Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1795 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1795
view of the foregoing, we find that the above employees are not en-
gaged in performing normal foundry operations and that their in-
terests are most closely associated with the members of their own
department. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit sought
by the Molders.
Accordingly, we find that all foundry employees employed at the
Employer's West Homestead, Pennsylvania, plant, including em-
ployees in the foundry, iron, and steel chipping,12 iron melting, and
open hearth departments, pattern storage employees, charging ma-
chine operators, cranemen within the foundry, and the foundry in-
spector, but excluding all other employees, patternmakers and their
apprentices, machine shop employees, electric steel melting employees,
heat treatment and annealing employees, employees attached to forge
shops Nos. 1, 2, and 3, bricklayers, office and plant clerical employees,
watchmen and guards, laboratory employees, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act l2 constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 6-RC-2075.]
" We include those members of the iron and steel chipping department , who, because
of lack of space in the foundry building , are located in forge shop No. 3.
'a The parties have stipulated , and we find, that the following employees are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act ; stoker boss , open hearth ; stoker boss , iron melting ;
shakeout leader, foundry; night leader , iron melting ; gateman leader , roll foundry ;
molter , iron melting ; and gang leader , pattern shop.
Sylvania Electric Products , Inc. and International Union of
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 6-PC-185. June 30, 1958
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' and a Supple-
mental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election,2 issued on
March 22 and December 13, 1957, respectively, elections were con-
ducted on April 12, 1957, and January 7, 1958, among the employees
of the Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, plant, of the Employer. Thereafter,
a runoff election was conducted at this plant on January 23, 1958.
The tally of ballots of the runoff election shows that of approxi-
mately 458 eligible voters, 431 cast ballots. Of these, 219 were cast
I Not published.
9 Sylvania Electric Products , Inc., 119 NLRB 824.
120 NLRB No. 220.
1796 DECISIONS.OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for International Association of Machinists, and its Local Lodge 2174,
AFL-CIO ; 9 203 were cast for United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America, and its Local 636; 4 and 9 ballots were chal-
lenged, a number insufficient to affect the results of the election.
The UE filed timely objections to the elections.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director, after investigation, issued and duly served on the parties his
report on objections, in which he found that the UE's objections did
not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the runoff
election, and accordingly recommended that they be overruled. The
UE has filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the objections and
exceptions, and the Regional Director's report, the Board I finds :
For a number of years, the Employer and the UE had been parties
to a multiplant contract covering the employees at the Employer's
Mill Hall and Emporium, Pennsylvania, and Salem, Massachusetts,
plants. The last such contract was executed in 1955, to run until
May 1, 1957, and contained an automatic renewal clause. At the time
of the execution of this agreement, the UE and the Employer also
signed a "Memorandum of Understanding," agreeing therein that on
the 60th day before May 1, 1957, the contract would be superseded by
a new one to run for an additional year, with provision for automatic
renewal.
In September 1956, an alleged disaffiliation from the UE to the IAM
took place at the Emporium and Mill Hall plants. On September 26,
1956, the Employer and IAM executed a contract making the UE con-
tracts covering those plants binding between the Employer and the
IAM. The Employer, however, continued to recognize the UE, and
to give effect to its contract with the UE, at the Salem, Massachusetts,
plant.
On January 15, 1958, the UE was certified as the bargaining agent
for the Emporium plants On the same day, the Employer advised the
UE that it was willing to negotiate a single-plant, contract for the
Emporium plant but that it did not intend to negotiate a'multiplant
contract in the future.7 The Employer continued its contractual rela-
tionship with the IAM at Mill Hall.
The status of the UE's contract at Mill Hall was the subject of
much campaign propaganda prior to the runoff election. In its re-
leases , the UE contended that its 1955 multiplant contract was in
e Hereinafter referred to as the IAM.
Hereinafter referred to as the UE
6 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
eCase No. 18-RC-1851 (not published).
° As indicated above, an inconclusive election had been held at the Mill Hall plant on
January 7 and a runoff election between the UE and IAM was necessary.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1797
effect until May 1958, that the contract automatically covered the
Emporium plant upon certification of the UE, and that it would auto-
matically apply to Mill Hall if the UE were certified there. On the
other hand, the IAM claimed that the UE had no contract at Mill
Hall, that if the UE won the election the employees would be without
a contract until the UE negotiated a 'new one, and that the Employer
and the UE had negotiated a new contract at Emporium. On Janu-
ary 17 the Employer distributed to the Mill Hall employees a letter,
the expressed purpose of which was to answer these questions concern-
ing matters about which the Employer believed the employees were
confused : "Does UE really have a `National' agreement with
Sylvania?" and, "If UE wins, will Mill Hall be reunited with
Emporium and Salem under the old UE multiplant agreement?"
The letter's answers to these- questions were to the effect that the
Employer's only existing contract with the UE covered the Salem
plant and that, while the Employer planned to negotiate a contract
with the UE covering the Emporium plant for which the UE was
certified, it did not intend to negotiate a multiplant contract.
The Regional Director found the UE's objections to the election
based on the Employer's January 17 letter to be without merit and
recommended that they be overruled. In its exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's report, the UE contends that the Employer's letter
contained a misrepresentation to the effect that the UE was without
an existing contract covering the employees at Mill Hall, and that
this would be so even if it won the runoff election, as well as an
announcement of an "anticipatory refusal to negotiate," both of which
interfered with the election under the circumstances described above.
We agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the UE's
objections are without merit. In their campaign propaganda, both
the UE and IAM had expressed their positions regarding the existence
of a contract between the Employer and the UE at Mill B all. The
statement in the Employer's January 17 letter in this connection ob-
jected to by the UE was merely an expression by the Employer of its
legal position on the very same question. In the circumstances of
this case, it is plain that the Employer, had the same right as the UE
and the IAM to take a legal position on the issue of whether it was
party to a contract with the UE covering its Mill Hall plant, and that
the Employer's exercise of that right cannot be viewed as an unlawful
interference with the election.8 Nor do we find in the January 17
letter any anticipatory refusal to bargain such as would justify set-
ting aside the election, particularly in view of the Board finding in
this case that the Mill Hall employees constitute an appropriate unit
8 Cf Esquire, Inc , 107 NLRB 1238 , 1239-40 ; National Furniture Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc, 106 NLRB 1300, 1301-2
1798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the certification of January 15 covering the Emporium plant
alone .9
We find, therefore, that the objections and exceptions do not raise
material or substantial issues affecting the results of the election, and
accordingly adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that the
objections be overruled. As we have overruled the objections to the
election, and as the tally of ballots shows that the IAM received a
majority of the ballots cast in the runoff election, we shall certify the
IAM as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Association of Machinists, and
its Local Lodge 2174, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appro-
priate.]
'See International Longshoremen 's Association, Independent, et at. (New York ShLp-
pzirg Association, Inc., et al. ), 118 NLRB 1481.
O