Dollinger Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

III the Matter of DOLLINGER CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and UNITED
ELECTRICAL ,, RADIO &-, MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I..O.,
PETITIONER
Cqse No. 3-R-13M.Decided September 10, 1946
Harris, Beach, Keating, Wilcox, and Dale, by Mr. Charles S. Wil-
cox, of Rochester, N. Y., for the Employer.-
Messrs. Hugh Harley, Jr., Walter Kessler, and Theodore Buezek, of
Rochester, N. Y., for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT' OF TIIE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
conducted on July 31, 1946, a prehearing election, pursuant to Article
III, Section 3, of the Board's Rules and Regulations, among employees
of the Employer in the unit hereinafter found appropriate, to. deter-
mine whether,or not they desire to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 90 eligible
voters and that 87 of these eligible voters cast valid ballots, of which
68 were for, and 19 were against, the Petitioner.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of the Rules and
Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before Francis X. Helgesen, Trial Examiner. The hearing
was held at Rochester, New York, on August 14, 1946. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Dollnlger Corporation has its principal office and plant at Rochester,
New York, where-it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of indus-
70 N.L.R B, No. 119.
1279
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trial filters. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, the Employer
'purchased raw materials, consisting principally of screen, cloth, felt,
steel, brass, and miscellaneous parts and supplies, valued at approxi-
mately $200,000, approximately 30 percent of which was received
from sources outside the State of New York. During the same
period,'t11e Employer sold products finished at its plant, valued at
approximately $696,000, of which 60 to 70 percent represents sales
made to customers outside ,the State of New York.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been' certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rochester,
New York, plant, but excluding all office and clerical employees and
all supervisory. employees with authority to hire,.promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section,
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election.
The Employer, however, contends (1) that the recent amendment to
the Board's Rules and Regulations permitting the Regional Director
to hold an election before hearing is not effective as proper procedure
for an election on the ground that the amendment is inserted as a
footnote to, and not made part of, the main paragraph of the text of
Article III of the Rules and Regulations of the Board-Series -3, as
DOLLINGER CORPORATION 1281
amended; and (2) that a prehearing election interferes with the free
choice of employees participating therein in that such election neces-
sarily implies that employees participating therein are expected by the
Board to vote for the Petitioner. We find no merit in these conteii-
tions.1 The Employer further contends that the time between the
notice of election and the election in the instant case was too short to
permit the Employer to correct certain statements, attributed to the
Petitioner, concerning the employment situation at the plant, deroga-
tory to the Employer and which the Employer believes are false. The
Employer contends that the results of the election should therefore be
set aside and a new election ordered.
At a preelection conference between representatives of the Board
and the Employer, the only issue appeared to be the question of the
Petitioner's, majority representation among the employees concerned.
The Employer indicated its willingness, to participate, in an election,
indicating that the election should be held when employees on vacation
should be back at work and available to vote, and a date early in August
was suggested as the date for determining eligibility to vote in the
election. The Regional Director's representative then conferred with
the Petitioner, who requested an immediate election. No stipulation
for a consent election had been made and no agreement had been effected
between the parties as to the date for'determining eligibility or as to
the date for holding the election. Pursuant to the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board, the Regional Director, on July 26, 1946, according
to the official records in the Regional Office, sent formal notices- of
election to the Employer and to the Petitioner, fixing the eligibility
date as July 23 and setting July 31 for the day of the election. The
office of the Employer's attorney was closed on Saturday, July 27, but
the notice of election came to his attention on Monday, July 29. The
Employer knew of the date set for the election on July 29, and election
notices were posted in the plant on that duty, although the Employer did
not receive a formal notice of the election until Tuesday, July 30.
During the preelection campaign of the Petitioner, certain state-
ments were made concerning the Employer's attitude toward union
representation, to which the Employer took exception.- About 12 hours
before the election took place, the Petitioner's committee circulated
among employees at the plant a letter prepared by the Employer
calculated to correct these statements.
'We believe that the form in which an amendment is made is not material to the
validity of the amendment, which is not ambiguous, and that the Employer's contention,
under the circumstances, is therefore frivolous The amendment to the hoard s Rules and
Regulations permitting the Regional J)irector to hold an election before a hearing was de-
signed to speed the determination of representation in cases involving no other substantia,
issue. The amendment does not violate Section 9 of the Act or deprive any party of oppor•
tunity for hearing prior to certification of representatives Matter of E. R Squibb d
Sons, R7 N L R B 557.
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the election held on July. -31, 87 of approximately 90 eligible
employees participated and of this number, 68 voted for, and 19
against, the Petitioner. It appears that a very high percentage of
employees' eligible to vote were available to vote and participated in the
election. We have frequently held that statements made by a labor
organization for campaign purposes are recognizable as such and do
not constitute grounds for setting aside an election.2 In the instant
case, whatever may have been the statements made by the Petitioner, or
its adherents, to which the Employer took exception, the Petitioner
itself afforded the Employer an opportunity to deny the same. We
find no reason to set aside the election held in this case.
Since the Petitioner has- received a majority of the votes cast in the
election, we will certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees concerned.
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,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, C. I. 0., has, been designated and selected by a
majority of all production and maintenance employees of Dollinger
Corporation, Rochester, New York, at its Rochester, New York, plant,
but excluding all office and clerical employees anti all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates,of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JA31ES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Representatiyes.
2 Matter of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc, 64 N. L R. B 146