Nadeau Lumber Co., Inc.

NADEAU LUMBER CO., INC. 171 upon excepted to so much of the Regional Director's report as rejected its other grounds for setting the election aside. Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as follows : As to the first objection, the Regional Director found that at 4: 15 p. m. on the day before the election, approximately 15 minutes before the end of the workday, the employees were told to stop work and report to the office of the Employer's president to listen to some re- marks by him. By 4: 25 all of the employees had gathered in his office and the Employer's president read a speech to them. The employees were paid as usual until 4: 30. The Regional Director found that the Employer's conduct violated the rule of Peerless Plywood Com- pany 2 and recommended that the objection be sustained and the elec- tion set aside. As already noted, no exceptions were filed to this finding and recom- mendation. Accordingly, we adopt them and will set the election aside. In its exceptions the Union contends that the Regional Director also should have found merit in its other objections alleging that the Employer made threats of reprisal and promises of benefit and other- wise restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of their free choice in the election. As we have decided to set the election aside on the basis of the first objection, we find it unnecessary to pass on the merits of the other objections. Accordingly, as we have sustained the Union's first objection, we shall set aside the results of the March 26 election and direct that a new election be conducted. [The Board set aside the election held herein on March 26, 1954.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision, Order, and Direction of Election. 2107 NLRB 427. NADEAU LUMBER Co., INC. and UNITED BROTHERHOOD LOCAL 75, IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-3525. July 14, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 109 NLRB No. 27. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner requests a unit of woodsmen employed in the log- ging and pulpwood operations of the Employer in New Hampshire, but would exclude, among others, bonded Canadian woodsmen. The Employer contends, inter alia, that its Canadian woodsmen are part of the unit and entitled to vote in an election, and it moves therefore to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner's showing of interest in the appropriate unit is inadequate. That motion is hereby granted. For the reasons stated in Brown Company, 109 NLRB 173, pub- lished this date, in which we considered an identical issue under com- parable facts, we hold that the Employer's Canadian woodsmen should be included in the unit and are eligible to vote. An election in a unit including Canadians is, however, precluded as the Petition- er's showing of interest in such unit is inadequate. We shall accord- ingly dismiss the petition herein.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1 In view of this dispostion, we need not pass upon other issues raised by the Employer's motion to dismiss. PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD LOCAL 75, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No . 1-RC-3559. July 14, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 109 NLRB No. 26.