Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

In the Matter Of INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 50 (UTILITIES DIVISION) Case No. R-54.54 (9-R-1006) SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES November 13, 1943 On July 23, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 19, 1943, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). Thereafter, on August 20, 1943, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Acting Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties an Election Report. As to the balloting and its results, the Acting Regional Director reported as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters_______________________ 561 Total ballots cast___________________________________________ 523 Total ballots challenged_____________________________________ 14 Total void ballots_ __________________________________________ 1 Total blank ballots__________________________________________ 0 Total valid votes counted ____________________________________ 508 Votes cast for United Mine Workers of America, District 50 (Utilities Division )_______________________________________ 217 Votes cast for I. P. & L. Employees Protective Association------ 278 Votes cast for neither_______________________________________ 13 Thereafter, timely objections to the conduct of the election were filed by United Mine Workers of America, District 50 (Utilities Divi- sion), herein called District 50, alleging that the Company had im- properly influenced and intimidated the voters and that agents of the Board had failed to conduct the election in strict conformity to established rules and regulations all to the prejudice of District 50. After investigation on October 27, 1943, the Acting Regional Director issued a Report on Objections in which she found that the objections 151 N. L. R. B. 670. 53 N. L. R. B., No. 110. 616 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & 1AGLHT COMPANY 617 of District 50 raise no substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. The objections, 16 in all, are set forth by number and discussed below. District 50 asserts that : 1. Under date of August 16,1943, the Company prepared and dis- tributed to eligible voters the following letter : August 16, 1943 You are on the list of those of the Company's employees who are eligible to vote at the election next Thursday, August 19, which was ordered by the National Labor Relations Board in order to give those on the eligible list an opportunity to choose between I. P. & L. Employees Protective Association and United Mine Workers of America, District 50 (Utilities Division). Because it is known that the Company opposed the holding of such an election when the matter was being heard by the Board last May, the Company wishes to make it clear, now that the elec- tion has been ordered, that every employee who is eligible to vote shall, so far as the Company is concerned, have an opportunity to vote. The Company, therefore, takes this means of informing you that if there should appear to be any conflict between your work and your opportunity to vote, please take the matter up with your superior and he will release you long enough to enable you to vote. The Company hopes that you and all other eligible em- ployees will exercise the right and opportunity to choose between these two organizations in the secrecy of the ballot that will be provided. Very cordially yours, (S) H. T. PRITcu uir , President, Indianapolis Power & Light Co. The letter appears to be informative and completely lacking in intimi- datory language. We agree with the Acting Regional Director that it does not constitute an interference with the right of employees freely to choose their representatives. 2. An official of the I. P. & L. Employees Protective Association transported employees to the polls on the day of the election. Convincing-evidence was submitted to the Acting Regional Director in support of this objection but such activity is not proscribed. Com- peting unions may frequently agree not to indulge in this practice but we do not agree that the act of the Association official is sufficiently objectionable to raise a substantial issue with respect to the election. 3. and 12. Foreman, bosses, and officials of the Company actively campaigned, electioneered, and solicited employees to vote oD the day of election. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Affidavits in support of those objections were submitted to the Acting Regional Director, who, after investigation, found' that such cam- paigning and electioneering on the part of company representatives had not been proven. In the absence of convincing proof we find the objections to be without merit. 4. An armed guard N' as present at the voting, place and entered into a discussion on challenges. The Acting Regional Director has determined after investigation that an armed guard passed near and through the voting place in the course of his patrol, but did not enter into, any discussion: We find that this in no way interfered with the conduct of the election_ ' 5. Four members of I. P. & L. Employees Protective' Association were present at polling places as observers, No objection is made as to the conduct of these observers and their presence was proper. We find this objection to be frivolous. 6. Voting. was conducted at one place where ineligible' employees and company officials congregated during the voting. The voting place referred to is the cafeteria, the selection off which was agreed to by all the parties. Cooks were present preparing food and a few supervisory employees passed in and out. There is no'evidence that any of these interfered in any manner with the election and we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the objection is without merit. 7. A Board Field Examiner 'failed to challenge the vote of an armed guard. ' The guard in question was not in uniform and was unknown to the Field Examiner. The guard was recognized and hig vote challenged by an observer for District 50. Since the challe},ged ballot was not opened or counted we find no merit in the objection. 8. Discrepancies existed between the list of eligible voters supplied by the Company and the list used in the election. The Acting Regional Director found the lists to be identical except that the list used in the voting listed the names alphabetically. We conclude that this objection is without merit. 9. The Board Field Examiner failed to post sufficient Notices of Election. The Acting Regional Director reports that notices were posted in all usual places. The fact that of 560 eligible voters, 508' cast valid ballots persuades us that the election was,well publicized and that the objection lacks merit. 10. Notices of Election were not posted • in conspicuous places even after District 50 requested the posting of additional notices. INIDL APOUS POWER, & IJLGHT COMPANY 619 The Acting Regional Director reports that District 50 concedes that its request was complied with on the day preceding the election. Con- sequently we find no merit in the objection. 11. Notices of Election were posted where company officials had opportunity to observe those who read the notices. The Acting Regional Director reports that notices were posted on official bulletin boards and other conspicuous places throughout the plant. Naturally this permitted company officials an opportunity to observe those who read them. This objection is utterly without merit. 13. A Board Field Examiner failed to challenge ineligible voters. The Acting Regional Director reports that this objection is identical to objection No. 7 which we have found to be without merit. 14. An ex-official of the Company, a pensioner, had access to company property and electioneered there just before the election. The Acting Regional Director reports that all pensioners of the Company have passes to company property. The ex-official in question denies that he electioneered. We find that District 50 has not sub- mitted convincing proof in support of this objection. 15. Throughout the polling of three-fourths of the votes at one voting place, where over 260 ballots were cast, officials of the Company, bosses, foremen, and others were permitted to congregate in numbers at the voting place and to influence votes. The Acting Regional Director reports that this objection is identical to objection No. 6, which we found, above, to be without merit. Ob- jection No. 16 is a restatement of objections Nos. 6 and 15 without substantial change. We find that none of the objections raises substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot and they are hereby. overruled. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, IT Is FIEREBY CERTIFIED that, I. P. & L. Employees Protective Asso- ciation has been designated and selected by a majority of all produc- tion and distribution employees of Indianapolis Power & Light Com- pany, Indianapolis, Indiana, including those categories and individ- uals named in Section IV, Subsection A of the Decision and Direction 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Election, herein, and the Appendix thereto, but excluding those categories and individuals set forth in Section IV, Subsection B, of the aforesaid Decision and Direction of Election, as well as all clerks, stenographers, typists, teletype operators, telephone operators, ac- countants, billers, collectors, salesmen, saleswomen,. guards, special police and watchmen, engineers, draftsmen, technical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) 'of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.