The Crosley Corp.

In the Matter of THE CROSLEY CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS or AMERICA, CIO Case No. 9-R-1417 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER Febi-uar°y 15, 1945 On June 28, 1944, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the 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 July 25, 1944, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). On July 26, 1944, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties an Election Report. As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters----------------------- 830 Valid votes counted---------------------------------------- 676 Votes cast for United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO-------------------------------------------- 307 Votes cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-1127, A. F L------------------------------------- 345 Votes cast against participating unions ---------------------- 24 Challenged ballots------------------------------------------ 5 Void ballots----------------------------------------------- 0 On July 29, 1944, the UE filed objections to the conduct of the election and petitioned the Board to set aside the results of the election on the following grounds : (1) that foremen and group leaders of the Company, prior to the election, urged employees not to join the UE but to vote for the IBEW; (2) that the Company permitted officers and representatives of the IBEW to circulate freely through the Company's plant prior to the election, and that such representatives solicited employees to support the IBEW; (3) that representatives of the IBEW were per- 156 N. L. R. B. 1722. 60 N. L. R. B., No. 115. 623 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mitted to talk to employees in the plant during working hours; (4) that the IBEW on the morning of the election distributed campaign literature "in violation of long established election rules of the Board;" (5) that the Company, upon demand of the IBE«T made subsequent to the filing of the UE petition, discharged employees because they favored the UE; and (6) the Company permitted the IBEW to dis- tribute leaflets on company property but denied the same privilege to the UE. On October 19, 1944, the Regional Director, having in- vestigated the matter, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections. On November 5, 1944, it appearing that the said objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot, the Board ordered a hearing on said objec- tions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 5 and 6, 1944, at Richmond, Indiana, before R. N. Denham, Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, the UE, and the IBEW appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be•heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded oppor- tunity to file briefs. On January,5, 1945,-the Trial -Examiner, pursu- ant to an Order of the Board, issued a Report on Objections to Election. Thereafter, the UE filed exceptions to the Report on Objections to Election and a supporting brief. Oral argument, in which all parties participated, was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on January 25, 1945. Upon the entire record in the case, the Election Report, the objec- tions of the UE, the Report on Objections, and the record previously made, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT It is clear from the record, and admitted by the Company, that dur- ing the several weeks preceding the election, officers, members, and representatives of the IBEW were permitted to distribute literature freely at the Company's guard office as the employees entered or left `the plant. No comparable facility was extended to the UE. The guard office is located approximately 150 feet from the public highway at the end of a concrete sidewalk leading from the guard office to the highway. On either side of the sidewalk and between the guard office and the highway are large parking lots used by the Company's -employees. The lots are Company property. All persons engaged in the distribution of leaflets on behalf of the UE were not employees of the Company and they were required to remain off all Company property, including the parking lots. This rule was strictly enforced. THE CROSLEY CORPORATION 625 In addition, many of the public buses bringing employees to the plant discharged their passengers on Company property. Although the UE distributors attempted on several occasions to distribute literature on the Company's premises, they were immediately removed from said premises by guards of the Company. The IBEW was allowed the unrestricted privilege of distributing its campaign literature on Com- pany property. Although the Company admits that the disparity of treatment, as set out above, occurred, it states in support thereof that the IBEW distributors were all employees and known to the Company while those engaged in behalf of the UE were unknown to the Company. Since the selection of bargaining representatives is the exclusive concern of the employees, the Board requires that an employer during and before an election shall observe a policy of scrupulous neutrality and shall refrain from any action which may be interpreted as favor- ing any contestant in the election. We are of the opinion and find that the Company's failure to restrain the IBEW from using its premises for literature distributing purposes, or, in the alternative, to accord equal privileges to the UE, constituted a discriminatory and improper assistance to the IBEW in its election campaign and did interfere with the exercise by the employees of their free choice of bargaining representatives. For these reasons and to the extent indi- cated above, we sustain the Union's objection No. 6 to the conduct of the election, and shall direct that the election be set aside. We shall not, however, direct a further election until such time as the Regional Director advises that one may appropriately be held among the em- ployees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate. Inasmuch as the sustaining of the UE's objection No. 6 is sufficient to void the election conducted on July 25, 1944, we find it unnecessary to pass upon its other objections. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor Relations Board hereby vacates and sets aside the election held in this proceeding on July 25, 1944, and the result thereof. 628563-45-vol. 60-41