Boeing Airplane Co.

'In the Matter of BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY and SEATTLE PROFES- SIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and SEATTLE PROFES- SIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS (IND) and WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION and SEATTLE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 46, AFL Cases Nos. 19-RCS,41,19-RC-3.1189,19-RC-34/,19-RC-361, 19-RC-367, and 19-RC-381 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION 1 CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ORDER January 19, 1950 Pursuant to a Decision, Direction of Election, and Order 2 issued by the Board, elections by secret ballot Were conducted on November 1, 1949, under the direction and supervision,of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the voting groups described therein. Following the elections, the parties were furnished a separate Tally of Ballots for each voting group. Case No. 19-RC-381: Electricians The Board ordered an election in this case to decide whether the, electrical maintenance employees desired to be represented as a sepa- I All the cases in the caption are not concerned in this decision . In the original decision; the Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos . 19-RC-342 and 19-RC-367. In Case No. 19-RC-361, an election was held on November 1 , 1949, which was won by the Washington. State Nurses Association. This organization was certified by the Regional Director on. November 10, 1949. 2 86 NLRB 368. 88 NLRB No. 72. 227 882191-51-16 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rate unit by the IBEW,3 or wished to be represented by the Machinists as part of the production and maintenance unit, or desired to be represented by no union. The Tally of Ballots shows that there were approximately 111 eligible voters, that 105 valid ballots were cast, of which 42 were for the IBEW, 50 for the Machinists, 2 against either labor organization, and that there were 11 challenged ballots. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, there- after, on November 14, 1949, issued and served upon the parties a Report on Challenged Ballots. In his report he recommended that the challenges to 10 ballots be sustained and the challenge to 1 ballot be overruled. There were no exceptions to this report and we adopt its recommendations. As a result of these findings, it appears that the Machinists has gained a majority of the valid votes cast,4 the employees involved indicating thereby that they desire to be represented as part of the production and maintenance unit. In accordance with our original decision, we will therefore include the electrical maintenance em- ployees in the production and maintenance unit hereinafter found appropriate, and we will dismiss the petition in this case. Case No. 19-RC-341: Chemists In this case the Board ordered an election among a group, of em- ployees of the Employer, described as "chemical testers," to determine whether they wished to be represented as a separate unit by the SPEEA, or by the Machinists as part of the production and main- tenance unit, or by no union. Taking advantage of the opportunity offered in our decision, the Machinists duly notified the Regional Director of its desire to withdraw from this election and its name was accordingly not included on the ballot. The Tally of Ballots cast at the election held November 1, 1949, shows that the SPEEA received all of the 19 valid ballots cast. We will therefore certify the SPEEA as the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the chemical testers in a unit more fully described hereinafter. 3 As in our original decision, we will use short designations for the Unions involved, as follows : Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association, herein called SPEEA. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International Association of Ma- chinists (Ind), herein call Machinists. Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 451, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called Teamsters. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46, AFL, herein called IBEW. 4 Since a conclusive result is reached by our sustaining the challenges of 10 ballots, It will not be necessary to open and count the remaining challenged ballot. BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 229 Case No. 19-RC-344: Production and maintenance employees The Tally of Ballots in this case shows that there were approxi- mately 15,157 eligible voters, that there were 14,767 valid ballots cast, of which 8,107 were for the Machinists , 4,127 for the Teamsters, 401 against either labor organization, and that there were 2,132 challenged ballots. On November 7, 1949, the Teamsters filed Objections to Conduct of Election and Conduct Affecting Results of Election , in which on three grounds, it requested that the election be set aside and that a new election be directed . After an investigation, the Regional Direc- tor issued his Report on Objections in which he found that the objec- tions did not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election and recommended that the Board overrule the objections and certify the Machinists in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Teamsters duly filed exceptions to this report . In its exceptions the Teamsters withdrew one of its three obj ections.6 Objection 1. The Teamsters alleges that the notices of election posted at the Employer's plants and mailed to absentee employees incorrectly stated the voting unit, in that said notices failed to state the eligibility pay- roll period. It is admitted by all the parties that as originally issued the notices did not include the eligibility payroll date . However, upon being apprised of this lack, the Regional Director prepared and sent to the Employer stickers containing such date to be affixed to the notices of election then posted on the bulletin boards . These stickers were affixed before the election. There is some question as to the pre- cise date by which the affixing of the stickers was completed, and whether all the notices posted were so corrected. In our view of the case, it is not necessary to resolve these issues .6 The notice of election did not incorrectly describe the unit or mis- inform the employees as to its coverage . The eligibility date is only a limitation. While its lack might have led employees who were not eligible to vote to try to do so , it could not have caused eligible voters to stay away from the polls . We therefore overrule this objection 7 6 The Teamsters requested oral argument on its objections . We find that the objections, with accompanying affidavit, the Regional Director's report thereon , the exceptions to that .report, and the statements submitted by the Machinists adequately define the issues and the positions of the parties . We therefore deny the request for oral argument. 6 It is also immaterial that the notices to the absentee employees were never corrected. Employees were informed when the ballots were mailed to them that they were on the voting eligibility list. 7 The Suffolk Peanut Company, 73 NLRB 734; Lamar Cotton Oil Company, 67 NLRB 1386. 230 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Objection 0. This objection is based on the fact that some of the ballots contained a mistake concerning the affiliation of the Machinists. After the formal name of the Machinists, these ballots carried the letters (AFL) instead of (IND). There were 260 ballots cast which were so mis- printed. When the Regional Director was unsuccessful in getting an agreement between the parties that the misprinted ballots be counted, such ballots were declared void. While recognizing that the number of defective ballots, in itself, could not have affected the result of the election, the Teamsters main- tains that the distribution of the incorrectly harked ballots prejudiced it in the eyes of the voters. The Teamsters points out that these ballots were used in the early hours of the election. It alleges that the prin- cipal point in its preelection campaign -as that the Teamsters was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor while the Machinists was not. Therefore, it argues that when the employees who cast the 260 ballots during the early hours of the election saw on the official ballot that both unions involved in the contest appeared to be AFL affiliates, they must have concluded that the Teamsters in its election campaign had falsified and misrepresented the facts to the employees; that those who used the ballots undoubtedly communicated this "dis- covery" to thousands of other employees who had not yet voted; and that as a result of this false. rumor spreading throughout the plant, many employees must have become prejudiced against the Teamsters and voted for the Machinists, which they otherwise would not have done. We are constrained to reject this line of argument for the following reason : Even if the misprinted ballots could have led to the spreading of such a false rumor, as so tenuously argued by the Teamsters, this- rumor would have been completely and definitely laid to rest in the minds of each voter by a look at his ballot before he cast it. All the ballots other than the 260 defective ones bore the letters (IND) after the Machinists' designation." Accordingly, we overrule this objection. As the Tally of Ballots shows that the Machinists secured a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election, we shall certify the Machinists as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the following: $ Furthermore , the notices of election correctly labeled the Machinists as independent. BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT 231 In Case No. 19-RC-341, we find the following employees to consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All employees of the Employer in the State of Washington who work in the receiving and testing department performing chemical or electrical laboratory work, excluding clerks and supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. In Case No. 19-RC-344, we find the following employees to consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer in the State of Washington, excluding staff nurses, employees working in the receiving and testing department performing chemical or elec- trical laboratory work; and also excluding stenographers A and B working for foremen, general foremen, inspection supervisors, pro- duction supervisors, and chief timekeepers; production engineers in the Production Planning Department and the Experimental Produc- tion Department working under the job titles of Senior Production Engineer B, Production Engineer A, Production Engineer B, Pro- duction Planner Special and Production Planner B; the following employees in Departments 521 and 525: production control recorders, working group leaders, clerks, expediters, stenographers, and oper- ators of tabulating, key punch, and verifier machines ; power plant operators; truck drivers operating on the public highway; and further excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that in Case No. 19-RC-341, Seattle Profes- sional Engineering Employees Association has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the Employer in the unit hereinabcve found by the Board to be appropriate as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive repre- sentative of al' the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; and IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that in Case NO. 19-RC-344, Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International. Association of Ma- chinists (IND) has been designated and selected by a majority of the 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees of the Employer in the unit hereinabove found by the Board to be appropriate as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees iii such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; and also IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 19-RC-381 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting in part: I believe that the incorrect designation of the Machinists as affiliated with the AFL constituted such a departure from our usual standard of care in conducting elections so as to make. it necessary to set aside the election in Case No. 19-RC-344. The Board has always emphasized its duty in election proceedings to provide employees with an opportunity to express their desires under conditions as nearly ideal as possible. We have said that unless the requisite conditions are present the election fails of its purpose and must be set aside.9 The correct designation of unions on the ballot is basic among such essential requirements. Indeed, the ballot in this important regard must be free from all error likely to influence the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. That requirement was not met here. A substantial number of employees were admittedly allowed to cast ballots which were erroneously marked in a material respect. We should correct this mistake with- out regard to any speculation as to the actual or probable consequence of their use. Even if I were to view the effect of the use of the defective ballots on the election result as a. relevant consideration, I could not join in the decision of the majority, for the circumstances of this case create a doubt that the result of the election was truly representative. There is no warrant for the majority's assumption that the later correctly labeled ballots and the proper notices of election "completely and definitely" exclude the possibility that the balloting during the early hours of the election, when the defective ballots were utilized, may have prejudiced the Teamsters in the eyes of the voters. It is equally proper to assume that their only effect may have been to further con- fuse them. Accordingly, in view of the existing uncertainty that the election provided full opportunity for an expression of the employees' true choice of a bargaining representative, and the fact that it is of General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124. BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 233 vital importance that regularity in the conduct of our elections be vigilantly maintained, I cannot indulge in the presumption of my colleagues that the election has served its purpose. I note also that the posted notices of election failed to state the eligibility payroll period and that, although some attempt was made to correct these defects, it is unclear as to when the corrections were made and whether all the notices posted were corrected. For the foregoing reasons, I would order that the election in Case No. 19-RC-344 be set aside. And for the same reasons, I would with- hold determination as to the unit placement of the electrical mainte- nance employees involved in Case No. 19-RC-381.