Western Electric Co., Inc.

In the Matter of WESTERN ELECTRIC CODIPANY, INCORPORATED, Em- PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL INTO. 1290, A. F. or L., PETITIONER Case No. 18-RC-398 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ORDER AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES November 01, 1949 Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the National Labor Relations Board on August 4,1949,1 elections by secret ballot were conducted on August 31, 1949, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the voting groups described in the said Decision. Following the elections, the parties were furnished with Tallies of Ballots. The tally in Voting Group 1 shows that of the approximately 74 eligible voters in this group, 69 cast valid ballots, of which 1 was for the Petitioner, 49 for the IAM,2 11 for the CWA, and 8 were cast against the participating labor organizations. The Tally of Ballots in Voting Group 2 shows that of the approxi- mately 1,002 eligible voters in this group, 921 cast valid ballots, of which 373 were for the Petitioner, 82 for the CAVA, 466 against the participating labor organizations, and 5 ballots were challenged. The number of challenged ballots was not sufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election, alleging that the Em- ployer, the UE, and the CWA had interfered with the conduct of the election. 1 85 NLRB 563. 2 As in our previous Decision in this proceeding , District Lodge No. 77 of International Association of Machinists is referred to herein as the IAM ; Communications Workers of America, C . I. 0., as the CWA; and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1117, C. I. 0., as the UE. 87 NLRB No. 26. 183 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After an investigation, the Regional Director, on September 27, 1949, issued his Report on Objections, reconunending that the objec- tions be overruled on the ground that they do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election. There- after, the Petitioner filed timely Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report.3 The objections and exceptions of the petitioner are in substance as follows : 1. The Petitioner alleges that front August 29, 1949, to and includ- ing the date of the election, the Employer permitted the UE 4 actively to campaign in the plant but denied similar privileges to the Peti- tioner. In a memorandum issued by the. plant superintendent on March 1, 1949, and at various meetings held before the election, the Employer advised its supervisors that they were to "maintain an atti- tude of complete neutrality . . ." In addition, on August 29, 1949, 2 days before the election, the employees were notified that "All, supervisors have been instructed not to interfere in any way or advise employees with respect to the election." Before the election, the Employer advised its supervisors, and they in turn instructed the employees, that there was to be no electioneering in the plant. Al- though adherents of the UE violated this rule, it was also violated, though less extensively, by the adherents of the Petitioner, and the Employer stopped all such activity which came to its attention and reprimanded the employees involved, without regard to their union affiliation. We are of the opinion that the Employer did not apply the no-electioneering rule discriminatorily, but that, on the contrary, it took reasonable steps to insure the equal treatment and freedom of choice of all employees irrespective of union affiliation.5 2. The Petitioner contends that the fact that an ooserver for the CWA wore a button bearing the initials "CWA" during the election. unfairly influenced the result of the election. This button was ap- proximately 11/2 inches in diameter and was worn on the observer's belt. The Board has held that the wearing of buttons or similar in- signia at an election by participants thei.ein is not prejudicial. to the 3 The ILIA, which was not on the ballot in Voting Group 2, filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's Report. 4 As noted in our original Decision and Direction of Elections herein, the UE was permitted to intervene by reason of its contractual interest, but was not accorded a place on the ballot as it was not then in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. In connection with this objection, the Petitioner submitted the names of various wit- nesses to the electioneering activities of the president of the UE local. In its exceptions, the Petitioner alleged that the Regional Director did not interview an adequate number of these witnesses. In view of the Regional Director's finding that the UE -president did engage in such activity, we are of the opinion that for the Regional Director to have inter- viewed additional witnesses would have been merely cumulative. WESTERN 'ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 185 fair conduct of the election." As the identity of election observers, as -well as the fact that they represent the special interests of the parties, is generally known to employees, we do not believe that the fact that the CWA button was worn by an observer prejudiced the result of the election. 3. During the preelection campaign, the UE urged the employees to vote for "neither" on the ballot, advising them that if the "neither" vote prevailed, the UE would continue to represent them under its contract With the Employer. The UE also publicized a statement al- legedly made to a UE committee by the Employer's plant manager to the effect that if "neither" was selected, the Employer would continue to honor the UE contract. The plant manager denied making, the statement attributed to him and the Petitioner, in its Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections, admitted that it could not adduce proof that the statement had in fact been made-7 Furthermore, we have frequently held that, in the absence of violence or other gross misconduct," the Board does not undertake to police -union campaigns or to consider the truth or falsity of official union utterances .9 We are of the opinion that the statements of the UE were in the nature of legit- imate campaign propaganda, and that they do not warrant setting aside the election. Neither the facts disclosed by the investigation of the Regional Di- rector, nor the facts alleged in the Petitioner's objections and excep- tions, show that the employees were prevented from exercising a free and uncoerced choice at the polls. Accordingly, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule the Petitioner's objections. In the original Decision and Direction of Elections, we made no final unit determination, stating that such determination would de- pend in part upon the results of the elections. The Tallies of Ballots show that a collective bargaining representative has been selected in Group 1, and that no collective bargaining representative has been selected in Group 2. Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:. , SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT We find that all employees of the Employer's St. Paul, Minnesota, plant, engaged in the installation, repair, and maintenance of tools, 6 Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp ., 80 NLRB 1239. 7 We need not , therefore , pass upon the effect , if any , of such a statement if actually made. 8 Cf. Stern Brothers, 87 NLRB 16 ; G. H. Hess, Incorporated, 82 NLRB 463. 9 Kroder-Reubel Company, 72 NLRB 240 ; General Armature & Manufacturing Company, 71 NLRB 413. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD machinery, and equipment, including tool makers, machinists, lathe operators, jig borers, tool and gauge inspectors, grinding machine op- erators, milling machine operators, heat treaters, detail makers, and welders, but excluding utility men, tool keepers, oilers, belt men, clerk typists, technical investigators, electricians, and all other production employees, office and professional employees, guards, all group, sec- tion, and department chiefs, and all other supervisors, as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act, as amended. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certification of repre- sentatives of employees filed by the Petitioner herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed, insofar as it pertains to the employees in Voting Group 2. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that District 77 of International Association of Machinists has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the above-named Employer, in, the unit hereinabove found by the Board to be appropriate in the section entitled "Sup- plemental Findings of Fact, 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 representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Certification of Representatives.