Howell Electric Motors Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1337 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION , UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERI^A (UAW-CIO)
Case No 7-R-1878
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
July 17, 1945
11
Upon Objections filed by International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO),
herein called the Union , to'conduct affecting the results of the election and
conduct of the election held on January 12, 1945, pursuant to the Decision
and Direction of Election issued on December 20, 1944, ' by the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , a hearing was held before
Peter F. Ward , Trial Examiner , at Howell, Michigan , on March 29, 1945,
in which the Board , the Union , and Howell Electric Motors -Company,
herein called the Company , participated by their representatives.
On April 30 , 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Report and Recom-
mendations , a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found the
Union's Objections to have merit and recommended that the Objections
he sustained , the election set aside , and a new election held. Thereafter, the
Company filed Exceptions to the Report and Recommendations and the
Union submitted a letter in lieu of a brief.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner 's rulings on motions and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
The Board has considered the Report and Recommendations , the Excep-
tions , and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
1 59 N L. R. B. 1171.
2 Mr Houston adopts all the findings of the Trial Examiner whereas Mr. Reilly adopts only some
of those findings See Mr . Reilly 's concurring opinion
62 N. L. R. B., No. 181.
1337
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' In suln, the Trial
Examiner found that by the statements of Supervisor Boyd and Foreman
Hill indicating to employees shortly before the election that they would lose
their "overtime" and be "worse" off if they voted for the Union, and by the
letter of President Flood to the employees on the eve of the election, the
Company had engaged in a course of conduct interfering with the free
choice of representatives by its employees at the election on January 12,
1945. He further found it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the
Union's contention that the Company had committed certain improprieties
at the election thereby interfering with the employees' free choice. In its
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Report and Recommendations the Com-
pany, in addition to renewing its contentions already'made before the Trial
Examiner, urged that the Board reject the Trial Examiner's findings and
conclusions as to the statements attributed to Supervisor Boyd and Fore-
man Hill by employees Ricketts, Bessert, and LoRee, respectively, by dis-
crediting the testimony of these employees which the Trial Examiner cred-
ited, and by crediting the denials of Boyd andeHill, which the Trial Exam-
iner rejected. After carefully reviewing the record herein, we are per-
suaded that the Trial Examiner, who had the benefit of personal observa-
tion of the witnesses, fairly and judiciously resolved the conflicts in testi-
mony and correctly interpreted the evidence adduced at the hearing.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Company's above-described course of
conduct during the period preceding the election prevented an expression
therein of the employees' free and uncoerced wishes as to representation
We shall therefore set the election aside. We shall direct a new election at
such time as the Regional Director advises us that circumstances permitting
a free choice among the employeees have been restored.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 12, 1945, among
the employees of Howell Electric Motors Company, Howell, Michigan, be.
and it hereby is, set aside.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring :
I concur in the Supplemental Decision and Order except that I find it
unnecessary to pass upon whether or not the language used by the president
of the Company in his letter to the employees exceeded the permissible exer-
I In his report , the Trial Examiner inadvertently stated that shortly before the election the Com-
pany discontinued overtime work and that the regular hour for such overtime work was from 4:30
p.m. to 5 . 30 p in . The record discloses that overtime work was merely reduced from one hour to a
half hour and that the regular hour of overtime was from 4 p in. to 5 p in It also appears that
Supervisor Boyd and Foreman Hill informed their subordinates that this reduction in overtime was
only a temporary measure due to the shortage of certain materials
HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY 1339
else of freedom of opinion, as noted recently by the Supreme Court of the
United States.' I ani of the opinion that by the statements of its supervisory
employees Boyd and Hill, shortly before the election, the Company inter-
fered with the free choice of representatives by its employees at the election
of January 12, 1945, and that the election should therefore be set aside.
REPORT
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. David Karasick, for the Beard.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, by Mr. George D Miller, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company.
Messrs. Maurice Sugar and N. L. Smokier, by Mr. N. L Smokier, of Detroit,
Mich., for the CIO. -
On January 12, 1945, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued
herein by the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on December
20, 1944,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan). Upon
the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accord-
ance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows that of the approximately 297 eligible voters, 272 cast valid votes,
of which 129 were for the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union,
and 141 against the Union. Three void ballots were cast, and 2 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, on January 16, 1945, the Union filed Objections to the Conduct of the
Election and Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. The Union therein
alleged in substance (1) That on January 11, 1945, the Company distributed a letter
to its employees signed by A. C. Flood, an officer of the Company, which was designed
to and in effect did intimidate and coerce the employees in their choice of a bargaining
representative; (2) that during the course of the election the Company's Personnel
Director and General Superintendent stood in conspicuous places in the plant where
all the employees would be required to pass by them in going to the polls, and that
such action was designed to and in fact did intimidate and coerce the employees and
prevent a free choice of the collective bargaining representatives; and (3) that the
Union would present evidence to the Board showing coercion and intimidation exer-
cised by the Company through various other means, intended to deprive the employees
of their free choice.
On January 23, 1945, the Regional Director issued his Report of Objections on
Conduct of Election in which he concluded that the Objections raised a substantial
and material issue with respect to the results of the election, and recommended that
the Board sustain the Objections, set aside the results of the election, and direct that
a new election be conducted.
On February 1, 1945, the Company filed its answer to the Report of Objections on
Conduct of Election in which it inferentially admitted circulating the Flood letter
among its employees on January 11, 1945, but denied the findings and conclusions con-
tained in the Regional Director's Report on Objections.'
`See opinion of dir. Justice Rutledge in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516.
1 59 N. L R B. 1171.
s
The 'specific issues raised by the Regional Director's Report on Objections and the Company's
Answci are discussed below in detail.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 8, 1945, it appearing to the Board that the Objections filed by the
Union raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election,
a hearing was ordered on the Objections. ,
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Howell, M,chigan, on March 29, 1945,
before Peter F. Ward, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the hearing the undersigned reserved ruling on a motion made by
counsel for the Company to strike certain testimony' of union witnesses as to statements
claimed to have been made by Helen Bauer, the plant nurse. In view of the findings
hereinafter made to Bauer, the motion is denied.
On April 2, 1945, the Board issued an Order directing the undersigned to issue and
serve upon the parties a Report and Recommendations, setting forth his findings of
fact and recommendations as to the disposition of the case.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observations of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following •
FINDINGS OF FACT
A Events prior to filing of petition for certification
On September 21, 1944, the Union notified the Company that it represented a
majority of the Company's employees and requested recognition. The Company
refused to bargain with the Union on the ground that the Union's majority status
was in doubt
When a union representative visited the Company, he suggested that an election
be held under the auspices of the State Labor Mediation Board The Company con-
sented and such an election was held on October 6, 1944
It was agreed between the parties that all production and maintenance employees,
excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees should participate in the election.
A short time prior to the election, however, the Union discovered that the Company
employed eight "home workers" whom the Union believed should not participate in
the election since they were not subject to the same working conditions. The Company
contended that the home workers were production workers and should, therefore, he
permitted to vote.
The retnlts of the election were 133 votes for the Union. 131 votes against' it, and
the 8 votes of the home workers were challenged. At the meeting between the parties
and the State Labor Mediation Board, the Company argued that the home workers
were employees while the Union maintained that they were independent contractors
The State Labor Mediation Board did not decide the point. It suggested that a peti-
tion be filed with the National Labor Relations Board This suggestion was followed,
and, as stated above, the Board duly issued its Decision and Direction of Election a
B. Events subsequent to Decision and Direction of Election
On or about January 5, 1945, the Regional Director sent copies of a "Notice of
Election" to the Company with instructions that copies of such notice be posted
throughout the plant. Copies were posted on or about January 7, 1945. Among other
things, they stated that the election would be held at the 'office of the Personnel
Director on January 12, 1945, from 3 30 p in to 5 15 p in
4 These findings are based on a stipulation of the parties and the Board ' s Decision hereinbefore
referred to
HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY 1341
A few days before the election, R. O. Boyd, a: supervisor, referred to in the record
as "assistant superintendent" and "special assistant," in a conversation with employees
James Ricketts, Otto Bessert, and James Dailey, stated in substance, that in the event
the Union got into the plant the Company would, "without a doubt, . . . stop the over-
time" and the employees "would probably be worse off" if they voted for the Union'
On January 11, 1945,6 Ralph C. Hill, foreman in charge of Depaitment 1400, told
Rantford LoRee, an employee in his department, in substance, that if the Union got
into the plant the only thing it would do for the employees would he to "cut their
overtime.'
Also, on January 11, A. C. Flood, the Company's president and treasurer, distributed
a statement drafted by him and reading as follows
To the Employees of Howell Electric Motors Company
Tomorrow, January 12th, the production and maintenance workers will vote on
the question of whether or not the UAW-CIO will be their representative tas a
collective bargaining agency. This is a very important and vital matter to each
and every member of our organization and I think that we should all give it most
serious thought and consideration in measuring the effect that the outcome of
the election will have upon us as individuals and as a group
I am, therefore, writing you this message with the hope that it will help each of
you in making the decision on this matter that will be for your best interests
today and for years to come. May I also suggest that we consider the interests of
our loved ones at home, and last but not least, our boys who are making the
supreme sacrifices in most parts of the world today in order that you and I may
enjoy individual freedom.
Now why is CIO so anxious to organize the Motor's group? Several answers
might be given to this question and I am not going to suggest one of an affirma-
tive nature The CIO has advanced reasons why one should join and vote for it
in its several handbills directed to you These handbills which have come to my
attention are not signed by the writer Do we know who the writer is? Do ^^e
know his background, his character, and his reputation for truthfulness, fair
dealing and good citizenship? Do we know that he and his associates are the
type of persons whom we would be willing to voluntarily appoint to manage our
personal affairs, and give up out rights to act as individuals in the event the CIO
won the right to represent the entire unit?
+ This finding is based upon the testimony of Ricketts and Bessert Boyd categoi really denied mak-
ing the statement He testified that at the request of Factory Superintendent Albeit V Beet, he had
explain d to certain employees the icason why they were not, to work the extra one-half hour of
overtime , from 4 30 p in to 5 30 p in , theretofore customarily worked The overtone woik in ques-
tion was discontinued shortly before the election, and, whether justified or not, caused concern and
discussion among the employees The recoid discloses, as set forth below, that the Company is op-
posed to union organization in its plant and engaged in an active campaign to induce its employees
to vote against it at the January 12 election Boyd assisted in such campaign 'In all th( circuni
stances the undersigned does not credit his categorical denial , does credit the testimony of Ricketts
and Bessert , and is convinced that Boyd made the statements substantially as found above Although
Dailey was called as a witness , none of the parties question him concerning the above matter
Unless otherwise specified all events referred to herein occurred in 1945
6 This finding is Lased on the credible testimony of LoRee Hill categorically denied making the
statement . He testified in substance, that he had been out of his department due to illness from
January 5 to January 11, that during h.s absence Bo)d took ch.uge of his deportment , that on his
return he found that some of the employees " didn't really feel that they had gotten the right
answer " concerning the necessity for working less ovettinie ; and that he informed them that lack
of material was the reason In view of the ahovf and the Company's campaign to defeat the Union
at the election , the undersigned does not credit Hill's demal aifd is convinced that lie made the
statement attributed to him substantially as set forth above -
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The CIO, in my opinion, has been a breeder of trouble most everywhere it has
gotten in. The newspapers have been full of such conflicts for years. The CIO
has a record of dominating the entire organization wherever it-has gotten in. It
has done this by means of both legal and physical force when the occasion has
so demanded. Its so-called "goon squads" have a record of destruction and
violation of personal rights that is most offensive to every one who has a sense
of fair play and observance of the law.
Do we want such conditions here at the Motors?
In asking this question I have in mind that the results of the vote in the last
election showed that approximately fifty per cent of the employees permitted to
vote were against the CIO. Is it conceivable that this large majority group would
or could work harmoniously under the CIO system of control?
Folks, we want harmony in this Plant for many reasons-the foremost being that
one which relates to production. We need more and more production to satisfy
military demands. Can any one deny that this is our first obligation to the fight-
ing men who are dying by the thousands in order to protect us here at home?
Do you think we will get more production if the CIO is delegated the control of
the production workers?
-The question of wages has been mentioned in one of CIO recent handbills
addressed to you-no signature-no date. A raise obtained by Bruce Products
employees is said to be 10 cents per hour. Such a partial statement as this should
be resented by those who want the truth and the whole truth. I would want to
know how many got such a raise-and, if you please, what their rates were before
the increase.
The entire question of wages is controlled by the Government and I happen to
know that most of the increases that are authorized are on an individual job basis
and are authorized because such rates being paid are out of line with those of a
like character in the community.
The Motors' wage structure is on a higher or comparable level with any other
in the community and the management proposes to maintain this position just
as long as it can afford to do so. When it can't afford to do so it will be because
of economic conditions over which it has no control.
I notice in the last CIO handbill where Ross "Fibber McGee" is quoted as follows
"If I paid dues in the Union for the rest of my life and never received any
further benefits than I have already received, I could not pay back what I
have already gained."
I do not understand such a statement. Surely Ross did not intend to infer that we
have given him raises because of his membership in the CIO. This could not be.
What raises he or any other employee has had has been on a merit of justifiable
basis and I assure you that it will always be thus. We the management have not
and will not favor employees because of the fact that they belong or do not belong
to a union. Neither are they penalized for their respective positions, as members or
non-members.
Speaking of membership I recall that CIO represented to me in the beginning
that it had a majority of the production and maintenance employees as members
-that is why we agreed to the last election. In the Decision and Direction of
Election by the National Labor Relations Board it is stated that:
"The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted designation cards,
which bore the names of 101 persons listed on the Company's pay roll of Sep-
tember 30, 1944, which contained the names of 297 employees in the appro-
HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY 1343
priate unit. The cards were dated : 45 in August 1944, 34 in September 1944, 3
in October 1944, and 19 undated."
What I have stated here are only some of the highlights of this matter which
faces some decisive action tomorrow. As stated in the beginning the purpose of
this message is to encourage your serious consideration of the question at hand
before you vote. Your vote will be secret and there will be no one at or near the
polls to influence you either for or against the proposition.
Sincerely yours,
A. C. Flood
January 11, 1945 [Emphasis in original ]
Copies of the above statement were handed to all the employees as they left the
plant after working hours on January 11, and copies were also' posted on the bulletin
boards. On January 12, William J Cassidy, who conducted the election as an agent
of the Board, conferred with Ray Galloway, an international representative of the
Union, and Thomas J. Faussett, personnel director for the Company, with reference
to the naming of observers who were to represent the parties at the polls. During
this meeting, Galloway objected to the Company's statement of January 11 remaining
on the bulletin boards; Cassidy thereupon directed its removal It was removed
Following this conference Galloway left the plant premises and did not return until
after all employees had voted. d
During the election Faussett, Superintendent Beet, and Boyd remained in the plant
and "directed traffic" as the employees voted department by department. The polls
were located in Faussett's office and it was necessary for the employees to pass through
a hallway leading to the office on their way to vote. Faussett stationed himself in the
hallway and was generally from 30 to 60 feet from the entrance to the polling place.
From his position he observed and was observed by those who went to vote. As the
line of voters diminished, Faussett signalled to Beet, who was in a position to signal
to foremen of the various departments when it was time for the employees of their
departments to go to the polls. The foremen, or their assistants, then informed the
employees in their departments that it was time for them to vote.' Boyd spent a
portion of his time during the election in and near the hallway leading to the polls
and assisted in "directing traffic" in the manner indicated. He also moved about the
various departments.
Employee James Dailey was under the impression that no members of management
were to be present during the voting. Dailey called the matter to the attention of
Clarence J. McQuown, another employee, and. the latter then got in touch with
Galloway whom he located in a nearby hotel. Galloway immediately telephoned Board
Agent Cassidy and complained of the presence of Faussett, Beet, and Boyd in the
plant and their activities during the election. By the time Galloway's message reached
Cassidy the voting had, however, been completed.
As set forth above, the Union lost the election by a vote of 129 for and 141 against it.'
C. Contentions of the Company; Conclusions
The Company contends in substance, (1) that the January 11 letter' to its employees
was written in response "to one of the several scurrilous printed statements handed
Since the evidence indicates that some 8 to 10 percent of the employees were absent on election
day, it appears that practically all the eligible employees at work that day in fact voted.
s The Union contends that Helen Bauer , employed as a nurse, is a supervisory employee, or that
her relationship to management is such that the responduit is chargeable foi her alleged antiunion
statements . It is sufficient here to say that the facts do not support the contention.
9 Hereinafter referred to as the "letter."
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out by the Union . .; that such printed statements "were of a libelous nature" ; that
by publishing said letter the Company "was merely defending itself from the improper
and unjustified attacks made on it" and that the contents of the letter were "entirely
within the Company's right of free speech" ; and (2) the Company's supervisory
employees had been present during the State-held election in October 1944 and
"directed traffic" during that election ; that the Board's agent, Cassidy, was informed
of the procedure followed in the prior election, and of the fact that the Company
proposed to do the same at the January 12 election ; that Cassidy not only made no
objection to such proposed plan but tacitly approved it and thereafter complimented
the supervisors "upon the way the election was conducted," and that the only purpose
in "directing traffic" as indicated was that the Company desired that production be
interfered with as little as possible"
It is unnecessary to determine the validity of the second of these contentions as
it bears upon the facts of this case" for the facts related to the first contention indicate
clearly that the election should be set aside Whatever might be said, one way or the
other, as to the right to "free speech" as applicable to the content of the Flood letter,
had there been no other incidents having to do with the matter, the fact remains
that both Boyd and Hill, respondent officials, indicated to employees shortly before
the election that they would lose their "overtime" and be "worse off" if they voted
for the Union. Fl9od's letter, by familiar principles, must be examined in the light of
this conduct So viewed, the defense of free speech does not avail the Company By
the totality of such conduct, the Company interfered with the free choice of its em-
ployees on the proposition of their selection of a bargaining representative.`
Upon the basis of the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that because
the election did not represent a fair test of the untrammeled desires of the employees,
the objections to the conduct of the election should be sustained and the election set
aside, and it is hereinafter so recommended"
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned recommends that the National Labor Relations Board sustain the Objec-
tions of International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
workers of America (UAW-CIO) ; set aside the election of January 12 , 1945; and
direct that a new election be held among the Company ' s employees.
io The voting was completed in about 40 minutes
it Cf New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Co , 16 N L. R. B. 532, aff'd 114 F (2d) 144
(C C A 7). cert den , 311 U S 704; The Kilgore Mfg Co, 45 N L. R. B 468; Detroit Cream-
ery Company. 60 N L R B 178 And see The May-Department Stores Company, 61 N L R B 258
1 N L R B v Vxsguna Electric & Power Co, 314 U S 469, N L R B v American Tube
Bending Co , 134 F (2d) 38, Anderson Mfg Company, 58 N L R B 1511, Reliance Mfg Co V
N L R B, 143 F (2d) 761 (C C A 7), N L R B v Sunbeam Electric Mfg Co , 133 F (2d)
856 (C C A 7) It is not necessary in order to set the election as=ide, that the conduct disapproved of
he sufficient to constitute an unfair labor practice the basic test being whether the election represents
the free choice of the employees Thompson Products, Inc, 57 N L R B 925 And, in this con-
nection, a "nice measurement " of the effect of the conduct of the respondent 's agents is not required.
The Kilgore Mfg Company, 45 N L R B 468, General Motors Corporation, 46 N L R B 574
11 The fact that this recommendation is, herein based upon the totality of the conduct of com
pang officials other than then participation in the I iecting of "traffic" on election day is not
intended as approval of such latter conduct, nor intended to create the inference that such conduct
is legal It is simply unnecessary here to pass upon the point It may not he inappropriate to add,
however, that employers would be well advised to leave to the agents of the Board the details of
the conduct of the actual elections, for their unsolicited participation in such matters may have
such consequences as are , for example , reflected in the case of The May Department Stores Co,
cited in footnote 11, supra
HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY 1345
Any pasty may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Report and Recom-
mendations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an
original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to
the Report and Recommendations or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or object.ons) as he relies upon together with
the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing
of the statement of exceptions and brief, the parties filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director.
PETER F. WARD
Trial Examiner
Dated April 30, 1945.