Hamilton Welding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 138 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Lincolnwood plant involved and that the Employer when hiring
employees for its "bindery" operation, does not require any fixed
amount of experience in the lob classifications sought by the Peti-
tioner In this connection, the record shows that of all the "bindery"
employees in the printing department, only 1 of the 17 "bindery" girls
and only 1 of the 3 cutters had any experience in their respective
occupations prior to their present employment Under these circum-
stances, we find that the "bindery" employees are not true craftsmen
and, accordingly, we shall dismiss the Bindery Workers' petition in
Case No 13-RC-6686 8
The Employer would include, and the Jewelry Workers would
exclude, the cafeteria employees from the production and maintenance
unit The Employer operates two nonpublic cafeterias for the use of
its employees The cafeteria employees are hourly paid and work a
40-hour week Although they are separately supervised and work
exclusively in the cafeterias, they have regular daily contact with the
production and maintenance employees and therefore we find that
they have interests in common with them Under these circumstances,
and as there is no request to represent them separately, we shall, in
accordance with Board precedent, include the cafeteria employees in
the production and maintenance unit 9
Accordingly we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Lincolnwood, Illinois, plant, including the printing, bindery, and
cafeteria employees, but excluding office and plaint clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the A A.
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos 13-R0-6685 and
13-RC 4686 ]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
8 A 0 Si th Corporation, supra, at page 202
s Minute Maid Corporation, 117 NL1IB 68 70
Hamilton Welding Company and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , Local 2578, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No 9-IBC-3565 January 13, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election , dated April 6,
1959 ,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 29, 1959,
1 Unpubhshed
126 NLRB No 20
HAMILTON WELDING COMPANY 139
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Ninth Region. After the election the Regional Director served upon
the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 26
eligible voters, 24 cast ballots, of which 5 were for, and 18 were against,
the Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged. Thereafter the Petitioner
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re-
gional Director conducted an investigation and, on October 27, 1959,
issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which
he found no merit to the Petitioner's objections, recommending that
they be overruled and that the Board issue a certification of results of
election. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report, and a brief in support thereof.
The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby finds as follows :
In its objections, the Petitioner alleged that a campaign speech
made by the Employer to its employees on company time within the
24-hour period immediately before the scheduled time of the election
violated the Peerless Plywood rule,2 and is a basis for setting aside
the election. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the
election was originally scheduled to be held between 8 :30 and 9 a.m.
on April 28,1959. Around 4:30 p.m. on April 27,1959, the Employer's
president ordered all machinery in the plant to be shut down and then
proceeded to make a speech to the assembled employees urging them
to reject the Union. Because of an inadvertence, the Board's agent
assigned to conduct the election failed to appear and the election was
not held as scheduled. The election was rescheduled subsequently,
over the objection of the Petitioner, and held between 8:30 and 9 a.m.
on the following morning, April 29, 1959. The Regional Director
found that, as the speech in question was not made within the 24-hour
period immediately preceding the actual balloting, it did not violate
the Peerless Plywood rule. We are unable to agree. The primary
purpose of the rule is to prevent both the union and the employer
from obtaining an unfair campaign advantage by establishing a 24-
hour cutoff period for campaign speeches to massed assemblies of
employees on company time. This temporal ground rule was designed
to enable the parties to ascertain well in advance of the election the
exact cutoff period so that they might prepare and time their respec-
tive campaigns. To hold that a campaign speech, otherwise viola-
tive of the rule when delivered, subsequently becomes permissive be-
cause of a fortuitous postponement of the scheduled election date,
would, in our opinion, result in an unfair campaign advantage and
be contrary to the purpose of the rule. Accordingly, we hold that the
2 107 NLRB 427.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date on which the election was scheduled, rather than the date of the
actual balloting, is controlling for the purpose of determining the
insulated period. As the above speech of the Employer was made
within 24 hours of the scheduled election, we find that the conduct
violated the Peerless Plywood rule. We shall, therefore, set the elec-
tion aside and order a second election.'
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
3In light of this disposition we find it unnecessary to answer the other issues raised
by the Petitioner.
Charles Bruning Company, Inc.' and Office Employees ' Interna-
tional Union Local 10, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-
4117. January 13, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald F. Sugerman, hear-
ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated that an overall unit of office clerical em-
ployees, shipping and receiving employees , and service repair me-
chanics of the Employer at its Detroit, Michigan , branch, excluding
salesmen , all other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, was appropriate . They disagreed only as to the unit place-
ment of the service manager , who the Petitioner contends is a super-
visor and as to whom the Employer refused to take a position.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and service of
copying equipment to customers such as Ford Motor Company, Gen-
eral Motors Corporation , and Chrysler Corporation . Its home office
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
126 NLRB No. 13.