General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 108 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (TIFF= PLANT OF THE FRACTIONAL
HORSEPOWER MOTOR DEPARTMENT ) and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS , CIO, PETITIONER, Case
No. 8-RC'-1524. February 27, 1953
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of
Elections,' issued on September 30, 1952, an election was conducted on
November 12,1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, among employees in the unit found
appropriate in Case No. 8-RC-1524. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 594 eligible voters, 206 valid ballots were cast for
the Petitioner, 265 valid ballots were cast for the Intervenor, United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), and its Local
No. 732, 2 ballots were challenged, and 33 ballots were cast against
participating labor organizations.
On November 18, 1952, the Petitioner sent the following telegram to
the Regional Director :
This is to advise our intention of filing with your office a pro-
test of the Board ordered election in the Matter of General Elec-
tric Co., Fractional Horsepower Division, Tiffin, Ohio, and the
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, such protest will immediately follow.
Thereafter, the Petitioner forwarded an undated letter containing
its objections 2 to the Regional Director postmarked November 19,
1952, and received at the Regional Office on November 20, 1952.
Copies of the above-mentioned telegram were not served upon the
Employer or Intervenor. Copies of the letter were received by both
these parties on November 20, 1952.
The Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his report
on objections on November 23, 1952, recommending that the objections
be overruled and the Intervenor be certified because there had been
no timely service of objections on the Employer or the Intervenor-the
telegram never having been received by these two parties and the
letter having been received 1 day after the period of time prescribed
by the Board's Rules and Regulations for the filing of objections.
1 General Electric Company, 100 NLRB 1318 . ( Consolidated Cases Nos. 8-RC-1524,
8-RC-1533).
P The Petitioner alleged , in substance , that the Employer executed a contract with the
Intervenor during the pendency of the Petitioner 's motion for reconsideration of the
Board's original Decision , thus lending assistance to the Intervenor and interfering with
the election.
103 NLRB No. 16.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 109
The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report on objections in
which it urges, in substance, that by serving copies of its letter on the
other parties, a period of 24 hours after it served its telegraphic notice
of objections upon the Regional Director, it complied with the require-
ment in Section 102.61 of the Rules of immediate service upon other
parties.
We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation, but for a
different reason. Section 102.61 of the published Rules of the Board
requires that, within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been fur-
nished, any party may file with the Regional Director objections to the
election or conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall
contain a short statement of the reasons therefor, and that a copy of
such objections shall immediately be served on each of the parties by
the party filing them, and proof of service be made.
In our opinion, it is clear that the Petitioner's telegram of November
18, 1952, can be construed only as a notice of intention to file, and not
the actual filing of, proper objections. Indeed, the last portion of the
telegram states that "such protest will immediately follow." More-
over, the telegram cannot be considered as constituting proper ob-
jections, in view of the fact that its contents are wholly inadequate
to meet the requirement of Section 102.61 that objections must contain
a short statement of reasons therefor. In these circumstances, we find
that the Petitioner's telegram was nothing more than a notice to the
Regional Director of future action which the Petitioner proposed
to take and which in no way affected the necessity of proper objections
being filed within the 5-day period prescribed in Section 102.61, if they
were to be timely.
We turn now to a consideration of whether the Petitioner's letter
amounted to proper objections which were timely filed. As the let-
ter indicated that it was a formal protest of the election and con-
tained the required statement of supporting reasons, we have no
difficulty in interpreting it as constituting proper objections. How-
ever, we are unable to come to a similar conclusion with respect to
the timeliness of its filing. Thus, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 102.61, the last day for filing objections with the Regional
Director was November 19, 1952. Although the letter was post-
marked November 19, 1952, it was not received by the Regional Di-
rector until November 20, 1952. In the recent Dunn case,3 the Board
had occasion to pass upon the effect of Section 102.83 of the Rules and
Regulations upon Section 102.61 and pointed out that the former sec-
tion clearly provides that in order to be timely filed objections must
be received by the Regional Director at his office within the specified
5-day period. We stated in that case, and reaffirm here, our belief
Dunn Motor Company, 100 NLRB 822.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the rule is salutary and not unreasonable in its requirements, and
that it is essential to certainty in procedural matters that parties be
held to strict compliance therewith.
As the last day of the 5-day period provided by Section 102.61 for
filing objections to the election was November 19, 1952, we must find
that the Petitioner's objections received and filed at the Regional
Director's office on November 20, 1952, were not timely filed .4 Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the Petitioner's objections and its excep-
tions. As the Intervenor has secured a majority of the votes cast, we
shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
It is hereby certified that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE) and its Local No. 732 has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees of the General Electric
Company at its Tiffin Plant of the Fractional Horsepower Motor
Department, Tiffin, Ohio, in the unit heretofore found by the Board
to be appropriate in Case No. 8-RC-1524 as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
d In view of our finding herein, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether by serving
copies of its letter on the other parties on November 20, 1952, the Petitioner complied with
the requirement in Section 102.61 of immediate service upon the other parties.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.
2-RC-4122. February 27, 1953
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Elec-
tion,"-issued on September 30, 1952, an election was conducted on
October 15, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Second Region, among the employees in the unit
i 10'0 NLRB 1315.
103 NLRB No. 12.