Hudson Sharp Machine Co.

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the meantime , since about June 23, the Employer has been using 19 of the previous 69 production employees to do some stitching work for another shoe manufacturer . This is a tempo- rary arrangement which is terminable at will . Stitching is only 1 of 7 operations performed in the manufacture of shoes, so that 6 of the Employer's production departments have been en- tirely idle since the early part of March. - There is a very serious question whether the Employer will ever resume full - scale operations , At the present time it is not a "going concern." The stitching operation which it is now performing for another manufacturer is only temporary and is not representative of the Employer ' s full - scale operations. Un- der the circumstances , the Board does not believe that any useful purpose will be served by directing an election at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition without preju- dice to the filing of anew petition if and when the Employer re- sumes full - scale operations. 3 [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 9Pride Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 445; A. R. Tohl, 97 NLRB 93. HUDSON SHARP MACHINE COMPANY and HUDSON SHARP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC- 3380. November 10, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec - tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 26, 1953, in the above-entitled proceeding , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties, which showed that of 213 valid ballots cast, 130 were for the Hudson Sharp Employees Association, herein called the Petitioner, 80 for Local 1289, International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, and 3 for neither union. On June 29, 1953, the Intervenor filed objections to the election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, the Acting Regional Director issued his report on objections on August 31, 1953. In his report, the Acting Regional Director found that certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the employees ' free choice in the election , and recommended that the election be set aside. On September 8, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the report. The Board has carefully consid- 107 NLRB No. 29 HUDSON SHARP MACHINE COMPANY 33 ered the Acting Regional Director ' s report and the Employer's exceptions , and finds no merit in the latter . Upon the entire record in this case , we make the following findings of fact: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and Intervenor are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep- resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with- in the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at the Green Bay , Wisconsin , plant of the Employer , includingwatch- men and janitors , but excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen , draftsmen , engineers , chief inspectors , administra- tive employees , executives , and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. There is no dispute as to the facts on which the objec- tions to the election are based . The Employer addressed a letter to its employees on June 23 , 1953, 3 days before the election , stating , in part: We understand the statement has been made that unless the International Association of Machinists wins this election there will be no contract protection for the em- ployees of Hudson Sharp. This is not true. The Company guarantees that if the Hudson Sharp Employees Associ- ation wins the election that it will negotiate a contract equal to or better than the one that presently exists. The Acting Regional Director found that the Employer's statement was reasonably calculated to convey to the employ- ees the promise of an improved contract in the event that the Petitioner rather than the Intervenor (the contracting union) won the election. He concluded that the Employer thereby in- terfered with the free choice of representatives by the em- ployees , and recommended that the election be set aside and a new election directed. The Employer , in its exceptions ,) does not deny that a promise of benefit was made to the employees if they voted for the Petitioner . It merely asserts that the statement in the let- ter "was not made as a positive promissory assertion , but was couched in the alternative and must be classified as a campaign promise ." There is nothing in the Act which sanctions "campaign promises" where, as here, they are reasonably l We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the Intervenor waived its right to object to the election by not protesting the conduct of the Employer until after the election, and also by writing a letter in attempting to counteract the Employer 's conduct. We have found that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to consider on the merits any alleged interference which occurs after a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD calculated to convey the impression that the employees may receive a benefit in the form of more favorable terms of em- ployment if they vote for one union rather than another. As- suming that the Employer's letter was provoked, as stated therein, by a rumor that the Employer would not sign a contract with the Petitioner, even though it won the election, the Em- ployer needed only to deny this rumor. It was not justified in indicating that the Petitioner might receive better treat- ment than the Intervenor. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude, as did the Acting Regional Director , that the Employer ' s statement interfered with the employees' exercise of a free choice in the election. We shall therefore set the election aside and shall direct the Acting Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on June 26, 1953, be, and it hereby is , set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Acting Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL . 481, G.I.O. Case No. 6-CA-626. November 12, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On August 14, 1953, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , but recommending that no remedial order issue. A copy of the Intermediate Report is attached hereto. Thereafter exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the Respondent and exceptions with a supporting brief were filed by the General Counsel. The Respondent was granted leave to, and did, file a brief in reply to the General Counsel ' s brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report , the exceptions and briefs of the Respondent and the General Counsel , and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings , conclusions , and recommendations except as follows: 107 NLRB No. 11.