General Electric Co.

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD controllers, print inspectors, and film handlers of the Employer in New York City, constitute a cohesive and homogeneous unit which we find 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.] -General Electric Company and Lodge No. 1000, International Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC- 4162. August 31,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On June 1O,, 1955; pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections,' elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for .the Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the units heretofore found appro- priate? At the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots were furnished the parties. The tallies show: 3 Group (a) Approximate number of eligible voters-------------------------------- 5 Votes cast for IBEW-------------------------------- 7-------------- 2 Votes cast against participating labor organizations---------------------- 3 Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------- 0 Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 5 Group (b) Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------------- 461 Votes cast for Lodge No. 1000, International Association of Machinists, AFL -(Petitioner)---------------------------=----------------- -- 223 Votes cast for-,International Union ofElectrical; Radio and-Machine Workers; CIO----------------------------------------------------------- 24 Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------------- *193 Valid vo'tes`counted------------------------------------------------ **442 Challenged ballots-------------- ----------------------------------- 5 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots----------- ----------------- 447 Includes 3 votes east against participating labor organizations in Group (a). **Includes 2 votes cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL, in Group (a). 1 General Electric Company, 112 NLRB 839. The Board directed separate elections to be held among (a) all class "A" and "B" electricians and their helpers, and (b) all remaining production and maintenance em- ployees. 3 Pursuant to the provisions of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections, since a majority of the employees in voting group (a) did not select the union seeking to repre- sent them separately ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL) the votes in group (a) were pooled with the votes in group (b) according all votes their face value, but counting the votes cast for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, only as part of the total of the valid votes counted. ` 114 NLRB No. 3. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 11 • On June 16, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec- tion, alleging that (1) of the approximately 565 employees in the bar- gaining unit on the election date, 101 employees, hired after the eligi- bility date, were disqualified from voting; (2) union' representatives sent a photographer into the polling place while the polls were still open; and (3) Petitioner's observer, Winnie Henson, engaged in elec- tioneering at the polling place while acting as observer. In accord- ance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on June 29, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots and objec-' tions. He found that the Employer's objections were without merit and recommended that they be overruled and that the Petitioner be` certified as the collective-bargaining representative for both voting` groups as one unit. On July 11, 1955, the Employer filed exceptions to the report in effect reiterating its objections. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes- the following : FINDINGS OF FACT In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the chal-` lenges to the ballots of W. R. Phelps and G. E. Whorrall be sustained. As no exceptions to the Regional Director's report have been filed with respect to the foregoing challenged ballots, we hereby adopt the Re- gional'Director's recommendation. As to objection (1), set forth above, the Regional Director found that the Board, in its decision and Direction of Elections considered- the Employer's objections to immediate elections, finding that, "as it appears that at the time the elections directed herein take place there will be employed a substantial and representative segment of the working force ultimately to be employed in each of the above voting groups, we see no reason for departing from the Board's usual policy of directing immediate elections." The Regional Director further found that the Employer failed to produce any new evidence in sup- port of its contention that the elections were prematurely directed, which had not been before the Board at the time the Decision and Di- rection of Elections issued. In its exceptions, the Employer contends that there were approxi- mately • 565 employees in the appropriate unit at the time of the election, but that, because "of an eligibility rule supported only by convenience," 101 of these employees were disqualified from voting.' Whenever an election is directed, the Board must select the payroll or, payrolls, which most accurately list the employees whose interests * The Board directed that the elections be held among employees who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of its Direction of Elections, and the 101 employees were employed within the unit after the eligibility date 12 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are involved, to serve as the basis for determining eligibility to vote. The payroll normally chosen is-the one which covers the period imme- diately preceding the date of the Board's direction of. election. The Board does not generally depart from this usual practice of determin- ing eligibility unless special circumstances or the nature of the em- ployer's business may make another payroll period more appropriate.' Here, we are unable to find that either the nature of the Employer's business or other special conditions warrant a departure from our cus- tomary method of determining eligibility. Accordingly, we shall overrule this objection. As to objection (2), the Regional Director found Karl Blakney, by trade a motion picture projectionist and freelance photographer for the Bloomington-Normal Labor News, a monthly publication, ap- peared in the polling place at about 3: 45 p. in., 15 minutes before the polls were scheduled to close, but at a time when the last of the voters had already voted. Mr. Blakney did not take any pictures, since he was observed by an official of the Employer in the hall outside the polling place with a camera and ordered off the Employer's premises. He was present at the polling place at most 5 minutes. Mr. Blakney had asked a plant guard where the election was being held, and was directed to the personnel office. Another employee directed him to the polling place. He carried his equipment in a small metal suitcase. He stated that he was not asked by any of the participating labor or- ganizations to come in and take pictures, but did so solely on his own initiative. The Regional Director concluded that this objection lacked merit. We agree. In view of the foregoing facts as found by the Regional Director, and more particularly, as it appears that the voters had already cast their ballots before the photographer arrived, that : The photographer was admitted to the premises by the Employer's guard; the partici- pating labor organizations were not responsible for his presence; he did not take any pictures; he was promptly ejected from the polling area when his presence was discovered; and there is no evidence to -show that the brief presence of the photographer otherwise affected the election, we shall overrule this objection of the Employer. As to objection (3), the Regional Director's report shows that the Employer's observer heard an observer of the Petitioner, Mrs. Henson, make a complimentary remark to a voter about how nice a dress looked, say something to another voter about taking, it easy after being ill, and to a third voter, who was pregnant, that she was looking well and to take it easy. The Employer's observer admitted that "None of the conversations had anything to do with the election, ,or any of the unions participating, as far as I could hear." Mrs. 6 See Sixteenth Annual Report , National Labor Relations Board , page 124. KENNECOTT-COPPER CORPORATION 13 _Henson admits the last incident, and states that she does not remember the other two, but that they might have occurred. Mrs. Henson and other observers also state that all of the observers addressed voters when they came in, if they knew them, saying, "Hello," "Good morning," and other similar salutations. The Regional Director found that Employer's objection (3) lacked merit and recommended that it be overruled. The Employer contends, in effect, that Mrs. Henson was a leading organizer for the Petitioner, and by the above remarks she "kept right on electioneering while serving as an elec- tion observer." We do not agree. As it appears from the foregoing that all of the observers addressed and greeted voters they knew during the course of balloting, and as it appears that none of the conversations of the observers had any- thing to do with the election, or with any of the parties participating, we find no merit in Employer's objection (3 ) and we shall overrule this -objection. Accordingly, as we have overruled the Employer's objections, and, as the Petitioner, Lodge No. 1000, International Association of Machinists, AFL, obtained a majority of the valid ballots cast in the pooled group's we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of all the employees in the following unit which the Board has found under such circumstances to be appropriate : All pro- duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Bloomington, Illinois, plant, including class "A" and "B" electricians and their helpers, but excluding office and plant clerical employees, professional -employees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act. [The Board certified Lodge No. 1000, International Association of Machinists, AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees of the General Electric Company, Bloomington, Illinois, plant, in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.] 9 As we have sustained the challenges to 2 of the 5 challenged ballots the remaining 3 challenged ballots can not affect the results of the election. Kennecott Copper Corporation, Chino Mines Division and Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 953, A. F. L. Case No. 33-RC-523. August 31,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Byron E. Guse, hearing offi- cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 114 NLRB No. 4.