Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 793 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

VICKERS INCORPORATED, ETC. 793
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Vickers Incorporated , a Division of the Sperry Rand Corporation
and Local 677, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner and
International Association of Machinists , Lodge 1335 , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 1-RC-7841. May 24,1965
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on May 5, 1964, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1, among the
employees in the agreed-upon unit. After the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 426
eligible voters, 410 cast ballots, of which 166 were for the Petitioner,
236 were for the Intervenor, 5 were against the participating labor
organizations, 1 was challenged, and 2 were void. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation of the objections and on June 9, 1961, issued his report
on objections, finding no merit in said objections and recommending
that they be overruled in their entirety. Thereafter, Petitioner filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report. On July 16, 1954, the
Regional Director issued a supplemental report on objections, to
which the Petitioner likewise took exception.
Thereafter, pursuant to an order of the Board, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer David B. Ellis. All parties participated and
were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Hear-
ing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
On December 9, 1964, the Hearing Officer issued his report, recom-
mending that certain of Petitioner's objections be sustained, that others
be overruled, and that a second election be directed. The Employer,
Petitioner, and Intervenor filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Offi-
cer's report and each filed a supporting brief.
152 NLRB No. 84.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question exists concerning the representation of certain employ-
ees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's plants at 172 East Aurora Street
and 730 North Main Street, Waterbury, Connecticut, excluding all
office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, schedulers, dispatch-
ers, timekeepers, expediters, professional employees, technical employ-
ees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Hearing Officer found merit in two of the Petitioner's objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election. He recommended
that the election be set aside because of the existence of the Employer's
unlawful no-distribution rule and because of a threat by an IAM offi-
cial to charge an IAM member who was a Teamsters supporter with
dual unionism.
In 1961 the Employer promulgated, over the objection of the IAM,
a set of plant rules including a rule prohibiting the distribution of
literature on company premises except with the specific consent of the
Employer. Copies of the rules were given to new employees and were
part of the guards' instructions. The record is not clear as to what
extent the rule against distribution of literature was enforced during
the election campaign. However, because there are other grounds for
setting aside the election, we do not pass upon whether, under the cir-
cumstances of this case, the existence of the presumptively invalid
no-distribution rule is by itself grounds for setting aside the election.
The Hearing Officer found that Bianca, an IAM official, told a
Teamsters supporter that he would be brought up on charges of dual
unionism within the IAM for supporting the Teamsters. He also
found that an IAM shop committeeman and an alternate committee-
man told Teamsters supporters on three separate occasions, in the
presence of other employees, essentially that they would be brought
up on charges of dual unionism and that they would probably lose
their jobs. The Hearing Officer concluded that Bianco's threat justi-
fied setting aside the election, but the threats made by the IAM shop
committeemen did not, because the committeemen were not agents of
the IAM and, even if they were, their statements were empty threats
since the Union could not carry them out.
VICKERS INCORPORATED, ETC. 795
While Bianca's statement concerning charges of dual unionism
against a Teamsters supporter , an internal union affair , does not con-
stitute grounds for setting aside the election ,' we do believe that the
election should be set aside because of the threats made by the shop
committeemen.
IAM had been the bargaining representative at the Employer's
plant for 20 years, and a union-security provision was in effect which
in terms made "membership" in JAM a condition of employment at
the plant. The statements of the JAM shop committeemen that
employees who supported the Teamsters ran the risk of losing their
jobs were directed at the employees ' job status. These threats were
well calculated to come to the attention of employees generally, and
there is no misunderstanding their meaning . In view of the long
incumbency of the IAM and the union-shop requirement , we consider
that these threats by IAM committeemen afforded the employees rea-
sonable basis to be apprehensive concerning their future employment
for supporting the Teamsters . Even though under the Act they might
lawfully continue to work for the Employer by tendering periodic dues
and fees to the IAM if it continued after the election as majority rep-
resentative , we believe that in these particular circumstances the threats
that expulsion from the Union would probably affect their job rights
reasonably tended to coerce and threaten employees in the exercise of
their organizational rights on behalf of the Teamsters and thus inter-
fered with the conduct of the election.
There is no merit in the contention that the IAM should not be
accountable for the statements made by its committeemen . The com-
mitteemen were responsible representatives of the IAM in the plant
and played a central role in the election campaign . Under these cir-
cumstances , the JAM cannot fairly claim that it should not be charged
with the statements of its committeemen.2
Accordingly, we shall order that the election be set aside and shall
direct a second election.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
'Tawas Tube Products, Inc., 151 NLRB 46. Compare Hurwitz Electrical Company,
et al ., 146 NLRB 1265.
2 See Hampton Merchants Association , et al ., 151 NLRB 1307 ; Local 1150 , United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America , et at. (Cory Corporation), 84 NLRB
972, 977-978; Local 761 , International Union of Electrical, Radio d Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Company), 126 NLRB 123, 125.