International Shoe Co.

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regional Director, that these statements constituted threats of eco- nomic reprisals against the employees if the Petitioner won the election, and interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election. In addition, in each of his speeches, after comparing the Employer's policy of four paid holidays and time and one-half for work done on 3 other holidays, with the Petitioner's policy of 7 holidays at straight time pay, Reis stated, "We will be glad to have it whichever way you want it." We find that this statement, made on the eve of the elec- tion, was a promise of an economic concession to the employees, designed to convince them that they could achieve the same results without a union as with a union, and therefore interfered with freedom of choice in the election.' Accordingly, we shall set aside the election of November 8, 1950, and shall direct that a new election be held at such time as the Regional Director advises is appropriate. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on November 8, 1950, among the employees of Gastonia Weaving Company at its Gastonia, North Carolina, plant be, and it hereby is, set aside. L See Bonwit -Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 14-RC-1507. December 28, 1551 Supplemental Decision and Order Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated September 20, 1951, as amended on October 3, 1951, an election by secret ballot was held on October 17, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate. At the close of the election the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 398 eligible voters, 333 cast valid ballots, of which 166 were cast for the Petitioner, and 167 against the Petitioner; 2 ballots were void, and 1 challenged. On October 22, 1951, the Petitioner filed objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on November 14, 1951, issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that the objections be sustained. On November 21, 1951, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. 97 NLRB No. 110. INTERNATIONAL SHOE, COMPANY 773 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Petitioner objects that the Employer and United Construction Workers, United Mine Workers, herein called the UMW, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement on October 16, 1951, 1 day before the election. The Regional Director reports that a 1-year contract between the Employer and the UMW, originally effective beginning October 1, 1950, had been automatically renewed on September 30, 1951, pursuant to its terms.' Upon the UMW's request of September 15, 1951, the parties negotiated for contract amendments on September 18, when the UMW asked for a wage increase and several other con- tract changes. At a second meeting of the parties, on October 16, 1 day before the election, the Employer offered to grant a wage increase and agreed to change the vacation plan. The parties stipulated that the agreement would not be effective if the Petitioner won the election, and the Union advised the Employer that the proposed contract changes would be voted upon by the membership during a ratification meeting in the evening of October 17, following the election. The Re- gional Director concluded that the Employer, by recognizing and ne- gotiating with the UMW despite the existence of a question concerning representation, interfered with the employees' freedom to choose their bargaining agent. In its exceptions, the Employer argued that it was merely fulfilling its contractual obligations with the UMW and fulfilling its duty under the Act, to bargain with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. However, it is the Board's well-established doctrine that, in recognizing and dealing with a labor organization during the pend- ency of a petition which raises a real question concerning representa- tion, an employer seriously interferes with its employees' free choice of their bargaining representative? We find that the Employer herein violated its obligation to maintain neutrality before the election and thereby deprived its employees of their right to a free and uncoerced election. In view of our finding above, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other objection of the Petitioner, to the effect that the Employer had misrepresented to the employees the significance of a `.`no" vote on the ballot. We shall adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and set aside the election of October 17, 1951, and shall direct that a new elec- 1 The petition was filed on July 25, 1950 , at an appropriate time before the "Mill B" date. The UMW intervened at the hearing on the basis of its contractual interest ; it was not given a place on the ballot because it is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h ) of the Act. 0 International Harvester Company , 87 NLRB 1123 ; Midwest Piping and Supply Co , Inc., 63 NLRB 1060. Cf Walliam Penn Broadcasting company, 93 NLRB 1104. 986209-52-vol. 97-50 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lion be held at such time as the Regional Director advises the Board that an election may appropriately be held. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on October 17, 1951, among the employees of the International Shoe Company at its Olney, Illinois, plant be, and it hereby is, set aside. BRIGHTON MILLS , INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1565. December 26,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to represent all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Shannon, Georgia, plant. The Employer claims that the employees at its Forsyth, Georgia, plant should be included in the unit. The two plants are approximately 150 miles apart. There is no interchange of employees. The employees at the Forsyth plant are paid less for comparable work than the employees at the Shannon plant. Each plant has separate immediate super- vision. Although the records for both plants are kept at the Shannon plant and almost the entire output of raw materials at the Forsyth plant is sold to the Shannon plant, we find under all the circumstances, that the unit may appropriately be limited to employees of the Shannon plant.' The office clerical employees. The Petitioner seeks to exclude these employees from the unit, whereas the Employer seeks to include 1 Harms Hosiery Inc., 91 NLRB 330; Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 91. 97 NLRB No. 131.