Hobart Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 227 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WESTERN REFRIGERATOR CO. 227
Western Refrigerator Co., Subsidiary of the Hobart
Manufacturing Co. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner . Case 27-
RC-4742
September 6, 1974
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, a duly conducted election was held
among employees in the stipulated unit on May 3,
1974.Of the approximately 61 eligible voters, 40 voted
for the Petitioner, and 15 voted against the Petitioner.
There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer timely filed four objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election.
On June 12, 1974, the Regional Director issued his
Report on Objections, recommending that the objec-
tions be overruled in their entirety. The Employer
filed timely exceptions limited, however, to the Re-
gional Director's recommendation that its Objection
2 be overruled.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer in the Freeport Cen-
ter, Clearfield, Utah, excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, inspectors,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
the absence of exceptions with respect to the Regional
Director's recommendations that Objections 1, 3, and
4 be overruled, hereby adopts pro forma those recom-
mendations and finds Objections 1, 3, and 4 to be
without merit. The Board has also considered the
Employer's exception to the Regional Director's find-
ings, conclusion, and recommendation with respect to
Objection 2 and finds that exception to be without
merit but for the reasons stated herein.
On April 15, 1974, the Union sent to employees of
the Employer who had initially signed authorization
cards a letter which stated among other things that
"there will be no initiation fee for anyone joining [the
Union] now during this campaign." The Employer
contends that this statement was a promise to elimi-
nate initiation fees for employees if they joined the
Union before the election and thus that it requires
under the Supreme Court's decision in Savair I that
the May 4 election be set aside. The Regional Director
concluded, however, that the word "campaign" in the
statement referred to both pre- and postelection peri-
ods and that in consequence the offer of waiver of
initiation fees did not fall within the proscription of
the Savair decision. We find merit in the Employer's
position to the extent that it contends the disputed
statement did not, standing alone, clearly have the
proper meaning assigned to it by the Regional Direc-
tor.
However, it appears that on April 19 the Union at
one of its meetings distributed to employees a hand-
bill stating in part "there will be no initiation fee or
dues until after the labor agreement has been ratified
by the members." And it further appears that union
agents on a number of occasions told employees oral-
ly that there would be no initiation fee or dues for
those who joined the Union before the contract was
signed. Thus we find that if the whole situation is
taken into consideration-and the letter statement
not viewed in isolation-the Union made clear its
position that initiation fees and dues were waived not
only for those who joined the Union before the elec-
tion but also for those who joined after the election
but before a contract with the Employer was ratified.
Consequently, we conclude that taken in context the
Union's waiver was not improper under Savair,2 and
that the Employer's exception is without merit. It is
hereby overruled.
As the Petitioner has received a majority of the
valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director's report, and, in the absence of exceptions
with respect to the Regional Director's report and, in
2' N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973).
2 See B . F. Goodrich Tire Company, a Division of the B. F. Goodrich Compa-
ny, 209 NLRB No. 182 (1974).
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE tion 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid representative of all the employees in the unit found
ballots have been cast for United Steelworkers of appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bar-
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, and that, pursuant to Sec- gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.