The Gruen Watch Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE GRUEN WATCH COMPANY 3
the compliance question. We therefore shall deny the Employer's
motion to dismiss.
As the Petitioner has secured a majority of the votes cast , we shall
certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local 253, Distributive, Processing and
Office Workers of America, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the de-
cision and direction of election herein, as the representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
THE GRUEN WATCH COMPANY, THE GRUEN NATIONAL WATCH CASE
COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, Am-
CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW
CIO, PETITIONER and METAL POLISHERS , BUFFERS, PLATERS AND
HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. OF L., LocAL No. 68. Cases
Nos. 9-RC-1445 and 9-RC-1359. February 25, 1953
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
entered into on January 2, 1952, between the Employer, International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, herein called UAW-CIO; Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called Machinists,
and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International
Union, A. F. of L., Local No. 68, herein called Metal Polishers, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on February 1, 1952, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region. At the close of the election, tallies of ballots for the three
stipulated voting units were furnished the parties. The tallies
showed the following results :
103 NLRB No. 27.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Voting Unit 1:
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 24
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for UAW-CIO------------------------------------------- 3
Votes cast for Machinists------------------------------------------- 8:
Votes cast against participating labor organizations------------------ 12
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 23
Challenged ballots-------------------------------------------------- 0
Voting Unit 2:
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 13
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for Metal Polishers--------------------------------------- 9
Votes cast for UAW-CIO-------------------------------------------- 3
Votes cast against participating labor organizations------------------- 1
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 13
Challenged ballots-------------------------------------------------- 0
Voting Unit 3:
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 940
Void ballots-------------------------------------------------------- 4
Votes cast for UAW-CIO------------------------------------------- 153
Votes cast for Machinists------------------------------------------- 21
Votes cast against participating labor organizations------------------ 681
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 855
Challenged ballots-------------------------------------------------- 5
Thereafter, on February 5, 1952, timely objections to the election
were filed by the UAW-CIO. On March 28,1952, the Regional Direc-
tor issued his report on objections to the election, in which he recom-
mended that a hearing be held on the issues of fact raised by the objec-
tions. No exceptions to the report on objections were filed by the
Employer. On August 11 and 12, 1952, in conformity with a Board
order, a hearing was held before Leonard S. Kimmell, hearing officer.
The hearing officer on September 17, 1952, issued a report in which he
recommended, in agreement with the Employer's motion made at the
hearing, that the objections be overruled on the ground that they had
not been timely served upon the Employer. The UAW-CIO filed
timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report.
As the Employer failed to file exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on objections, which found no merit in the employer's conten-
tion that it was not timely served with a copy of the objections, the
Board found that this issue was waived and untimely raised at the
hearing. Accordingly, the Board on October 23, 1952, directed the
hearing officer to prepare a supplemental report containing, inter alia,
recommendations as to the disposition of the objections on their merits.
On January 5, 1953, the hearing officer issued his supplemental report
in which he recommended that the objections be overruled on their
merits. The UAW-CIO filed timely exceptions thereto.
THE GRUEN WATCH COMPANY 5
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report and
supplemental report, the exceptions, and the entire record in these
cases, and does not adopt the hearing officer's recommendation for the
following reasons :
As one of its objections, the UAW-CIO contends that the Employer
interfered with the election by making a speech on company time and
property before the election, while denying the UAW-CIO an equal
opportunity to address the employees. The record shows that on
January 8, 1952, during working hours, the Employer's president,
Benjamin S. Katz, spoke to the Employer's employees on the issues
involved in the election and pointed out that unionization was unneces-
sary as the employees had received benefits without a union. On the
same day, the UAW-CIO wrote the Employer for a copy of the speech
which the Employer sent on January 22, 1952. The UAW-CIO there-
upon telegraphed a request that it be given permission to address the
employees under the circumstances attending the Employer's speech.
In an open letter to the UAW-CIO representative, the Employer on
January 29, 1952, refused to grant this request?
Assuming, without deciding, that there was nothing coercive in the
content of the speech of January 8, 1952, we find on the basis of the
rule enunciated in the Bonwit Teller case 3 that the Employer inter-
fered with the election after utilizing company time and property to
campaign against the UAW-CIO by denying it an opportunity to
reply under the same circumstances. Moreover, the record discloses
the existence of a no-solicitation rule. It is well established that an
employer's discriminatory application of an otherwise valid 4 no-solici-
tation rule violates the Act where, as here, it is enforced against union
solicitation and the employer uses its premises as a forum for solicita-
tion against the union .5
Accordingly, we find that the Employer interfered with the em-
ployees' freedom of choice in the selection of bargaining representa-
tive and shall order that the election of February 1, 1952, be set aside.°
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
[ Members Houston , Murdock, and Styles].
2 The hearing officer did not discuss or make any findings in connection with these
events. As they occurred after the execution of the stipulation for certification upon
consent election , the UAW -CIO Is not estopped from urging such conduct as a basis for
setting aside the election . See The Great Atlantic t Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB
ill&
6 Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608. See also Metropolitan Auto Parts, Incorporated,
99 NLRB 401 ; Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1559.
' We are assuming that the rule involved herein was an otherwise valid one.
6 Bomoit Teller, Inc., supra ; The Great Atlantic tt Pacific Tea company, 97 NLRB 295.
6 In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to consider other objections to the election
raised by the UAW-CIO.
257965-54-vol. 103-2
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 February 1, 1952, be, and it
hereby is, set aside; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings be remanded to the
Regional Director for the region in which these cases were 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 for
each voting unit.
MOYER & PRATT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER
MAKERS, AFL. Case No. 3-CA-516. February 26, 1953
Decision and Order
On December 22,1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging, in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
We find that the activities of Respondent set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report, occurring in connection with its operations described
in the Intermediate Report, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
1 The request of the Respondent for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , includ-
ing the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
103 NLRB No. 6.