The W. H. Reisner Mfg. Co., Inc.

604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plaster patterns, they were not qualified to make other pat- terns required for Kirksite dies. Thus, whenever wood patterns were needed for these dies, the pattern shop was called upon to furnish them. As a result, in October 1952, plaster form making was returned to the pattern shop, and the two employees in the development shop were restored to their former duties and classification of sheet metal workers in the production and maintenance unit. Although the work of plaster form making requires a relatively short period of -training, it is apparent from the foregoing that employees engaged in such duties must, at least to the extent that wood patterns are used for Kirksite dies , either have the skill of wood patternmakers or work in close association with these craft employees. Accordingly, we find that the employees currently assigned the duties of making plaster forms for Kirksite dies should be included in the craft unit represented by the Pattern Makers League. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certifications of repre- sentatives issued in the instant cases be, and they hereby are, amended to include in the wood and metal patternmakers unit and exclude from the production and maintenance unit em- ployees making plaster forms for Kirksite dies.5 5 This Order is not to be construed as a recertification. THE W. H. REISNER MFG. CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its LOCAL 824, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1187. April 30, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec - tion between the Employer and the Petitioner, an election was held under the supervision of the Regional Director on Novem- ber 7, 1952. A tally of ballots furnished to the parties shows that out of approximately 94 eligible voters 46 cast ballots for and 45 against the Petitioner, 3 of the ballots having been challenged. On November 10, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. As the challenges were sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made concerning the challenged ballots and the Petitioner's objections, and on December 30, 1952, issued his report on challenges and objec- tions . As to the 3 challenged ballots, the Regional Director recommended that the challenges to 2 of them be sustained and that the challenge to the other be overruled and this ballot be 104 NLRB No. 85. THE W. H. REISNER MFG., CO., INC 605 opened and counted . He found merit in one of the Petitioner's objections and recommended that, if a revised tally of ballots did not show the Petitioner to have received a majority, the election be set aside . The Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director ' s recommendation concerning one of the challenges that he found should be sustained , and to his finding that there was merit in one of the Petitioner ' s objections. No other exceptions were filed. The Board affirmed those portions of the report to which no exceptions were filed , sustained the challenge to one ballot, overruled the challenge to another and ordered that it be opened and counted . The Board further ordered that if the revised tally of ballots should not show that the Petitioner had received a majority , a hearing should be held on the issues raised by the exceptions as to the remaining challenged ballot. The challenged ballot found to be valid was then opened and counted; and the revised tally revealed that the election remained un- determinative . Thereafter the Petitioner, for the purposes of this proceeding , withdrew its challenge to the remaining challenged ballot, and consented that it be opened and counted. A second revised tally shows that the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election . In these circumstances , it becomes necessary to determine the issues raised by the Petitioner ' s objection. The Board' has considered the Petitioner ' s objections, the Regional Director's report and recommendations , and the Em- ployer's exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record finds: The Regional Director reported that on or about October 24, 1952, approximately 2 weeks before the election , the Petitioner asked the Employer for an opportunity to address the employees, if the Employer chose to address them. The Employer did not respond to the Petitioner ' s letter . The Petitioner asserts that before 10 a.m. on the day preceding the election , having learned that the Employer intended to address the employees at its plant, the Petitioner ' s representative telephoned the Employer and asked him for an opportunity to likewise address the em- ployees after the Employer had done so . The Employer did address its employees on company time and property the day before the election , referring to the coming election and re- minding the employees of the benefits the Employer had in the past conferred on them . The Employer did not honor the Petitioner ' s request for a similar opportunity to address the employees. These facts are not controverted . The Employer contends , however, that the Petitioner itself held ameeting for the employees in a separate hall on the evening on that day, and that the Petitioner then had opportunity to answer any arguments or unfavorable comments by the Employer. The Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside on the ground that the Petitioner had no opportunity to address '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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees "under circumstances which reasonably ap- proximate equality." We agree with the recommendation of the Regional Director. The Board has repeatedly held that where an employer ad- dresses its employees shortly before an election on company time and property, and does not afford the union the opportunity, when requested, to address the employees under the same conditions, it is such an interference with the rights of the em- ployees to self-organization, as to warrant setting the election aside.2 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the electionheldon November 7, 1952, among the Employer's employees, be, and it hereby is, set aside; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he believes the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. t Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1559; Gastonia Weaving Company, 103 NLRB 1137. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and LOCAL 547, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, Petitioner CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, Petitioner CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL 32, AFL , Petitioner . Cases Nos . 7-RC-2003, 7-RC- 2012, and 7 -RC-2045. May 1, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, consolidated hearings were held before Emil L. Farkas and Herman Corenman, hearing officers t The hearing officers' rulings made at the I On January 12 and 13, 1953. a hearing was held in Cases Nos. 2003 and 2012 on the petitions of Local 547, international Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called Operating Engineers, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America , UAW-CIO, herein called UAW-CIO. On February 5, 1953, pursuant to a petition filed by the international Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 32, AFL, herein called Firemen and Oilers, the Board ordered that the record be reopened and that a further consolidated hearing be held on all three petitions. The reopened hearing was held on February 17 and 18, 1953. 104 NLRB No. 87.