E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.

In the Matter of E . I. DuPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-45 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER January 19, 1949 On June 30 and July 1, 1948, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Thereafter, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that, of the 3,167 valid votes counted 1,551 were cast for and 1,616 were cast against the Petitioner.2 There were 9 void and 14 challenged ballots. On July 6, 1948, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. It asserted that certain activity of the Em- ployer, more fully set forth below, prevented a free choice by the em- ployees in the balloting, and requested that the election be set aside. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation. On August 20, 1948, he issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections. in which he found that the objections raised no substantial and material issues, and recommended that they be overruled and that the petition be dis- missed. On September 7, 1948, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner's request that the election be set aside is based pri- marily upon the following undisputed facts : On December 23, 1947, approximately 1 week after the Petitioner had first claimed recogni 1 77 N L R . B. 935 The Board previously delegated its powers with respect to this case to a three -man panel In view of the importance of the question which has sub- sequently arisen, we deem it advisable for the full Board to consider the issue . Accord- ingly, we hereby unanimously revoke the said delegation of powers. , The Association of Chemical Employees requested, and was granted , permission to withdraw its name from the ballot 81 N. L. R. B., No. 39. 238 E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 239 tion and filed its petition herein, the Employer executed a contract with District 50,3 granting it exclusive recognition and providing, inter alia, for check-off of dues and formal grievance procedures. Thereafter, and continuously until June 30, 1948, the date of the elec- tion, notwithstanding the Board's consideration and rejection of the December 23, 1947, contract as a bar to this proceeding, the Employer implemented its terms in all material respects. It regularly checked off dues, and permitted District 50's four-man grievance committee, on company time, to investigate grievance matters throughout the plant among the more than 3,700 employees. This procedure not only followed the terms of the 1947 contract, but was also in accord with a practice of many years' standing. In this proceeding, we consider the foregoing facts only as they may or may not support the Petitioner's attempt to question the results of the election at this time. The Petitioner must have learned of the execution of the contract in December 1947; certainly it knew the de- tailed provisions of the agreement when it was discussed in the Feb- ruary hearing, more than 4 months before the election. The implementation of the contract followed naturally upon its execution, yet the Petitioner chose not to protest during the 6 months intervening between the making of the contract and the election. Instead, it elected to await the results of the election. Without determining whether or not the activity here objected to constituted interference with the election, on the facts in this particular case we believe that, in view of the Petitioner's past acquiescence, it may not now ask the election be set aside because of this activity 4 We need not, nor do we here, decide what view we would take of similar activity under differ- ent circumstances .5 The Petitioner urges our decision in the Radio Corporation of America case 6 in support of its objections. The facts in that case, however, are distinguishable from those in the instant proceeding. There, a contract between the employer and a rival union was executed after the Board hearing; the election followed the date of the hearing by less than 4 weeks; and the employer, 1 week before the election, granted holiday pay for which it publicly credited the contracting union. The Petitioner also alleges that the Employer sanctioned campaign- ing activity by District 50's grievance committee during working ° District 50, United Mine Workers of America, had been the bargaining representative of the employees involved herein for several years, but its name was not on the.ballot in this election because it was not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. ' Matter of Curtiss Wright Corporation, 35 N. L. R. B. 212; Matter of Precision Castings Company, 27 N. L. R. B. 491. ° Cf. Matter of Mad-West Piping and Supply Co., 62 N. L. R B. 1060. ° Matter of Radio Corporation of America , 74 N. L. R B. 1729. ( Mr. Reynolds dissenting.) 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours, while prohibiting the Petitioner's representatives from engag- ing in similar activity. It appears that the grievance committee, while handling grievance matters among the employees, did campaign for a "No" vote against the Petitioner. The Regional Director's inves- tigation reveals, however, that when apprised of this fact, the Em- ployer made several attempts to stop it, once reprimanding the committeemen in the presence of a group of workers. We agree with the Regional Director that this objection is without merit.7 Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise material or substantial issues. We there- fore adopt the Regional Director's report; and, in accordance there- with, we hereby overrule the objections. As the Tally of Ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been selected, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi- fication of representatives filed herein be, and it is, dismissed. MEMBERS HOUSTON and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. l The Petitioner also contended that the Employer improperly influenced the employees by circulating a letter to each of them on June 10 , 1948 The letter commented on the pending election , and was devoid of any promise or benefit or threat of reprisal. In agreement with the Regional Director's recommendation, to which the Petitioner did not except, we and that this objection also is without merit.