Wiley Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 158 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wiley Manufacturing Company and Industrial Union
of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 5-RC-6441
January 21, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on July 31, 1968, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 5,
among the employees in the unit described below.
At the 'conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 362 eligible voters, 333 cast
ballots, of which 183 were for, and 145 against, the
Petitioner, with 5 challenged ballots. The challenges
were not sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on October 11,
1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his
Report on Objections in which he recommended
that the objections be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report on Objections and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer withiii the meaning of section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Port Deposit, Maryland, facility,
including production schedulers, field service
employees, timekeepers, loftsmen, receiving and
shipping clerks, janitors, the local driver and the
mail boy; but exluding project engineers,
engineers, design draftsmen, draftsmen,
over-the-road drivers, office clerical employees,
guards, working leaders and other supervisors
within the meaning of the Act as amended.
5. The Board has considered the objections, the
Regional Director's Report, the Employer's
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations.2
Accordingly, as the tally of the ballots shows that
Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes
cast, we shall certify it as the representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees of the Employer in the
unit found appropriate herein as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining 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
employees in such unit for purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
'The Employer excepts to the Regional Director ' s finding 'that a
misstatement in a leaflet distributed on the morning of the- day of the
election did not constitute a material misrepresentation
On the morning of the day of the election Petitioner distributed a leaflet
in which it announced that it had just completed negotiations with two
named ship yards on the west coast. In that leaflet Petitioner overstated
the amount of the settlement by 2 cents per hour for the second year,
listing it as 22 cents per hour when it was actually 20 cents per hour, and
understated the settlement for the third year by 2 cents per hour, listing it
as 15 cents per hour when it was actually 17 cents per hour.
The Employer cites the following decisions, by the United States Court
of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as supporting its contention that the
misstatement concerning the second year settlement constituted a material
representation of fact Collins & Atkman ' v. N L R.B, 383 F.2d 722;
N.L.R B v Bata Shoe Co., 377 F .2d 821, Schneider Mills , Inc, 390 F.2d
375; N L R B v Schapiro and Whitehouse , Inc., 356 F .2d 675 However,
these cases are distinguishable from the instant case The first three
involve, in the Court 's view, substantial misrepresentations unlike the
minor discrepancy present herein , and the fourth involves what the Court
regarded as an appeal to racial pride or prejudice We agree with the
Regional Director that this minor misstatement -does not constitute a
material misrepresentation of fact
'The Employer' s exceptions , in our opinion , raise no material or
substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the
Regional Director ' s findings and recommendations
174 NLRB No. 30