Sprague Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 667
that agreement" and thereby "to discourage and render worthless the
making of such agreements, contrary to the statutory purpose to
encourage the voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. In
effect, such a holding would permit a party to breach such an agree-
ment with impunity because the determination of the dispute pur-
suant to the agreement was unfavorable to it, and then to have re-
course to this Board for another determination of the dispute which
might be favorable to it. In our opinion, this would stimulate abuse
of the Board's processes." 4
Accordingly, we find that, as of the time the charge herein was
filed, there was a voluntary adjustment of the dispute, within the
meaning of Section 10 (k). We find, therefore, that we are without
authority to. determine this dispute, and we shall accordingly quash
the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding.
Order
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and on the entire record in this case, the Board hereby orders
that the notice of hearing heretofore issued in this proceeding be, and
it hereby is, quashed.
* Wm. F. Traylor, footnote 3, supra.
SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO &
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case. No . 1-RC-536.
June 11, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on March
11, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted herein on April
3, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the First Region, among the employees in the voting group de-
scribed in the Board's Decision. Upon the conclusion of the election,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally showed that,
of approximately 92 eligible voters, 87 cast valid ballots, of which
35 were for the Petitioner, 34 for the IUE,2 7 for the Independent,3
and 11 for none, and there were 2 challenged ballots.
As no choice received a majority of the valid votes cast, the Regional
Director, under Section 9 (c) of the Act, conducted a runoff election on
April 17, 1952, the ballots providing for a selection between the Peti-
tioner and IUE, which respectively received the largest and second
largest number of valid votes cast in the first election. Thereafter, the
1 98 NLRB 533.
s International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, CIO.
6 Local 2, Independent Condenser Workers' Union.
99 NLRB No. 106.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties were duly furnished a tally of ballots in the runoff election,
which showed that, of approximately 90 eligible voters, 67 cast valid
ballots, of which 43 were for the Petitioner and 24 for the IUE. In
addition, there were 20 void,4 and 1 challenged, ballots.
On April 24, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the election.
Thereafter, on May 5, 1952, the Regional Director, pursuant to the
Board's Rules and Regulations, issued and duly served on the parties
a report on objections, in which he recommended that the Board find
the Employer's objections to be without merit, and that they be over-
ruled. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's report.
In its objections and exceptions, the Employer contends that the
runoff election should be set aside essentially because : (1) The votes
cast for the IUE, coupled with the ballots containing the words "none"
or "no union," which were declared void, showed that the majority
of voters do not desire to be represented by the Petitioner; (2) the
Globe election procedure adopted in this case is unlawful; s (3) the
employees were not informed as to the effect of their selection of a
bargaining representative on the scope of the unit; and (4) the em-
ployees were denied an opportunity in the runoff election to express
their choice as to the scope of the bargaining unit. Like the Regional
Director, we find no merit in these contentions.
As to the first contention, the Regional Director, in conducting
the runoff election, properly limited the choice on the ballots to the
Petitioner or IUE, which had received the largest and second largest
number of valid votes cast in the first election. The voters were not
entitled, of their own accord, to widen this choice on the ballot .6
Accordingly, the ballots on which the words "none," or "no union,"
were written were void and cannot be counted in determining the
results of the election.
With respect to the alleged impropriety of the Globe election pro-
cedure, this contention is rejected for the reasons set forth in the
Underwood Machinery case.'
6 Of the 20 void ballots , 19 were declared void because the «ords "no union," or "none,"
were written in by the voters.
5In its original Decision , the Board held that the Employer ' s Bennington , Vermont,
plant employees here involved may constitute a separate unit or be included in a unit of
North Adams , Massachusetts , employees , depending upon the results of the election. It
further provided that, if a majority of employees select the Petitioner or IUE, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented separately and, under such
circumstances , a separate unit is found appropriate , and that if they select the Inde-
pendent, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the unit of
North Adams employees currently represented by the Independent . Such election is
commonly referred to as an "Armour -type Globe" election . Armour and Company, 40
NLRB 1333.
6 Woodmark Industrties , Inc., 80 NLRB 1105.
IN. L R B v. Underwood Machinery Co., 179 F. 2d 118 (C. A. 1), December 20, 1949,
enforcing 74 NLRB 641 , 77 NLRB 1428, 79 NLRB 1287, and 80 NLRB 1264. See also
N. L. B B v Grace Company, 184 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 8 ), September 13, 1950, remanding
on other grounds 84 NLRB 435.
SPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY 669
As to the third contention, namely that the employees were not
informed concerning the significance of their choice of a bargaining
representative on the scope of the unit, the Board's Decision specifically
described the effect which a vote for each participating union would
have on the ultimate determination of the appropriate unit. The
employees are deemed to have constructive notice of this Decision,
copies of which were served on the unions and the Employer, and
concerning which the employees were informed, in the notices of elec-
tion, that they could contact the Regional Director or his agent in
charge of the election for any information desired.
With respect to the final contention that the employees were denied
an opportunity to express their wishes as to the scope of the unit in
the runoff election, the employees clearly evinced their desire for a
single-plant unit in the first election by the vote of a substantial ma-
jority for the Petitioner and IUE, both identified in the Decision as
advocates of a single-plant unit. Under these circumstances, it was
unnecessary that the employees be afforded a further opportunity to
express their wishes as to the unit's scope in the runoff election.
As we have found no merit in the Employer's objections, the objec-
tions are hereby overruled. The Board, in its Decision and Direction
of Election, made no final determination as to the appropriate unit,
pending the outcome of the election. Upon the entire record in this
case, which is now before us, the Board finds that all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer at its Bennington, Vermont,
plant, including factory clericals, machine and solutions mixing
supervisors, and watchmen, but excluding executives, professional
employees, office clericals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for-the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. As the
Petitioner secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election
among these employees, we shall certify it as the bargaining repre-
sentative of this unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate
above as their representative for the purposes of cellective bargaining
and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.