General Dynamics Corp., 978 (1970)

Dynatronics, an Operation of the Electronics Division of the General Dynamics Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and its Local 681, Joint Petitioners. Case 12-RC-3406

November 30, 1970

DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF THIRD ELECTION

By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS

Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election issued by the National Labor Relations Board on May 4, 1970, a second election by secret ballot was conducted on June 5, 1970, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 12, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the second election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 498 eligible voters, 438 cast valid ballots, of which 180 were for, and 258 against, the Joint Petitioners. There were 39 challenged ballots. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, on June 11, 1970, the Joint Petitioners filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the second election.

In accordance with Section 102.69 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on July 1, 1970, issued and served on the parties his Report on Objections in which he recommended that the Board overrule all objections in their entirety. Thereafter, the Joint Petitioners filed exceptions and brief, and a supplemental brief, to the Acting Regional Director's report.

The Employer has filed a brief in answer to the Joint Petitioners' 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.

Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.

2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.

3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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 parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

   All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's three plants located at Highway 17-92 N., Orlando, Florida, being known as Plant # 1; Lake Mary, Florida, being known as Plant #5; and Sanford, Florida, being known as Plant #4; and including plant clericals, expeditors, material analysts, test technicians in Plant # 5, machine shop and specialist process mechanics; but excluding office clerical employees, technical employees, planning employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

5. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the Acting Regional Director's Report on Objections and Recommendations, the exceptions and the briefs, and hereby adopts the Acting Regional Director's report only to the extent consistent herewith.

   Most of the facts critical to the resolution of this case are not disputed by the parties. Statements by employees and by representatives of the Employer agree that in April 1970, Sam Ackerman, the Employer's vice president, informed an assembled group of employees that the Company was conducting its annual wage and benefit survey and that the results of the survey would be available on or about June 1, 1970. The employees claim that Ackerman also stated that the results of the survey would most likely be increased benefits for the...