Aerovox Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 246 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AEROVOX CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE)
AEROVOX CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE)
AEROVOX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO
AEROVOX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE: WORKERS, CIO,
Petitioner . Cases Nos . 1-CA-1031, I -CA-1068, 1-CA-1088,
and 1 -RC-2079. April 21, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and
Order in the above-entitled case finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and ordering that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act. On February 25, 1=953, the Respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration and for a stay of the Board's
Order of February 19,. 1953, pending determination of the
motion, in which it alleges that the Board had failed to rule
on certain motions and had incorrectly resolved the issues of
the case.
In its exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report
in this case, the Respondent _had asked the Board to dismiss
the complaint and, if that -request were denied, to reopen the
record for the purpose of taking further evidence. The Board
considered these motions and, while not specifically denying
them in its Decision, did so impliedly by failing to dismiss the
complaint or to order the record reopened. However, we hereby
grant the Respondent's request for specific rulings upon its
motions as indicated below.
1. The Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America (UE), herein called the UE, one of the charging
unions, was Communist dominated, that the affidavits filed by
its officers under Section 9 (h) of the Act were untrue and
constituted an abuse of the Board ' s processes, and that cer-
tain individuals who had not complied with the filing require-
ments were officers of the UE although not designated as
such. Under Section 102.13 (b) (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, only an individual holding
a position identified as an "office" by a labor organization's
constitution and bylaws is an "officer" who needs to comply
with the filing requirements unless it can be shown that a
labor organization had omitted the designation of a position as
an "office" in order to evade or circumvent the filing require-
ments of the Act. No such showing was made here and no in-
formation was made available to the Board which would cause
it to order afurther investigation. We therefore find, in accord-
104 NLRB No. 40
AEROVOX CORPORATION 247
ance with our administrative determination , that all officers
of the Union have complied with the filing requirements of
the Act. As under the terms of a recent court decision' we
have no authority to require affirmance of the truth of the
affidavits filed with the Board , we deny the Respondent's
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of noncompliance
by the UE.
2. The Respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the UE , by signing a waiver of unfair labor
practice charges in connection with its participation as an
intervenor in Case No . 1.=RC-2079; had waived its unfair labor
practice charges for the purpose 's of this proceeding. The
waiver signed by the UE, however , waived the unfair labor
practices only to the extent that they might constitute objections
to the election directed in Case No. 1 -RC =2 079, but did not
waive them for the purposes of an unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding. ! Accordingly, we deny the Respondent ' s motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the unfair labor
practice charges had been waived by the UE.
3. The Respondent moved to reopen the record in order to
adduce evidence to show that Manuel Cordeiro ; who was found
to have been discriminatorily discharged , was denied unem-
ployment compensation by the Division of Employment Security
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ; and did not appeal
from such decision. The Respondent does n 'ot allege , nor does-• ten, r-
the record show- that the fact s concerning the action of the
Division of Employment Security for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts were not available to the Respondent at the time
of the hearing in this cage. Ivioreo^ie 'r, while such a decision
has some probative value; it is not binding upon the Board.
Furthermore , even if this decision had been considered, it
wouid not have caused u's to alter our finding that Cordeiro
was discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the
Act. Accordingly , we derly the Respondent ' s mbtinn to reopen
the record for this purpose:
4. The Respondent alsd moved to reopen the record for the
purpose of showing that s ince the hearing in this case, the
Respondent had entered into two classified Government con=
tracts, and that the purpose and function of the jAerovox Plant
Committee, herein called the Committee ; Which the Board
found to be dominated and interfe 'rptt With by the Respondent,
had changed since the Re`spoiident again became a national
defense contractor . As such a showing Would, under the cir-
cumstances , be irrelevant to the issues herein involved, the
motion to reopen the record for` this purpose is denied. How-
ever, while the Respondent is precluded from dealing with
the Committee as a labor organization because it was ordered
to disestablish the Committee as such an organization , nothing
contained herein or in our original Decision and Order is to be
1 United Electrical Workers v . Herzog, 110 F. Supp 220 (D.C., D.C., 1953).
2W. C. Nabors , d/b/a W . C. Nabors Company , 89 NLRB 538 . enforced 196 F. 2d 272
(C.A. 5, 1952), cert . den. 344 U .S. 865 ( 1952).
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
construed as precluding the Respondent from conferring with
a committee of its employees in order to find means of avoiding
sabotage, espionage, and accidents.
5. The Respondent also attacked the Board's action in making
corrections in the transcript of the hearing. It contended that
as none of the parties requested the corrections, they must
have been framed pursuant to consultation with the Trial
Examiner "or the Board raised the question sua sponte."
There is no basis in fact for these contentions. The Respondent
raised this issue when it sought, in its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, to support its claim that the Trial Examiner
was biased and prejudiced by quoting from the transcript
the statements here in question. In order to determine the
merits of the Respondent's exceptions, the Board considered
these statements in their context and in their relation to the
record as a whole. On the basis of such consideration, the
Board found, for the reasons set forth in the Decision and
Order, that the statements obviously contained typographical
errors which distorted what the Trial Examiner had said.
Correcting the record, under these circumstances, was equiv-
alent to making a finding as to what was said by construing
the statements in question in their context. Such a construc-
tion, and our review of the entire record, convinced us that
no bias or prejudice on the part of the Trial Examiner was
shown regardless of whether or not the portions of the trans-
script in question were corrected. Therefore, we find without
merit the Respondent's objection to this correction of the
record.9
As the Respondent's request for reconsideration of the
merits of the case and its renewed request for oral argument
raise no matters which were not presented in the record and
in the briefs and exceptions, or which were not previously
considered and disposed of by the Board, these requests are
denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent ' s motion for
reconsideration and for a stay of the Board 's Order be, and
it hereby is, denied.
Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock took no part in the
consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
sUnited Mine Workers of America, 92 NLRB 916, enforced 195 F . 2d 961 (CA. 6, 1952),
cert . den. 344 U . S. 920 ( 1953); The Wallingford Steel Company . 53 NLRB 404.