Blue Banner Laundry & Cleaners

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As there have been no exceptions filed to the merits of the Regional Director's recommendations for disposing of the objections to the elec- tion and the challenges, we hereby adopt them and overrule the Peti- tioner's objections to the election, sustain the challenge to the ballot of August Meyer, and overrule that to the ballot of Alfred Schoonmaker. We shall direct that Schoonmaker's ballot be opened and counted. Direction IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED that the Regional Director for the Fourth Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballot of Alfred Schoonmaker, and shall thereafter serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of this ballot. - MEMBERS STYLES and PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. SAM BURMA, HARRY L. BURKA, DORA BURKA & NORMAN H. BURMA, PARTNERS D/B/A BLUE BANNER LAUNDRY & CLEANERS and CLEANERS & LAUNDRY WORKERS, LOCAL 457, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS of AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-975. July 7, 1909 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On April 3, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 10, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Fifth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that, of approximately 66 eligible voters, 64 cast ballots, of which 34 were for the Petitioner, 29 were against the Petitioner, and 1 was void. On April 9, 1952, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regula- tions of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and on May 1, 1952, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled as they did not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely excep- tions to the Regional Director's report on objections. As a basis for its objections, the Employer alleged that (1) just before the election, the Petitioner, in writing and otherwise, dissem- 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 100 NLRB No. 10. BLUE BANNER LAUNDRY & CLEANERS 3 inated information to the employees offering promises of benefit in violation of the unfair labor practice provisions of the Act; and (2) just before the election the Petitioner knowingly made false represen- tations to the employees at a private meeting with the malicious intent of influencing a majority of the employees to vote in favor of the Petitioner. With respect to the first contention, the Regional Director's investi- gation disclosed that, just prior to the election, the Petitioner distrib- uted to the employees involved, various leaflets which contained state- ments as to wage and insurance benefits the employees would gain if they joined the Union and statements urging them to vote for the Petitioner. Concerning the second objection, affidavits were submitted to the Regional Director by an active partner of the Employer and an employee, alleging that shortly before the election a union meeting was held at which seven employees were present and that, at this meeting, a union representative falsely told the employees that the Employer attempted to settle an employee's claim for damages for much less than she was entitled to, which offer of settlement the Union advised this employee against accepting, and also stated that this employee's machine had been proved defective. The Regional Director found that the above written and verbal statements were privileged in the sense that they were mere campaign propaganda. The Employer in excepting to this conclusion, renews in substance the contentions set forth in its objections. We believe, as did the Regional Director, that the leaflets in question fall into the category of customary. preelection campaign propaganda, and similarly, that the alleged verbal statements of the Petitioner, regardless of their truth or falsity, do not go beyond the bounds of legitimate union campaigning.2 As the Board has often held, absent any threat or other elements of intimidation or coercion, it will not undertake to censor or police union campaigns, or consider the truth of falsity of official union utterances.3 Accordingly we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommenda- tions and overrule the Employer's objections to the election. Because, as the tally shows, a majority of the ballots were cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. 2 Wiley Mfg., Inc, 93 NLRB 1600 ; Trinity Steel Company, Inc, 97 NLRB 1486; Kearney & Trecher Corporation, 96 NLRB 1214 ; Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 96 NLRB 318. 3 Reidbord Bros. Co., 97 NLRB No 36; Trinity Steel Company, Inc, supra Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to direct a hearing , as requested by the Employer , to consider the truth or falsity of the above verbal statements allegedly made by the Petitioner. 227260-5 13-vol 100-2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Certification of Representatives IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Cleaners & Laundry Workers, Local 457, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, has been desig- nated and selected by a majority of the Employer's production and maintenance employees at its Washington, D. C., plants, including the drivers and the watchmen, but excluding all store clerks, all other clerical employees, the engineer, and supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other' conditions of employment. MEMBERS HOUSTON and STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. W. E. STEWART AND LELA STEWART, D/B/A STEWART OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO. Case No. 16-CA--378. July 7, 1952 Decision and Order On October 29, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications and additions : 1. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that on March 23, 1951, the Union represented 7 of the Respondent's 13 em ployees in an appropriate unit at its East Texas field, alleging that: (a) On the date in question, A. D. Adams was employed as a pulling- machine operator, a supervisory classification, and therefore could not be included in the unit; and (b) the Respondent's Oil City, Louisiana, field should have been included in the unit. As to (a), Adams was regularly employed as a roustabout, a nonsupervisory clas- sification. . On March 23, 1951, he was substituting briefly in a super- 100 NLRB No. 14.