Texas City Chemicals, Inc.

TEXAS CITY CHEMICALS, INC. 115 for the unit described above, which the Board, under such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the ex- isting unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. TEXAS CITY CHEI<IICALS, INC. and GALVESTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL, PETITIONER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO. Case No. 39-RC-691. July 9,1594 Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on January 28, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 26, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, among employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that of approxi- mately 89 eligible voters, 89 cast valid ballots, of which 1 were for the Petitioner, 30 were for the Intervenor, and 48 were cast against the participating labor organizations. There were 4 challenged ballots, which are not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On March 4, 1954, the Intervenor filed timely objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. The Intervenor objected to the election on the grounds that (1) during the period prior to the election the Employer sponsored, established, and domi- nated an Employees' Council with which the Employer met and dis- cussed matters of hours, wages, and working conditions; and (2) within the 24-hour period immediately preceding the election, the Employer sponsored a dinner for all its employees at a restaurant near Texas City, Texas, where the Employer's plant is located and that at this dinner an officer of the Employer made a speech to the assembled employees in which he made various promises of benefits to the employees, contingent on their voting against the Intervenor. i Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders 109 NLRB No. 13. 3P481 1-m a-vol 109-9 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Acting Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region conducted an investi- gation and, on April 13, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections. As to the first objection, the Acting Regional Director found in his report that the Employees' Council had been in operation prior to the issuance of the notice of hearing herein on November 10, 1953, and that the Employer's conduct with regard to the Employees' Coun- cil could not therefore constitute a basis for setting aside the election.2 As no exception was taken, we hereby adopt this finding and con- clusion. As to the Intervenor's second objection, the Acting Regional Direc- tor found that an Employer-sponsored dinner was held off the Em- ployer's premises within the 24-hour period immediately preceding the election; that the Employer invited all its employees, together with members of their families, to attend the dinner; that attendance at the dinner was voluntary; that a speech was made at the dinner by an cfficer of the Employer asserting, in effect, that the employees had nothing to gain by joining a union; that the speech did not-con- tain any threat of reprisal or promise of benefits; and that 14 em- ployees who normally worked on the Employer's 3 to 11 p. m. shift were excused from work to give them an opportunity to attend the dinner, but were paid as if they had worked. As no exception was taken to these findings, we hereby adopt them.. The Acting Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside if the Board found that the fact that the 14 employees men- tioned above were paid for time not worked on the night of the dinner rendered the speech one given "on company time" within the meaning of the Board's rule established in the Peerless Plywood case.3 No exception was taken to this recommendation. We find that the speech in this case was made on company time within the meaning of the Peerless Plywood rule, because of the com- pensation paid late shift employees who attended the dinner. As there is no question that the speech was an electioneering speech and it was made less than 24 hours before the scheduled time for con- ducting the election, we shall set aside the election herein and direct a new election. [The Board set aside the election held on February 26, 1954.] [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.] s The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118. Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLR$ 427.