The Timken-Detroit Axle Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE COMPANY 509
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
I WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LocAL No. 214, AFL, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees of the Respondent [James C. Ellis] engaged in the pro-
duction of oil in the Respondent's Kentucky operations, but excluding
office and clerical employees, technical employees, drillers and tool
dressers, administrative employees, technical employees, district fore-
men, all guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in
the Act.
I WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
union to bargain with me, or refuse to bargain collectively with said union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above.
JAMES C. ELLIS, sole owner, d/b]
JAMES C. ELLIS (Oil Production)
Employer
By --------------------------------------
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE TIMKEN-DETROIT ABLE COMPANY (OHIO AXLE & GEAR DIVISION
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 8-RC-1559. January 22,1953
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was held on March 20, 1952, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region, among the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant in Newark, Ohio. Upon completion of the election,
the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties a tally
of ballots which revealed that of approximately 532 eligible voters,
517 cast valid ballots, of which 225 were in favor of the Petitioner,
249 were in favor of the Intervenor, International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO, 39 were in favor of another labor organization, and there
were 2 challenged ballots. None of the organizations having received
102 NLRB No. 59.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a majority of the ballots cast, on April 3, 1952, a runoff election was
conducted with the Petitioner and the Intervenor on the ballot.
Upon completion of this election, the Regional Director served upon
the parties the tally of ballots which revealed that of approximately
530 eligible voters, 518 cast valid ballots, of which 303 were in favor of
the Petitioner, 215 were in favor of the Intervenor, and there was 1
challenged ballot.
On April 7, 1952, the Intervenor filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election, contending in objections 1 and 2 that repre-
sentatives of management had threatened to move the plant in the
event the Intervenor won the election or the Petitioner did not win
the election, and alleging other acts of interference in objections 3
through 9. Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and
on July 10, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on
objections. In this report, the Regional Director found that substan-
tial and material issues with respect to the election were raised by the
Intervenor's objections 1 and 2, in that information was disclosed by
the investigation which, if true, would warrant the Board's sustaining
the objections and ordering a new election. Because of conflicts in the
statements obtained in the investigation, however, the Regional Di-
rector recommended that the Board direct a hearing to obtain evidence
as to the issues raised by objections 1 and 2. The Regional Director
recommended that the remaining objections be overruled. On July 16,
1952, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
On July 30,1952, the Board directed that a hearing be held, limited
to the issues raised by objections 1 and 2. A hearing was held at
Newark, Ohio, August 20 through August 22, 1952, before Bernard
Marcus, hearing officer. On November 6, 1952, the hearing officer is-
sued a report in which he recommended that objections 1 and 2 be
sustained. The Employer filed exceptions to this report, and the Peti-
tioner filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof. The Board' 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, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in this case,2 and hereby adopts the hearing
officer's findings, conclusions, and recommendations with the following
modification.
In objections 1 and 2, the Intervenor alleged in substance that the
Employer, through its supervisors and agents, threatened to move its
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 [Members Houston , Styles,
and Peterson].
The Petitioner 's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record, excep-
tions, and brief , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
THE TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE COMPANY 511
operations out of Newark, Ohio, if the Intervenor won the runoff
election or the Petitioner did not win it.
The hearing officer found, and we agree, that on or about March 22,
1952, in the period between the two elections, Personnel Manager
Hanshue told employee Wells that "the parking facilities were bad,
and that if the CIO got in there would be no money spent or anything
done about parking facilities; if the IAM got in there would be." He
also found that during this period, on March 27, 1952, Foreman Wise
approached employee Walters and told him that "I will hate to see this
company move out of town ... because if you don't go IAM, they are
going to move out." He found further that on occasions both before
the first election and between the two elections, Foreman Zahniser
stated to employees, including employee Ankrom, that "there had been
rumors that the plant would move out if the IAM didn't win the elec-
tion." The Petitioner and the Employer have excepted to the hearing
officer's crediting the testimony that these statements were made, and
discrediting the denials. There is, however, no reason in the record
for disturbing the hearing officer's credibility resolutions.
The hearing officer concluded on the basis of the foregoing state-
ments, as well as others of similar content made to employees prior to
the first election by Wise and Hanshue,' that the Employer, by threats
of economic reprisal in the event that the Intervenor won the runoff
election, had substantially interfered with the employees' free choice
of representatives. He therefore recommended that the election be
set aside.
In its exceptions to the hearing officer's report, the Petitioner urged
that the hearing officer's rulings, conclusion, and recommendation
should be overruled and the Petitioner certified on the ground that the
Intervenor, having knowledge of the statements made prior to the
runoff election, was estopped from asserting such conduct as a basis
for setting that election aside because it failed to lodge its protest
prior to the holding of the runoff election.
In our recent decision in The Great Atlantic d Pacific Tea Com-
pany,4 the Board held that objections to acts of substantial inteference
with the conduct of an election which occurred after the execution of a
stipulation for certification upon consent election, and of which the
aggrieved party had knowledge, were not waived by the party's
S The Petitioner and the Employer have excepted to the hearing officer 's findings based
upon the statements made prior to the first election , as well as to his ruling admitting into
evidence certain testimony which did not relate to objections 1 and 2. As the Intervenor
failed to file objections with respect to the conduct which occurred prior to the first election
within the time limit prescribed by the Board's Rules and Regulations , we find that the
Intervenor thereby waived its right to object to such conduct. Accordingly, in reaching
our conclusion herein, we do not rely upon the findings based upon such statements. How-
ever, we find that the hearing officer 's ruling admitting testimony relating to objections
3 to 9 was not prejudicial as that testimony pertained to those events which transpired
prior to the first election.
4 101 NLRB 1118. See also Beaver Machine 4 Tool Co., 101 NLRB No. 242.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
failure to file charges or otherwise protest to the Board until after
the election. Applying the principle of this decision to the instant
case, we find that the Intervenor's failure to object to the statements
made by supervisors to employees Wells, Walters, and Ankrom,
shortly before the runoff election, which substantially interfered with
the employees' free choice of representatives at the Employer's New-
ark, Ohio, plant,5 did not preclude the Intervenor from filing its timely
objections after the runoff election.
Accordingly, we adopt the hearing officer's recommendation sustain-
ing the Intervenor's objections 1 and 2, and shall order the election set
aside. When the Regional Director advises the Board that circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative, we shall
direct that a new runoff election be held among the employees in the
bargaining unit at the Employer's Newark, Ohio, plant.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on April 3, 1952, among
the employees of The Timken-Detroit Axle Company (Ohio Axle &
Gear Division), Newark, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
6 See U. S. Rubber Co ., 86 NLRB 3; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation , 82 NLRB 161.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION , UNITED AuTo-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA , CIO. Case No. 8-CA-514. January 23, 1953
Decision and Order
On July 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
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. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record, exceptions, and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
I 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
[Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
102 NLRB No. 56.