Gardener Machine Co.

GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY 197 outside,' multilith group leaders,t° and first-aid attendants, but excluding investigators , lecturers , senior lecturer, inter- viewers , senior interviewer , confidential employees , profes- sional employees , guards , communications chief, assistant recreation division chief, and other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9Before the hearing, the Teamsters, which represents the Employer's truckdrivers, requested recognition as bargaining agent for the buyers, senior buyers, expediters, and messengers outside. However, though notified of the petition and hearing in this case, the Teamsters did not appear Furthermore, these classifications would appear to be prop- erly included in the unit IDAs already mentioned, we shall permit the individual or individuals in this classifica- tion to vote subject to challenge, without making any determination of status at this time In the event that the challenged ballot or ballots will affect the outcome of the election, a further investigation to determine the status of this individual or these individuals will be conducted. GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-2697. July 16, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On July 23, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of about 213 eligible voters, 198 cast ballots, of which 76 were for the Petitioner, 121 were against the Petitioner, 1 was challenged, and none was void. On July 28, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, a copy of which was served on the Employer. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on October 30, 1952, issued and served on the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that some of the objections be sustained, and others overruled; and he further recommended that the Board set aside the election and that a new election be directed.2 Thereupon the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections.3 i'I'he Decision and Direction of Election, issued on July 2, 1952, is not reported in the bound volumes of the Decisions and Orders of the Board. 2 Because the challenged ballot could not affect the results of the election, the Regional Director made no report concerning the challenge. 3 We adopt the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director to which no excep- tions were taken, and we overrule such objections. 106 NLRB No 32. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 5, 1952 , the Board found that the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report raised sub- stantial and material issues of fact, and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues. On January 29 and February 24, 1953, pursuant to the Board's order, hearing was held before George Squillacote , hearing officer . On April 23, 1953, the hearing officer issued and served on the parties his report on objections , findings, and recommendations . On May 1, 1953, the Employer filed excep- tions to the hearing officer ' s report and , on May 21, 1953, briefs in support of its contentions . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson. l. The facts upon which the issue of the Employer ' s alleged interference with the conduct of the election rests are not in dispute . The election was scheduled and held on July 23, 1952 . On July 19 the Employer sent a letter to its employees. On July 22, the day before the election, the Employer's president , on company time and property , made a speech to its employees , copies of which were given to all employees at the close of the meeting . Copies of the complete letter and the full text of the speech are in evidence . The Petitioner continued its organizational campaign up to the time of the election and its various circulars , which were distributed to employees , are in evidence and were considered by the hearing officer as part of the preelection circumstances. The Petitioner did not request , and was not refused, permis- sion to reply to the Employer ' s speech and to address the employees on company time and property on July 22; and this circumstance is not in issue in this proceeding. With respect to objection 1 (a), that the Employer had promised increases if the employees voted against the Peti- tioner, the hearing officer found that in its letter of July 19 and in the president ' s speech of July 22, the Employer clearly promised to meet with the employees after the election and to grant them wage increases and other benefits provided that they voted against the Petitioner ; and recommended that the Petitioner ' s objection to the conduct of the election on this ground be sustained. With respect to objection 1 (b), that the Employer told employees that they would experience long delays in getting increases if the Petitioner won the election , the hearing officer found that , in the July 22 speech of its president, the Employer analyzed its rights in collective bargaining and discussed what the Employer considered to be the usual slow course in the negotiation of a collective -bargaining 4 Because the record and briefs clearly set forth the contentions of the parties, we deny the Employer's request for oral argument. GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY 199 agreement ; concluded that the speech did not contain a threat that the Employer would deliberately delay the granting of a wage increase if the employees voted for the Petitioner; and recommended that Petitioner's objection on this ground be overruled. With respect to objection 1 (c), that the Employer told employees that they would probably lose their year-end bonus if the Petitioner won the election, the hearing officer found that, in the July 22 speech of its president, the Employer made statements relative to its bonus planwhich the employees could reasonably take as a threat by the Employer that, if the Petitioner won the election, the Employer would refuse to continue the year-end bonus; and he recommended that this objection be sustained. In connection with his discussion of objection 1 (c), the hearing officer quoted from the president's speech of July as follows: Now let's examine where you will be if the Union loses tomorrow. If we do not have a Union , we can continue to work on a friendly basis as we have in the past. Gardner was one of the first companies in this area to grant many benefits , including group life insurance , hospitalization benefits, paid vacations, and was one of the first to grant a year end bonus, and while we are talking about year end bonuses, remember that in practically every plant here in Beloit where the Union went in, the bonus went out. Think that over. Do you remember what happened to the year end bonus at Beloit Iron Works when the Union went in? Do you want that to happen at Gardner? The Employer, in his exceptions to the hearing officer's report, contends that this and other partial quotations from the letter of July 19 and the speech of July 22 made in his report by the hearing officer do not give fair appraisal of the import and effect either of the letter or of the speech, taken as a whole. We do not agree, but we do not rely only on the excerpts quoted. We have considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto; the hearing officer's report and the Employer's exceptions thereto; and the entire record in this case, including the Employer's letter of July 19 and its speech of July 22 in their entireties, and we conclude with respect to objection 1 (c), as did the hearing officer, that the pointed and specific refer- ence to the year-end bonus in the president's speech of July 22, just before the election, could reasonably be construed by employees hearing the same as a threat that, if the Petitioner won the election, the Employer would refuse to continue the year-end bonus; and we therefore sustain this objection. Accordingly, we find that, by such threat to the employees of the loss of the year-end bonus, the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining representative .' We find it unnecessary to make any finding and conclusion upon objections 1 (a) and 1 (b). We shall order that the election be set aside and direct that a new election be held. [The Board set aside the election held on July 23, 1952.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publi- cation.] S Reeves Instrument Corporation, 100 NLRB 1331. LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY and MISCELLANEOUS AND WOODWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 2565, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 20 -CA-779. July 17, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On April 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief and requested oral argument before the Board. The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire' record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications: 1. While we concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent failed to invest sufficient authority in its bargaining representative, we think that the authority that must be vested in a party's representative in bargaining negotiations is not readily susceptible to general definition; the more realistic way to appraise this question, in our view, is to consider the facts of the particular case. In the instant case the authority of the Respondent's representative was limited to the transmittal of proposals to and from the 106 NLRB No. 34.