Anderson Air Activities

ANDERSON AIR ACTIVITIES 543 Objection No 2 In this objection it is alleged that a paid representative of the Petitioner campaigned and passed out handbills in the plant just prior to the election, while at the same time, at the request of the Employer, the representative of the Intervenor refrained from such activity Investigation of objection No 1 discloses that the Employer erroneously included in the list of eligible voters the names of 23 employees who were lured after May 2, 1953, the date of eligibility Of the 23 employees, 10 did not vote Thirteen ineligible voters voted in the election At an informal preelection conference on May 14, 1953, both the Petitioner and the Inter- venor (the incumbent union) were given copies of the list of eligible voters and had, there- fore, ample opportunity to check the list of eligible voters and to challenge the vote of any voter whom they believed to be eligible It is a well-established Board policy that post-election challenges will not be considered. The undersigned is of the opinion that this case is distinguishable from Active Sportswear Co., Inc 104 NLRB 1057 In that case the Board agent erroneously established as the date of eligibility a date subsequent to the date of eligibility directed in the Direction of Election. Therefore, the parties were led into a failure to challenge the vote of an employee who was hired after the date of eligibility established in the Direction of Election but prior to the date of eligibility established by the Board agent Therefore, the undersigned is of the opinion that this objection is without merit Investigation of objection No 2 fails to reveal any evidence that a representative of the Petitioner campaigned or passed out handbills in the plant just prior to or during the time that the election was being conducted In support of this objection, the Intervenor contends that a representative of the Petitioner entered the plant shortly before the start of the elec- tion, campaigned, and passed out handbills to the employees. The Intervenor failed to submit the names of any witnesses who could support the contentions. The Employer records the time of arrival and departure of all visitors to the plant This record shows that D. L. Garriga, L representative of the Petitioner, and Floyd Brewer, the Board agent who conducted the election, both entered the plant at 3.05 p m. This record fur- ther shows that D. L. Garriga left the plant at 3.15 p ni., 15 minutes prior to the start of the election. The Board agent says that he and Garriga entered the plant together, that Garriga inspected the polling place, talked to the observers, then, at the request of the Board agent, left the polling place The Board agent is of the opinion that Garriga was in the polling place for at least 10 minutes Therefore, it appears that when Garriga left the polling area he immediately left the plant. Since the Employer s records show that Garriga left the plant 13 minutes prior to the start of the election, and was not readmitted prior to the election, he could not have been electioneering at or near the polling place during the election In an affidavit Garriga denies that he either campaigned or distributed handbills while in the plant. It appears that this objection is without merit The undersigned is of the opinion that the objections do not raise material or substantial issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election and, therefore, recom- mends that the objections be overruled ANDERSON AIR ACTIVITIES and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-2113. July 31, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on April 22, 1953,i an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 14, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, among 1104 NLRB 306. 106 NLRB No. 93. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Fol- lowing the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of 350 votes cast in the election, 187 were for the Petitioner, 158 were against the Petitioner, 2 were void, and 3 were challenged. On May 18, 1953, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on June 5, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties a "Report on Objections to Elec- tion," in which he recommended that the objections be over- ruled and a certification of representatives be issued . Within the proper time therefor, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report. Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as follows: During the period immediately preceding the election, the Petitioner distributed a handbill which purported to be a sam- ple copy of the Board's official ballot marked with an "X" in the "YES" box. However, the purported sample ballot was not in fact a facsimile of the Board's ballot. It had been modified to promote the Petitioner's propaganda. The official ballot contains the following words: This ballot is to determine the collective bargaining rep- resentative, if any, for the unit in which you are employed. If you spoil this ballot, return it to the Board agent for a new one. In place of the above sentences, the Petitioner substituted the following: For Better Wages, a Consistent Method of Progression, Ironclad Seniority Rights, Promotions to Better Jobs Based on Seniority, Good Grievance Procedure, Better Health and Safety, and Better Working Conditions in general. The Regional Director concluded that, as the handbill did not contain the signature of the Regional Director or of any other Board representative and as it carried the word "Sam- ple" prominently displayed across its face, it "was not likely to mislead the employees and could not reasonably have given the impression that the Board was officially taking sides in the election. . ." 2 The Regional Director did not, we believe, give proper weight to the alteration in the content of what purported to be a sample ballot of the Board. By this change, the Petitioner created the impression that the Board had endorsed its prop- aganda claims and that the issue in the election was as formu- lated therein . The Board is jealous of its reputation for the 2 See L. Gordon & Son, Inc., 100 NLRB 438; Gray Drug Stores, Inc., 95 NLRB 171. NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, TITANIUM DIVISION 545 strictest impartiality in the conduct of representation elec- tions. It looks with disfavor upon any attempt to misuse its processes to secure partisan advantage . 3 The Board allows broad latitude in carrying on preelection propaganda.4 But there are limits to propaganda methods which the Board will permit.5 The Petitioner exceeded those limits in the present case. The Board has permitted parties to distribute marked sam- ple ballots in order to show their partisans how to vote at the election . 6 But that permission does not extend to the distribu- tion of falsified ballots under the guise of true copies of offi- cial ballots used in elections. We find that the distribution of the ballot in question pre- vented a free and untrammeled expression of choice by em- ployees. Accordingly, we shall, contrary to the Regional Director ' s recommendation , set aside the results of the elec- tion held on May 14 , 1953, and direct a new election. [The Board set aside the election held on May 14, 1953.] [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publi- cation] Chairman Farmer and Member Styles took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election. 3See The Am- O-Krome Company, 92 NLRB 893 , 894, where the Board said: "No participant in a Board election should be permitted to suggest to voters that this Government Agency, or any of its officials , endorses a particular choice." 4United Aircraft Corporation , 103 NLRB 102. 5 E.g., United Aircraft Corporation, supra Timken-Detroit Axle Company, 98 NLRB 790. 6 L. Gordon & Sons, Inc., supra ; Gray Drug Stores , Inc., supra. NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, TITANIUM DIVISION and C. C. WILSON CHEMICAL WORKERS' BASIC UNION, LOCAL NO. 1744, Affiliated with the BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DEC- ORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL and C. C. WILSON CHEMICAL WORKERS' BASIC UNION, LOCAL NO. 1744, Affiliated with the BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DEC- ORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL and S. J. CARTER. Cases Nos . 14-CA-886, 14-CB - 174, and 14-CB-176. August 4, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On February 13, 1953, Trial Examiner C . W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceed- 106 NLRB No. 96.