Scantlin Electronics, Inc., 888 (1973)

Docket Number:31-CA-02955
 
FREE EXCERPT

Scantlin Electronics, Incorporated and Local Union 1710, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 31-CA-2955 and 31-RC-1936

February 14, 1973

DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION

BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO

On August 23, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Scantlin Electronics,

Incorporated, Los Angeles, California, its officer, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on February 25, 1972, in Case 31-RC-1936 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 31-RC-1936 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 31 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.

[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] i The title of 'Trial Examiner' was changed to 'Administrative Law Judge' effective August 19, 1972

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on June 20, 1972. The complaint, issued April 28, later amended, and based on charges filed March 3 and June 6, 1972, by Local Union 1710, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,

AFL-CIO-CLC, herein the Union, alleges that Respondent, Scantlin Electronics, Inc., had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.

Consolidated with the foregoing were certain objections to conduct affecting an election held in Case 31-RC-1936.

In that case, a petition for an election was filed on January 3 and an election conducted on February 25, 1972, in a unit of production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Los Angeles plant, with the customary exclusions.

Of 73 eligibles, 71 ballots were cast, with 37 against the Union, 30 in its favor, and 4 challenges. A hearing was directed on two of the objections filed by the Union, this involving the identical conduct attacked in the unfair labor practice complaint. Briefs have been submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent.

Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Scantlin Electronics, Inc., is a California corporation maintaining its principal place of business in Los Angeles,

California, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, lease, and service of data retrieval and communications equipment. It annually purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly from suppliers outside the State of California . I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union 1710, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue; Introduction As indicated, the Union lost an election held on February 25, 1972, in a unit of Respondent's previously unorganized employees. The sole issue herein is whether Respondent granted improved holiday and vacation benefits to these employees on January 25 and February 14, 1972, respectively, for the purpose of discouraging their support of the Union and affecting the results of the election. Respondent contends that these improved benefits were contemplated and being processed before the advent of the Union upon the scene.

Respondent has approximately 350 employees in 30 locations in the country. About 225 are at the Los Angeles manufacturing facility with 73 in the proposed bargaining unit. Most of its customers are members of the New York Stock Exchange and, as will appear, Respondent's labor negotiations with a unit of about 16 employees in New York City are indirectly involved herein.

In mid-October, International Representative Frank Salerno of the Union commenced an organizational 201 NLRB No. 124

SCANTLIN ELECTRONICS, INC. 889 campaign among the previously unorganized employees in Los Angeles. This consisted of meetings at homes of employees, telephone calls, and the mailing of union literature. There was no activity...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL