Howell Electric Motors Company And International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America (uaw-cio), 1337 (1945)

In the Matter of HOWELL ELECTRIC MOTORS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) Case No. 7-R-1878 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER July 17, 1945 Upon Objections filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, to conduct affecting the results of the election and conduct of the election held on January 12, 1945, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued on December 20, 1944,' by the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a hearing was held before Peter F. Ward, Trial Examiner, at Howell, Michigan, on March 29, 1945, in which the Board, the Union, and Howell Electric Motors Company, herein called the Company, participated by their representatives.

On April 30, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Report and Recommendations, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found the Union's Objections to have merit and recommended that the Objections be sustained, the election set aside, and a new election held. Thereafter, the Company filed Exceptions to the Report and Recommendations and the Union submitted a letter in lieu of a brief.

The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings on, motions and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

The Board has considered the Report and Recommendations, the Exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' 1 2 Mr. Houston adopts all the findings of the Trial Examiner whereas Mr. Reilly adopts only some of those findings. See Mr. Reilly's concurring opinion.

1337 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' In sum, the Trial Examiner found that by the statements of Supervisor Boyd and Foreman Hill indicating to employees shortly before the election that they would lose their 'overtime' and be 'worse' off if they voted for the Union, and by the letter of President Flood to the employees on the eve of the election, the Company had engaged in a course of conduct interfering with the free choice of representatives by its employees at the election on January 12, 1945. He further found it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the Union's contention that the Company had committed certain improprieties at the election thereby interfering with the employees' free choice. In its exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Report and Recommendations the Company, in addition to renewing its contentions already made before the Trial Examiner, urged that the Board reject the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions as to the statements attributed to Supervisor Boyd and Foreman Hill by employees Ricketts, Bessert, and LoRee, respectively, by discrediting the testimony of these employees which the Trial Examiner credited, and by crediting the denials of Boyd and Hill, which the Trial Examiner rejected. After carefully reviewing the record herein, we are persuaded that the Trial Examiner, who had the benefit of personal observation of the witnesses, fairly and judiciously resolved the conflicts in testimony and correctly interpreted the evidence adduced at the hearing.

Accordingly, we conclude that the Company's above-described course of conduct during the period preceding the election prevented an expression therein of the employees' free and uncoerced wishes as to representation.

We shall therefore set the election aside. We shall direct a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises us that circumstances permitting a free choice among the employeees have been restored.

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 12, 1945, among the employees of Howell Electric Motors Company, Howell, Michigan, be, and it hereby is, set aside.

CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.

MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring:

I concur in the Supplemental Decision and Order except that I find it unnecessary to pass upon whether or not the language used by the president of the Company in his letter to the employees exceeded the permissible exer3 In his report, the Trial Examiner inadvertently stated that shortly before the election the Company discontinued overtime work and that the regular hour for such overtime work was from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The record discloses that overtime work was merely reduced from one hour to a half hour and that the regular hour of overtime was from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. It also appears that Supervisor Boyd and Foreman Hill informed their subordinates that this reduction in overtime was only a temporary measure due to the shortage of certain materials.

cise of freedom of opinion, as noted recently by the Supreme Court of the United States.' I am of the opinion that by the statements of its supervisory employees Boyd and Hill, shortly before the election, the Company interfered with the free choice of representatives by its employees at the election of January 12, 1945, and that the election should therefore be set aside.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. David Karasick, for the Board.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, by Mr. George D. Miller, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.

Messrs. Maurice Sugar and N. L. Smokler, by Mr. N. L. Smokler, of Detroit,

Mich., for the CIO.

On January 12, 1945, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued herein by the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on December 20, 1944,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan). Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.

The Tally shows that of the approximately 297 eligible voters, 272 cast valid votes, of which 129 were for the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, and 141 against the Union. Three void ballots were cast, and 2 ballots were challenged.

Thereafter, on January 16, 1945, the Union filed Objections to the Conduct of the Election and Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. The Union therein alleged in substance: (1) That on January 11, 1945, the Company distributed a letter to its employees signed by A. C. Flood, an officer of the Company, which was designed to and in effect did intimidate and coerce the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative; (2) that during the course of the election the Company's Personnel Director and General Superintendent stood in conspicuous places in the plant where all the employees would be required to pass by them in going to the polls, and that such action was designed to and in fact did intimidate and coerce the employees and prevent a free choice of the collective bargaining representatives; and (3) that the Union would present evidence to the Board showing coercion and intimidation exercised by the Company through various other means, intended to deprive the employees of their free choice.

On January 23, 1945, the Regional Director issued his Report of Objections on Conduct of Election in which he concluded that the Objections raised a substantial and material issue with respect to the results of the election, and recommended that the Board sustain the Objections, set aside the results of the election, and direct that a new election be conducted.

On February 1, 1945, the Company filed its answer to the Report of Objections on Conduct of Election in which it inferentially admitted circulating the Flood letter among its employees on January 11, 1945, but denied the findings and conclusions contained in the Regional Director's Report on Objections.' * See opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516.

2 The specific issues raised by the Regional Director's Report on Objections and the Company's Answcr are discussed below in detail.

On February 8, 1945, it appearing to the Board that the Objections filed by the Union raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, a hearing was ordered on the Objections.

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Howell, Michigan, on March 29, 1945, before Peter F. Ward, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Boaid, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and crossexamine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the undersigned reserved ruling on a motion made by counsel for the Company to strike certain testimony of union witnesses as to statements claimed to have been made by Helen Bauer, the plant nurse. In view of the findings hereinafter made to Bauer, the motion is denied.

On April 2, 1945, the Board issued an Order directing the undersigned to issue and serve upon the parties a Report and Recommendations,...