Gardener Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 197 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY 197
outside,' multilith group leaders,t° and first-aid attendants,
but excluding investigators , lecturers , senior lecturer, inter-
viewers , senior interviewer , confidential employees , profes-
sional employees , guards , communications chief, assistant
recreation division chief, and other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9Before the hearing, the Teamsters, which represents the Employer's truckdrivers,
requested recognition as bargaining agent for the buyers, senior buyers, expediters, and
messengers outside. However, though notified of the petition and hearing in this case,
the Teamsters did not appear Furthermore, these classifications would appear to be prop-
erly included in the unit
IDAs already mentioned, we shall permit the individual or individuals in this classifica-
tion to vote subject to challenge, without making any determination of status at this time
In the event that the challenged ballot or ballots will affect the outcome of the election, a
further investigation to determine the status of this individual or these individuals will
be conducted.
GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-2697.
July 16, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
On July 23, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and
Direction of Election,' an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate. At the conclusion of the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The
tally shows that of about 213 eligible voters, 198 cast ballots,
of which 76 were for the Petitioner, 121 were against the
Petitioner, 1 was challenged, and none was void.
On July 28, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election, a copy of which was
served on the Employer. In accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation of the objections and, on October 30, 1952,
issued and served on the parties his report on objections,
in which he recommended that some of the objections be
sustained, and others overruled; and he further recommended
that the Board set aside the election and that a new election
be directed.2 Thereupon the Employer filed timely exceptions
to the Regional Director's report on objections.3
i'I'he Decision and Direction of Election, issued on July 2, 1952, is not reported in the bound
volumes of the Decisions and Orders of the Board.
2 Because the challenged ballot could not affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director made no report concerning the challenge.
3 We adopt the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director to which no excep-
tions were taken, and we overrule such objections.
106 NLRB No 32.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 5, 1952 , the Board found that the Employer's
exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report raised sub-
stantial and material issues of fact, and ordered that a hearing
be held to resolve the issues.
On January 29 and February 24, 1953, pursuant to the Board's
order, hearing was held before George Squillacote , hearing
officer . On April 23, 1953, the hearing officer issued and
served on the parties his report on objections , findings, and
recommendations . On May 1, 1953, the Employer filed excep-
tions to the hearing officer ' s report and , on May 21, 1953,
briefs in support of its contentions . The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson. l.
The facts upon which the issue of the Employer ' s alleged
interference with the conduct of the election rests are not
in dispute . The election was scheduled and held on July 23,
1952 . On July 19 the Employer sent a letter to its employees.
On July 22, the day before the election , the Employer's
president , on company time and property , made a speech to
its employees , copies of which were given to all employees
at the close of the meeting . Copies of the complete letter
and the full text of the speech are in evidence . The Petitioner
continued its organizational campaign up to the time of the
election and its various circulars , which were distributed
to employees , are in evidence and were considered by the
hearing officer as part of the preelection circumstances.
The Petitioner did not request , and was not refused, permis-
sion to reply to the Employer ' s speech and to address the
employees on company time and property on July 22; and
this circumstance is not in issue in this proceeding.
With respect to objection 1 (a), that the Employer had
promised increases if the employees voted against the Peti-
tioner, the hearing officer found that in its letter of July 19
and in the president ' s speech of July 22, the Employer clearly
promised to meet with the employees after the election
and to grant them wage increases and other benefits provided
that they voted against the Petitioner ; and recommended
that the Petitioner ' s objection to the conduct of the election
on this ground be sustained.
With respect to objection 1 (b), that the Employer told
employees that they would experience long delays in getting
increases if the Petitioner won the election , the hearing
officer found that , in the July 22 speech of its president,
the Employer analyzed its rights in collective bargaining
and discussed what the Employer considered to be the usual
slow course in the negotiation of a collective -bargaining
4 Because the record and briefs clearly set forth the contentions of the parties, we deny
the Employer's request for oral argument.
GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY 199
agreement ; concluded that the speech did not contain a threat
that the Employer would deliberately delay the granting of a
wage increase if the employees voted for the Petitioner; and
recommended that Petitioner's objection on this ground be
overruled.
With respect to objection 1 (c), that the Employer told
employees that they would probably lose their year-end bonus
if the Petitioner won the election, the hearing officer found
that, in the July 22 speech of its president, the Employer
made statements relative to its bonus planwhich the employees
could reasonably take as a threat by the Employer that, if
the Petitioner won the election, the Employer would refuse
to continue the year-end bonus; and he recommended that
this objection be sustained.
In connection with his discussion of objection 1 (c), the
hearing officer quoted from the president's speech of July as
follows:
Now let's examine where you will be if the Union loses
tomorrow. If we do not have a Union , we can continue
to work on a friendly basis as we have in the past. Gardner
was one of the first companies in this area to grant many
benefits , including group life insurance , hospitalization
benefits, paid vacations, and was one of the first to grant
a year end bonus, and while we are talking about year end
bonuses, remember that in practically every plant here
in Beloit where the Union went in, the bonus went out.
Think that over. Do you remember what happened to the
year end bonus at Beloit Iron Works when the Union went
in? Do you want that to happen at Gardner?
The Employer, in his exceptions to the hearing officer's
report, contends that this and other partial quotations from
the letter of July 19 and the speech of July 22 made in his
report by the hearing officer do not give fair appraisal of the
import and effect either of the letter or of the speech, taken
as a whole. We do not agree, but we do not rely only on the
excerpts quoted.
We have considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional
Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto;
the hearing officer's report and the Employer's exceptions
thereto; and the entire record in this case, including the
Employer's letter of July 19 and its speech of July 22 in their
entireties, and we conclude with respect to objection 1 (c),
as did the hearing officer, that the pointed and specific refer-
ence to the year-end bonus in the president's speech of July 22,
just before the election, could reasonably be construed by
employees hearing the same as a threat that, if the Petitioner
won the election, the Employer would refuse to continue the
year-end bonus; and we therefore sustain this objection.
Accordingly, we find that, by such threat to the employees
of the loss of the year-end bonus, the Employer interfered
with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representative .' We find it unnecessary to make
any finding and conclusion upon objections 1 (a) and 1 (b).
We shall order that the election be set aside and direct that
a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held on July 23, 1952.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publi-
cation.]
S Reeves Instrument Corporation , 100 NLRB 1331.
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY and MISCELLANEOUS
AND WOODWORKERS UNION, LOCAL 2565, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 20 -CA-779. July 17, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief and requested
oral argument before the Board. The Respondent's request
for oral argument is denied as the record, exceptions, and
brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire' record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions and modifications:
1. While we concur in the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that the Respondent failed to invest sufficient authority in its
bargaining representative, we think that the authority that
must be vested in a party's representative in bargaining
negotiations is not readily susceptible to general definition;
the more realistic way to appraise this question, in our view,
is to consider the facts of the particular case. In the instant
case the authority of the Respondent's representative was
limited to the transmittal of proposals to and from the
106 NLRB No. 34.