Molded Fiber Glass Body Co.

380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Molded Fiber Glass Body Company and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-2850. No- vember 7,1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the Board dated January 3, 1957,1 an election was conducted on January 21, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election, the Regional Director served a tally of ballots upon the parties, which showed that there were approximately 148 eligible voters, of whom 54 voted for the Petitioner, 83 against the Petitioner, 4 ballots were challenged, and I was declared void. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the elec- tion. The Regional Director investigated the objections and on July 29, 1957, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on ob- jections in which he recommended that certain of the Petitioner's objections be overruled, that one objection be sustained, and that the election be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Petitioner filed seven objections to the conduct of the election. Of these, the Regional Director recommended that six be overruled? The one objection which he sustained, objection No. V, alleged that the Employer had bargained with a so-called Safety Committee on December 27, 1956, and that some 10 days before the election, the Employer urged the employees to use this Safety Committee for any problems they did not wish to take up directly with their supervisors. On the basis of his investigation, the Regional Director concluded that the Safety Committee was a labor organization 3 within the meaning of the Act 4 and that it was company dominated. It appears that because the Employer had agreed to disestablish the Safety Committee some 6 months after the election and because the Employer had urged the employees to use this Committee prior to the election,5 the Regional Director concluded the Safety Committee was company dominated ' Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 2 These objections included the posting of sample ballots and antiunion banners in the plant , notification of voting, threats of reprisal and promise of benefit , objection to the day and time of the election , and false information circulated by the Company. As no ex- ceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations that these be overruled, we adopt his recommendations. 3 It was undisputed that the Safety Committee met regularly with the plant manager and other office personnel to discuss safety problems and such other working conditions as leave of absence, credit unions, bonus payments, hours of work, length of workweek, va- cations, holidays, etc. 4 Standard Coil Products Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 412. 6 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 101 NLRB 1118. 119 NLRB No. 49. MOLDED FIBER GLASS BODY COMPANY 381 at the time of the election, and that therefore the election should be set aside. For reasons indicated below we do not adopt the Regional Director's recommendation. The Safety Committee was first established in April 1954. A de- scription of the nature and function of this Committee was incor- porated in a booklet entitled "The Story of Working for Molded Fibre Glass Company," which document was distributed to all em- ployees in July 1956. On October 17, 1956, the instant petition was filed. On October 24, 1956, the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges 6 against the Employer alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. No mention was made of the Safety Com- mittee or of any violations of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. The election took place on January 21, 1957, and objections were filed by the Petitioner on January 28. On June 26, 1957, some 5 months after the election, the Petitioner amended the above-mentioned charges by including a charge alleging violation of Section 8 (a) (2). On-July 24, the parties made an informal settlement agreement, approved by the Regional Director, in which the Employer agreed not to recognize and to disestablish the Safety Committee . Thereafter, on July 29, the Regional Director issued his report on objections. The Employer's exceptions challenge the findings of the Regional Director concerning the operations of the Safety Committee and his conclusion that it was company dominated . The exceptions stress the fact that the Committee had operated openly for several years, that no objections had been raised against it by the Union, that the investigation revealed only 1 instance during the crucial period when the Employer urged its use, and that as the Petitioner had waited some 5 months after the election before filing its 8 (a) (2) charges, the Petitioner should be estopped from urging that the election be set aside. We agree with the Regional Director that the Safety Committee was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. However, the Regional Director has failed to make findings of fact in support of his conclusion that the Committee was a dominated labor organi- zation. The settlement agreement contained an express reservation that the "execution of this Settlement Agreement shall not constitute an admission by the Employer that it has been guilty of any unfair labor practices." We cannot, therefore, say that, because some 6 months after the election the Employer agreed to disestablish the Safety Committee, therefore it was a company-dominated organiza- tion at the time of the election. Nor can we in the instant proceeding make a finding that the Committee was company dominated. The Board has long held that unfair labor practices may not be litigated in 6 Case No. 8-CA-1249. 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representation cases.7 We therefore overrule the conclusion of the Regional Director that the Safety Committee was company dominated. There remains the question whether the Employer's reference to .the Safety Committee during the period prior to the election con- stitutes sufficient basis for setting aside the election. We do not agree that it was. The Safety Committee not being found to be an 8 (a) (2) organization was in no different position than any incumbent labor organization. It is not a violation of the Act for an employer to urge employees to use the services of such labor organization. The Safety Committee was not on the ballot, and there is no evidence that the Employer promised the employees any benefits if they preferred the Safety Committee to any other union 8 In view of the foregoing, we hereby overrule the Regional Director's recommendation that the election be set aside. As a majority of the employees have voted against representation by the Petitioner, we shall, accordingly, certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots was not cast for Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and that this union is not the exclusive representative of the employees in this unit.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. c Nathan Warren & Sons, Inc.. 119 NLRB 292, footnote 11. The Board, however, in Consolidated hearings involving violations of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and objections to an election has set elections aside on the basis of findings in the unfair labor practice cases that unions were illegally assisted or company dominated . Majestic Metal Specialties, Inc., 92 NLRB 1854. However , the instant case is not a consolidated hearing but relates : solely to a representation proceeding. See Section 9 (c) (2) of the Act. S Cf. Precision Sheet Metal, Inc., 115 NLRB 949, where the Board held that where an employer proposed to establish its own labor relations committee accompanied by a state- ment that such committee will cost the employees nothing and that they had everything to gain by it, the Board set the election aside on the ground that the statement implied the employer would act more favorably through such a committee than through a union. Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company, Test Fleet Branch and Louie E. Wright. Case No. 39-CA-580. November 8, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER On January 29, 1957, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 119 NLRB No. 52.