Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 4, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 696 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Taylor Forge Division; Gulf & Western Manufacturing
Co. and International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO
Forge and Machine Workers' Industrial Union and
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-14930, 13-RC-13640,
and 13-CB-6405
January 4, 1977
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its present location at
4735 W. 14th St., Cicero, Illinois , but excluding
salesmen, office employees, technical employees,
.professional employees , and guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
1 The Respondent Employer has requested oral argument . This request is
hereby denied as the record , the exceptions, and the briefs adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DECISION AND ORDER AND
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On September 3, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Respondent Employer and Union,
Forge and Machine Workers' Industrial Union, filed
answering briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast and Forge and Machine
Workers' Industrial Union and that, pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the said labor organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit found
appropriate herein for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment:
227 NLRB No. 112
MARION C. LADwio, Administrative Law Judge: These
-consolidated cases were heard at Chicago, Illinois, on May
10-14, and June 8-9, 1976. The charges were filed by the
Boilermakers against the Company on December 3 and
against the Independent Union on December 5, 1975.1 The
complaint was issued on February 6, 1976, together with an
order consolidating the complaint cases with the represen-
tation case in which the Board on January 7, 1976, issued a
decision in 221 NLRB 1341, overruling Petitioner Boiler-
makers Objections 4 and 5 and ordering a hearing on
Objections 1(b) and (c).
The complaint cases arose when the Company and the
Independent-following the Independent's defeat of the
Boilermakers in an election on March 20 by a vote of 386 to
161-proceeded to negotiate and execute a renewal of their
collective-bargaining agreement, notwithstanding the Boil-
ermakers pending objections to the election.
The primary issues are whether the election should be set
aside on the basis of one or more of the objections and, if
not, whether (a) the Board's "at-its-peril" doctrine should
be extended to this fact situation to permit the resumption
of negotiations between the Company and the Independent
after the election-upon the risk of committing unfair labor
practices if the election is found invalid-or (b) the
Company violated Section 8(axl), (2), and (3) and the
Independent, 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, by negotiating, executing, and implementing
the agreement before the Board determines the validity of
the election.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Company, Indepen-
dent, and Boilermakers, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent Company is a division of Gulf & Western
Manufacturing Co., a Delaware corporation, and is en-
gaged in the manufacture of large-diameter pipe and
fittings for piping systems at its plant in Cicero, Illinois,
where it annually receives goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from outside the State. The Company and Indepen-
dent admit, and I fmd, that the Company is an employer
1 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise stated
TAYLOR FORGE DIVISION, GULF & WESTERN 697
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, and that the Independent and Boiler-
makers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING
A. Background
The production and maintenance employees at the
Cicero plant have been represented by the Independent for
over 35 years. The most recent collective-bargaining
agreement , negotiated in 1972, was to expire on April 30.
The Boilermakers filed a petition for an election on
February 18; the Company, Independent, and Boilermak-
ers executed a stipulated consent agreement on March 3;
and the Independent won the election by a vote of 386 to
161 on March 20. The Boilermakers filed timely objections
on March 26.
On September 18 (nearly 6 months later), the Regional
Director issued his report on objections. Citing the facts
that the Independent's pension plan was a critical issue in
the election campaign (that 363 of the unit employees had
20 or more years of service, that 310 of them were 55 years
of age or older with over 15 years of service, and that almost
60 percent of the employees were currently eligible for some
type of pension benefit and therefore directly affected by
the issue of pensions), the Regional Director recommended
that the election be set aside on the basis of both Objection
4 (concerning the Independent's campaign literature re-
gardmg pension reporting and assets) and Objection 5
(concerning the Independent 's belated misrepresentation
that Boilermaker-represented employees at a plant in Gary,
Indiana , had lost their pensions). In the alternative, the
Regional Director found that a hearing should be held on
Objections 4 and 5, as well as Objections 1(b) and (c).
On January 7, 1976, the Board overruled Objections 4
and 5 without a hearing and ordered a hearing to be held on
Objections 1(b) and (c), discussed below.
At the hearing of the consolidated cases, the Boilermak-
ers moved for reconsideration of Objections 4 and 5,
indicating that it was doing so "for the record" because
"this matter could go to court ultimately." I denied the
motion.
B. Objection 1(b)
In this objection, the Boilermakers alleged that the
Independent posted election materials on plant bulletin
boards in violation of a clause in its contract prohibiting
such use of the bulletin boards.
During the election campaign , both the Boilermakers and
the Independent passed out much election material (called
pluggers) at the entrances to employees on the three shifts
as they entered or left the plant. There is conflicting
evidence concerning whether the Independent also placed
some of its campaign material (apart from notices and other
permitted items) on any of its 24 union bulletin boards
which are located throughout the large , 24-acre plant.
Luis Tayleor, an employee organizer for the Boilermakers
(who impressed me most favorably as an honest, forthright
witness-although discharged by the Company), credibly
testified that in early March he saw a former Independent
officer, employee Steve Wolfranski, standing by the union
bulletin board in Department C-4 where Tayleor worked.
Tayleor complained to Wolfranski about a piece of
Independent campaign literature which had been posted on
the board and proceeded to post alongside it a piece of
Boilermaker literature which was being distributed at the
plant entrances that morning . Wolfranski removed the
Boilermaker literature, and Tayleor in turn removed the
Independent literature. The evidence does not disclose who
had posted the Independent literature , when it was posted,
or whether any other employee or supervisor had observed
the posted campaign material.
Employee Tayleor also credibly testified that on March
11 he saw Independent Treasurer Casimir "Bozo" Szczudlo
posting Independent 's March 11 plugger (in answer to the
"3-10-75 plugger from the "Boiler-Boys' ") on the C-4
union bulletin board . He later saw his forman, Charles
Ahrendt, reading the plugger on the board (although
Ahrendt did not recall this), and also saw it posted on the
union bulletin boards in C-1, C-2, and at the main
entrance . The material was not only distributed at the
entrances that morning, but was put at each place setting in
the lunchroom that day. (Tayleor definitely recalled that
this March 11 literature was the one posted because "we
were joking with [Szczudlo ] about the American way of life
and apple-pie bit at the bottom ." I note that under the
name of the Independent , the March I1 literature reads:
"P.S. Beware ! The next desperate scare plugger from the
Boiler-Boys may try to shake your faith in the American
way of life, apple pie, or even Santa Claus!") Although
Tayleor initially recalled that he was absent from work on
March 11 , his birthday (a floating holiday), the payroll
records show that he was absent instead on March 12 for
the holiday. Szczudlo denied at the hearing that he had
posted any of the so -called pluggers. However, in his June
11 prehearing affidavit , he stated, "Some of the notices
which I posted on the Union bulletin boards in the plant
were Independent's position on issues in the election cam-
paign in response to statements made by the Boilermakers,"
despite the later statement, in the same affidavit, that he did
not post any pluggers , "only matters pertaining to internal
union affairs." (Emphasis supplied.) (Szczudlo, as well as
Recording Secretary Peter Cipriano , whose testimony is
discussed later, impressed me most unfavorably as witness-
es.)
Employee Tayleor credibly testified further that he saw
Independent's March 14 plugger posted in his Department
C-4 and the main entrance. Finally, on election day
(March 20), Tayleor saw two pieces of Independent's
literature (a vote-for-the-Independent card and a half-page
plugger dated March 19 , involving the pension plan) posted
on the union bulletin boards in C-1, C-4, and at the main
entrance . (As an employee organizer, Tayleor was looking
for any violations of the provision in the collective-bargain-
ing'agreement , prohibiting such postings . He testified that
he ,almost got fired during this time , "Walking through
areas other than my own during lunch period and break-
time.") Boilermakers International Representative Robert
Miller received several complaints about such postings, and
on one occasion a questionable notice was removed from
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the front union bulletin board after Miller complained to
Personnel .Manager Charles Gaul about it. Company
officials checked the bulletin boards to see if there were any
posting violations.
Thus, the credited evidence shows only a few instances in
which Independent 's campaign material was posted on any
of the union bulletin boards . Although these few violations
of the agreement did occur , there is no showing that these
postings would tend to have any impact on the election.
The same literature was given personally to virtually all the
employees as they entered or left the plant; the literature
was taken into the plant and discussed by the employees;
and it was often seen on the floor , desks, and benches, and
in the lunchroom.
Accordingly, I find that the Boilermakers failed to prove
that the posting of some of Independent's election material
in violation of the collective -bargaining agreement had any
impact on the outcome of the election. I therefore overrule
Objection 1(b).
C. Objection 1(c)
In this objection , the Boilermakers alleged that the
Independent was allowed to campaign in the plant on
working time , while the Boilermakers were denied access to
the plant.
During the election campaign , Independent officials (all
company employees) were given access to the plant (as
before) to contact employees during working time in order
to investigate and handle grievances, to engage in a job
evaluation program begun several months earlier, and to
engage in other union business under the collective-bar-
gaining agreement . Nonemployee Boilermakers officials
were denied access to the plant . The questions are whether
the Company permitted the Independent to abuse its
contractual visitation rights and campaign on working time,
and whether this interfered with the election.
Early in the campaign , the Company instructed its
foremen to remain neutral, and not to permit employees to
congregate and discuss the election during working time.
The employees were permitted to, and did , discuss the
campaign issues and the pros and cons of the two unions
before work , during breaks, and at lunchtime.
On one occasion, about the second week in March,
Recording Secretary Cipriano began talking to several
employees in Department K during working time. When
employee Ned Miltonberg (a Boilermakers organizer)
walked up , he heard Cipriano telling the employees in the
group that the Independent is "the best damn union in the
world." Miltonberg and Cipriano then engaged in an
argument about the two unions, as other employees
listened , without any intervention by the foremen who were
working elsewhere in the area. (As credibly testified by
Miltonberg , Cipriano argued that "you can't trust the
Boilermakers ... because the Boilermakers destroyed the
union at the Taylor Forge plant in Gary, Indiana."
Cipriano was thereby referring to the purported loss of
employee pensions at the Gary plant-the issue involved in
Boilermakers Objection 5.) The discussion lasted about 10
or 15 minutes before Cipriano left. A foreman later directed
the employees to return to work . (Only Miltonberg and
Cipriano testified about what was said . None of the other
employees was called to testify . I discredit Cipriano's claim
that Miltonberg started the conversation about the two
unions . Miltonberg appeared on the stand to be the more
credible witness .) Although the foremen did not enforce the
no-congregating-no-talking rule on this occasion, I find
that the partisan discussion did not interfere with the
election.
The remaining instances of alleged violations of the rule
by Independent's officers were given by employee organiz-
er, Tayleor . None of the parties called any other employee
witnesses , except Independent officials.
About March 3, shortly before the 7 a .m. shift began,
several employees were waiting in the C-1 foreman's office.
Independent President George Oostdyk entered the office
and began discussing a safety problem with Foremen James
Mucha and Danny Gibson. When employee Tayleor
entered, as he credibly testified , he saw that Oostdyk had a
copy of the Independent agreement with the Company in
his hand, and a copy of the Boilermakers agreement with
Kropp Forge Company (at a nearby plant) on the table.
Oostdyk immediately stopped talking and Tayleor (who
had not heard any of the conversation) said to him, "No use
in hiding it. I know what you're doing." Oostdyk laughed
and Tayleor left the office . (I discredit the denials that
Oostdyk and the foremen were looking at copies of the two
contracts .) However, this occurred during nonworking
time-before the shift began-and therefore did not
involve the Independent campaigning on working time.
Also in early March, after employees Tayleor and
Wolfranski removed campaign literature from a union
bulletin board (as discussed above), the two employees
went into the foremen's office where several other employ-
ees were waiting for the 205 rolling mill to be repaired.
Forman Mucha came in, used the telephone , and heard the
employees discussing the pros and cons of the two unions
while looking at the campaign literature which the employ-
ees had brought into the plant . After getting off the phone,
as Tayleor credibly testified , Mucha commented that the
Boilermakers got the Company's Gary plant shut down,
that the employees there lost their pension, and "if we
brought them in" this plant , the same thing would happen
here. (Mucha admitted the incident , but testified, "I don't
recall saying that" I discredit the denial .) Except for the
comment by Mucha , this incident merely involved employ-
ees discussing the pros and cons of the two unions, during a
plant breakdown . The foremen's remark about the loss of
pensions would be material , not to Objection 1(c) but to
Objection 5 which the Board has already overruled. (The
statement also indicated to the employees the Company's
preference for the Independent in the election.)
About March 7, Independent Treasurer Szczudlo went to
the electrical department to check out a Kropp Forge want
ad which somebody had posted on the wall . (Electricians
were concerned about the higher wage rate in the , Boiler-
makers contract at the nearby plant.) While Szczudlo was
there, talking to four of the electricians (including employee
Eugene DiAngelo-not Foreman Angelo _ Abluton), em-
ployee Tayleor came by to report a crane malfunction. He
did not hear what Szczudlo was saying , but he saw Szczudlo
talking with the electricians and comparing the Indepen-
dent contract with the Boilermakers Kropp Forge contract.
TAYLOR FORGE DIVISION , GULF & WESTERN 699
Tayleor merely commented, "You know you are wrong,"
and left. (Szczudlo admitted that he had a company
contract, but denied having a Kropp Forge contract. I
discredit his denials.) There was no forman in sight, and no
evidence that the Independent was being allowed to
campaign on working time.
Finally, on election day, between the morning and
afternoon voting sessions, employee Tayleor observed
Independent President Oostdyk take some papers from a
manila envelope and -walk through Department D-1,
"leafing through the pages with employees as he walked
through." Then at the north end of D-1, Oostdyk "had a
congregation of about 5 or 6 guys around him." Tayleor
was not in a position to observe whether any foreman was
in the area. Later, in the front office, Tayleor saw that the
papers in the envelope were the "1973, 1974 pension and
welfare program that they were supposed to file with the
Federal Government." (These were documents involved in
Boilermakers Objection 4. I discredit Oostdyk's denials.)
Again, in. the absence of evidence that the conduct was
observed by supervision, there was no proof that the
Company was allowing the Independent to campaign
during working time.
Thus, the Boilermakers has proved only isolated instanc-
es of the Independent campaigning during working time,
and no instance of the Company approving or condoning
such conduct. Because of open campaigning-by both
sides-before work, at breaks, and at lunch, I fmd that
these few instances of the Independent campaigning during
working time had no real impact on the election. I therefore
overrule Boilermakers Objections 1(b) and (c).
Accordingly, I fmd that there is no basis (apart from
Independent's conduct involving pensions in Objections 4
and 5, which the Board has already overruled) for setting
aside, the March 20 -election, and that the Independent
should be certified as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the stipulated appropriate unit: All produc-
tion and maintenance employees employed by the Employ-
er at its present location at 4735 West 14th Street, Cicero,
Illinois , but excluding salesmen, office employees, technical
employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Negotiations While Objections Pending
On the night of the March 20 election, after the votes
were counted (386 for the Independent, 161 for the
Boilermakers, 6 against representation, and 3 challenged
ballots, totaling 556 votes), the Company and Independent
immediately agreed to meet the following day, March 21, to
begin negotiations-without waiting to see if objections
would be filed, and without awaiting certification. The
Boilermakers objections were timely filed on March 26. The
Company and Independent continued their negotiations,
which had been delayed about 3 weeks by the election, in
an effort to reach an agreement by the time their 1972-75
contract expired on April 30. The Independent had
followed a no-contract, no-work policy in the past. ,
The Company and Independent failed to reach an
agreement , and the Independent went on strike from May 1
until a memorandum of agreement was signed on June 13.
The employees returned to work on June 16. The new
contract, extending from May 1 through April 30,1978, was
signed on July 2 and has been enforced since then. It
contains a 30-day union-shop provision. (At the hearing,
over the objection of the Boilermakers, the Company was
permitted to testify about previous strike actions for the
purpose-as stated by counsel-of showing that the Inde-
pendent "is not a sweetheart union but is a full-fledged
union." Thereafter, I -injected evidence offered by the
Company and Independent concerning details of the May 1
strike and of employee support of the Independent after the
Company negotiated with the Independent as the exclusive
bargaining representative, despite the pending objections to
the election. Whether the strike was a "real" and "no a, if
you will, sweetheart strike"-as phrased by company
counsel-is not in issue . Evidence of employee support,
following the Company's resumption of "business as usual"
with the Independent, does not establish employee prefer-
ence.)
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company
gave unlawful assistance to, and encouraged membership
in, the Independent by negotiationg, executing, and imple-
menting the 1975-78 agreement (containing the union-
security clause) with the Independent "during the pendency
of a question concerning representation," in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. The complaint also
alleges that the Independent, through its participation,
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Boilermakers treat this case
as merely an application of the Board's Midwest Piping
doctrine. Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB
1060, 1070 (1945). In that case, in which "there existed a
real question concerning the representation of the employ-
ees," the Board ruled that an employer could not negotiate
a contract with one of two rival unions "until its right to be
recognized as the collective bargaining representative had
been finally determined under the procedure set up under
the Act." (Emphasis supplied.) The Company and Indepen-
dent contend that-the Midwest Piping doctrine is inapplica-
ble because, in view of the Independent's overwhelming
(over 2-to- l-) victory in the March 20 election, there is no
real question of representation. -
The General Counsel argues that the question of whether
an uncoerced majority of the employees desire to be
represented by a particular union must be determined by
the Board, which has been specifically designated by
Congress for that purpose. To allow the Company and
Independent, "whose interests are clearly at stake," to make
that determination would be "the most blatant form of self-
help" and would "set dangerous precedent," infri nging
upon the -right of employees to choose their own bargaining
representative. The Company, through testimony of one of
its lawyers, Vice President Edward Klopfenstein, argued
that its decision to resume "business as,usual" with the
Independent was justified because (1) the employees voted
by over 2-to-1 for the Independent; (2) the "campaign was
a clean one" and "We didn't view a real question of
representation to exist"; (3) refusing to negotiate after the
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election would have aggravated our "long past relation-
ship" with the Independent; (4) the employees, expecting
wage increases in a new contract, would regard' a delay in
negotiations as an attempt by the Company "to get out
cheaper" through a "legal loophole"; (5) any prolonged
delay would nullify the progress already made in the job-
evaluation program; (6) there were around 200 pending
grievances in the plant, and any attempt to run this large
plant without a grievance procedure "would be literally
chaos or the law ofthe,jungle"; and (7) there was a backlog
of work in the plant, and "We just could not tolerate" an
unstable relationship in the plant for the "2 years or so" it
could take the Board to resolve the matter: "We had to
have stability in the work force in order to get our products
out the door and to protect the interest of our stockholders
and employees themselves." The Boilermakers contends
that the Company and Independent simply relegated to
themselves the determination as to who was the proper
representative of the employees, and in view of the
immediate decision after the election to proceed with
negotiations, these "matters raised by the Company
through its attorney's testimony at the unfair labor practice
hearing are apparent afterthoughts to justify its position to
flout the law."
The General Counsel contends that even if the pending
objections have no merit, the Board should not permit
bargaining until it, as the impartial government agency,
determines the validity of the election-although conceding
that in such a situation, "the issues become more difficult."
The General Counsel argues that "If it becomes the practice
of parties to engage in negotiations during the pendency of
objections, the interest of employees to be represented will,
in the long run, be delayed where a re-run election is
ordered, due to complicated unfair labor practice cases
involving dues reimbursement, withdrawal of recognition
and other remedies . Further . . . the chances of holding a
free and uncoerced re-run election after the signing of a
contract are, in the opinion of General Counsel, dimin-
ished. . . . To permit parties to bargain before the Board
makes that determination, even if the Board ultimately
overrules the objections, would create chaos and further
delay." Similarly, the Boilermakers argues that "there is no
remedy to rectify a Company's improved benefits for one
labor organization at a time when another is seeking to
represent its employees.... [T]he Board must not relin-
quish its statutory role leaving it to the whim of the parties
to enforce the statutory mandate, but must prohibit now as
it has in the past the improper activities of the Respon-
dents:'-The Company, on the other hand, at least implies
that it should be permitted, "at, its peril," to deal with the
Independent pending the Board's resolution .of the Boiler-
makers objections. It cites International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union AFL-CIO [Bernhard Altmann Texas
Corp.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 731 (1961), and argues that
numerous courts of appeals have recognized that during a
pending Board representation proceeding, if an employer
bargains with one of two competing labor unions, "the
employer does so at his peril, for if the union does not in
fact represent a majority of the employees, the recognition
of and bargaining with a minority union is an unfair labor
practice, regardless of the employer's good faith in the
matter."
C. Concluding Findings
I assume that where objections to an election are
sustained and the election is set aside, the Board would
apply the "at-its-peril" doctrine, Sundstrand Heat Transfer,
Inc. v. N.LRB., 538 F.2d 1257 (C.A. 7, 1976), Bernhard-
Altmann, supra, at 737-739, and find it unlawful for the
employer to have bargained after the invalid election with
one of the competing unions pending the resolution of the
objections filed by the other union. As ruled in Bernhard-
Altmann (involving recognition of a minority union), the
favored, union is given "a marked advantage over any other
in securing the adherence of employees."
But here, the March 20 election is held to be a valid one.
Nearly a year and a half has already passed since the
election, and this case could be in litigation even longer
before a final determination is made of the validity of the
election. Meanwhile, following the Independent's over-
whelming victory in the voting, the Company and Indepen-
dent have implemented a 3-year renewal of their agree-
ment, have finished the job-evaluation program, have
resolved many differences through the contractual griev-
ance and arbitration procedure, and have seemingly
restored stability in the industrial relations. And the
employees have not been deprived of representation by the
Union for which over two-thirds of them voted.
There would indeed be advantages to requiring the
employer to wait until the Board, determines the choice of
an uncoerced majority before recognizing and bargaining
with a union whose victory in the election is under attack.
However, at least in the present fact situation, I find that
the advantages are outweighed by the right of the employ-
ees to have representation in the meantime by the Union
for which the overwhelming majority of them voted in a
valid election, and by the goal of promoting industrial
peace and stability.
I therefore find that the Company and Independent acted
at their peril in negotiating, executing, and implementing
the 1975-78 agreement while the Boilermakers objections
to the election were pending, but that having correctly
determined the validity of the election, they did not thereby
violate the Act. Accordingly, I dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Although acting at their peril by negotiating, executing
and implementing the 1975-78 collective-bargaining agree-
ment while the Boilermakers objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the March 20, 1975, election were pending,
the Company and Independent correctly determined the
validity of the election and therefore did not thereby violate
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
TAYLOR FORGE DIVISION, GULF & WESTERN 701
ORDER2 (Recommended Certification of Representative omitted
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
from publication.]
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102.46 of the of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec. 102 .48 waived for all purposes.