Mosler Safe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mosier Safe Company and Local 1862, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
Petitioner . Case 9-AC-41
May 28, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to a representation election conducted
among the employees of the Employer on June 30,
1972, Safe Workers' Organization, Chapter No. 2,
hereinafter referred to as the Safe Workers, was
certified in Cases 9-RM-650 and 9-RC-93741 on
July 11, 1972, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.2 On
November 9, 1973, Local 1862, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), hereinafter
referred to as UAW, filed the instant request to
amend the certification to substitute its name for that
of the Safe Workers.
A hearing on the petition was held on December
11, 12, 20, and 21, 1973, and January 3 and 21, 1974,
before Hearing Officer Daniel J. Roketenetz. During
the hearing , employees opposed to the affiliation of
the Safe Workers with the UAW were permitted to
intervene on behalf of the Safe Workers. The
Intervenor and the Employer opposed the granting
of the amendment , contending, inter alga, that the
voting procedure at the meeting of November 4,
1973, where a majority of the employees present
voted in favor of affiliation with the UAW, was not
fair and regular; that the manner in which the
meeting was conducted raises serious questions as to
whether the results truly reflect the wishes of a
majority of the unit employees; and that a question
concerning representation exists which can be
resolved only by a Board-supervised secret ballot
election.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended , the Regional Director transferred the case
to the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with the
Board.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
1 Not published in NLRB volumes
2 The certified collective-bargaining unit is as follows
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Hamilton and Fairfield, Ohio, plants, including warehouse employees,
but excluding all research and development employees at the Fairfield,
Ohio, plant, service employees, polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers
employed in the polishing and plating department who are represented
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
The Safe Workers has been recognized by the
Employer and certified by the Board as the bargain-
ing representative of the unit employees since the
mid-1930's. Since 1960, it has won four elections in
which at least one other labor organization was on
the ballot. In an election conducted on February 14,
1969,3 in which the Safe Workers, the UAW, and the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, were on
the ballot, none of these unions received a majority
of the votes, and a runoff election was held on March
14, 1969. The Safe Workers won the runoff election,
receiving 402 votes to 356 for the UAW. Another
election was conducted on February 18, 1972, with
the Safe Workers and the UAW on the ballot. As
neither union won a majority of the votes cast, a
runoff election was again required, and was again
won by the Safe Workers, which received 408 votes
to 364 for the UAW. On October 23, 1972, the Safe
Workers and the Employer executed a collective-
bargaining agreement, effective until March 5, 1975.
On October 26, 1973, the president of the Safe
Workers was presented with a petition purportedly
signed by 432 members of the Safe Workers and
requesting a special meeting for the purpose of
affiliating with the UAW. Pursuant to the Safe
Workers' bylaws, which authorized a special meeting
for this purpose upon written request by a majority
of the membership, the president called a special
meeting for November 4. At the hearing herein, it
was determined that the petitions contained valid
signatures from only 376 of the 809 unit employees,
and all unit employees were members of the Safe
Workers.
The special meeting was scheduled to be held in a
high school auditorium. Because the school was
locked, the meeting was held on a tennis court on the
school grounds. At the meeting, an affiliation
resolution was read, the question of affiliation was
discussed, and voting booths were erected. Employ-
ees were given ballots after giving their clock
numbers to members of the election committee;
by another bargaining agent, all plant clerical employees who are
represented by another bargaining agent, and all administrative,
executive , and professional employees, engineering department em-
ployees, timekeepers, office employees , clerks to foremen, guards and
watchmen , foremen , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act
3 Cases 9-RM-545, 9-RC-7972, and 9-RC-7976 ( not published in
NLRB volumes)
210 NLRB No. 128
MOSLER SAFE COMPANY 935
these numbers were not checked against a list of
employees. After the voting was completed, the
election committee counted the ballots and an-
nounced that the affiliation resolution had carried by
a vote of 258 to 189.
Thereafter, the president of the UAW notified the
Employer in writing of the outcome of the affiliation
vote and requested that the Employer "note for your
records the change in name of the contracting
union." The international representatives of the
UAW sent the Employer a telegram formally
requesting recognition of the UAW. The Employer
declined to recognize the UAW, stating that it would
deal only with the Safe Workers, which was the
certified bargaining representative and had a con-
tract with the Employer, and that the UAW, a
completely different organization, could not be
substituted for the Safe Workers during the term of
the contract. The Employer also expressed a belief
that the alleged affiliation had not been carried out
in accordance with the Safe Workers' constitution,
and that events prior to the meeting, as well as the
conduct of the meeting and balloting, prevented the
employees from exercising a free choice in the
affiliation vote. The UAW then filed the petition
herein.
The UAW has the same officers as the Safe
Workers. After the affiliation vote, a new bank
account was opened in the name of the UAW. The
documents authorizing the opening of the account
were signed by John Davis, who had been treasurer
4 The Employer further contends that the special meeting was improper-
ly called, as the petitions requesting it were not signed by a majority of the
members of the Safe Workers, and that the affiliation vote did not reflect
the voters ' free choice, as employees opposed to affiliation were prevented
from speaking at the meeting and the secrecy of the voting was not
safeguarded In view of our disposition of the case, we need not pass on
these contentions.
5 In United Hydraulics Corporation, 205 NLRB No 20, and cases cited in
of the Safe Workers. However, Davis, who opposed
the affiliation, testified that he was unaware of his
legal rights when he signed these documents, and
that subsequent transfers of the Safe Workers' funds
to the UAW account took place without his
approval.
The Employer contends, inter alia, that the petition
to amend the certification raises a question concern-
ing representation which can only be resolved in a
Board-conducted election. We find merit in this
contention.4
The purported affiliation herein was with a union
which had twice been rejected by the employees in
Board elections. Both elections were close, and it is
evident that opinion in the plant remained sharply
divided. At the special meeting, a majority of the
voters voted in favor of affiliation, but a substantial
number of employees voted against affiliation. To
grant the requested amendment would, in effect, give
conclusive weight to the vote at the special meeting
as a basis for reversing the outcome of a Board
election. Such a decision would, in our opinion,
subvert the policies of the Act.5 Rather, we find that
there remains a question concerning representation
which can be resolved only by holding a Board
election. Accordingly, we shall dismiss this petition.6
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
In 2 therein , we declined to amend certifications where petitions were filed
by unions defeated in Board elections less than a year previously. While
slightly more than a year elapsed between the election and the affiliation
herein , we are of opinion that this, in and of itself, does not warrant
overturning the election results under the circumstances herein.
6 Member Penello would dismiss the petition for the additional reasons
stated in American Bridge Division , United States Steel Corporation v.
N L R B.,457 F .2d 660,663-665 (C A. 3, 1972).