Belknap Hardware & Manufacturing Co.

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ante with our prior decisions,-' controls the type of unit appropriate for the office and clerical employees. Accordingly, we find that a multiemployer unit consisting of the office and clerical employees of the four employer members named herein, constitutes an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar- gaining and that a unit limited to the. office and clerical employees of a single employer is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 Columbia Pictures Corporation, 84 NLRB 647; Columbia Marble Company, 89 NLRB 1482; Port Angeles Automobile Dealers Association, 91 NLRB No. 206, cf . Alabama Power Company, 93 NLRB No. 190. BELKNAP HARDWARE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1168. March 10, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Order On September 13, 1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board,' an election by secret ballot wis_con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. Upon completion of the election, a tally of ballots was issued and duly served upon the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 522 eligible voters, 513 cast ballots, of which 131 were for the Petitioner, 351 against the Petitioner, and 31 were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. On December 10, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report on objec- tions to the election, in which he recommended that a hearing be ordered to resolve the issues of fact raised by the objections. There- after, in conformity with a Board order, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, hearing officer, on January 15, 1952. The hearing officer issued no report. The Employer filed a timely brief following the hearing. The Petitioner's chief objection 2 is that the Employer interfered with the election by making an antiunion speech on company time and property on the morning of the election, while denying the Union an equal opportunity to address the employees. 196 NLRB 157. 1 The Petitioner also objected to the election on the ground that sample ballots which had been posted on the bulletin boards had been defaced with knowledge of the Em- ployer. As the Union's representative stated at the hearing that no evidence would be adduced in support of this objection, it will not be further considered 98 NLRB No. 88. BELKNAP HARDWARE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 485 The record shows that the night before the election, the union repre- sentative, D'Ambrosio, was informed of the Employer's plan to call the employees in the voting unit together the following morning. On the morning of the election, at about 8 a. m., D'Ambrosio telephoned to the personnel director, Allen, informing him of this rumor and requesting that if such a meeting was to be held that D'Ambrosio was requesting the right to address the same employees under the same circumstances in order to give them the Union's side of the story. Allen replied that he could not make arrangements for this request at such short notice. He indicated that people were waiting for him and that he would call D'Ambrosio back. D'Ambrosio waited for Allen's call until about 10 a. m., and then walked to the plant where he arrived at about 10: 15 or 10: 30, in order to be on time for the pre- election conference which was scheduled for 11 a. in. The conference which opened as scheduled lasted until noon, when the parties went to hunch, planning to return by 1 o'clock in time for the election at 1: 30 p. in. At no time during the morning including the period cov- ered by the conference did D'Ambrosio renew his request that equal facilities be extended to the Union to present its position. In the meantime, the Employer had held a meeting at 8: 30 a. m. in the recreation room of the plant where there was a gathering of some 500 employees. At the ltieeting the president read a, prepared speech pleading that a union was not necessary in the plarit: The meeting immediately adjourned at the close of the speech. At the hearing, D'Ambrosio testified without contradiction that he did not have definite information concerning the meeting or the speech until an employee informed him of the facts during the lunch period. The Employer urges that it did not interfere with the election for the following reasons : (1) The Employer had not interfered with the union organizational campaign; 3 (2) attendance at the meeting was not compulsory; (3) the Union's request to address the employees was not specifically denied; and (4) even if the Employer's action be con- strued as a denial, the Union's representative had ample opportunity but failed to repeat the request sometime before the election which took place 5 hours thereafter. We find no merit in the Employer's contentions. The record indi- cates that all but a few employees in the voting group attended the meeting after having been informed by their respective foremen that the meeting was scheduled,4 and under the belief that it was compul- 3 The Employer had promulgated a no-solicitation rule However, the record indicates that the foremen were advised by the management not to interfere with the organization campaign of the Union. ' Some of the foremen were advised that the meeting was not compulsory but there is no evidence that this intormation was passed on to the employees except in a few instances uhere employees specifically asked if this meeting was compulsory. It is clear that the great majority of the employees in the unit attended. 998fi66-vol 98-5 3--h2 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sory to attend it. Although the Union's request was not specifically denied in so many words, Allen's response was tantamount to a denial by his statement that such request could not be granted on such short notice. As to the Employer's contention that the union representative should have repeated his request, we find under all the circumstances herein that a second request would apparently have been futile. Although we find nothing in the speech read at the meeting which indicates coercion, we find that this case is controlled by the rule enun- ciated in the Bonwit Teller,5 Biltmore 6 and Bernardin 7 cases. We find here, as we did there, that the Employer interfered with the elec- tion after utilizing company time and property to campaign against the union on the morning of the election, by denying the union an op- portunity to reply under the same circumstances. We find no merit in the Employer's contentions that the present case is distinguishable from the Bonwit Teller and Biltmore cases. Moreover, we find that the facts in the present case are more closely akin to those in the Ber- nardin case. Accordingly, for the reasons more fully set forth in the above-mentioned decisions, we find that the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining repre- sentative, and we shall order that the election of September 13, 1951, be set aside. We shall direct that the Regional Director conduct an election at such time as he deems appropriate. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of September 13, 1951, among the employees of the Employer, be, and it hereby is, set aside; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608. e Biltmore Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 905. 7 Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1559.. E. J. KELLEY COMPANY and JOSEPH ZACHAR, JR., PETITIONER and LOCAL 677, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 1-RD-97. March 10, 1952 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 Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. 98 NLRB No. 79.