Hamilton Watch Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1608 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been performed for instrumentalities or channels of
interstate commerce . The Board has recently held that the
construction of county roads could not properly be included
within the concept of instrumentalities or channels of inter-
state commerce .5 The construction of streets and sewers
for residential areas is no more closely related to the concept
of instrumentalities or channels of interstate commerce.
The Association also received $ 13,000 for services per-
formed for the United States Army . Of this amount , $ 9,000
was received for a survey of a 20 square mile tract of land
owned by the Army and $ 4,000 for the planning and layout of
a rifle range at Fort Ord, California , and of a parking lot at
Presidio , California . We find that these services do not have
a substantial effect on the national defense, and therefore, de-
cline to assert jurisdiction on that basis.6
Under all the circumstances we find that although the
Association is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, the impact of its operations on commerce is not sub-
stantial enough to warrant an assertion of jurisdiction. We
shall therefore dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition. ]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
5 Johnson Concrete Company, 106 NLRB 1255.
6Taichert's Inc , 107 NLRB 779, Alpine Mill and Lumber Co., 107 NLRB 915, McArthur
Jersey Farm Dairy , Inc., 107 NLRB 885. Member Murdock who dissented in these cases
considers himself bound by the decision of the majority.
HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY and DISTRICT 98, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS. A. F. OF L., Peti-
tioner . Case No . 4-RC-1999 '. March 16, 1954
DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On July 2, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region, among the employees in the
stipulated unit . Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties , showing that of approximately 502 eligible voters,
438 cast valid ballots, of which 212 were for the Petitioner,
225 were against representation , and 1 was challenged. On
July 8, 1953 , the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the matter
107 NLRB No. 321.
HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 1609
raised by the Petitioner's objections and, on August 4, 1953,
issued and duly served upon the parties his report and recom-
mendations on objections to election, in which he found that
the objections did not raise substantial or material issues
with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election,
and recommending that the Board dismiss the objections.
Thereafter, on August 24, 1953, the Petitioner filed excep-
tions to the report on objections.
The Petitioner' s exceptions raise no question relating to
the factual findings made by the Regional Director. Less than
24 hours before the election, the Employer addressed employees
at a meeting on company time but off company property. In
response to the Union' s request , the Employer offeredthe Union
the opportunity of addressing employees on company time in
a nearby field which would accommodate all employees in
the unit. The Regional Director found that the requirements
of the. Bonwit- Teller rule, which was then in force but which
the Board no longer follows, had been satisfied, and recom-
mended that the objections based thereon be dismissed.
We find it unnecessary, however, to determine whether the
Bonwit-Teller rule was violated, even though, contrary to our
dissenting colleague, we think it far from certain that the
Employer's conduct here satisfied the "equal opportunity"
requirement of that rule. We believe instead that the freedom
of choice guaranteed to employees by the Act will be better
served by applying our new election rule enunciated in Peer-
less Plywood Company.' And while we recognize that the
Employer's speech antedated our decision in Peerless Ply-
woo and therefore do not attach to the Employer's conduct
any intent to violate our new rule, the inconvenience, if any,
resulting to the Employer from the application of the new rule
is wholly outweighed, in our opinion, by the interests of the
employees in expressing their choice in a poll entirely free of
interference . Accordingly, since the Employer delivered its
speech to employees on company time less than 24 hours be-
fore the election, we shall set aside the results of the July 2
election and direct a new one to be conducted.
[The Board set aside the election held on July 2, 1953.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Murdock, dissenting:
As in The Cross Company2 case, I must dissent from the
retroactive application of the Board's recently announced
"24 hour" election speech rule. I cannot agree with my col-
leagues that an election such as held herein should be in-
validated because of acts wholly lawful at the time that they
1107 NLRB 427.
2107 NLRB 1267.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were committed. The Employer' in this case addressed its
employees on the day before a Board election in a speech
delivered on paid time although not on company property.
In response to a request by the Union for a like opportunity
to reply, the Employer offered to release employees on the
morning of the election so that the union representatives
might address them in a field near the plant, the exact locale
of the Employer'.s speech being unavailable because of trans-
portation difficulties. The Union chose to refuse the offer.
It is quite clear, as found by the Regional Director, that this
conduct of the Employer satisfied the requirements of the
Bonwit-Teller rule I which was in force at the time the acts
at issue were committed. That is, the Employer, while voicing
his own views.on company time--a freedom uniformly granted
under the Bonwit-Teller doctrine but not under the present
rule--was willing to grant the same opportunity for persua-
sion to the Union. Yet my colleagues, applying the rule set
forth in Peerless Plywood," now invalidate this election be-
cause the Employer's speech took place on paid time less than
24 hours before the election. This instance, therefore, as
did the Cross case, sharply points up the contrast between
the freedom and equality of speech guaranteed by the now
discarded Bonwit-Teller doctrine and the new, flat prohibi-
tion on such speech, be it equally available or not. Accord-
ingly, and because the Employer herein, in my opinion, is
being unfairly penalized for acting within his legal rights at
the time of the election, I would, in accord with the recom-
mendations of the Regional Director, dismiss the objections
to the election.
Chairman Farmer and Member Beeson took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of
Election.
3Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608.
4Peerless Plywood Company, supra.
NATIONAL PETRO - CHEMICALS CORPORATION and PETRO
INDEPENDENT UNION, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3410.
March 16, 1954
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENZATNES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion, an election was conducted on October 7, 1953, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region, among certain employees of the Employer.
The results of this election were as follows: Of 216 valid ballots
cast, 100 were cast for the Petitioner, 16 were cast for Oil
107 NLRB No. 330.