Bird Machine Co.

In the Matter of BIRD MACHINE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1-R-99443 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION February 6, 1947 Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on May 8, 1946,1 all election by secret ballot was held on June 6, 1946 , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region . 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 approximately 238 eligible voters, 92,cast votes for the United Steelworkers of America , CIO (herein called the Union ), 113 cast votes against the Union, 23 voted under chal- lenge, and there was 1 void ballot. On June 10, 1946, the Union filed objections to the conduct of the election alleging that the Employer required its employees to go to the polling place to vote and that it furnished transportation for that purpose between the plant and the election site; (2) that the Em- ployer mailed a letter discussing the forthcoming election to each of its employees, which letter allegedly interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election ; and (3 ) that the Employer by "other acts and statements" prevented a free and fair election. In a Report issued on August 1, 1946 , the Regional Director found no merit in objections ( 1) and (3), above. No exceptions having been filed to these rulings, we hereby adopt the Regional Director 's recom- mendation thereon. The Regional Director did find, however, that the second objection warranted setting aside the election . The Em- ployer has filed exceptions to this ruling. The Regional Director found that the Employer 's pre-election letter was not itself coercive, but that it interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in view of an unremedied discriminatory discharge 1 67 N. L. R B 1246 72 N. L. R. B, No. 81. 443 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of one employee in May 1944.2 In the absence of intervening unfair labor practices, and there is no showing of such unlawful conduct in the present case, we are of the opinion that the effect of a single discriminatory discharge is too remote a circumstance to convert an uncoercive document issued 2 years later into the basis for setting aside an election." Accordingly, we hereby overrule the Union's objections to the conduct of the election and shall direct that the Regional Direc- tor issue a Supplemental Report, including therein his recommenda- tions concerning the disposition of the challenged ballots.4 DIRECTION IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the First Region investigate the challenged ballots, and issue a Supplemental Report, including therein his recommendations as to the disposition of the 23 challenged ballots of the electron held on June 6, 1946, among employees of the Bird Machine Company, Walpole, Massachusetts. MR. JA31ES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. 2 The Board's decision in this matter was issued on January 1, 1946 (Matter of Bird Machtine Company, 65 N L. R B 311). 3 Compare Matter of American Laundry Machinery Company, 57 N L. R B 25 , enforced 152 F (2d) 400 (C. C A. 2) ; and Matter of Peter J Schweitzer, Inc, 54 N. L. It. B. 813, enforced 144 F (2d) 520 (A D C ) 4 As indicated above , the challenged ballots may affect the results of the election.