The Lufkin Rule Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 5, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 341 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

THE LUFKIN RULE COMPANY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 341 1. Respondent Mobil is an Employer within the meaning of the, Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By insistence upon the inclusion of the supervisory seniority clause in the agreement with the Union, Respondent Mobil has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] The Lufkin Rule Company and International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Cases Nos. 7-RC- 5750 and 7-RC-5784. June 5, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION On April 29, 1964, the Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direc- tion of Second Election finding that certain preelection conduct of the Employer interfered with the exercise of free choice of the em- ployees and warranted setting aside elections conducted on June 25, 1963.1 Thereafter, the Petitioner filed with the Board a motion to amend the Board's decision to direct the Regional Director to include appropriate language in the election notices to' insure that the eligible voters are fully informed that a new election is being conducted be- cause of Employer conduct which improperly affected the results of the first election. The Petitioner also requested that the Employer be required to post copies' of the Board's Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election, on its bulletin boards for a reasonable period. The Employer submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Peti- tioner's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its' powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 'Not published in NLRB volumes . The Board ( a panel of Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown ) held that the Employer' s announcement shortly before the election of changes in the procedure for automatic salary reviews and annual merit re- views, and the Employer's guarantee in a posted salary program that no employee would be held below the minimum for his salary grade, were beneficial changes of a substantial nature. 147 NLRB No. 46. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has considered the Petitioner's motion, the Employer's memorandum, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby grants the Petitioner's motion, in part, as appears in the Direction below .2 Accordingly, we shall direct the Regional Director to amend the notice of election as indicated below. DIRECTION IT Is HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director include in the no- tice of election to be issued in this matter the following paragraph : NOTICE TO ALL VOTERS The elections conducted on June 25,1963, were set aside because the National Labor Relations Board found that certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the employees' exercise of a free and reasoned choice. Therefore, new elections will be held in ac- cordance with the terms of this notice of election. All eligible voters should understand that the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives them the right to cast their ballots as they see fit, and protects them in the exercise of this right, free from inter- ference by any of the parties. 9 The Petitioner 's request that copies of the Board's Decision be posted is denied. The Employer, in its opposition memorandum, contends that to grant the motion would unduly prejudice it because such a statement , having the imprimatur of the National Labor Relations Board, would suggest to the employees that in view of the Employer's misconduct the Board favored a vote for the Petitioner in the second election . It argues further that, in any event, the Petitioner had opportunity to, and did, inform the em- ployees of the Board 's Order. We find no merit in these contentions . Contrary to the Employer, we do not believe that the notice in any way indicates that the Board favors the Petitioner in the second election. The primary purpose of the notice is to provide official notification to all eligible voters , without detailing the specific conduct involved, as to the reason why the elections were set aside. Kellogg's, Inc. d/b/a Kellogg Mills and American Federation of Grain Millers . Case No. 19-CA-927929. June 8, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1964, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his De- cision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. 147 NLRB No. 41.