M & T Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 8, 1959122 N.L.R.B. 883 (N.L.R.B. 1959) Copy Citation M & T COMPANY 883 M & T Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 443 , Petitioner . Case No. 15-RC- 1790. January 8, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 27, 1958, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among the employees in the unit therein found appropriate. Upon completion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 43 eligible voters, 42 valid votes were cast. Of these, 32 were cast in favor of the Peti- tioner; 1 was cast in favor of International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor; and 9 were cast against both labor organizations. There were no challenged ballots. On September 4, 1958, the Employer timely filed objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and, on October 3, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his re- port on objections, in which he recommended that the Petitioner be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the report. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Employer alleged in its objections that seven supervisors voted in the election and, that it was "severely prejudiced" thereby. The Regional Director recommended that the objections be over- ruled. His investigation of these objections discloses that the Em- ployer, by letter dated August 20, 1958, transmitted to the Re- gional Office a list of 35 employees whom the Employer considered eligible to vote in the election. On August 27, 1958, an hour prior to the election, a preelection conference was held. All parties were notified of the conference by letter and were requested to have rep- resentatives present. The two Unions were represented by their duly designated officials and by one observer selected by each of them. The Employer was represented only by its observer, C. 'P. Unpublished. 122 NLRB No. 106. 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Smith, who, upon arrival, handed to the Board agent a letter dated August 27, 1958, which was signed by George W. Simpson, the Employer's top management representative at the location involved herein. The letter stated that Smith, as representative of the Com- pany, would present "the eligible list of personnel employed by the M & T Company who may vote in the coining union election." Smith presented a list to the Board agent containing 43 names, 8 more than were on the list submitted on August 20. In no way did the list indicate that any of the employees whose names ap- peared thereon may have been supervisors. The Board agent con- ducting the election accepted this list as the Employer's revised eli- gibility list. It was approved by the two Unions and was used as the eligibility list in the election. All three observers had copies of their instructions and indicated to the Board agent conducting the election that they understood their duties. No attempt was made to challenge any of the voters. While the Employer claims that it was prejudiced by the voting of 7 supervisors, it has adduced no evidence, nor was any set forth by the Regional Director, to show how it was in fact "prejudiced" thereby. The mere appearance of a supervisor at the polls for the purpose of voting, without further incident, does not constitute a basis for setting aside an election.' Moreover, assuming that the Employer was somehow prejudiced by the voting of seven super- visors, the sole responsibility therefor clearly rests with the Em- ployer! Accordingly, we find that the Employer's objections are without merit, and, in agreement with the Regional Director's rec- ommendations, we overrule them in their entirety. As we have overruled the objections to the election and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of valid ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 443, as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of all hourly rated employees of the Employer engaged in operation and maintenance work at Gunter Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama, excluding office ° clerical employees, confi- dential employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.] ' Dixie Broadcasting Company, 120 NLRB 869; Brown -Dunkin Company, 118 NLRB '1603, 1604 ; Rheem Manufacturing Company, 114 NLRB 404, 406. See Sears Roebuck and Company, 114 NLRB 762. 8 For "objections" cases in which the Board pointed out that a party may not take advantage of its own act or failure to act, for example, see, F. H. Snow Canning Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 714; and Showell Poultry Company, 105 NLRB 580, 581. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation