Comfort Slipper Corp.

COMFORT SLIPPER CORPORATION 183 Comfort Slipper Corporation and United Shoe Workers of Amer- ica, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3775. April 15, 1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated Janu- ary 12, 1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted on Febru- ary 3, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above-mentioned Decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that out of 361 voters casting valid ballots, 237 voted for the Petitioner, 109 voted against the Petitioner, and 15 cast challenged ballots. On Febru- ary 9,1955, the Employer filed objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Re- gional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objec- tions and, on February 24, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objec- tions were without merit and recommended that they be dismissed and that the Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.' There- after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. In its first objection, the Employer alleged that, by fixing Febru- ary 3, 1955, as the date for the election over its objection at a joint conference held on January 26, 1955, it was deprived of sufficient time to present its case to the employees and counteract the Petitioner's propaganda and the coercive atmosphere which the Petitioner had created. In his report, the Regional Director found that no evidence was presented by the Employer that the selection of this date was prejudicial and that there was no merit in this objection. The Em- ployer excepts to these findings. We agree with the Regional Director's disposition of this objec- tion. The Direction of Election, which issued 3 weeks before the election, put the Employer on notice that the election would be con- ducted as early as possible but no later than 30 days after its date. Moreover, the Employer had 8 days' notice of the specific date of i 111 NLRB 188 In its exceptions to the report on objections, the Employer moves to strike the Regional Director's report alleging that the Regional Director did not investigate the objections in accoiilance with the Boaid's Rules and Regulations in that he failed to investigate to deteimine whether there existed "substantial and material factual issues" Inasmuch as the Regional Director predicated his findings on the assumption that the facts alleged were true, we find no merit in the Employer's motion and hereby deny it. 112 NLRB No. 28 r 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the election. As noted below, the Employer's factual allegations fail to include any specific facts or incidents which support its general allegations that a coercive atmosphere existed or that the Union's preelection campaign propaganda exceeded permissible bounds. Ac- cordingly, we conclude that under the circumstances, the Employer had ample time to present its views to the employees, and find that the Regional Director did not abuse the discretion vested in him in scheduling elections.3 2. In its second and fourth objections, the Employer alleged, in effect, that the Petitioner exceeded the proper bounds of campaign propaganda by knowingly making misrepresentations at a union meeting the night before the election as to the Employer's profits and certain other matters and by claiming in a preelection pamphlet to have received pledge cards from a majority of the employees. The Regional Director found that the challenged conduct fell within the scope of election propaganda which the Board will not police or censor, and accordingly found no merit in the objections. The Employer excepts to these findings. We believe that these objections are governed by the following rule stated in Merck ct Company, Inc.: 4 Absent threats or other elements of intimidation we will not undertake to censor or police union campaigns or consider the truth or falsity of official union utterances, unless the ability of the employees to evaluate such utterances has been so impaired by the use of forged campaign material or other campaign trick- ery that the uncoerced desires of the employees cannot be deter- mined in an election. As for the alleged misrepresentations at the union meeting, while the Board does not condone such conduct, there was neither forgery, trickery, nor conduct so misleading as to prevent the exercise of a free choice by the employees in the election.' The Employer con- tends, however, that the rule quoted above is based upon the assump- tion that the Employer has adequate opportunity to answer such charges, and that the rule should not be applied in the instant case because of the Board's decision in Peerless Plywood Company' pro- hibiting speeches to employees on company time and property during the 24-hour period before the election rendered the Employer power- less to counteract the misrepresentations. We reject these conten- 8 University Metal Products Co Inc, 98 NLRB 1194. The Employer contends that it required more time to rebut the Petitioner's campaign because its employees live in a compact geographical area. Apart from any other consideration , we reject this contention in view of the availability of the employees to the Employer at the plant during the week prior to the election. 4 104 NLRB 891 at 892 8 See United Aircraft Corporation, 103 NLRB 102 ; Timken-Detroit Azle Company, 98 NLRB 790. 6 107 NLRB 427. COMFORT SLIPPER CORPORATION 185 tions. In the first place, this rule has been applied even where the conduct complained of occurred a few hours before the election.' Secondly, the Peerless Plywood Company rule prohibits only one form of last-minute activity by the parties. As stated therein : 8 This rule will not interfere with the rights of unions or employ- ers to circulate campaign literature on or off the premises at any time prior to an election, nor will it prohibit the use of any other legitimate campaign propaganda or media. . . . Moreover, the rule does not prohibit employers or unions from making cam- paign speeches on or off company premises during the twenty- four hour period if employee attendance is voluntary and on the employees' own time. Likewise we find nothing objectionable in the Petitioner's refer- ence to pledge cards in a preelection pamphlet.9 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the reference to cards by the Peti- tioner was improper because the Employer did not have access to them, or that by claiming a majority of the cards, the Petitioner cre- ated the impression that the election was a mere formality because of an alleged quasiofficial nature of the cards. Election campaigns would be unnecessarily circumscribed, if, as the Employer urges in effect, parties were prohibited from making use of information un- available to the other side or from making preelection claims of cer- tain victory. Nor do we agree that because the pledge cards may be submitted to the Board as evidence of representation, they are thereby imparted quasioficial status. We believe that it may be safely left to the good sense of the voters to evaluate such propaganda. Accord- ingly, we find in agreement with the Regional Director that the fore- going objections are without merit. 3. In its third objection, the Employer alleges that a speaker at the union meeting the night before the election stated that the con- tract copy placed in evidence at the representation hearing contained no clause prohibiting Saturday work.10 In fact, the contract in the record contains such a clause. We agree with the Regional Director 7 Dallas City Packing Company, 110 NLRB 8 ; International Smelting and Refining Com- pany, Raritan Copper Works, 107 NLRB 27. Unlike the situation in N L R. B v Trinity Steel Company, 214 F 2d 120 ( C A 5), relied on by the Employer , there is no allegation that the employer did not learn of the alleged misrepresentations until after the election. 8 107 NLRB 427 . See also Ohmite Manufacturing Company, 111 NLRB 888; Crown Drug Company, 110 NLRB 845. 8 The passage , contained in a letter dated January 31, 1955, from the Petitioner to the employees , reads as follows : The many pledge cards which were signed and returned to our Regional Office in Boston indicated that we have a substantial majority of the employees who wish to have the United Shoe Workers of America, C. I. O. represent them in bargaining rela- tions with your employer 10 In its objection , the Employer initially alleged that the speaker stated that the con- tract copy given the Employer at the hearing was not the same as that given the Board. However, in its exceptions , the Employer alleges merely that the speaker said the copy given the Board contained no clause prohibiting Saturday work. V 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that under the rule stated above, the alleged statement at the union meeting falls within the area of campaign propaganda which the Board will not police and accordingly, find no merit in this objection." 4. The Petitioner's other objections pertain to matters which were litigated at the representation hearing and in effect constitute a mo- tion to reconsider the Board's Decision and Direction of Election. As these objections raise nothing which the Board did not consider in reaching its original decision, we agree with the Regional Director and find them to be without merit. As we have found no merit in any of the Employer's objections or exceptions, we will adopt the Regional Director's recommendations and will overrule the Employer's objections. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast,12 we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. u The Employer contended in its objections and exceptions that the election should be set aside because the Petitioner misled the Board and the Employer by purporting to give the Employer it copy of the contract placed in evidence while giving it a copy of a different contract. However, as it appears that the only alleged difference between the two copies does not in fact exist, we conclude that the Employer was given an accurate copy and find it unnecessary to consider this contention further 12 The challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election. Leisure Lads, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-699. April 18,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1954, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 112 NLRB No. 38