Metropolitan Auto Parts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 401 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

METROPOLITAN AUTO PARTS, INCORPORATED 401
by the insertion therein, and in Appendix A attached thereto, of the
name "Bennie DiRito" immediately after the names "William Cole,"
"George Hopkins," and "Harry Taylor," wherever they appear in
said Order and Appendix A.
MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of
the- above Supplemental Decision aid Order
METROPOLITAN AUTO PARTS , INCORPORATED and LOCAL 841, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND LODGE 1898, DISTRICT 48, IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 1-RC-2664. May 29, 1952
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election by
the Employer and Petitioner, an election was held under the direction
of the Regional Director on March 13, 1952. At the close of the elec-
tion, the tally of ballots showed that of approximately 14 eligible
voters, 13 cast valid ballots, of which 4 voted for the Petitioner, 9
against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. The Petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct affecting results of the election.
The, Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the
Petitioner's objections, and on April 8, 1952, issued his report in which
he found merit in the Petitioner's objections and recommended that
the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer duly filed excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case,,the Board' finds :
The Petitioner objected to the election on the ground that the Em-
ployer interfered with the election by making an antiunion speech on
company time and property while denying the Petitioner an equal
opportunity to address the employees.
The Regional Director's investigation disclosed the following facts :
On March 7, 1952, the Petitioner mailed to the Employer a regis-
tered letter which stated, among other things, that as an election was
scheduled for March 13,1952,
... we are hereby demanding that, in the event the Company
addresses these employees on Company time and property, we be
granted the same privileges.
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 Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
99 NLRB No. 73.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This letter was received by the Employer on March 10, 1952, but no
reply was made thereto.
On March 11, 1952, at about 5 p. m., the Employer's president,
Fuller, addressed all eligible employees on the issues involved in the
election, pointing out that unionization was unnecessary in view of the
advantages the employees had enjoyed without a union.
Although we find nothing coercive in the contents of Fuller's speech,
we do find, as, did the Regional Director, that the Employer inter-
fered with the election after utilizing company time and property to,
campaign against the union by denying the union an opportunity to
reply under the same circumstances. As the Board has recently held,
the critical question in this type of case is whether the circumstances
were such that only by granting the Union's request for use of the
same forum could the employees have a reasonable opportunity to
hear both sides of the issue on which they were about to vote 2 On the
basis of the above facts, including particularly the timing of the Em-
ployer's speech,3 we are satisfied that the question must be answered in
the affirmative in this case.
Moreover, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention that the
fact that the Petitioner conducted an extensive preelection campaign
by distribution of circulars and by conversations with employees does
not preclude a finding of interference. The Board has, under com-
parable circumstances, rejected a similar contention.4
Accordingly, we find that the Employer interfered with the em-
ployees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representa-
tive, and shall order that the election of March 13, 1952, be set aside.
We shall direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at
such time as he deems appropriate.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election of March 13, 1952, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to' the
Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard
for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems
the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
2 Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, 97 NLRB 1559 ; Belknap Hardware & Manufacturing
Company, 98 NLRB 484; Biltmore Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 905; Bonwit-
Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608.
8 As in Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, supra, the Employer received the Petitioner's
letter requesting an opportunity to address the employees a day before the Employer made
the speech but did not answer it.
• Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 97 NLRB 936.
N