F. B. Rogers Silver Co.

F. B. ROGERS SILVER COMPANY 205 bility issue. As they are temporary employees, we find, in accordance with Board practice, that they do not have a sufficient interest in the selection of a bargaining representative, and that they are, therefore, ineligible to cast ballots in the election directed herein.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Vetter Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB No 21 , of. Comico Products Corporation, 00 NLRB No. 159. F. B. ROGERS SILVER COMPANY and PLAYTHINGS, JEWELRY AND NOVELTY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Cabe No. 1-RC-1445. May 2, 1951 Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election On May 26, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on May 2, 1950,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the First Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in said Decision. Upon, completion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties. The tally showed that of the approximately 146 eligible voters, 141 cast ballots, of which 55 were for the Petitioner, 72 were against the Petitioner, 13 were challenged, and 1 was void. On June 2, 1950, the Petitioner filed objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election. There- after, on August 17, 1950, following an investigation, the Regional Di- rector issued his report on objections, in which he reported that sub- stantial and material factual issues had been raised in the course of his investigation, both with respect to the objections of the Petitioner and with respect to certain other matters developed in the course of the investigation. The Regional Director recommended that a hear- ing be held to resolve such issues. On September 1, 1950, the Em- ployer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, and requested that the objections of the Petitioner be overruled. On October 10, 1950, the Board, upon consideration of the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, issued an Order in which it: (1) Remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issues raised by the Petitioner's objections; (2) directed that the hearing officer prepare and serve upon the parties a report containing findings of fact, conclusions, and recom- ' Unpublished , 94 NLRB No. 49. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objections; and (3 ) granted the parties 10 days after service of the hearing officer's report to file exceptions thereto. ' A hearing was held on November 1, 9, and 10, 1950 , at Taunton, Massachusetts, before Sidney A. Coven, the hearing officer duly desig- nated by the Regional Director . All parties appeared and partici- pated in the hearing . On February 19, 1951, the hearing officer issued his report in which, after finding that certain conduct of the Em- ployer constituted interference affecting the results of the election, he recommended that the election be set aside.' Thereafter, on March 15, 1951, the Employer filed exceptions , and a. brief in support thereof, to the hearing officer's report. The Board 3 has revised the rulings made at the hearing by the hearing officer and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board , having considered the hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto and sup- porting brief, and the entire record in this case , hereby adopts the recommendation of the hearing officer that the election of May 26, 1950, be set aside. In so doing , however, the Board relies solely upon the following findings of fact : 1. For at least 2 weeks before the election there was a widespread rumor at the Employer's plant that the employees would get a "long week-end" off with pay if the Petitioner lost the election . In 1948, after the Petitioner had been unsuccessful in a similar election, the employees had in fact received such a paid vacation . The existence of the rumor was a matter of common knowledge not only to the rank- and-file employees, but also to the Employer 's supervisory staff. The record does not disclose the origin of the rumor , but there is evidence that Foreman Shelalgian and Works Manager Steinmetz, in conversations with employees, lent credence to the rumor within a week of the election. Thus, 3 days before the election , Shelalgian told Ferrera, an employee under his supervision , that ". . if the Union didn't get in we would have a long week -end and come back to work on Wednesday morning.... " Similarly, Moura, an em- ployee, testified credibly that Steinmetz , about a week before the election , made vehement statements to him denouncing the Petitioner, after which Steinmetz asked Moura if he was going fishing. When Moura said he couldn't, Steinmetz, with a smile, said Moura ". . . would have an enjoyable long week-end, wouldn 't (he) ? -..." 2 The hearing officer found certain other objections of the Petitioner to be without merit. No exceptions have been filed to these findings. 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. F. B. ROGERS SILVER COMPANY 207 Steinmetz went on to ask Moura if he enjoyed the party-there was a party at the plant following the Petitioner's loss of the 1948 elec- tion-and then said ". . . I guess we'll have another party this time...." Steinmetz did not deny the conversation with Moura, but merely denied generally that he made any promises about time off after the election. Although Steinmetz on several occasions denied, upon receiving inquiries from employees , that the Employer would give the em- ployees a paid holiday if the Petitioner lost the election, the Employer at no time made any general statement specifically discrediting the rumor. 9,. Several weeks before the election Shelalgian questioned em- ployee Peters about his participation in "the union business," and shortly thereafter told Peters that he would be foolish to sign a union card as he ". . . would only be getting into a lot of trouble...." At about the same time Steinmetz tried to persuade Peters not to vote for the Petitioner. On the morning of the election, just before the polls opened, Steinmetz questioned Peters about his attendance at a union meeting the preceding evening. When Peters attempted to evade the questioning , Steinmetz said : ". . . Teddy, don't lie .. . You're a hell of a guy . . . you sold out for two cans of beer...." Peters testified he was "all nerved up," and that Steinmetz ". .. really knew everything what was said, who said it and what .. ." at the meeting.' Peters' testimony was credited by the hearing officer. We note particularly that the plant involved is small, and that con- duct of the kind described in the findings above is more likely to inter- fere with the freedom of the ballot in such a. plant. Upon the basis of those findings , therefore, and on the entire record in this case, the Board concludes that the election herein was not held in an atmosphere which permitted the free expression by the employees involved of their desire for collective bargaining representation. Accordingly, we shall set aside the election of May 26, 1950 , in this matter, and shall direct a new election. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on May 26, 1950, among the employees of the F. B. Rogers Silver Company, Taunton, Massa- chusetts, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 We have recently held that conduct such as this constituted an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Tennessee Egg Company, 93 NLRB 846