Carrollton Furniture Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of CARROLLTON FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AIITOMomLE WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER Case No. 9-R-2693.Decided January 6, 19.4 Mr. John J. Grealis, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. P. 1V. Deubery, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Employer. Messrs. Peter G. Noll and E. F. Eckert, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. Fred Fulford, of Huntingburg, Ind., and M11r. August 1V. Bahr, of Tell City, Ind., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on June 12, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among the employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 142 eligible voters, and that of these, 1r8 cast valid ballots, of which 67 were for and 61 were against the Petitioner. In addition, 3 ballots were chal- lenged; they are, however, insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On June 16, 1947, United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. O., protested the results of the election on the ground that it was given insufficient time to show its interest to enable it to be placed on the ballot. On June 18, the Employer also protested the results of the election on the ground that the Petitioner unduly influenced the vote of employees in the election. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Cin- cinnati, Ohio, ' on July 15, 1947, before Clifford L. Hardy, hearing officer. United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. 0., moved to intervene in the proceeding, and its motion was granted over the ob- jection of the Petitioner. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 75 N L R. B., No. 85. 710 CARROLLTON FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 711 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Carrollton Furniture Manufacturing Company, a Kentucky cor- poration, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avco Manufacturing Com- pany. It is engaged at its plant in Carrollton, Kentucky, in the manufacture of wood radio cabinets. During a 12-month period the Employer purchases for use at this plant approximately $500,000 worth of raw materials, 90 percent of which represents shipments from points outside the State of Kentucky. During a similar period. the Employer manufactures finished products valued at approximately $1,000,000, all of which are slopped to the Crosley Division of the Avco Manufacturing Company in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of National Labor Relations Act. II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer." United Furniture Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in such a unit. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties, that all production and maintenance employees, excluding office and I The Petitioner has waived its rights to object to any election held -in the instant pro- ceeding on the basis of any of the acts alleged by it as unfair labor practices in Case No. 9-C-247s. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD office clerical employees, timekeepers, watchmen, time-study men, assistant foremen, foremen, superintendents, and all or any other supervisors constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES As already indicated, both the Intervenor and the Employer urged that the election be vacated, the Intervenor contending that it was given insufficient time to present its showing of interest to enable it to be placed on the ballot, and the Employer asserting that the Peti- tioner unduly influenced the vote of the employees in the election by publishing in the press and distributing in circular form, false and misleading accusations against it. In our opinion, however, no ob- stacle exists to the issuance of a certification herein based on the re- sults of the election. Thus, as respects the Intervenor's position, even granting that its contentions had validity when made and that the direction of a second election with the Intervenor on the ballot was then indicated, issues which we are not presuming to pass upon, we are now precluded from granting the Intervenor's request for a place on the ballot in such an election in view of its non-compliance with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act, as amended.2 A second election would consequently serve no useful purpose, as it would afford the employees the same choice which they had in the first election. Nor can we agree with the Employer's contention that the Peti- tioner's pre-election conduct should void the election. We have here- tofore held that we cannot properly censor propaganda material used by unions in a pre-election campaign and that there is no real danger in leaving to the good sense of the voter the task of appraising such elec- tion practices by unions and in referring to the opposing parties the duty of correcting inaccurate or untruthful statements by any of them.3 We are satisfied that the assertions and characterizations used by the Petitioner fall into the category of propaganda. Moreover, we note that the Employer had ample opportunity, of which it availed itself, to counteract any allegedly derogatory and false campaign statements. Accordingly, we find that the conduct complained of did not prevent the employees from exercising a free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. We conclude therefore that the Enn- ployer's objections do not raise substantial or material issues with re- 2 See Matter of Nilson Transit Co, 75 N L R B 181, Matter of Sigmund Cohn cC Co., 75N L R B 177 3 See Matter of Krodei -Reubel Company, 72 N L R B 240 , Matter of Dolltinger Cor- poration, 70 N L R. B 1278; Matter of Merrimac Mills Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 308, Matter of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc, 64 N. L It B.,146 CARROLLTON FURNITURE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 713 spect to the conduct of the election and the objections are hereby over- ruled.4 As indicated above, the Tally shows that a majority of the valid votes cast have been cast for the Petitioner and the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the balloting. Ac- cordingly, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appro- priate. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS h EREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo- bile Workers of America, A. F. of L., has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and maintenance employees at the Carrollton, Kentucky, plant of Carrollton Furniture Manufacturing Company, excluding office and office clerical employees, timekeepers, watchmen, time-study men, assistant foremen, foremen, superintend- ents and all or any other supervisors, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. The Employer also appeals to attack the validity of the election on the ground that it should have been delayed until after disposition by the Board of the unfaii labor practice charges filed by the Petitioner, even though N^aived (see footnote 1, sup>a), and the publi- cation of the Board's findings to the emplo3 ees We find no'merit in this position We have repeatedly held that a determination of iepresentatiyes may be conducted duung the pendency of unfair laboi practice charges if the ch,uging party has, as in this instance, filed a waiver Matter of New England Rctinning, Ine, 74 N L R B 935, Matter of A Gross Candle Company, Inc, 72 N L It B 879