Allied Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1270 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion as the bargaining representative of any and all production and maintenance
employees at its plant in Syracuse, New York; that it cease and desist from giving
effect to the contract entered into on October 8, 1953, with that organization, and all
supplements or renewals thereof, without prejudice to any wage increases or other
benefits to employees now in effect; and that it cease and desist from rendering assist-
ance and support to, or otherwise interfering with the administration of that or any
other labor organization.
Having found that Respondent on and after July 22, 1953, refused to bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the Steelworkers Union as certified and exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, I shall recommend that Respondent,
upon request, bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Local
No. 4952, as such representative, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody
its terms in a signed written agreement.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Local No. 4952, and International
Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, and its Local No. 80,
are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Syracuse, New
York, plant, excluding office clerical and technical employees and all guards, profes-
sional employees, work leaders, and other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Local No. 4952, has been at all times
since June 25, 1953, and now is, the certified and exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good faith on July 22, 1953,
and at all times thereafter, as found above, with United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, Local No. 4952, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair'labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By rendering assistance and support to International Molders & Foundry
Workers Union of North America, AFL, and its Local No. 80, thereby interfering
with the administration of a labor organization, as found above, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees, as found above, in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
ALLIED ELECTRIC PRODUCTS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER .. Case No. 2-RC-6418.
September 10, 1954
Supplemental Decision, Order , and Second Direction of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
February 12, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot Was conducted on March
i Not reported In printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
109 NLRB No. 177.
ALLIED ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1271
11, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Second Region, among employees in the unit found appropri-
ate by the Board. Following the election, a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties. The tally shows that of 338 votes cast in the
election, 201 were for the Petitioner, 134 were against the Petitioner,
1 was void, and 2 were challenged.
On March 17, 1954, the Employer filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated
the objections and, on May 4, 1954, duly served upon the parties a
report on objections in which he recommended that the objections be
overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent of the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. The
Employer has timely filed its exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.'
Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as follows:
During the period preceding the election the Petitioner circulated
among the employees a document that purported to be a sample copy
of the Board's "Official Secret Ballot" as shown on the notice of elec-
tion. However, the purported sample ballot was not in fact a copy
of the Board's ballot but had been altered in the following manner :
(1) The word "Yes," was printed in very large type at the left of the
"Yes" box; (2) there was an "X" in the "Yes" box; and (3) an addi-
tional printed line had been added at the bottom of the ballot, reading :
"Do not mark it any other way-Mark `YES' box only."
The Regional Director concluded that this document did not contain
the signature of the Regional Director or any representative of the
Board, and as it was clearly marked "Sample" on its face, it therefore
did not mislead the voters by giving them the impression that the Board
was lending its support to the party issuing the ballot. Accordingly,
he found that its circulation was in effect merely campaign propa-
ganda which did not interfere with the exercise of the employees of
a free choice in the election.
We do not agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the
circulated sample ballot did not exceed the bounds of legitimate
campaign propaganda.' The Board is necessarily concerned with the
protection of its procedures designed to provide fair elections. The
Board particularly looks with disfavor upon any attempt to misuse
3 The Employer limited its exceptions to the Regional Director's failure to find that there
was merit in the Employer's objection to a form of a "falsified" sample of the Board's
official secret ballot distributed by the Petitioner to the employees.
3 Anderson Air Activities, 106 NLRB 543.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its processes to secure partisan advantage,' and especially does it
believe that no participant in a Board election should be permitted
to suggest either directly or indirectly to the voters that this Govern-
ment Agency endorses a particular choice.
Although the Board has traditionally declared its intention not to
censor or police preelection campaign propaganda by parties to elec-
tions, it must, in order to preserve an atmosphere of impartiality,
impose certain limitations on methods used in campaigning.' The
reproduction of a document that purports to be a copy of the Board's
official secret ballot, but which in fact is altered for campaign pur-
poses, necessarily, at the very least, must tend to suggest that the
material appearing thereon bears this Agency's approval. As there
are many legitimate methods available to parties for disseminating
campaign propaganda which clearly do not entail an apparent involve-
ment of the Board or its processes, we believe it is unnecessary to
permit unlimited freedom to partisans in election cases to reproduce
official Board documents for campaign propaganda purposes.
We find that the reproduction in this case by the Petitioner of
altered copies of the Board's official ballot tended to interfere with a
free choice in the election, and was improper. We shall therefore set
the election aside and order a new election. Upon consideration, the
Board has decided that in the future it will not permit the reproduc-
tion of any document purporting to be a copy of the Board's official
ballot, other than one completely unaltered in form and content and
clearly marked sample on its face,' and upon objection validly filed,
will set aside the results of any election in which the successful party
has violated this rule.'
[The Board set aside the election held on March 11, 1954.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' Cf. The Am-O-Krome Company, 92 NLRB 893; Sears Roebuck & Co., 47 NLRB 291.
6 United Aircraft Corporation , 103 NLRB 102; Timken-Detroit Axle Company, 98
NLRB 790.
6 L. Gordon & Son, Inc., 100 NLRB 438 ; Gray Drug Stores , Inc , 95 NLRB 171 ; Gate
City Table Co., Inc., 87 NLRB 1120; and other decisions of the Board, insofar as they
approve the circulation of a copy of the Board ' s official ballot marked in favor of one of
the parties , even though also marked sample on its face , are hereby overruled
7 Cf Bridgeport Castings Company , 109 NLRB 749, which Hest came before the
Board in September 1953 , on objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In that case , the Board had passed on the sample ballot there involved , and found that it
was not objectionable under existing precedent , before remanding the case for a hearing
on other objections. Here, although we have chosen this decision in which to enunciate
the new rule relating to sample ballots , set forth above, the rule is not necessarily retro-
actively applied to the facts of this case , as the altered ballot is objectionable under the
principle of Anderson Air Activities , supra.