Tube Reducing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining agreement to the employees of the power plants formerly
operated by Pennsylvania Edison. However, the employees of the
merged company represented by the Intervenor have continued to be
represented by that organization as a separate unit, although, now
employees of the Employer. As the result of negotiations between
the Employer and the Intervenor, wage rates and other employee
benefits have been "equalized" for physical employees in the two
separate units.
In view of the highly integrated interdependent character of the
Employer's public utility system, we are convinced that a systemwide
unit is the optimum unit appropriate for collective bargaining.' How-
ever, the long history of separate bargaining for the employees in
the eastern division precludes the inclusion of these employees in the
optimum appropriate unit without a self-determination election.' As,
however, the Petitioner has not made a showing of interest among
the employees in the eastern division, and the Intervenor does, not
seek an election among them, we shall not direct an election in a
voting group limited to such employees.' Further, as the Petitioner
does not desire certification in a unit consisting of the employees it
now represents, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
E Boston Consolidated Gas Company, 107 NLRB 1565 ; Elizabethtown Consolidated
Gas Company , 93 NLRB 1270.
s Montana -Dakota Utilities Co, 110 NLRB 1056. Member Murdock, who dissented
I. that case and in Upper Peninsula Power Company, 110 NLRB 1082 , now considers
himself bound on this point by the majority opinion in the latter. case.
6 Montana -Dakota Utilities Co , supra.
TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-6954. November 30, 1954
Decision and Order
On August 26, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent selection, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region among the employees in the appropriate unit described below.
Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was issued and
served upon the parties. The tally shows that, of approximately
24 eligible voters, 13 cast valid ballots for, and 11 against, the•Peti-
tioner. There were no void or challenged ballots.
On September 2, 1954, the Employer filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the election. The Regional Director investigated
the objections and, on September 20, 1954, issued his report on objec-
110 NLRB No. 175.
TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION 1081
tions. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the
objections be dismissed and that the Petitioner be certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the stipulated
unit. The Employer thereafter filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
The Board, having considered the Regional Director's report, the
Employer's exceptions, and the entire record in the case, finds as
follows :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office and clerical employees of the
Employer at its Wallington, New Jersey, plant, excluding technical
employees, professional employees, confidential and managerial em-
ployees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
5. The Employer objected to the election on the ground, among
others, that, on the day before the election, the Petitioner distributed
a handbill containing a facsimile of the Board's official ballot, marked
"sample," but with an "X" inserted in the "Yes" blank. The Regional
Director overruled this objection on the basis of precedent existing
before the Board's recent decision in Allied Electric Products, Inc.,
109 NLRB 1270. He found that the latter decision, which proscribed
the circulation of sample ballots altered in any way for campaign
purposes, was not intended to apply to elections held before the issu-
ance of that decision and was therefore not controlling in this case.
We find merit in the Employer's exception to this conclusion.
In Allied Electric Products, the Board stated that the reproduction
of a purported official ballot which has been altered in a partisan man-
ner necessarily tends to suggest Agency approval of the material
thereon. The Board further held that such reproduction will not be
permitted and, upon valid objection, an election in which the success-
ful party has violated this rule will be set aside. Prior decisions which
to any extent approved the circulation of a copy of the Board's official
ballot marked in favor of one of the parties were expressly overruled.
The specific facts in Allied Electric Products itself did not require
the application of the new rule because the sample ballot involved
was improper even under the limitations set forth in prior decisions.
This circumstance was noted in the decision and the new rule was
therefore phrased to apply "in the future." However, the rule was
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not thereby limited in application to future elections, but to ' any
future case involving the circulation of an altered sample ballot, to
which a valid objection was raised.
We find that the Petitioner herein, by circulating a copy of the
Board's official ballot, altered as described above, tended to interfere
with a free choice in the election, and the Employer has validly
objected to this conduct. Accordingly, we shall set aside the election
and direct that a new election be conducted by the Regional Director
at such time as he deems proper.
[The Board set aside the election and remanded this proceeding
to the Regional Director for the Second Region for the purpose of
conducting a new election.]
UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY, PETITIONER and LOCAL 510,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY and LOCAL 510, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AF L, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 18 RM 151 and 18-RC-0138. November 30, 1954
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence. A. Meter, hearing
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer engages in electric power generating, transmis-
sion, and distribution operations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Its operations are divided into five administrative districts referred
to as Houghton, Calumet, Ontonagon, Ishpeming, and Iron River.
The Employer and IBEW contend that an employerwide unit includ-
ing operating, maintenance, and construction employees in all five
districts is the only appropriate unit. Steelworkers contends that a
1 Local 510, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, and United Steel-
workers of America, CIO, will be referred to hereinafter as IBEW and Steelworkers,
respectively..
110 NLRB No. 177.