Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corp.

In the Matter of PHELPS DODGE COPPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, HABIR- SHAW CABLE AND WIRE DIVISION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO ce" MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. R-2048 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES February 4, 1941 On November 27, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction of Run- Off Election in the above -entitled proceeding.' Pursuant thereto an election by secret ballot was conducted on December 20, 1940, under the direction and 'supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City ). On December 23, 1940, the Regional Di- rector, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties a Run -off Election Report. As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported as follows : Total number eligible to vote_______________________________ 640 Total number of ballots cast________________________________ 597 Total number of valid ballots-------- - -------------------- _---- Total number of votes in favor of Local No. 3, international 582 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L______________ 301 Total number of votes in favor of C. I. 0., United Electrical, Radio &-Machine Workers of America_____________________ 281 Total number of blank votes -------------------------------- 0 Total number of void ballots_________________________________ 10 Total number of challenged votes_____________________________ 15 Since the 15 challenged ballots cannot affect the results of the election we find it unnecessary to pass upon the challenges. On December 17 and 21, 1940, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the United, wrote letters to the Board's Regional Office protesting the run-off election, and on December 27, 1940, it filed with the Regional Director its objections to 1 28 N. L. R B. 167. 29 N. L. R B., No 73 399 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Run-off Election Report. The United objected to effect being given the election returns on the grounds that Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corporation, Habirshaw Cable and Wire Division, herein called the Company , had interfered with and influenced the election by the following actions prior to the run-off election : ( 1) the Com- pany had posted a notice throughout the plant which influenced the employees in favor of Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the Brotherhood , and against the United; (2)- the Company wrote a letter to the United in which it expressed its reasons for preferring the Brotherhood and sent a copy thereof to the Brotherhood ; (3) foremen and plant superintendents of the Company attempted to influence the employees to vote for the Brotherhood and at a beer party prior to the election told a number of employees to vote for the Brotherhood. On January 15, 1941, the Regional . Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9" of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served her Report On Objections , in which she found that the objections raised no substantial and material issue with respect to the election and recommended that said objections to the run -off election be dismissed. On January 20, 1941, the United wrote to the Board in Washington, D. C., objecting to the Regional Director 's recommendation to dismiss the United's objections to the run -off election and requesting oral argument before the Board. We have examined the United's objections and the Regional Di- rector's report thereon and conclude that the objections do not raise any substantial or material issue regarding the election or the Run- off Election Report. The notice to its employees posted by the Com- pany prior to the election denied a published statement by the United that the Company had entered into a renewal of a previous collective bargaining contract with the Brotherhood . The final paragraph of this notice stated, "We stand ready to negotiate with your bargaining agent as soon as selected by a majority." The allegation that the Company had attempted to influence its Pmployees through its supervisory employees is contained in an affi- davit from a former employee of the Company. In regard to this. affidavit the Regional Director reported that its author could give neither the names of the supervisory employees nor the employees involved and that for this reason it was impossible to investigate these allegations or to give credence to them. We see no reason to reverse this finding of the Regional Director. The letter alleged as prejudicial to the interests of the United was the Company's answer to a letter from the United of November 8, 1940. The latter informed the Company that the United had requested PHELPS DODGE COPPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION 401 for a run-off election and was asking the Company to maintain a neutral attitude towards the United and the Brotherhood. The Com- pany's answer, dated November 15, 1940, acknowledged receipt of the United's letter and asked them to "recognize for the good of the men" that non-use of the Brotherhood label would seriously curtail sales and lessen production. Part of the letter reads as follows : Knowing that you are interested in the welfare of the laboring man we bring this natter to your serious attention for we feel sure that you will wish to advise our Habirshaw workers of the situation that exists in connection with the use of the label as we have outlined above . . . in order that our men may have all the facts clearly before them and therefore be in a position to make an intelligent decision when voting if a run-off election is held. While copies of this letter were sent to the Board and the Brotherhood, the Regional Director reported that there was no evidence whatsoever that it had been circulated by the Company or the Brotherhood; nor did the United contend that such was the fact. For these reasons we hereby overrule the objections of the United to the election and the Run-off Election Report and deny the request for an oral argument.. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that, Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., has been designated and selected by a' majority of all hourly rated employees •of Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corporation, Habirshaw Cable and Wire Division, Yonkers, New York, excluding executives, supervisory employees, and clerical employees, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., is the exclusive representative of all such em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employmelt. Mn. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting: I think the United's objections raise a substantial and material issue with respect to the conduct of the run-off election, and I would not, therefore, certify the Brotherhood at thi's time. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Company's letter to the United, dated November 15, 1940, stated, among other things, the following: "We have always endeavored to maintain strict neutrality pertaining to labor matters but Ave feel that you must recognize for the good of the men the following : "First : Our Sales organization feels very strongly that many of our customers show decided preference for the wires and cables such as are manufactured by our Habirshaw Division, where they carry the label of the IBEW parent organization or of their locals, such as Local.No. 3. "Second: Our Sales organization feels very strongly that if our Habirshaw wires and cables are not labelled with the IBEW label or Local No. 3 label that our sales will be decidedly handicapped and curtailed and particularly so in the large metropolitan territories. This, of course, would mean decided losses to our company as well as a severe loss to our men in working hours. "Third : Knowing that you are interested in the welfare of the labor- ing man we bring this matter to your serious attention for we feel sure that you will wish to advise our Habirshaw workers of the situation that exists in connection with the use of the label as we have outlined above . . . in order that our men may have all the facts clearly before them and therefore be in a position to make an intelligent decision when voting if a run-oft election is held. "We understand that you have distributed in leaflet form to our Habirshaw workers a copy of your letter to us, dated November 8th. We are therefore mailing a copy of this letter to the National Labor Relations Board of New York and to the A. F. of L., Local No., 3." It is plain that the Company, in this letter, not only stressed the economic necessity for the Brotherhood. label on its products but also invited both the Brotherhood and the United to make known this position to the employees. This action was taken despite the fact that the Company knew that the Board had been asked to hold a run-off election. Since the United has informed the Board, in its objections to the Run-off Election Report, dated December 27, 1940, that it would "file charges against the Employer if you [the Regional Director] think such a procedure advisable." I would accept a charge from the United alleging a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act and would hold a hearing on the questions of the Company's unfair labor practices, if any,, and interference with the ruui-off election. I would withhold certification of the Brotherhood at least until such time as the Board made its findings on the evidence produced at such hearing. In my opinion such action is necessary in order to afford to Board elections adequate protection from employer interference.