The Mosler Safe Co.

THE MOSLER SAFE COMPANY 747 `States, and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices by discharging Felther Mars, Joseph Brumfield, Preston Turley, Jr., Raymond Anderson, and Stafford Jackson. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 270, Ind., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees because of their union membership and activities, nor will we discriminate in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, to discourage membership in a labor organization except as author- ized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees coercively concerning their union mem- bership, sentiments , and activities, nor will we threaten to discharge employees or to impose onerous workloads because of their union membership, sentiments, and activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to form, join, or assist said General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 270, Ind., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer to Lucindia Reid and Eddy Antoine immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. WE WILL make whole Lloyd Vinnett, John Anny, Samuel Slack, Albert Stampley, James Riley, and Leroy Whittaker for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the above Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that said right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. IPIK DOOR COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated-------- ----------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted ,far 60 days from the date hereof, and must neat be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Mosler Safe Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Safe Workers Organization, Chapter No. 2. Case No. 9-RC-4037. November 03, 1960 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION DF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated April 21, 1960, an election by secret ballot was conducted on 129 NLRB No. 97. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD May 6, 1960, under the direction and supervision of the regional Director for the Ninth Region, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 714 eligible voters, 696 cast valid ballots, of which, 191 were for the Petitioner, 501 were for the Intervenor, 3 were against the participating labor organizations, and 1 was challenged. The Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on July 18, 1960, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he recom- mended that the objections be overruled and that the Intervenor be certified as the representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate. On August 5, 1960, the Petitioner filed timely excep- tions to the Regional Director's report, together with a supporting memorandum. 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the Petitioner's exceptions, and on the entire record in this case finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's" Hamilton, Ohio, plant, including warehouse employees located on Belle Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio, but excluding all polishers, buffers,, platers, and helpers employed in the polishing and plating depart- ment, all administrative, executive, and professional employees, engi- neering department employees, timekeepers, office employees, clerks to the foremen, guards and watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and all supervisory employees as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the obiections, the Regional Director's report, and the exceptions thereto, and on the entire record in this THE MOSLER SAFE COMPANY 749 case hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director, with the following additions : The election herein was scheduled on payday, between the hours of 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. The evidence shows that the Employer's usual practice is to pay its employees on Friday of each week between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., but that on election day the hour of pay dis- tribution was accelerated to shortly before noon. Moreover, on this payday each employee found in his pay envelope a smaller envelope containing a $5 bill and an inscription on the envelope stating as follows : "This $5.00 is yours-Now the CIO wants us to take at least $5.00 out of your pay envelope each month and send it to them. To keep the CIO from getting $60.00 a year out of your money, vote against them in the election today. $60.00 minimum yearly dues is only a starter. There is also initiation fees-and possible assessments, `political contributions,' fines and other charges. What a difference there is between CIO big talk-and the true facts." The Petitioner contends that the acceleration of the pay period and the utilization of the pay envelope and the time immediately before the opening of the polls for antiunion propaganda interfered with the employees' freedom of choice. We do not agree. In Montrose Hanger Company, 120 NLRB 88, cited by the Regional Director, the Board found that the Employer's utilization in distributing its antiunion propaganda of paystubs which pointed to the deductions which would be on em- ployees' paycheck if the union won the election did not interfere with the employees' freedom of choice. On the question of acceleration of the pay period, the Board, in the absence of exceptions thereto, adopted pro forma the Regional Director's finding that the timing of the distri- bution did not interfere with the free choice of employees. In the circumstances of the instant case, notwithstanding the Petitioner's exceptions, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that neither the use of the pay envelopes for the stated propaganda purpose nor the acceleration of the pay hour constituted an interference with the employees' freedom of choice, which would warrant setting aside the election.' [The Board certified Safe Workers Organization, Chapter No. 2, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit.] 1 The Petitioner's exceptions do not otherwise raise material or substantial issues of facts or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings and recom- mendations. Contrary to the Petitioner, we see no reason for reconsidering or changing our policy and requiring an employer to remain neutral in an election 'campaign. See Cupples-Hesse Corporation, 119 NLRB 1288. The Petitioner's request for a hearing is therefore denied.