Stanley Aviation Corp.

STANLEY AVIATION CORPORATION 461 not believe, however, that this is sufficient to warrant departing from the Board's established policy of excluding office clerical employees from a production and maintenance unit.8 We shall, therefore, ex- clude the office clerical employees from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's plants at Billings and Miles City, Montana , and Worland, Sheridan, and Powell, Wyoming, including driver-salesmen and janitors, but excluding office clerical and management employees, su- pervisors,9 and guards, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. 8 Dura Steel Products Company, 109 NLRB 179. The record shows that the two distribution supervisors , the office supervisor, and an employee who is engaged primarily in advertising and display work have authority to hire and discharge employees . They are therefore excluded from the unit as supervisors. Stanley Aviation Corporation and District Lodge No. 86, Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-997. April 05,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on December 15, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on January 12, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, among the em- ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the De- cision. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 96 eligible voters, 89 cast ballots, of which 19 were for the Petitioner, 40 were for the Intervenor,' 20 were against both participating labor organizations, and 10 were challenged. On January 18, 1955, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct af- fecting the results of the election. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the challenges, as well as the Petitioner's objec- tions, and, on March 2, 1955, issued and duly served on the parties 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders 2 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO 112 NLRB No. 61. 462 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his report on challenges and objections to election. In his report he recommended that the challenges to the 10 ballots be sustained, and that the Petitioner's objections be overruled. The Petitioner has excepted to the Regional Director's report, and the Employer has ex- cepted to that portion of the report dealing with the status of the quality control employees. The Challenged Ballots As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recom- mendation that the challenge to the ballot of Paul C. Fouchey be sus- tained, we adopt this recommendation. The Board agent challenged the ballots of nine employees because they were not on the eligibility list submitted by the Employer.3 The Employer did not put their names on the eligibility list because they were part of the quality control department, which was ex- cluded from the unit found appropriate by the Board in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. The Regional Director's investi- gation revealed that for the most part the duties of these employees consisted of inspection and testing. In addition, some employees also checked tools against blueprint specifications. The Regional Director, however, recommended that the challenges to these ballots be sustained on the ground that these employees are part of the ex- cluded quality control department, that they have separate supervi- sion from the employees in the production and maintenance unit, and that, while certain of them spend varying portions of their time on inspection duties, they are not part of the production and main- tenance unit defined in the Direction of Election. The Petitioner does not take exception to the Regional Director's factual findings, but urges that, on the facts as found, the Board should not follow the Regional Director's conclusions and recom- mendations. The Petitioner contends that these employees were in- advertently excluded from the unit due to the fact that it was not fully acquainted with the duties of the quality control employees when it stipulated to their exclusion at the hearing. It asserts that if it had knowledge that there existed classifications of employees performing the work of those whose ballots were challenged, under the designation of "quality control employees," it would not have entered into a stipulation excluding them from the unit. In its exceptions, the Employer requests the Board to hold a hearing to determine the status of the employees in its quality control department, asserting that the Regional Director's report leaves the 3These employees are William Sweet, Bernard Kendrick, Edwin Edwaids, Robert E Ward, Jr, Donald Porter, William Ilawkesworth, Prank Malone, James Locker, and George Lenz STANLEY AVIATION CORPORATION 463 status of these employees uncertain. The Employer states that the Regional Director's findings indicate that there may be some question as to the ultimate propriety of including these employees in a bar- gaining unit. The Employer is willing to abide by the Regional Director's findings if the Board construes them to mean that the quality control employees are not eligible, under the Act, to be repre- sented by a labor organization. If, however, the exclusion is not on that basis, then the Employer urges that the matter should be re- manded for rehearing. The Employer further requests that, if these employees are found to be within the unit, the election be set aside and a new election held. At the hearing in this proceeding, none of the parties sought the inclusion of the employees in the quality control department, nor did they adduce testimony concerning the duties of these employees. The Board has a "well established policy of honoring concessions made in the interest of expeditious handling of representation cases in gen- eral."' We therefore consider it to be contrary to good administrative practice to reopen the record at this postelection stage of the proceed- ing to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of the inclusion of the quality control department employees in the unit.5 For this reason we deny the request of the Employer and the Petitioner to hold a hearing to determine the status of the employees in the Employer's quality control department. Accordingly, we shall sustain the challenges to the ballots of William Sweet, Bernard Kend- rick, Edwin Edwards, Robert E. Ward, Jr., Donald Porter, William Hawkesworth, Frank Malone, James Locker, and George Lenz. The Objections The Petitioner's objections allege that: (1) The Employer granted wage increases to employees in the unit immediately preceding the election; (2) the Employer, by various conversations of its agents, influenced, intimidated, and coerced employees in the unit; and (3) the Employer influenced, intimidated, and coerced employees by speeches and letters addressed to the employees. The Regional Director's investigation showed that the Employer instituted a merit-increase program when it started operations in July 1954. At this time it was determined that employees would be eligible for consideration for merit increases after 12 weeks of em- ployment, and that monthly reviews of the employment records of eligible employees would be made for the purpose of awarding merit increases. The large number of increases granted in January 1955, 4 New York Shippiwp Association and its Diem hers , 109 NLRB 1075 6Cf Port Houston Icon Works, Inc, 103 NLRB 1489 , 1491 , Lockheed Aircraft Corpora- tion, 78 NLRB 1064, 1065 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD just prior to the election, were caused by the large number of employ- ees hired by the Employer during September 1954. The Regional Director recommended that this objection be overruled on the grounds that the merit-increase program was instituted at a time when there was no union organizational activities, the program was not insti- tuted for the purpose of influencing the free choice of the voters, and that neither the timing, granting, not announcing of merit in- creases was related to or conditioned upon the vote of the employees, or the outcome of the election. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that, a few days before the election, 1 of the Employer's supervisors discussed the elec- tion with several employees eligible to vote, and asked about 4 em- ployees how they were going to vote in the election. The Regional Director found that this supervisor did try to influence employees to vote against union organization, and expressed the view that there would be no advantage to having a union, and that the employees did not need one. He concluded, however, that the evidence did not establish that there were threats of economic reprisal, or promises of economic benefit, or that the employees were influenced, intimi- dated, or coerced within the meaning of the Act, or that the election result was adversely affected thereby. He therefore recommended that this objection be overruled. As to the third objection, the Regional Director's investigation re- vealed that the plant manager issued a series of four letters to the employees prior to the election. In addition, he delivered a series of several speeches, and, in a few instances, answered questions which employees put to him. The evidence, however, showed that the state- ments, speeches, and printed letters did not exceed the bounds of the privileged area defined by Section 8 (c) of the Act. The Regional Director, therefore, recommended that this objection be overruled. The Petitioner does not dispute the Regional Director's factual findings, but takes exception to his conclusions and recommenda- tions. The Petitioner contends that the interrogation of employees together with letters and speeches by Employer representatives, cre- ated an atmosphere which in itself coerced the employees, and cou- pled with the granting of the wage increases, was bound to influence the outcome of the election. The Board will not reject what purports to be the choice of the vot- ers in a Board-conducted election unless the registration of a free choice is shown by all the circumstances to have been unlikely.' In the circumstances of this case, we find that a free choice was not ren- dered unlikely because of the conduct complained of. It is clear, and we find, that the Employer was following a normal business course in The Liberal Market, Inc., 108 NLRB 1481. THE NEWTON COMPANY 465 granting the merit increases just prior to the election.7 We further find that under all the circumstances of this case, the interrogation did not reasonably tend to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.8 We believe that the fore- going acts, whether they be considered singly or collectively, do not provide ample basis for setting aside this election. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's objections and exceptions do not raise sub- stantial and material issues with respect to the conduct affecting the results of the election, and they are hereby overruled. As the Inter- venor has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the Intervenor as the collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Union, United Automobile, Air- craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Sup- plemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. 7 Cf Baird-Ward Printing Co , Inc, 108 NLRB 81.5; Detroit Aluminum R Brass Corpora- tion, 107 NLRB 1411 , Universal Butane Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 1101, 1102-1103 8 Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB '591 : The Liheial Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 1481 Bull Insular Line, Inc , et al , 108 NLRB 900 , General Motors Corporation, Central Foundry Division, 107 NLRB 1096 The Newton Company and United Garment Workers of America, AFL. Case No.15-CA-6440. April 27,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegation of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the 112 NLRB No. 64.