The Coolidge Corp.

THE COOLIDGE CORPORATION 3 room, foundry melting room , foundry molding , foundry cleaning and grinding , and foundry patternmaking , foundry laborers and all foundry maintenance men, but excluding all other employees, including office and clerical employees , professional em- ployees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appro- priate unit , and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the Petitioner for the unit described , which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining . In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor , the Board finds that this voting group may continue to be bargained for as part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of elec- tion to such effect. [The Board set aside the Decision and Order of December 11, 1953, to the extent that it dismisses the petition herein.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Members Peterson and Beeson took no part inthe considera- tion of the above Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Election. THE COOLIDGE CORPORAT ION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRI- CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No . 9-RC-2002 . March 23, 1954 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election ,' an elec- tion by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion of the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties , showing that of approximately 100 eli- gibble voters ,. 96 cast ballots , of which 44 were for the Peti- tioner, 48 were for the Intervenor ,' 1 was against partic- ipating labor organizations , and 3 were challenged. On September 14, 1953, the Petitioner filed its objections to election . In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, iNot reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 2 Coolidge Corporation Independent Union. 108 NLRB No. 1. 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on January 15, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that one of the objections be sustained and others overruled, made no recommendations as to another objection, and recommended that the Board set aside the election and direct a new election. As the number of challenged ballots was sufficient to affect the results of the election, he considered the eligibility of the chal- lenged voters and recommended that 1 challenge be sustained and the other 2 overruled. Thereafter, all the parties filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Objections (1) On September 1, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenor signed a contract for 1 year, with provision for automatic renewal absent notice on or before August 1 of each year of intent to terminate. Under this provision the contract had been automatically renewed for the year ending September 1, 1953. This contract contained a clause permitting either party to reopen it during its term to renegotiate wage rates. The peti- tion in this case was filed July 2, 1953. On July 8, 1953, notice of hearing was issued. Thereafter, in response to a request for a wage reopening by the Intervenor pursuant to the terms of its agreement, the Employer met with the Intervenor and on July 17, 1953, signed a supplementary agreement increasing wage rates effective July 20, 1953. The entire contract between the parties, including the new wage rates, was automatically renewed on August 1, 1953, for another yearly period. The election in this case was held on September 20. In its objections to the election the Petitioner contended that the wage revision agreement, executed during the pendency of the representation question in this case, interfered with the free exercise of a choice of representatives by the employees. In his report the Regional Director found, in effect, that the parties intended by this supplementary agreement to grant a wage increase not only for the balance of the term of the exist- ing contract but also for the ensuing term of its renewal. He accordingly found that the negotiation of the wage increase during the pendency of the representation question interfered with the employees' freedom of choice and recommended that the election be set aside. The Employer and the Intervenor excepted to this recommendation. We find merit in their excep- tions. As the Regional Director impliedly recognized, the mere raising of a representation question by another union does not suspend the rights of an incumbent union under its existing contract, nor does the granting of any benefits to a contracting union by an employer pursuant to a current contract afford ground for setting aside an election. In the instant case, as the granting of a wage increase for the balance of the term of the contract ending September 1, 1953, was within the scope of the wage reopening clause in that contract, the increase would THE COOLIDGE CORPORATION 5 not warrant setting aside the election .' The Regional Director ascribed to the parties an intent to extend the increase beyond that date . While we find nothing inthe wage revision agreement itself which binds the Employer to continue the increase beyond September 1, 1953, we recognize that the increase will in all likelihood be continued in effect . This does not, however , change our view of the validity of the objections. Accordingly, we overrule the Petitioner ' s first objection. (2) In its second objection the Petitioner alleges that during the preelection period the Employer interrogated employees and that the Employer ' s president called employees into his office and made coercive statements to them . The Regional Director found that small groups of employees were called into Coolidge ' s office as various times outside of working hours during the months of July and August and up to September 10, 1953. Attendance was not compulsory and Coolidge did not make any statements which could be construed as coercive. In view of his recommendation that the election be set aside on other grounds , the Regional Director refrained from ruling on this second objection. The Petitioner and the Employer both excepted to this failure to rule. In view of the matters set forth in the Regional Director ' s report, we do not believe that the foregoing objection and exceptions of the Petitioner raise any substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election . Accordingly , we overrule this objec- tion. (3) The Petitioner objected to the mailing of a number of letters and other materials to the employees by the Employer before the election . The Regional Director found that none of this material exceeded the permissible bounds of campaign propaganda and recommended that the objection be overruled. The Petitioner excepted to this finding and recommendation, but does not specify the basis for its exception . Accordingly, we will overrule the objection. (4) The Petitioner objected to various alleged activities of the Employer ' s supervisors during the preelection period. The Regional Director found that no evidence was submitted or developed during his investigation which supported the allega- tions of this objection, and recommended that it be overruled. The Petitioner excepted without , however , stating the grounds for its exception . We will accordingly overrule this objection. The Challenges Three ballots were challenged on the ground that the em- ployees who cast them were supervisors within the meaning of the Act and were not eligible to vote. The Regional Director 3Member Murdock would end the paragraph at this point . Inasmuch as he believes the remainder of the paragraph is unnecessary to the disposition of the case he dissociates him- self from the remainder of the paragraph. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD found that 1 such employee, Cecil Fore, was a supervisor and recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained. However, he found that the other 2 employees, Elam and Pritchett, were not supervisors and recommended that the chal- lenges to their ballots be overruled. The Petitioner excepted to this finding and contends that all 3 employees are supervisors. As no exception was taken to the Regional Director's action insofar as he found that Fore was a supervisor, we adopt this finding and sustain the challenge to his ballot. As the other two challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election,4 we find it unnecessary to rule on them. Accordingly, we will overrule the objections to the election, and as the majority of the ballots were cast in favor of the Inter- venor, we will certify it as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Coolidge Corporation Independent Union as the designated collective-bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees employed by the Em- ployer at its Middletown, Ohio, plant, including leadmen, in- spectors, and shop clericals, but excluding office clerical employees, draftsmen, engineers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Represen- tatives. 4As we have sustained the challenge to Fore's ballot, the maximum number of valid votes cast, including the 2 other challenged ballots, would be 95, of which the Intervenor received 48. STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INCOR- PORATED and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSO- CIATION, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1363. March 23, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sydney Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 'The name of the Employer as it appears in the formal papers was amended at the hearing to the form shown above. 108 NLRB No. 3.