Reno Oil Co.

196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practice by its execution and effectuation of the unlawful preference clauses of the Coast Agreement.4b MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Notice to Show Cause Why a Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26,1952, Should Not Issue. 4b We note that, in any event, the continued existence of the unlawful preferential hiring contract and its enforcement at all tinres here material is in itself sufficient to support an order prohibiting WEW from giving the unlawful portions of the contract any further effect, and from renewing, extending, or entering into any like or related agreement. See e. g. N. L. If. B. v. Gaynor News Co., 147 F. 2d 719 ( C. A. 2) ; Federal Stores, Inc., 91 NLRB 647, 657. RENO OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1073. November 4,1952 Supplemental Decision and Order Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on August 7, 1952, an election by mail ballot was conducted beginning August 25 and ending September 8, 1952, under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Upon completion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, showing that of approximately 76 eligible voters, 66 cast ballots, of which 28 were for and 29 against the Peti- tioner, 7 were challenged by the Petitioner, and 2 were void. On September 15, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the Board agent's action in voiding one ballot and not counting that ballot. On September 16, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election. On September 29, 1952, the Regional Director, after investigation, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots and objections to election in which he recommended that the Petitioner's challenges to all seven ballots be sustained, that the Employer's objections to the voiding of one ballot and the, Petitioner's objections to the results of the election be over- ruled, and that the Board dismiss the petition. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report, alleging that the Employer had continued to electioneer by letter during the period of the mail balloting, and that the letter identified the Regional Director as being in opposition to the Peti- tioner. The Employer filed answers to the Petitioner's,objections to the election. The Regional Director stated in his report that the Employer mailed a letter to its employees dated August 23, 1952, to which was attached s Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 101 NLRB No. 57. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 197 a letter from the Employer's attorney. The Employer's letter re- ferred the employees to the attachment "showing" the efforts of the Petitioner and its parent organization "to prevent the officers of the C. I. O. from having to take the oath that they were not members of the Communist Party." The attachment set forth a "brief his- tory" of court actions involving the non-Communist affidavit section of the Act, including Oil Workers International Union v. Elliott, Regional Director, a Federal district court case. By letter dated August 26, 1952, the Regional Office of the Board advised the parties that the ballots had been forwarded to the eligible voters on August 25. Clearly the reference by the Employer in its letter to a court de- cision, which has in its title the Petitioner as plaintiff and the Regional Director as defendant, cannot reasonably be said to have conveyed to the employees the impression that the Board was prejudiced against the Petitioner. Further, there is no evidence that the receipt of the Employer's August 23 letter by the employees at about the date the mail balloting was scheduled to begin, was so close in time to the actual marking and returning of the mail ballots as to have constituted substantial interference with the conduct of the election? Accord- ingly, we find that the Petitioner's exceptions do not raise substantial or material issues with regard to the conduct or results of the election, and they are hereby overruled. As the Petitioner has not obtained a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN IIERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. 2 Cf. Meyer cf Welch, Inc., 85 NLRB 7Q6, where the Board held that the employer's letter distributed to the employees during a period ending 20 minutes before the beginning of actual balloting was not ground for setting the election aside. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY and SINCLAIR PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 716 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos. 39-RC-465 and 39-RC-469. November 4, 1952 Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 101 NLRB No. 59.