Merrimac Mills Co.

In the Matter Of MERRIMAC MILLS COMPANY and MERRI11rIAC EMPLOYEES' MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Case No. 1-R-128 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES January 8, 1946 On September 27, 1945, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on September 4, 1945,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision' of the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts). Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The Tally shows that there were approximately 190 eligible voters, and that, of these, 158 cast valid votes, of which 90 were for the AFL, 64 were for the Association,-and 4 were against both unions. In addition, 10 ballots were challenged; they are, however, insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On October 1, 1945, the Company filed Objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election. On December 12, 1945, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections recommending that the Company's Objections be dis- missed. On December 17, 1945, the Company filed Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report. The burden of the Company's Objections is that the AFL in its pre-election campaign literature referred to the Association aS a "phoney independent union," "phoney stooge outfit," and "Company union," intending to convey the impression by these and other ap- pellations that the Association was company dominated, and that the characterizations so used by the AFL were false and contrary to a previous finding of the Board and in contempt thereof. In the latter connection, the Company refers to an earlier unfair labor practice proceeding in which the Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate 1 63 N. L. R. B. 781. 65 N. L. R. B., No. 60. 308 MERRIMAC MILLS COMPANY 309 Report that the Association was not company dominated ; no excep- tions to this Report were filed by any of the parties and the case was closed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. While the record discloses that the AFL used these expressions in referring to the Association during the campaign, it also establishes that the Association had ample opportunity, of which it availed itself, to counteract any impression of domination. Thus, in one of its own leaflets, the Association said on this point: "Your patience has been rewarded. The Government Board N. L. R. B. has overruled the ap- peal of Local x$14, A. F. L. They have detected their falsification of records and phoney claims of having a majority of employees. An election will now be held as a result of your petition of a year ago. You will have the opportunity to say that your own independent union, the `Merrimac Mutual Benefit Association' shall be given the power to represent you." In another leaflet, distributed to the Company's employees, the Association said: "We the `Merrimac Mutual Benefit Association' is a recognized Labor Union. After a year's stalling by the AFL the government rules that we are a Labor Union, and grants us an election." Moreover, the AFL itself made some effort to dispel the effect of its characterizations. In a leaflet issued the day before the election and in a radio address by its representative on the eve of the election, the AFL categorically stated that the Board had decided that the Association was eligible to be on the ballot as an independent union. The Board has heretofore held that it cannot censor the propaganda material used by one union against another in a pre-election campaign. We perceive no real danger in leaving to the good sense of the voter the task of appraising electioneering practices by unions and in re- ferring to the opposing parties the duty of correcting inaccurate or untruthful statements by any of them. The Board will interfere and set aside an election only if it appears that the conduct com- plained of prevented the employees from exercising a free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.' We are satisfied that the characterizations used by the AFL, while unwarranted, fall intq the category of propaganda and, as such, did not preclude a free choice.3 Accordingly, we find that the Company's Objections do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the 2 See Matter of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc., 64 N. L R B 146, Matter of Corn Prod- accts Refining Company, 58 N L. R B 1441. 8 The facts in this case are readily distinguishable from those in Matter of Wallcer Vehicle Company, 7 N. L. It. B. 827, referred to by the Company In the cited case, the Board set aside the election because an official notice of election issued by the Regional Director incorrectly listed the independent union's name in a manner which created real danger that the employees might regard it as company dominated We perceive no such danger in the propaganda material issued in the instant case See Matter of Sears, Roebuck and Company, 47 N L It. B. 291; Matter of Corn Products Refining Company, supra. 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD election and the Objections are hereby overruled. Inasmuch as the AFL has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the Company's employees. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Department of Woolen and Worsted Workers of United Textile Workers of America, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and main- tenance employees of Merrimac Mills Company, Methuen, Massa- chusetts, including shipping and receiving employees, but excluding executives, supervisors from the grade of second hands up, main office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.