The Muter Co.

THE MUTER COMPANY 287 THE MUTER COMPANY and WAREHOUSEMEN & MAIL ORDER EMPLOYEES UNION, AND LOCAL No. 743, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, A. F. L., PETI- TIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2772. November 13, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Order On September 4, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth 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 465 eligible voters, 437 cast valid ballots, of which 158 were for the Petitioner and 279 against. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. On October 3, 1952, the Regional Director issued his report on ob- jections, in which he found merit in the Petitioner's objections and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 finds : The Petitioner has objected to the election, alleging that the Em- ployer made an antiunion speech to its employees on company time and property shortly before the polls opened on September 4, 1952, and ignored a prior request of the Petitioner for the right to address the employees under similar conditions. The Employer admits that it received the Petitioner's request the day before the election and made no reply. The Employer argues, however, that the speech in question was simply a rebuttal to statements made by the Petitioner in handbills which were passed out to the employees the night before and the morning of the election. The Regional Director states in his report that the Employer's speech "appears to be a protected expression of opinion." He found, nevertheless, that the Employer interfered with the election by cam- paigning against the Petitioner on company time and property with- out affording the Petitioner a similar opportunity to reply. We agree with the Regional Director's finding. Section 8 (c) of the Act guarantees that noncoercive expressions of opinion shall not consti- tute evidence of an unfair labor practice so long as they contain no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefits. However, this statutory guarantee does not carry with it a license for indiscriminate ' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 101 NLRB No. 69. 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD campaigning before a Board election. When an employer chooses to deliver a preelection speech on union activities to his employees on company time and property, he destroys the laboratory atmosphere which the Board must maintain in its election proceedings if he denies the petitioning unions a similar forum if it has been requested.2 The Employer has done just that in this case. Accordingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's findings that the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative, and shall order that the elec- tion of September 4, 1952, be set aside. Further, we shall direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of September 4, 1952, be, and it hereby is set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region for the purposes of con- ducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. s See Metropolitan Auto Parts, Incorporated, 99 NLRB 401, and cases cited therein. JERRY FAIRBANKS , INC. and STUDIO CARPENTERS , LOCAL 946, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 21-RC-1719. November 13, 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 Ben Grodsky, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre- judicial 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, Styles, and Peterson]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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. 101 NLRB No. 58.