International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 30, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1785 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

ITT TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1785 ITT Telecommunications , Division of International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation and Commu- nications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner . Case 26-RC-3 101 August 30, 1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 1, 1968, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 26, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of 514 valid ballots counted, 218 votes were cast for, and 295 against, the Petitioner, and I ballot was challenged. The challenged ballot is insufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the objections and, on April 2, 1968, issued his Report on Objections in which he recommended that Objections 1, 2, and 7 be overruled, and that Objections 3, 4, 5, and 6 be sustained. The Regional Director, therefore also recommended that the election be set aside, and that a new election be directed. The Employer has filed exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections and a brief in support thereof. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a Supple- mental Report on Objections. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2 The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employees, material handlers, line inspectors, receiving inspectors, toolroom employees and janitors, excluding of- fice clerical employees, production schedulors and expeditors, material control employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. The Regional Director found that the Em- ployer made constant reference to strikes, violence, job losses, and other economic harm, including plant closure and plant relocation, if the employees selected the Petitioner as their bargaining agent, and thereby unlawfully interfered with the election. We disagree.' Objections 3, 4, and 5 relate to a speech delivered to the employees on each of the three shifts by the Employer's vice president and general manager , George Safiol, on February 28 and 29, 1968. The Petitioner contends that the speech threatened employees that voting for the Petitioner would likely result in strikes and violence, and, in- evitably, in closing the plant and transferring its operations to a new location. Objection 6 alleges that the Employer's preelection letters and hand- bills, when considered in light of Safiol's speech, also created the impression that voting for the Peti- tioner would lead to strikes and violence, loss of employment, and other economic harm. The evidence in support of these objections is not materially in dispute. Having considered in detail the testimony con- cerning Safiol's speech, the film slides, and Person- nel Manager Vance's comments thereon, as well as the Employer's preelection letters and handbills, we find that the Employer's conduct did not exceed the bounds of legitimate preelection campaigning. Although the Employer undertook a vigorous cam- paign against the Petitioner, the evidence fails to establish that the Employer's conduct involved any threats of reprisal against the employees if they selected the Petitioner to represent them. Rather, we find that the Employer's entire campaign merely emphasized alleged disadvantages to employees of being represented by the Union. Viewed in the total context of the campaign, therefore, the Employer ' In the absence of exceptions thereto , we adopt, pro forma, the Regional Director 's recommendation that Objections 1, 2, and 7 he overruled 172 NLRB No. 209 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 41 1786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did not, in our opinion, suggest that adverse action would inevitably follow if the employees selected the Petitioner as their bargaining agent. To the con- trary, the Employer's preelection literature express- ly stated that strikes do not always occur, and do not have to happen, when a union gets into a plant; and, while urging the employees to vote against the Petitioner, the Employer repeatedly assured them that it would bargain in good faith with the peti- tioner if the employees selected it as their repre- sentative. In these circumstances, we cannot find, as did the Regional Director, that the Employer's statements created an atmosphere of fear which might reasonably be expected to make a free choice of representative impossible. Accordingly, we shall overrule Objections 3, 4, 5, and 6. As we have overruled all of the objections and as the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the votes cast, we shall certify the results of the elec- tion CERTIFICATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes had not been cast for Communications Wor- kers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor or- ganization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, as amended.