Hadley Manufacturing Corp.

620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD room employees. It is not clear from the record whether he effectively recommends the hiring and discharge of employees or possesses other supervisory authority. We shall therefore permit the assistant stockroom supervisor to vote subject to challenge. Accordingly, the voting group shall consist of all parts and stockroom employees, shipping clerk, porters, and maid at the Employer's Charlotte, North Carolina, branch, excluding office clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be included in the unit of the Employer's employees pre- sently represented by the Petitioner. The Regional Director conducting the election is directed to issue a certification of results of election in accord with the foregoing. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] HADLEY MANUFACTURING CORP. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-512. August 6, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On May 5, 1953, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on April 21, 1953,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of 81 votes cast, 51 were for and 28 against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. There were no void ballots. On May 8, 1953, the Employer filed objections to conduct which it alleged interfered with the election. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on June 26, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, finding the objections to be without merit and recommending that they be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and a supporting brief. The Employer's exceptions are limited to the Regional Direc- tor's disposition of the objection in which it contended that the election should be set aside because of improper conduct of an 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 106 NLRB No. 101. HADLEY MANUFACTURING CORP. 621 alleged supervisor , Annie Ruth Cox,' during and prior to the election , in soliciting membership and votes for the Petitioner although specifically directed by the Employer to refrain from such conduct. The Regional Director ' s investigation revealed that Cox was very active on behalf of the Petitioner at the homes of em- ployees and also on company time and property ; that the Em- ployer's plant manager, beginning around February 1, 1953, received reports of Cox's activities on behalf of the Petitioner; that although he informed her of the impropriety of such con- duct on March 26, 1953, and instructed her to maintain a neutral attitude during the election campaign, he continued to receive reports of her prounion activity until just before the election; and that while the Employer , in the period immediately pre- ceding the election , distributed among its employees at least two letters and made a speech to its assembled employees in which it stated its opposition to the Petitioner , it did not com- municate to the employees any disavowal of Cox's activities. The Regional Director concluded that even assuming Cox was a supervisor , she was not acting, in regard to the Petitioner, as an agent of the Employer , that the employees were informed by the Employer of its opposition to the Petitioner , and that, under these circumstances , Cox was not in sucha position that her statements could be construed by employees to be promises or threats capable of fulfillment. The Employer contends that the Regional Director erred in not determining the supervisory status of Cox and in concluding that, assuming she was a supervisor, she was not in her prounion activities acting as an agent of the Employer and her conduct did not constitute such restraint upon the employees as to war- rant setting aside the election. Without adopting the Regional Director's rationale , we agree with his ultimate finding that the Employer ' s objections are without merit . On the facts found by the Regional Director, and assuming as he did that Cox was a supervisor , we are of the opinion that the Employer , having known of her prounion activ- ities for over 3 months before the election, had-ample oppor- tunity to take appropriate steps to disabuse its employees of the effects of her conduct . In Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 91 NLRB 470 , we found that an employer in a similar situation had acquiesced in such alleged coercive conduct by failing to take steps to disavow it before the election . In its brief, the 2Cox was hired as a presser sometime in November 1952, was made a final inspector about November 15, 1952, and, according to the Employer, was made a supervisor in the pressing department about January 4, 1953. In the opinion of the Regional Director, the evidence raised a substantial question as to Cox's supervisory status, which had been stipulated by the parties at the representation hearing , but he believed it unnecessary to pass on her status because of his disposition of the objection on the merits. 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer seeks to distinguish the Talladega case on the basis that here it took steps to dissipate the effect of Cox's conduct by directing her on March 26 to desist from her union activi- ties. We do not consider this a persuasive distinction. The Employer did not notify the employees that it disavowed Cox'g alleged coercive conduct. In these circumstances, we conclude that the Employer, having failed to disavow for over 3 months before the election its supervisor's alleged misconduct, may not now upset the election results because of this conduct.' As it appears from the tally of ballots that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the certified bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] Chairman Farmer and Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certi- fication of Representatives. 3Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., supra, and cases cited therein. AMERICAN SERVICE BUREAU and INSURANCE AND ALLIED WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-2954. August 6, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION On June 9, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election t in this case in which it directed that an election be held among the investigators employed by the Employer at its Los Angeles, California, office. On June 29, 1953, the Employer timely filed the instant motion for reconsideration by the Board of its Decision upon the grounds that: (l.) Since the issuance of the Decision, certain authorities cited as controlling therein have been overruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; (2) the Board erred in finding that the in- vestigators do not make recommendations in their reports of investigations; (3) the Board erred in stating that the fears of the Employer are speculative and without record foundation; and (4) the Board failed to understand certain contentions of the Employer. The Board has reconsidered its Decision and Direction of Election in the light of the entire record in this case, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the motion for reconsideration 1105 NLRB 485. 106 NLRB No. 106.