Gary Aircraft Corp.

GARY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION Gary Aircraft Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 23-RC-3440 September 11, 1975 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO An election petition was filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, on April 24, 1970. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction issued June 19, 1970, by the Regional Director for Region 23, an election was conducted July 10, 1970. On Sep- tember 14, 1971, the Board set aside the election and directed that a second election be conducted.' The second election was held on October 25, 1974. Of the 450 votes cast, 209 were for the Petitioner and 183 were against. The 20 challenged ballots were not de- terminative. Employer filed timely objections to the election. On January 29, 1975, the Regional Director ordered a hearing on Employer's objections. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted before Hear- ing Officer Richard J. Linton. The Hearing Officer recommended that a portion of Objection 3 be sus- tained and that all other objections, including the re- maining parts of Objection 3, be overruled. As a re- sult of his recommendation to sustain a portion of Objection 3, the Hearing Officer directed that the election be set aside and a new one conducted. Peti- tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report? Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The Hearing Officer found Edward L. Mendez to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that Mendez had actively campaigned for Petitioner. Based on these findings, the Hearing Officer recom- mended that Objection 3 be sustained to the extent it was based on the conduct of Mendez. Petitioner ex- cepts, contending, inter alia, that even if Mendez was a supervisor his conduct does not warrant our setting ' 193 NLRB 108. 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma, the Hearing Officer's recommendations concerning all other objections filed. 187 aside the election. We find merit in Petitioner's con- tention. Mendez was a leadman 3 in Department 331 on the date of the election. As such, Mendez was required to fill out production and employee evaluation reports in addition to performing his duties as a mechanic. As of the election date, Mendez had held his present position for only 2 weeks having been appointed on October 11, 1974. However, prior to June 1974 he had been a leadman in another department. During the June to October 11, 1974, period he worked as a mechanic and, in addition, signed certain reports in the absence of his predecessor, Wilbert Swenson 4 as leadman. Mendez became involved in union activities some- time after his June transfer to Department 331. His activities consisted of attending union meetings, passing out handbills, and speaking with employees urging them to support the Union. Mendez contin- ued these activities, in addition passing out union buttons, after the October 11 announcement that he was the leadman in Department 331. In all, Mendez received statements of support for the Union from 80 to 90 employees. Mere supervisory participation in a union's orga- nizing campaign does not, without a showing of pos- sible objectionable effects, warrant setting aside an election. Turner's Express, Incorporate, 189 NLRB 106 (1971); Stevenson Equipment Company, 174 NLRB 865 (1969). As we noted in those cases, there are two situations where such participation could have an objectionable effect. First, employees may be lead to believe the supervisor was acting on behalf of the employer and that the employer favors the union. Second, employees may be coerced out of fear of future retaliation by union-oriented supervisors into supporting the union. Neither situation is pre- sent herein. As to the first, it is inconceivable that the employ- ees were misled into believing Mendez was acting on behalf of the Employer since it had conducted a widespread antiunion campaign. As the Board found in the earlier proceeding, the campaign was marked with a number of instances of unlawful conduct in- cluding the discharge of several union adherents. As to the second, there is no evidence to indicate Men- 3 The Regional Director in his June 19, 1970, Decision and Direction of Election found Employer's production department leadmen to be statutory supervisors. The Board so found in its earlier Decision and Order in this case, 193 NLRB 108 The powers, authority, and functions of leadmen re- main the same as they were in 1970 4 Evidence shows Mendez signed employee Tom Perez' request for leave on September 17, 1974, since Swenson was absent Petitioner contends Mendez was not a supervisor during this June to October 11, 1974, period, but that he only occasionally substituted for Swenson In view of our find- ings hereinafter that Mendez' actions do not warrant setting aside the elec- tion, even assuming he was a supervisor at all times in question, we find it unnecessary to decide this issue. 220 NLRB No. 32 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dez coerced or threatened employees into voting for the Union, or that any action was taken to make the employees fear possible retribution at his hands if they did not adhere to his wishes. The number of persons affected by Mendez in his capacity as a "union supervisor," as well as the limited extent of his authority, indicate very little opportunity for him really to affect the status of other employees. That was especially the case during June through October 11, 1974, when he worked primarily as a mechanic, that is, as an employee like them, and thus they likely viewed his prounion conduct as an extension of his own personal views. In any event, Mendez was a low-level supervisor whose actual authority extended to only seven or eight employees. In light of these circumstances, we find that Mendez' activities on be- half of the Union did not impair the employees' free- dom of choice in the election. Therefore we shall ov- errule Employer's Objection 3. Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections, and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the employees' repre- sentative. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for International Union, Unit- ed Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organization is the exclu- sive representative of all the employees in the unit found appropriate herein for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ- ment. All production and maintenance employees in- cluding production control plant clerical em- ployees, engineering non-professional employ- ees, draftsmen, inspectors, shipping and receiving employees, material control employees including truck drivers, supply department cleri- cals and quality control clerks; but excluding all office clerical employees, counselors, leadmen, guards, watchmen and supervisors, as defined by.the Act.