General Electric Co.

306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD premises. It is clear that the Employer had no unlawful broad no- solicitation rule and that the employees were permitted to solicit for union membership on the Employer's time and property. Further, the union representative entered the Employer's parking lot and spoke to the employees without objection by the Employer even after he had agreed not to park on the Employer's property. In addition, it ap- pears that the Petitioner was not unduly hindered in its right to carry on organizational activities, and was able to utilize the customary means for communicating with employees, e. g., soliciting employees while they were leaving the plant, at their homes, and at union meet- ings. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's objections and exceptions and hereby overrule them. As the revised tally shows that a majority of the ballots has not been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for the United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that the said Petitioner is not the exclusive representative of the employees at the Amarillo, Texas, plant, of The Rath Packing Com- pany, in the unit heretofore found to be appropriate.] General Electric Company and International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13RC-448d. February 1,1956 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On November 3, 1955, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), an election was conducted in the unit found appropriate therein, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region. Following the election, the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 985 eligible voters, 494 ballots were cast for the Petitioner, 412 for Local 997, United Automobile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Intervenor, and 7 against both participating organizations. Ten ballots were challenged and six were void. The challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. A majority of the valid votes were cast for the Petitioner. On November 7, 1955, the Intervenor filed timely objections to the conduct of the election, alleging that (1) observers for the Petitioner engaged in campaigning during the election; (2) the Employer re- fused to permit a representative of the Intervenor to enter the plant 115 NLRB No. 42. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 307 so as to serve as an observer ; and (3) the Employer sent a letter to the employees immediately prior to the election which interfered with their freedom of choice. Thereafter, on November 21, 1955, the Intervenor filed what it called an amendment to the objections, in which it made a further allegation of interference by the Employer with the employees' freedom of choice. Thereafter, on December 14, 1955, the Regional Director, having conducted an investigation, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that all the objec- tions be overruled and the Petitioner be certified.' Within the proper time therefor, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's report. As to the first objection that election observers for the Petitioner engaged in campaigning during the election, the Regional Director's investigation disclosed that some of the Petitioner's observers, at times when they had been relieved of their official duties, were seen conversing with eligible voters during the polling periods at various spots adjacent to, but not within, the officially designated polling area. None of these remarks were overheard by the Intervenor's affiants, nor did the investigation reveal what the employees had been discussing. In the absence of any evidence that these off-duty observers made any coercive statements or wilfully violated any instructions of the Board agent, we are not justified in inferring either that electioneering occurred, or that if any did take place, it was serious enough to war- rant setting the election aside.2 The investigation as to the second objection revealed that a regional representative of the Intervenor asked the Employer to allow Ruth Warner, president of Local 997, to be admitted to the plant to act as its observer. Warner is one of a number of former employees whose termination is the subject of charges filed by the Intervenor. There is some conflict as to the circumstances under which she was denied per- mission to enter the plant as an observer, although it is undenied that she did enter for the purpose of casting a challenged ballot. The Intervenor eventually selected another observer, and was at all times represented by the same number of observers allotted to the other parties. Although it is true that Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations permits a party to an election to select its own observers, there is no claim here that the observers finally selected by the Intervenor did not fully and faithfully represent its interests. 3 The Regional Director first considered the objection filed on November 21 on Its merits, and decided that It did not raise a material or substantial question concerning conduct affecting the results of the election. Moreover, he noted that the objection had been filed untimely, and that no justification for the delay had been presented ; he therefore recom- mended that this objection also be overruled as untimely. As the objection was clearly untimely we find that it was not properly within the scope of the investigation, and we make no finding on its merits . Herpolsheimer Company, 103 NLRB 413. 9 Emerson Electric Company, 106 NLRB 149, at 153. 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We do not believe, in these circumstances, that the Intervenor was prejudicially injured when Warner was barred from the plant as an observer. In support of its third objection, the Intervenor supplied copies of three letters which the Employer had sent to all of its production employees on October 28 and 29 and on November 1, 1955, just before the election. The letters expressed the Employer's views on the coming election, stressed certain asserted irresponsibility of the union leadership which had recently conducted a strike at the plant, and urged the employees to vote. We agree with the Regional Director that the letters contain no language which is not permissible within the scope of the free speech proviso of Section 8 (c). In its exceptions, however, the Intervenor refers to a communication from the Employer, entitled "Today," and dated November 1, 1955, from which a state- ment was excerpted relating to continuation of the employees' seniority status even though the vote were to go against the Intervenor. No letter is attached to the exceptions. The letter dated November 1, which the Intervenor supplied in the course of the Regional Director's investigation, does not mention seniority. Evidence which the Inter- venor failed to submit to the Regional Director in support of its ob- jections may not be submitted as part of its exceptions, at least in the absence of any showing that it has been newly discovered. But in any event, we doubt that a statement by an employer that it will continue an existing working condition such as seniority, regardless of the out- come of an election, constitutes such interference with the conduct of an election as to warrant its being set aside. Lastly, the report on objections states that one employee, an affiant referred by the Intervenor, received a slip of paper entitled "Special Notice" as an enclosure in a letter which the Employer had sent to all employees regarding the physical arrangements at the newly reopened plant. The Special Notice invited all employes to attend an organiza- tional meeting called by the Petitioner. The Regional Director was satisfied that the Special Notice was enclosed without the Employer's knowledge or approval. The meager information furnished by the Intervenor, as supplemented by that discovered in the investigation, leads to the conclusion that very few of the Special Notices were some- how surreptitiously enclosed with copies of the Employer's letter. We do not believe that it establishes any basis for setting aside an elec- tion in which well over 900 employees voted. Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director's conclusions that the Intervenor's objections are without merit, and in accordance with his recommendations, we hereby overrule them. [The Board certified International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the THE PROOF COMPANY 309 hourly paid employees at the Employer's plant at Danville, Illinois, excluding office and clerical employees, toolmakers, bench machinists, toolroom machine operators, tool crib attendants, toolroom helpers, general maintenance employees-including craft helpers, oilers, power- house employees, maintenance electricians, helpers, and apprentices- professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] The Proof Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-AFL-CIO), Local No. 943. Case No. 13-CA-1834. Feb- ruary 3,1956 DECISION AND ORDER On November 22, 1955, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Proof Com- pany, Goshen, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-AFL-CIO), Local No. 943, as the exclusive repre- sentative of its production and maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees , watchmen and guards , and professional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to recognize the preferential seniority granted to the officers and members of the bargaining committee of the Union ac- cording to the request of the Union and the agreement of the Company 115 NLRB No. 53. -,A