Teletype Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1594 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teletype Corporation and International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 32-RC-1124. February 25,
1959
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF NEW ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation of certification upon consent election
executed February 21, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on March 6, 1958, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region to determine whether
or not certain employees of the Employer wished to be represented
by the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (herein-
after designated IAM), the Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter designated CWA), the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter designated
IBEW), or by none of them.
The election was inconclusive and the IAM thereafter filed ob-
jections to the election which it later withdrew, disclaiming any
further interest in the proceedings. On May 27, 1958, the Regional
Director ordered that a runoff election be conducted on a date to be
announced later.
The runoff election was held on June 10 to determine whether the
employees involved desired to be represented by the CWA or the
IBEW. The CWA won the election by a vote of 73 to 64. On
June 16, 1958, the IBEW filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election alleging, among other things,' that
the CWA used or attempted to use money and other considerations
to influence voters. In accord with the Board's rules and Regula-
tions, the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of
the issues raised by the objections and duly served on the parties a
report on objections in which he recommended that the election be
set aside . Thereafter, the CWA filed exceptions to the report and
a supporting brief. The Employer took no position with respect to
the report but requested the Board to establish a current eligibility
date in the event it directed a new election.
1 The IBEW also alleged in its objections .that : (a) the CWA distributed false, mislead-
ing, libelous , and coercive statements ; (b) the CWA distributed false and misleading
matter concerning two other purported organizations challenging the IBEW at different
localities ; and (c ) eligible voters were denied the right to express their choice due to an
unfair "cutoff" date, resulting from the delay attendant upon the objections to the
original election . The Regional Director found that these objections lacked merit and
recommended that they be overruled . No exceptions were taken to these findings and
recommendations , which we hereby adopt.
122 NLRB No. 186.
TELETYPE CORPORATION 1595
The conduct complained of herein evolved from the unions' ac-
tivities prior to the original election. We consider, for background
information, that both the CWA and IBEW conducted meetings
before the original election for which attending employees were, at
first, compensated on a straight-time basis according to their hourly
wage. As each union sought to attract more employees to its meet-
ings, the rates paid for attendance increased until, at one point,
employees at a 3-hour IBEW meeting were paid an amount equal
to 8 hours at their regular hourly rates.
Following the issuance of the notice of runoff election on May 27,
the CWA announced plans for a meeting to be held on June 5 for
tool and die workers who comprised part of the unit. These em-
ployees were to be paid $5 for their attendance. Thereupon, the
IBEW announced that they would pay $7.50. However, the IBEW
proceeded to pay the tool and die workers $10. As a result, only
5 employees went to the CWA meeting and the CWA determined
to hold another meeting on June 6 for which it would pay $10 to
all tool and die employees who would come.
On June 9, the CWA announced a meeting that night for pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The compensation to be given
each employee was $10. Later the same day, the CWA discovered
that the IBEW was planning a meeting at which production and
maintenance employees were to be paid $5 per hour for a 3-hour
session. The CWA's meeting lasted 2 hours and employees attending
it received $10. The IBEW's meeting lasted 3 hours and each
employee in attendance received $15. The investigation failed to
reveal that the payment of moneys to employees for attending union
meetings was contingent upon their voting for the respective union
whose meetings they attended. However, the investigation showed
that these competitive payments created much excitement among
the employees in the plant.
The Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside
because the above-described action "by both unions made impossible
a free and untrammeled choice by the voters." We agree with that
recommendation.
It is the Board's policy to set aside an election "when a record
reveals conduct so glaring that it is almost certain to have impaired
employees' freedom of choice." 2 We have here such outrageous
conduct. The unions' method of competitive bidding was so blatant
and the payments of moneys so excessive that we cannot assume that
the election truly reflected the employees' choice. The campaign
standards deemed essential to the proper conduct of an election
were here displaced by the atmosphere of the auction room. Such
2 General- Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126.
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
impropriety we cannot, in good conscience, countenance. There-
fore, whether or not payments were contingent upon voting for any
particular union, we find that both unions so lowered the standards
of election conduct as to necessitate a new election. Accordingly,
we shall set aside the election and order that a new one be held 3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the runoff election held on June 10,
1958, among the employees of the Teletype Corporation at its Little
Rock, Arkansas, plant, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Direction of New Election omitted from publication.]
IIn view of this determination , we find no need to pass on the other related aspects of
CWA's conduct . Moreover , we hereby deny the CWA 's alternative request for a hearing
as the facts of the case are not in dispute.
ORDER.
March 20, 1959
On February 25, 1959, the Board issued a Decision , Order, and
Direction of New Runoff Election 1 in the above -entitled proceed-
ing. In the decision , the Board found that the "unions so lowered
the standards of election conduct as to necessitate a new election,"
and it, therefore , set aside the runoff election of June 10 , 1958,2 and
directed a new runoff election. The IAM having disclaimed any
further interest in the proceeding prior to the runoff election, the
Board provided that only the CWA and the IBEW, the only unions
appearing on the ballot in the runoff election , should appear on the
ballot in the new runoff election. In view of the Board 's findings
with respect to the conduct of the CWA and the IBEW, the IAM,
on March 5, 1959, requested that it be reinstated in the proceeding
and accorded a place on the ballot in the new runoff election. On
March 6, 1959, the CWA filed opposition thereto. The Board having
duly considered the matter , decided to rescind the Direction of New
Runoff Election and to direct a new election , placing on the ballot
all choices , including none, appearing as choices on the ballot in
the original election of March 6, 1958. Therefore,
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the IAM 's request that it be reinstated
in the proceeding and accorded a place on the ballot in any forth-
coming election be, and it hereby is, granted.
1 122 NLRB 1594.
a The original election of March 6 , 1958, was Inconclusive.