Lakeshore Motors, Inc.

LAKESHORE MOTORS, INC. 89 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERzoG, dissenting : I cannot agree with my colleagues that this contract is a bar, because I believe that its union-security provision was unlawful from its in- ception. In 1951 Congress said, in so many words, that the validity of a union-shop contract depended in part upon whether the contract- ing union had, "at the time the agreement was made or within the preceding twelve months," received a notice of compliance from this Board. I think that Congress meant what it said, and what it said was "made," and not "became effective." The result I reach is sup- ported not only by the wording of the 1951 amendment, but by the fact that here a literal reading of what was written coincides with effectuating the overriding policy of stimulating early compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h). LAKESHORE MOTORS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, DISTRICT LODGE 1317, AFL, PETITIONER and LOUISIANA AurO- MOBILE WORKERS ASSOCIATION. Case No . 15-RC-693. October 23, 1959 Supplemental Decision and Order On June 10, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election dated May 26, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region. The tally of ballots issued after the elec- tion showed that the eligible voters in the unit cast 12 valid ballots, of which 6 were for and 6 against the Petitioner. On June 16, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On August 21, 1952, the Regional Director issued a report on objections, in which he found that the objections raised material issues with respect to the conduct and results of the election. Accordingly, the Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside. On August 27, 1952, the Employer filed excep- tions to the Regional Director's report. The Regional Director found, and the Employer does not deny, that during the 9-day period immediately preceding the election, the Em- ployer's vice president, W. M. Thompson, conducted private inter- Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions. 101 NLRB No. 22. 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD views with each employee in the voting unit. In two instances these employees were interviewed in Thompson's automobile at their re- spective homes; the other employees were interviewed separately in his office. It is well established that the "technique of calling the employees into the Employer's offices individually" to urge them to reject the union is, in itself, conduct calculated to interfere with their free choice in the election.2 This is so, regardless of the noncoercive tenor of an employer's actual remarks.3 Because the Employer's conduct interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative, we shall sustain the Petitioner's objections and set the election aside. We shall further direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate.4 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of June 10, 1952, be, and it hereby is, set aside; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Re- gional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the purpose of conduct- ing a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. ' General Shoe Corporation (Marman Bag Plant ), 97 NLRB 499. We reject the Employer's claim that Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc., 99 NLRB 422, and Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc., Plant No . 2, 98 NLRB 843, are controlling here. In Silver Knit, the Employer's remarks wet a addressed to large groups of employees , not individuals. In Calvine, the remarks were made to but a single employee , occurred 6 weeks prior to the election, and did not reflect a similar pattern of conduct toward any other employees. s As there is no dispute concerning the facts in this case, the Employer's motion for a hearing is hereby denied. HIITCHINSON & Co., BucKEYE STEAMSHIP Co., PIONEER STEAMSHIP CO., AND INLAND STEEL Co.' and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1765. October 23, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, hearing t The names of the Employers are hereby amended to conform to our findings within Harding College, 99 NLRB 957. 101 NLRB No. 30.