as did others on both sides when
no foreman was around.
6. Paul B -ocket.t. Brockett is a maintenance electrician in A-5 on the night
'shift, working in all departments. He was IBEW chief steward on his shift
and had 12 to 14 line stewards under him and he himself acted as line steward for
employ'e'es in C-5, who had no regular line steward.
Virginia Mittner, an assembler in B-2 on the night shift, testified that she
frequently saw Brockett talking to people in her section, naming two individuals,
Swaddle and Shema. She stated that Brockett had worked in her section
but that during the election period she observed him talking more often. She
made no complaint at any time and could not say whether any foreman ob-
served him. Brockett testified that he worked in B-i and B-2 during the elec-
tion period, particularly on a brazing machine, and that he talked to Group
Leader Shema about working orders. ' He also admitted talking to Swaddle
but stated that'it was in connection with a complaint about a transfer and that
the conversation took place before the election period. He also stated that, as
chief steward, questions, and complaints were frequently directed to him and
'that during the election period this was more frequent. He testified, however,
"that he kept up on his work and his foreman, Geyer, corroborated this, introducing
a work record to confirm it. Geyer also stated that he had received no com-
plaints'about Brockett and saw no cause for complaint. . Brockett also testified
that Foreman Levinson checked up on him occasionally. Brockett also admitted
that company rules prohibited union activity on company time, but. that the
rules were violated by both unions and that he engaged in it if no supervisor
was around, the same as-the others.
7. Chesley Delans. Delans was a storeroom attendant in D-6 and depart-
mental steward for the IBEW. Donald Rhoades, a UE adherent, who also
worked in D-6 storeroom, testified that he observed Delans indifferent parts
of the plant not working but talking to people, although he did not hear these
conversations. He stated that he complained to Foreman Fullerton about it
and saw Fullerton speak to Delans. He stated that Delans also told him that
Fullerton had warned Delans about it.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 971
Delans testified that as departmental steward he did spend considerable
time on grievances during the election period and that. one grievance took up a
lot of time as he had to interview from 12 to 15 employees about it. He denied,
however, that he was electioneering, that he was accused of electioneering or
warned about it. He stated that Fullerton did speak to him about the complaint
that he was not doing his work and that he emphatically denied this accusation.
In fact, he became very angry about the complaint and to prove that he was
working, he checked on the requisitions handled by him on the day of the com-
plaint, and that of the 30 requisitions handled by 5 men he filled 17. He stated
that at the time he discussed with Chief Steward Cummings the filing of ' a
grievance against Fullerton about it but did not do so. Fullerton confirmed the
fact that he followed through on Rhoades' complaint, and satisfied himself
Delans was in fact doing his work, and that he had no complaints about Delans'
electioneering.
Schunk testified that Delans tried to get the men in his group to join the
IBEW but that he knew his men were UE. He stated that he did not know he
had a right to complain until after the company notice of January 30 was
posted. Delans admitted that he.had asked the men on his. line to join the
IBEW, but that this was long before the election period. On the other hand,
Schunk admitted that he expressed his sentiments to his men during working
hours. Schunk also testified about an argument in his section during the
election 'period with respect to a prospective grievance of an employee, Wright,
and that employees Wright, Moritz, Delans, and himself participated. Delans
contended there was no merit to the grievance and the others contended that there
was. Delans testified that Wright first talked to him about his request for another
labor grade a couple of months before the election, and that he told Wright to
bring out the necessary facts to support a 'grievance. He stated that he heard
nothing further until one day during election period Wright threw a grievance on
his desk and 'walked off. Delans went to discuss it with Wright when Schunk
and Moritz joined into a general argument. Moritz, who had written up
the grievance, finally tore it up. Delans denied electioneering during the elec-
tion period, stating that by January 20, the IBEW had signed up about every-
body it could and that they did not try after that.
8. Florence Karr, Karr was a punch press operator in C-1 and at the time
of the election was a line steward.
Sweikowski testified that the' day of the election, or the day before, Karr
talked to various girls in the department, naming specifically employees Gorsek
and Gorski ; that she also saw Karr hand out IBEW buttons and that some
wore UE and some wore IBEW buttons. Sweikowski stated that these conver-
sations did not take place in the presence of her foreman and that she did not
hear what was said. She stated that she complained to her group leader (a
nonsupervisory employee) who told her that he did not want to take sides.
She also complained to an instructor who did not say anything but "just
stood and looked and went down in her direction." Sweikowski did not com-
plain to her foreman. Karr admitted that she talked to girls in her department
when the foreman was not present and that she usually waited until her quota
was completed to do so. She admitted that she had frequent conversations'
with Gorsek, a UE adherent, but that they were with respect to a complaint
Gorsek had relative to back .pay-. , Karr also stated that, on one occasion two
girls called her over, but before going over, she asked Foreman Krause for
a leave slip since they were on incentive. She stated that Krause accompanied
her, and when the girls asked about a UE pamphlet, Krause stated that they
'972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were not permitted to talk Union during working hours, told them to get to
work, and refused Karr a time slip. Krause corroborated this incident.
9. Moore and Davis . Olson testified that he saw Moore talking to people
in his section but that he did not hear the conversations or report them. , The
,persons whom she talked to were employees Sloppy, Hauck , and Capo. . Olson also
testified that one day while he was at the tool crib , Davis, who was a good
friend of his, asked him about his UE button and stated it was the wrong
-outfit and that the conversation was repeated later at his machine. Olson did
not report either of these incidents and, there is no claim that foremen were
around.
-3. Testimony with respect to activities of other IBEW adherents and warnings,
given them against electioneering
1. Anthony Kvaternik. Kvaternik, a setup man in D-2 on the night shift,
was a line steward during the election. He testified that one time about 2 weeks
.before the election he was at the coke machine when Timko, a UE adherent, and
:his helper, who were from A-5, came along and tried to get him to join the UE
.and knocked the IBEW officers. When Foreman Levinson came up, Timko and
.his helper walked away and Levinson. told Kvaternik to stop campaigning.
ivaternik denied that he was campaigning, protesting that Levinson ought to
warn the others, when Levinson replied, "I am your foreman and I am telling
:you." On another occasion he was going through C-1 when an employee stopped
him for a few minutes and Levinson came up and accused him of electioneering.
Kvaternik denied it and Levinson stated that Timko had reported it. He testi-
Iled that later his group leader told him that Levinson had ordered.him to keep
Kvaternik in his own section. Kvaternik also testified that he was down in B-2
one time on business and stopped to talk to Petrilli, a UE adherent, when Fore-
man Nunamker came up and accused him of campaigning and ordered him out.
•.ICvateinik denied he was campaigning and Nunamker replied that when Kvater-
nik was talking to his people he would consider him as campaigning.
2. Chester Klotz. Klotz was a group leader in B-5 and wore an IBEW button.
He testified that he complained of UE people carrying on conversations because
he had been "more or less reprimanded just before that for supposedly carrying
on union business." The occasion for his reprimand was as follows : He had
run out of some supplies and went up and asked the methods engineer who re-
'ferred him to Paul Johnson. He then went to look for Johnson and while.he
was asking one of the men where he was, Laura Zirat "hopped all over him"
and told him to go back where he belonged. Later Foreman McDonald told
him "he heard I was electioneering and didn't want to hear any of it." Klotz
-explained the incident, stating that he had not electioneered.
3. Stewards Capo and Moore. Foreman 'Fable testified that Petrilli, a UE
adherent, complained that Stewards Capo and Moore were electioneering.
Fable testified that although he had not seen any electioneering in his group,
he warned them against it and watched them thereafter "to make sure."
4. IBEW Organizer Babish. Harry G. Crook, industrial relations manager,
testified that he had received a report that Babish, an IBEW organizer, and
not, an employee, was parking his car on the edge of the Company's property
-and that the policemen had put a stop to it.
4. Testimony with respect to electioneering of UE witnesses
1. Sweikowski. Sweikowski denied electioneering on company time although
she admitted she did so on her own time. Karr testified , • however , that she
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC' CORPORATION 973
went around talking to the girls on the job practically every day, and sometimes
several times a day, especially to Gorsek , Korski, and Burns. Karr stated that
she complained to her foreman, since he had ordered her back to her chair, and
that he said he would talk to Sweikowski about it, but that she did not know
whether he had.
2. Rhoades . Rhoades testified that he was warned by Foreman Zischkau that
when he went out delivering material , to do so and come right back, and not go
any place else.
3. Becka. Becka denied electioneering during working hours, although one
time he was talking to a fellow in C-1 when Foreman Speer came up and said,
"no campaigning."
Karr testified that a couple of times a week Becka got off his truck and talked
to Red Davis and Rosamond Sweikowski , and that she complained about it to
Foreman Krause . Klotz testified that Becka often parked his truck outside the
cold room, came in and talked with Irving Barnes , a UE adherent , and that
if he had any business there he would have had to bring his truck in also. Betty
Murray testified that she observed Becka stopping his truck outside the cold room,
and coming in to talk to three or four people, nearly every day for periods of 5, to 15
minutes. She stated that she complained to Foreman McDonald who told her that
he had discussed the matter with his group. Becka's foreman, Speer, testified
that he had received a complaint from D-1 about Becka and that he checked up on
Becka and found him away from where he was supposed to be, talking to a group,
and that he broke up the gathering. He stated that various foremen; particularly
the foreman-of B-5, asked him to get Becka out of their section. Becka had
denied on direct that he did any conversing in B-5. Speer also stated that be
spoke to Becka about electioneering a second time , when Becka was down around
• C section , and after that he stopped.
4. Rini denied electioneering, although he admitted that when IBEW men made
statements to him he answered them back, and that bets about the outcome of
the election were offered him by two or three people. There was also consid-
erable testimony from a number of witnesses that the tool crib, where Rini worked,
was the scene of many discussions about unions , special opportunity being
offered because of the tieup while waiting for tools.
Buckley testified that he observed gatherings of UE people, including Rini, in
B-1, at the coke machine, and that this group stopped people and talked to them
for periods up to 30 minutes. He also testified that on several occasions he had
to wait for long periods of time at the tool crib for Rini "to clear his crowd out,"
and that there were conversations and arguments . going on, and that this hap-
pened frequently during the election period. He stated that he complained to Sell
about it and he saw Sell go over and checkup on the people waiting in line.
Among those usually at the tool crib were Sloppy, Petrelli, Olson, and Begley.
John Wolf, a material handler in B-3, testified that he did not belong to either
union, and that about a week before the election when Rini was going to lunch
(but before lunch time), Rini stopped Wolfe and a friend of his and electioneered
and gave him a UE card to sign. Wolf also testified that on at least two other
occasions lie saw and heard Rini urging people to vote for the UE, while Rini was
on the job and they were at the tool crib waiting for tools , but that no supervisor
was around.
5. Diklich. Diklich denied campaigning during working hours, although he did
admit that when Stephens was talking to employees Caltury and Tufts (as
noted above ) he (Diklich ) joined the conversation and refuted Stephens' argu-
ments. Buckley testified that Diklich spied on him and that he saw him standing
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outside the aisle from the storeroom talking with Barnes and two others . Deemer
testified that Diklich talked to her one time, after he-had reported , her to her fore-
man with respect to the Gallio incident, and that the subject of his conversa-
sation was unions, stating that she should have.kept an open mind and should
have attended at UE. meeting. - Diklich testified that during the week of the
election he was going to wash his hands before dinner, and he stopped and
talked to a girl and then stopped and engaged in a conversation with two IBEW
men and a UE nian and that he asked, "How are things going on your side"
when Hepner came up and ordered him back to his area stating, "You guys want
the other side to play fair but you don't play fair." He stated that Hepner also
told him he was going to report him to his foreman but he heard no more about it.
Diklich replied , "I don't care if you turn me in." Shortly thereafter the whistle
blew and Diklich went to dinner. Hepner testified that the above incident took
place about 10 minutes before lunch , that he had been looking for Diklich to bring
material, and that he reprimanded Diklich for-not doing-so and stopping work
before lunch time.
6. Ettore Angelilli. Vincent J. Lucy, wl}o worked in A-5 as an oiler, testi-
fied that Angelilli talked to several people and also stopped him the day before
the election during working hours and asked him to vote for the UE. He also
testified that Angelilli had done this several times before, including one time at
the coke machine when there were three or four people around', and at that
time Angelilli was talking about the good points of the UE and the bad points
of the IBEW. He also testified that during working hours he saw Angelilli hand
out UE buttons to four people in C-2 and they were pinning thei on. How-
ever he made no complaint and saw no supervisors around.
7. Olson. Olson admitted early organizational activity but denied electioneer-
ing during the campaign although he did state that Fable had asked him about
it following a complaint from Sell. He also stated that he was watched,
especially on the way to the washroom.
Capo testified, however, that Olson worked right in front of him and he would
stop people coming by , shut down his machine, and talk to them-"as - long as
he could get away with it, as long as the foreman wasn't around." Ile also
stated that Olson would frequently bring UE literature over to him and read
portions to him, and that on one occasion Olson asked him to sign a petition
for the removal of two IBEW officials, and that he also took it to other employ-
ees. He stated that Olson would be gone for extended periods of time fre-
quently going to the men's room, and that he heard Olson campaigning for
the UE there . Capo also testified that at one time his foreman complained
to him about not doing his work and that in reply , he objected , stating that
Olson and others did far less than he did. Finally , Capo testified that Olson
talked to everyone in the group campaigning for the UE 'and mocked IBEW
literature , and that he talked to Bob Smith , Petrelli , and a girl in another,
section.
Buckley also testified that Olson was in the group with Rini , consisting of
Petrelli , Chiapetta , and others at the coke machine in B-1, and was also in the
group at the tool crib daily . He also stated that he complained to Crook
about Olson conducting UE meetings in the men 's room but that they still con-
tinued. Crook testified that he asked Formen Yemm and Fable to check
the activity in the men's.-room.. Fade testified that he broke up..gatherings.in
the men's room and that he spoke to Olson particularly.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 975
5. Testimony with •rspect..to electioneering of other UE adherents who did not
appear as witnesses
1. Harry Weibster. Kvaternik testified that he saw Webster on various occa-
sions talking to employees in A-1 and the toolroom, and that'when he came
near he stopped talking and walked away. Kvaternik stated that if Webster
had been talking to IBEW people on these occasions, Kvaternik asked them "Has
Harry swung you yet," and that they replied "not yet but he is trying." Kvater-
nik did not report Webster and no foreman was present.
Whittingham testified that several times during working hours she saw
Webster talking to several men at the drill presses and none of them were work-
ing. She also stated that Webster handed her a UE pamphlet, although he
knew she was IBEW, and that he passed out UE literature in his section during
the lunch hour. Brockett testified that he observed UE activities during work-
ing hours, and that Webster was one of the leaders.
Klotz testified that, Webster' came in before his shift started and talked to
Della McCombs and Irving Barnes, who were still working, and that this
happened more than once. He reported this to Foremen Vargo and Martin,
complaining that if his people couldn't converse, then the UE people shouldn't
be permitted to either.
2. Walter Godleski. Kvaternik testified that Godleski tried to get him to
sign a UE card on his working time before the election, and that he also
campaigned for the UE during the election period, talking to Kvaternik and
all the people in his department.
3. Timlco. Timko's activity at the coke machine has already been related in
connection with the testimony as to Kvaternik activities, who also testified
he saw Timko in his department talking to employees and that he had no busi-
ness there.
4. Howard Begley. Loman F. Adkins, who worked in G5, testified that he
belonged to no union, that Begley, his group leader, electioneered during working
hours, and that on the. morning of the election Begley was passing out UE pins,
,and that he pinned one on Paul Frazzani and also tried to pin one on him.
,Adkins told Begley that he didn't want one and Begley argued about it saying,
"What is the matter? I thought you were for us." Adkins stated that he had
also seen Begley passing out buttons during the week before the election, during
working hours, although he did not know whether Foreman Hefner observed such
activity and he did not make a complaint.
Arthur Bray, who also worked in C-5, testified that at the time of the election
he was not a member of either union and participated in neither side. He
stated that Begley left his area repeatedly during working hours and elec-
tioneered, speaking to each one of the dozen or more in his department, and that
he asked Bray repeatedly to vote for the UE. Bray stated that he complained to
Begley about it but it did no good, but that he did not complain to his foreman.
Bray also stated that Begley handed out UE leaflets and dropped them on
benches. Finally, he stated that Begley was very flagrant in his electioneering
and that Begley was the only one he witnessed doing any electioneering.
Maxine Carrier, also employed in C-5, testified that Begley talked union
almost constantly and tried to sign up girls working on her line, and that he
spoke to her about a week before the election about the UE and wanted to give
her a card. She stated that she refused but instead joined the IBEW. She
also stated that later Begley also told her, "If I were you, I would join the UE."
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
She stated . that following the first conversation she reported it to her foreman,
and that her foreman talked to Begley , but it did no good nor did any subsequent
complaints . She further stated that another girl, Miss Synder, was not a union
member, and that he did everything in his power to get her to join. She also
stated that Begley was in a position to make things "rough," and that after
she joined the IBEW, when she would ask Begley about lack of materials, he
would reply , "See your union."
Buckley testified that he saw Begley around the section stopping to talk to
people, and that he complained to Hefner about it, after other employees had
complained to him about Begley's activities . Buckley also . testified that Begley
was one of the group of UE adherents who congregated daily at the toolroom.
Stephens , also a group leader in C=5, testified that Begley tried to sign up
one of his girls during working hours and that she reported the matter to him.
He also stated that Begley was around his table and when he asked Begley what
he was doing , Begley walked away. Stephens also testified that Begley came
up to him the day of the election and said, "Well, Stephens , I guess it is all over
for you and I," because we had already voted in the C-5 area. He said, "How
do you think it is going to turn out ?" I said it would be pretty close. I
wouldn't venture an opinion . He said, "Well , if 'you guys lose this thing, you
can blame yourselves ." I said, "What do you mean by that?" He said, "Well,
you fellows didn't do any campaigning ." He said, "You passed stuff out the
gate. I don't think it did much good ." He said, "you have to go out and
get people , especially your stewards . They weren ' t aggressive. They just set
back and let us do all of it."
5. Petrelli . " Buckley testified that Petrelli was also one of the UE adherents
who congregated at the toolroom and at the coke machine ; and at the latter.place
stopped people and talked to them. He stated that on one occasion there ivas a
group, consisting of Petrelli and three others, at one of the grinders in the tool-
room, and that he complained to Sell who "run him out of there."
6. Bob Chiapetta . Karr' testified that Chiapetta , during the week before the
election , came over to her section five or six times a day and talked to the girls,
that he had no business being there , and that she complained to Krause who
went over to him but that she didn 't hear the conversation . In any event,
Chiapetta still came over to her section after that. Buckley named Chiapetta
as being one of the group of UE adherents previously mentioned . He also
testified that he observed Chiapetta in B-1 talking to the girls and then going
over to the electric truck drivers and back.
.
Krause testified'that he received _ a complaint. from the drill press - room that
Chiapetta was teasing the girls about their union buttons , and that they were
crying, and that he told Chiapetta that they would not permit electioneering,
and that he would have to report him, that Chiapetta admitted the charge and
asked for another chance , which Krause granted.
7. Bob Smith . McNabb testified that on three or four occasions during the
election period, he observed Smith passing out UE buttons on company time;
that on one occasion when he was asked for a button , Smith said he was out of
them, and that he would go out and see UE organizer , Lovett, at the gate at
dinner time and get another supply. McNabb states that there was no fore-
man present ' on these occasions , and that he did not complain about it, as "it
didn't have anything to do with me."
8. Mike Meriage . Buckley testified that Meriage was a maintenance helper,
that one of the stewards called him and asked him to get Meriage out of his
section, and that he (Buckley ) passed the complaint along to Ferguson. Fer-
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 977
guson confirmed this, ,stating that he talked to Meriage about it, that Meriage
admitted electioneering, and that Ferguson told him to break it up and not to.
continue it.
9. Irving Barnes. Klotz' testimony regarding conversations between Webster
and Barnes and Becka and Barnes has already been related. Betty Murray tes-
tified that Barnes roamed the plant although his work should have confined him
to one line and that she complained to Foreman McDonald about it. She did not-
know if anything was done about it.
10. Floyd Herzog. Murray testified that just prior to the election Herzog askedl,
two girls, during working hours, to put on-UE buttons, and that they refused,
and that she reported this to the foreman but that nothing further came of it..
Murray stated that "complaints were cropping up all day from various parts:
of the section about Floyd's activities," and that she then spoke to Klotz about:
Herzog as she knew that they were friends. Klotz testified that he called Herzog.
to the rest room and had a "hard talk" with him as a friend and warned him,
if he was, caught "maybe there would' be dire circumstances." Klotz stated
that he later asked the foreman if Herzog had been reported to him and was.
told that he had not been reported.
11. Alex Wheeler. Klotz testified that Wheeler, a repair man for Aro drivers,.
was summoned to do work in his section, that on the way to and from the job
Wheeler stopped and talked to two girls in his department, that Klotz asked
Wheeler not to talk to the girls but to leave, and that Wheeler "sneered" at'him.
Klotz also stated that when he spoke to the girls "they flashed a couple of UE
buttons at me, which five minutes before they didn't have on." Klotz stated
that he told his chief steward about the incident and also reported it to the..
foreman, but that he did not know whether the foreman talked to Wheeler..
Klotz also testified that Wheeler talked to operators on the job on a number of
other occasions.
D. Testimony with respect to the existence, application, and enforcement of comm
pang rules (1) against distributing literature on company property, and (2)
against electioneering on company time
1. The existence of the rules
As much of the testimony relating to the rules was intermingled they will for
convenience be treated together by the undersigned in this report.
Crook testified that these rules were established by local management when,
the plant opened in 1947, and had been in effect continuously since that time,
including during the previous elections, and that both unions involved herein
have been engaged in organizational efforts since the plant opened. With respect
to the literature rule, he stated that the reasons for putting this rule into effect
were: (1) ,As the two unions have always been in the picture, it was necessary
to insure neutrality, (2) the existence of the problem of policing, and the Com--
pany'did not want to include surveillance in the normal functions of supervisors,.
(3) the staggered lunch period presented the problem of what times the various.
employees could distribute literature, (4) the Company had a new plant which
it was anxious to keep as clean and presentable as possible, and the litter problem
was easier to handle if literature was brought in single sheets rather than 'in
large amounts, and (5) the problem of getting out normal production and still
give.freedom to employees to select a bargaining representative. With respect
to the electioneering rule, Crook stated that the Company's instructions to
foremen were: (1) To maintain a strictly neutral position, (2) to enforce the
978 DECISIONS.OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
company policips• impartially, (3) to break up all gatherings of employees; and
(4) to maintain discipline.
These rules and instructions were given orally and in writing in 1947, and
again before the last election, and a notice to employees was also posted on the
bulletin board on January 30, 1950.7
2. Application and enforcement of literature rule
As to the distribution of literature, the Company was convinced that there were.
adequate facilities for distribution of literature outside the plant, at the en-
trances.' The Company bases its position on the experience it had in the previous
two elections during which the same rule was in effect.
The evidence indicates that no protest has ever been made against the litera-
ture rule, but that when the arrangements between the parties were being made
to hold the consent election in this case, UE Representative Newell requested that
the rule be' waived as to gate 6 ; that is, that distribution - of literature be per-
iilitted at gate 6, which is on company property between the large parking lot
and the plant proper. The Company did not agree to this request,again -asserting
its desire to remain impartial, and stating that it was of the opinion that the
rule did not prevent employees from being informed as to the issues of the
election.
Crook testified that literature was taken from employees at the plant entrances
on four occasions, to-wit : From Angellilf, UE adherent, from Mackeage and
Paul Johnson, IBEW adherents, and from John Wilkins, an employee in the
sales department, not a member of or eligible for membership in either union.
He further stated that there was a great volume of literature found' in the plant
which had to be cleaned up, that a file was made of literature picked up in the
plant, which was representative of the literature on both sides, but did not contain
all the literature distributed.' The Company did not prevent each employee from
bringing in one, or even three or four pieces, of literature as it came out, but
employees were prevented from bringing batches or stacks of literature into
the plant.
The record also indicates that after the IBEW was certified in 1948, it requested
permission to distribute literature inside the plant and as a result of negotiations
and as a compromise, the Company permitted the IBEW to use boxes erected
just inside two of the entrances to hold copies of the union paper (Union-Light
Review), as they were issued, and that this privilege was withdrawn at the
beginning of the election period. Crook also stated that he did not consider
this as a "campaign literature" in any event.
Rhoades testified that he saw IBEW literature in large quantities all over
the plant, on desks, machines, and in the rest rooms, and that he also saw
UE literature. Rhoades passed out literature on the road outside the parking
lot. Becka stated that he saw literature in various sections of the plant.
Celich testified that during the election week, Schunk, Moritz, and himself went
out during lunch hour to get some literature from Lovett at the gate;'and then
came back into the plant and started passing it out and laying it on benches.
A copy thereof is in evidence designated as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The pertinent
portions thereof are that the position of the Company. "is one of strict neutrality" and
"The Beaver Plant rule against union organizing and campaigning during working hours
will be enforced impartially among all parties."
8 As noted, the plant is located 2 blocks from the populated portion of the city and out-
side the city limits. The plant is bounded on three sides by public highways.
0 The file consisted of 10 pieces of IJ3BW literature and 11 pieces of UE literature.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 979
He stated that he had about 30 sheets . Police Captain Sorenson saw him pass-
ing out leaflets, and asked Celich to give them up, which he refused to do.
Sorenson then took Celich to Works MLnager Pickering 's office. Pickering said
that they (the UE) had complained about literature and now they turned
around and were doing it too. Celich said he thought they could pass it out
on company property during lunch time. Pickering made it clear that he could
not do so and that some disciplinary action should be taken. Pickering also
instructed him to tell other employees in the plant not to pass out literature in
the plant. However, Celich was finally permitted to go.back to work, after leav-
ing the literature with Pickering . When he returned , his foreman told him to
stay on the job. It was after this incident that the company notice of January
30 was posted . Celich testified that subsequent to this incident , foremen
patrolled the plant watching for literature.
Mittner testified that Whittingham passed out literature daily during lunch
hour, but that she did not complain. Whittingham admitted that she did so on
three occasions until she was warned by Nunamker not to do so . Nunamker
confirmed this, stating that she told him that she thought it was all right to do
so during lunch. He further stated that as far as he knows, she kept her promise
not to continue the practice.
Angellili testified that one noon, as he was hurrying out of the gate he was
given some UE literature , and that he put it in his shirt, that on his return he
was stopped at the gate by a guard and asked to turn over the literature. After
.first denying that he had it he did turn it over to the guard. He was taken
to Sorenson's office and then told to go back to work.
MacKeage testified that on January 25, he was passing out leaflets at the
entrance and having some extras decided to take them into the plant, that as he
was going through gate 6 a guard stopped him and made him leave the literature
with the guard. He also testified that he witnessed a similar incident in con-
nection with Paul Johnson. He also testified that on three occasions he saw
UE literature spread all over C-5 and on the benches when he came to work in
the morning.
Kvaternik testified that he found UE literature around the plant when he came
on at 4 p. m., that on several occasions he found it in his tool drawer and in
his jacket , and that he also found a UE button pinned on his jacket.
Whittingham testified that Webster handed her a UE pamphlet in the plant
and also handed them out to his group.
Brockett testified that he brought in 40 to 50 leaflets and divided them among
the stewards and laid some on the benches. He stated that he knew of the
rule but that no foreman was around at the time, and also that in his opinion
the rule was more violated than observed by both sides.
Other testimony in connection with the distribution of literature is as follows :
Bray testified that Begley had a stack of leaflets and handed them out in the.
plant. Lucy testified that Angellili handed out UE buttons during working
.hours. Capo testified that-Olson brought in UE literature, and that Olson did
as much as he could "get by with." Capo also testified that he saw UE member-
ship cards in the plant. McNabb testified that he saw Rini pass out a UE
leaflet called the "Snake Pit" to nearly everyone in the section during working
'lours and that he had a roll of them . He also testified that he saw Bob Smith
pass out UE buttons during working hours, but that no foreman was present
when either Rini or Smith engaged in this activity. Cummings testified that he
passed out literature at the gate when the UE did, and that they both had the
same opportunity to do so. Foremen Ferguson, Hepner, and Geyer testified
917572-51-vol. 91-63
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they picked up literature in the plant. Geyer added that if it had been.
brought in bulk it would have been worse and that it was bad enough as it was.
3. Testimony of supervisors with respect to the application and enforcement
of the electioneering rule.
In addition to the incidents already noted in this connection, a number of
foremen testified that they received instructions with respect to the rule, for
example, Ferguson, Hopner, Rasp, Fullerton, Fahle, Geyer, and Nunamker:
Specific incidents of the actions of the foremen in connection with electioneering
have already been noted. However, there was no rule against discussing the
campaign in the plant on the employees' own time and there is considerable
testimony of various employees that they did so. The evidence also indicates
that in spite of the rule, there was some electioneering on company time with-
out the knowledge or consent of supervisors.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. With respect to the allegation that agents of the IBEW engaged in interference'
and coercion against employees
Assuming the incidents occurred as related in paragraph I, B, above, it ap-
pears that; The incidents are isolated incidents; 10 both employees involved are
still employed ; the incidents occurred -during the heat of an election cam-
paign when it is natural and common for employees in rival organizations
to engage in argument ; and there is no evidence, or even any claim, that the-
ballots of the two employees, or any other employees, were affected by such
incidents. The fact that more serious and frequent arguments did not occur,
that production was not affected during the election period, and that there were
no acts of violence, speaks well for all parties concerned.
In such circumstances, the undersigned does not find on the basis of the
evidence in this regard, that the eligible voters were restrained, coerced, or
in any other manner, prevented from exercising a free choice in the selection
of bargaining representative. The Board has consistently stated that it leaves
to the good sense of the voter the task of appraising campaign propaganda,
and considers it the function of the interested parties to counteract the effect
of campaign statements that are merely exaggerated, inaccurate, or untrue.'
It is also significant that company records showed, and it is undisputed, that
production did not suffer during the election period.
The undersigned concludes, therefore, that this objection of the UE is with-
out merit.
B. With respect to the allegation that the Employer permitted electioneering on
behalf of the IBEW while denying a similar opportunity to the UE
The UE argued that, through the operation of the steward system, the IBEW
in effect carried on an unrestrained election campaign. The undersigned does
not find that the evidence supports this contention. In the first place, the con-
tract arrived at as a result of negotiations, specifically set out the grievance
procedure under which the parties operated and this was in effect during the
"Cf. Southern Wood Preserving Co., 89 NLRB 1243; Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills,
89 NLRB 943.
11 See N. P. Nelson Iron Works, Inc., 78 NLRB 1270: Champion Spark Plug Company,
80 NLRB 47. See also Maywood Hosiery Mills, 64 NLRB 146.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 981:
term of the contract, that is, until its expiration on April 30, 1950. The under
signed finds no decision and none was cited by the UE, in which the Board has
stated that it requires the parties to a contract to abandon procedures provided
for therein during an election proceeding (which is what the UE in effect is
requesting).
The closest case in point (The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1407),"
appears to be contra to the UE's position. In that case, following an election,
the UAW-CIO filed objections to the election, one of which was
that the Employer knowingly permitted the Petitioner's committeemen to
roam throughout the plant during the period of the original election and
prior to the run-off election for the purpose of campaigning and electioneer-
ing for the Petitioner while on the Employer's. time and property.
The Regional Director in his investigation found :
The Petitioner functions through a committee, and it is the activities of
the members of this committee, hereinafter referred to as the committeemen,
that constitute the basis of the objections under consideration.
At all times since the consolidation of the plants in 1948, the Employer
has dealt with the committeemen in regard to grievances. The committee-
men have been permitted to leave their respective departments at will on
the Employer's time for the purpose of processing grievances, and to absent
themselves from their employee-duties for "committee work" with no loss in
compensation for the time so spent'
However, the Regional Director found no evidence to support the conten-
tion that the Employer discrimint}torily permitted adherents of the Peti-
tioner to campaign, for the Petitioner on company time and property. To
the contrary, the Regional Director found that adherents of UAW-CIO, as
well as of the Petitioner, campaigned for their respective organizations dur-
ing working hours and on the Employer's property, free from disciplinary
action. [Emphasis supplied.]
"The president of the Petitioner spends at least one-third of his time in performing
"committee work" on the Employer' s time and property.
The Board held:
Upon the facts in this case, we find that neither the action of the Employer
in dealing with the Petitioner's committee concerning grievances, occurring
as it did over a period of nearly 18 months prior to the run-off election and
carried out, pursuant to the contracts entered into by the Employer with the
Petitioner's predecessors; nor-the above-described activity,of the committee-
men on the date of the run-off election [which was another ground for ob-
jection] restrained or interfered with the employees in their choice of a
bargaining representative.
Furthermore, from a careful consideration of all the evidence adduced, the
undersigned is not persuaded that the Company "permitted" the IBEW, through
the operation of the steward system, or in any other manner, to electioneer on
company time and property. On the contrary, the undersigned concludes that
the weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (1) Supervisors were instructed
to enforce impartially the rule against electioneering on company time; (2) that
they did so, and whenever any such incidents came to their attention, either
through their own observation or as a result of a complaint, they took action
'a See also Baiter-Schweitzer Hop and Malt Co., 78. NLRB 327.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to stop and prevent it; (3) that adherents of both Uni,onS had opportunities to
travel through the plant ; (4) that there were some adherents of both Unions who
did some electioneering, but that these instances were without 'the consent or
knowledge of the Company; and (5) that from the incidents testified to (even if
all the testimony were construed in its most favorable light as far as the UE
was concerned) the UE did as much or more electioneering on company time
and property than did the IBEW.
The undersigned, therefore, is of the opinion that the UE has not met the bur-
den of proof in support of this allegation, or sustained its position in this respect,
and that, therefore, this objection is without merit.
C. With respect to the rule against distributing literature
There is no charge on file alleging the invalidity of this rule, and hearing in the
instant case was ordered to take evidence on "the application and enforcement"
thereof. The function of the Board in election proceedings is to provide an
opportunity for employees to register their free and uncoerced choice at the polls."
The question, therefore, in the instant case, in the opinion of the undersigned,
is whether the application and enforcement of the rule against distributing
literature actually prevented or hindered such a choice. This question must be
answered on the basis of the testimony presented. There is no testimony that :
(1) The purpose of the rule was to obstruct or to prevent union organization ; (2)
the employees were prevented from being advised with respect to the issues of
the campaign; (3) the votes of any employees were affected as a result of the
rule; and (4) the rule was not impartially enforced.
The record does show, however, that : (1) The Company gave a reasonable,
nondiscriminatory reason for invoking the rule and that it had been in effect,
without objection being raised by anyone at any time, since 1947; (2) there
were ample facilities for distribution of literature and it was distributed freely,"
that each employee had the opportunity to bring in one or even three or four
pieces of literature, that quantities of literature did make their way into the
plant, some of it being thrown away, and that employees were informed as to
the issues; (3) the rule was impartially enforced, adherents of both sides being
warned against bringing it in and prevented from doing so when noticed. As
noted, however, adherents of both sides managed to bring in quantities of litera-
ture all during the campaign in spite of the rule and efforts of the Company to
enforce it.
The undersigned is, therefore, of the opinion that the application and enforce-
ment of the Employer's rule against distributing literature on the Employer's
property did not prevent the. employees from registering a free. and uncoerced
choice at the polls."'
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accordingly, in the opinion of the undersigned, the UE's objections do not raise
substantial or material issues with respect to the election, and it is hereby recom-
mended that they be overruled. Further, that the application and enforcement
of the Employer's rule against distributing literature on the Employer's. property
did, not atgect the results of the election. It is further recommended that since.
the I'BEW has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast,, that it be certified as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit.ie
"See Champion. Spark, Plug; supra, See also, G. H. Hese; Incorporated, 82 NLRB 463.
14 Cf. Maryland Dry Dock Co., 88 NLRB 1305 (where facilities were inadequate).
15 See General Motors Corp.,.73 NLRB 74'.
16 See Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company, 60 NLRB 814.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 983
. As provided in the Board 's Order Directing Hearing on Objections , any party
may, within ten (10 ) days of the receipt of this Report, file with the Board in
Washington , D. C., an original and six ( 6) copies of exceptions thereof. Im-
mediately upon the filing of such exceptions the party filing shall serve a copy
thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director , Sixth Region, National Labor Relations Board, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania.
GERALD P. LEICHT,
Hearing Officer.