Radio Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lawful right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all concerted
activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of pay and other
incidents of the employment relationship suffered because of the discrimina-
tion against them :
Louis R. Miller Emery W. Prather
William A. High Saleen M. Abraham
Samuel G. Greenwalt
LOCAL 57, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS of AMERICA, C. I 0.
Labor Organization.
By-----------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated-----------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the (late hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA (RCA VICTOR D IVISION) and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-717. January 12,
1953
Decision and Order
On July 10, 1952, an election among the Employer's hourly paid
production and maintenance employees was held pursuant to a stipu-
lation for certification upon consent election executed June 25 by the
Employer, the Petitioner, and Local Union 1048, International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, the Intervenor. Out of 4,434
valid votes , 1,318 were cast for the Petitioner , 3,059 for the Intervenor,
and 57 for no union.
The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to conduct affecting the re-
sults of the election , alleging various acts of interference and coercion
on the part of the Employer , as to which later, upon investigation, it
produced no evidence. In addition , it alleged as an objection cer-
tain occurrences admitted by the parties , including announcement on
the eve of the election that the Wage Stabilization Board had ap-
proved a wage increase . Petition for this increase had been filed
with the Wage Stabilization Board on June 23, 1952. It was agreed
to by the parties-the Employer and the Intervenor-in connection
with a contract effective May 26, 1952, negotiated after the filing by
Petitioner of the March 31 petition.'
The Employer and the Intervenor have maintained contractual relations for approxi-
mately 15 years The petition herein was timely with respect to expiration of the previous
contract between the parties.
102 NLRB No. 17.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 125
On October 28, 1952, the Regional Director duly filed his report
on objections recommending that the election be set aside because of
the "Employer's and the Intervenor's rapid and widespread distribu-
tion" of the premature announcement concerning Wage Stabiliza-
tion Board action. The Employer and the Intervenor filed exceptions
to the report, averring that the wage raise announcement was made in
due course when information concerning it was received, and con-
stituted mere rebuttal of the theme of Petitioner's preelection cam-
paign: that the Wage Stabilization Board would not approve the in-
crease.
The Petitioner also excepted to the report on objections, principally
to that portion which made no recommendation concerning the effect
on the election of the contract negotiations occurring after notice of
the Petitioner's claim to representation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
Findings of Fact
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent the employees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation affecting commerce exists concern-
ing employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, and suburban plants in the area,
excluding executive and administrative employees, office employees,
clerical employees, cooperative students, salaried technical and pro-
fessional employees, truck drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. In his report the Regional Director found that on July 8, 1952,
the Employer was advised informally by the Intervenor that the wage
petition had been acted upon favorably; that the Employer then
checked with the Regional Wage Stabilization Board, and the next
morning furnished the Intervenor a letter-as requested by Inter-
venor-stating that the wage raise negotiated in the May 26 contract
had been approved, and that payment for the increased wages retro-
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
active to May 26 would be made on July 18 ; that the Employer like-
wise distributed a bulletin to supervisors during the course of that
day, July 9, containing the same information, which information was
then passed on to employees by many supervisors by posting on bulle-
tin boards, by word of mouth, or by circulation of the bulletin itself;
and that sometime during that day an announcement of the wage
increase approval was made over the plant loudspeaker system,
although by whom does not appear.
The Regional Director also found that about 2 o'clock on the after-
noon of July 9 the Intervenor began distributing printed copies of the
Employer's letter at the plant gate, and that it had added to the letter
a statement urging employees to protect their back pay and wage
increase by voting for the Intervenor.2 The report also found that on
that same afternoon the Employer received a telegram from the Re-
gional Wage Stabilization Board chairman, stating that, in accord
with the Stabilization Board's regulations, the petition would not be
acted upon pending the representation election-a message the Em-
ployer confirmed by telephone about three thirty that same afternoon.
The Employer made no effort to get this corrected information to its
employees that day or the next--election day. It did deliver a letter
to the Intervenor on the morning of the election advising that the
Wage Board had decided to withhold "formal notice of approval" of
the raise, but assuring the Union that back pay checks would be pre-
pared nevertheless, pending final action by the Wage Board." Copies
of the Employer's second letter were not distributed by the Interve-
nor; a second bulletin to supervisors was prepared by the Employer
but not distributed, and apparently no announcement of the correc-
tion was made over the plant loudspeaker.
The Intervenor, and the Employer also, would have us find that the
Petitioner's knowledge of the wage raise petition at the time it agreed
to the election, and its allegedly conducting the preelection campaign
on the issue that the Wage Stabilization Board would not approve that
raise, constituted a waiver of any objection to conduct of the election
in connection with the wage raise. Even assuming that the preelec-
tion campaign was conducted as alleged,4 we agree with the Regional
Director's recommendation that those objections having to do with
announcement of the wage raise approval should be sustained and the
election set aside. Clearly the precipitate announcement and the
3 The printed copies bore the Employer's letterhead , and the wording added by the
Intervenor was as follows :
Protect Your Back Pay-Protect Your Wage Increase
by
Voting for I . B. E. W.-A. F. L.
• Official approval actually occurred July 14, 1952.
The Regional Director 's report contains no reference to these alleged facts.
GRACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DANNY-VINE CORPORATION 127
failure to take steps to clarify the actual status of the raise approval
resulted in the election not being conducted in an atmosphere of free
choice by the employees. Whatever the right to rebut election propa
ganda may be, it does not include the right to create a false impression
that concrete benefits to employees have been secured, when, in fact,
no such assurance can be given before the election takes place.5 Be-
tween this situation and the unilateral announcement of benefits by
an Employer pending representation proceedings, which the Board
consistently recognizes as a ground for setting aside an election, we see
no distinction in effect upon employee free choice." We think the
conduct of the Employer and the Intervenor was calculated to and did
affect the results of the election. Accordingly, we adopt the Regional
Director's recommendations and shall set aside the election.' We will
direct a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises the
Board that the circumstances permit a free choice among the employees
herein concerned.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on July 10, 1952, among
the employees of the Employer at Indianapolis, Indiana, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
6 The very existence of the wage Stabilization Board regulation concerning nonaction
by it on wage raise petitions pending representation proceedings before this Board also
refutes the assertion that the Petitioner waived its right to object by consenting to the
election with knowledge that a wage raise petition was pending .. For discussion concerning
waiver of objections see The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118.
a See Direct Laboratories, Inc., 94 NLRB 390; see also P. B. Rogers Silver Company,
94 NLRB 305.
'In view of our decision herein we find it unnecessary at this time to pass upon the
objections relating to the execution of the contract between the Employer and the
Intervenor , which are the subject of a charge and as to which the Regional Director
made no recommendation ; nor do we see the need of a hearing in this matter; as suggested
by the Employer.
GRACE SCHULTZ D/B/A GRACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DANNY-
VINE CORPORATION and Los ANGELES JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-
BC-2717. January 12, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Order
On October 29, 1952, the Board issued a Decision, Order, and Di-
rection of Election 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, directing that
an election be held among the production and maintenance employees
Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
102 NLRB No. 22.