The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

In the Matter of THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (SPECIAL PRODUCTS PLANT "C"), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS # 821 (AFL), PETITIONER In the Matter of THE GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER COMPANY (SPECIAL PRODUCTS PLANT "C"), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS # 821 (AFL), PETITIONER Cases Nos. 8-RC-11 and 8-RC-45 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION July 11, 1949 On January 10, 1949, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the Board herein,' separate elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region among the employees in voting group (1) consisting of powerhouse employees at the Employer's Special Products Plant "C", Akron, Ohio, and in voting group (2) consisting of employees in the maintenance department at this plant. Upon completion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were issued and duly served upon the parties. The tallies show as follows : (1) Of approximately 13 eligible voters in the powerhouse group, all cast valid ballots, of which 5 were for the Petitioner and 8 were for the Intervenor. (2) Of approximately 55 eligible voters in the maintenance depart- ment group, all cast valid ballots, of which 25 were for the Petitioner and 30 were for the Intervenor. On January 15, 1949, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct af- fecting the results of the two elections. It asserted that certain activity of the Employer, more fully set forth below, prevented a free choice by the employees in the balloting, and requested that the elections be set aside. The Petitioner also asserted that an official of the Intervenor was permitted to act as an official observer during the elections, con- 1 80 N. L. R. B. 1347. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray] 85 N. L. B. B., No. 22. 135 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trary to the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that this observer talked to the voters in a coercive manner. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation. On May 12, 1949, 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 over- ruled. On May 26, 1949, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner's request that the elections be set aside rests, in part, upon the following undisputed facts : On October 16, 1947, the Peti- tioner notified the Employer of its claim to representation of the employees in both the powerhouse and maintenance department voting groups. On October 20, 1947, and on November 24, the Petitioner filed separate representation petitions for the employees in these groups. In the meantime, on November 20, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor, by a memorandum of agreement, extended to Plant C the provisions of a Nation-wide master contract covering the produc- tion and maintenance employees in all plants of the Employer, which had been executed on February 11, 1947, and a supplemental agreement covering substantially similar categories in the Employer's Akron plants, executed on May 5, 1947. Thereafter, and until June 1, 1948, the expiration date of the afore-mentioned agreements, the Employer implemented the provisions of all three of these agreements by apply- ing them to the powerhouse and maintenance employees in Plant C. On June 1, 1948, the parties executed a new master contract and a supplemental agreement which are substantially similar to the old master contract and supplements, in that they contain provisions authorizing the posting of certain union notices by the Intervenor on the Employer's bulletin boards, and providing for the issuance of annual plant passes to certain officials of the Intervenor, permitting them to enter upon the Employer's premises to investigate grievances and conduct negotiations. These contracts are for a term extending to February 10, 1950. From the date of execution of the new contracts, and continuing through the date of the election on January 10, 1949, the Employer continued to implement the provisions of those contracts by applying them to the powerhouse and maintenance employees in Plant C. Pursuant to the. provisions of both the 1947 and 1948 con- tracts, the Employer permitted several of the Intervenor's officials to enter various departments of Plant C for the purpose of transacting business arising under these contracts. Likewise, the Employer authorized the Intervenor to post routine notices of union meetings, union elections, etc., while denying the same privilege to the Petitioner. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 137 We are here concerned with the foregoing facts only insofar as they relate to the Petitioner's attempt to question the results of the elections at this time. The Petitioner learned of the execution of the November 20, 1947, memorandum of agreement extending the provi- sions of the master and supplemental contracts to Plant C before November 24, 1947, the date it filed its petition for the maintenance department employees. Moreover, it must have known the detailed provisions of all the 1947 agreements when those contracts were dis- cussed at the hearing on January 21 and 22, 1948, more than 11 months before the elections. As mentioned above, all provisions of the June 1, 1948, contracts material hereto were contained in the 1947 agreements, of which the Petitioner clearly was aware. Apart from asserting at the hearing that the 1947 contracts did not consti- tute a bar to this proceeding, the Petitioner did not protest the execu- tion of the memorandum extending the provisions of the master and supplemental contracts to Plant C, or the implementation of these agreements before the election, nor did it file any unfair labor prac- tice charges as a result of this activity,. Instead, it chose passively to await the results of the elections. Without passing upon the ques- tion as to whether the activity here objected to might, in other cir- cumstances, be deemed to have constituted interference with the elec- tions, we conclude that, in view of the facts herein, and because of the Petitioner's past acquiescence, there is no warrant for setting aside the elections on the ground that the Employer discriminatorily implemented the provisions of the 1947 and 1948 agreements.2 The Petitioner alleges that the Employer permitted George D. Mill- iron and Anton Sprenc, both of whom are officials of the Intervenor, to engage in organizational activity before the elections at Plant C dur- ing working hours, while refusing to grant a similar privilege to the Petitioner's representative. The Regional Director's investigation discloses that there is no evidence that the Employer had any knowl- edge of such activity. Both Milliron and Sprenc, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, were authorized to visit the plant for the purposes of contract negotiations and the investigation of R Matter of E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company , 81 N. L. R. B. 238 , and cases cited therein . As stated in the duPont case , we find it unnecessary to decide at this time what view we would take of similar activity under different circumstances. Cf. Matter of Mid-West Piping and Supply Co., 63 N. L. R. B. 1060 ; Matter of Radio Corporation of America, 74 N. L. R. B . 1729 ( Mr. Reynolds dissenting ). Although the contract between the employer and a rival union in the latter case was executed after the Board hearing, like the 1948 contracts involved herein , the facts in this case more nearly resemble those in the duPont case . Here, the 1948 contracts merely continued the material provisions of the 1947 contracts , which were executed before the hearing. Although the elections herein were not held until more than 11 months after the hearing, no unfair labor practice charges were filed by the objecting union. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD complaints. Moreover, the 1947 and 1948 contracts specifically pro- scribed organizational activity during working hours, and Sprenc was advised by the manager of Plant C that he should not engage in such activity while present in that plant on official union business. In these circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director that this objection is without merit.3 The Petitioner also objected to the election in the powerhouse vot- ing group on the ground that the Employer postponed the transfer of John Slikkerveer and Carl A. Bennett from positions in the Plant C powerhouse to similar positions in Plant 1 until after the election, in order to enable them to vote for the Intervenor. The Regional Di- rector's investigation discloses that the transfers of these two em- ployees were delayed for a period of several weeks after the election only because Plant 1 was not yet ready to receive them before the election. Accordingly, we find no merit in this objection. The Petitioner further objects to the elections on the ground that Sprenc, who is chairman of Division 7 (Engineering Division) of the Intervenor, was permitted to act as an election observer in behalf of the Intervenor, contrary to the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that while serving in this capacity he engaged in coercive conversation with the voters. The Petitioner asserts that the mere presence of a union official as an observer interfered with the freedom of choice of the employees voting and prevented fair and impartial elections. The Regional Director's investigation reveals that Sprenc is employed .as a part-time employee in Plant No. 1 and that there is no evidence that he engaged in coercive conversation, or otherwise conducted him- self in an improper manner during the elections. For the reasons :stated in our supplemental decision in the United States Gypsum case,' we therefore find no merit in this objection. Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise substantial or material issues. We therefore adopt the Regional Director's report; and, in accordance therewith, we hereby overrule the objections. In its Decision and 3 The Petitioner , in support of its objections, also alleged that Sprenc , while engaging In organizational activity at Plant C , discussed the possible outcome of the election with four or five employees . In reply to a remark that the elections would be close , Sprenc allegedly said that if such a statement were true , the employees had lied to him about how they were going to vote and that "if the elections went AFL the production workers would not work with . [ the maintenance department and powerhouse employees]." The Regional Director found that the allegedly coercive nature of this remark was not within ,the scope of the Petitioner's objections , and hence that it was unnecessary to consider its effect. As the Petitioner has not excepted to the Regional Director's omission of a recommendation based on this statement , we shall adopt this portion of his report and make no determination as to the coercive nature of Sprenc 's remark. 4 Matter of United States Gypsum Company, 80 N. L . R. B. 1205. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 139' Direction of Elections, the Board made no final determination as to. the appropriate unit. The Board said: If a majorty of the employees in either election designate the Petitioner, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. If a majority in either election designate the Intervenor, they will be deemed to have in- dicated their desire to be bargained for as part of the multiplant production and maintenance unit now represented by the Intervenor. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board makes the following : SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT We find that (1) all powerhouse employees employed at the Em- ployer's Special Products Plant "C," Akron, Ohio, excluding all super- visors as defined in the Act, and (2) all employees employed in the maintenance department at the Employer's Special Products Plant "C," Akron, Ohio, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, have selected Local 2, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, (CIO), as their bargaining representative. As the Intervenor is now the recognized exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the multiplant production and maintenance unit, and as the results of the elections show that the employees in the powerhouse and the maintenance department groups at Plant "C" have designated the Intervenor, the Intervenor may now bargain for these employees as part of the multiplant production and maintenance: unit which it currently, represents.