The Fairbanks Company, Employer And Henry C. Fricks, An Employee, Petitioner And International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America, Cio, Union, 864 (1949)

Docket Number:10-RD-25
Party Name:866
 
FREE EXCERPT

In the Matter of THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and HENRY C.

FRICKS, AN EMPLOYEE, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION,

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION Case No. 10-RD-25.-Decided February 18, 1949 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a 'Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election' in the above-entitled decertification proceeding, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 15, 1948, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,

Georgia).

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 98 eligible voters, 91 cast valid ballots, of which 48 were for the Union and 43 against the Union.

No ballots were challenged.

Thereafter, on July 20, 1948, the Employer filed Objections to the Conduct of the Election. On September 30, 1948, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which he found that the Employer's objections raised no substantial or material issues, and accordingly recommended that the objections be overruled. On October 11, 1948, the Employer filed Exceptions to Report on Objections and a brief in support thereof.

In its objections, the Employer alleged that the Union had interfered with the results of the election by informing the employees that they would receive an immediate 15 percent wage cut and would lose their vacation pay if the Union lost the election,1 and that the Union 1 The Employer alleged that on the morning of the date set for the election a representative from the office of the Union's District Director came to the office of the manager of the Company's plant for the 'stated purpose' of learning at what time a representative of the National Labor Relations Board was expected at the Company office. It further alleged that this representative, upon leaving the plant office, told a group of employees of the Company, including the chairman of the shop committee of the Union, that, if they voted the Union out, there would be a wage cut immediately, and that he had seen papers in the Company office stating the time and amount of the wage cut. These statements were widely disseminated throughout the plant and came to the attention of the plant manager at about 3:30 p. m., when the election manager of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP