Comus Manufacturing Co., Inc.

274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes: of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 4 omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 4 The Petitioner submitted an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the unit it sought to decertify. However , in view of our finding that the unit should encompass all technical employees , we hereby instruct the Regional Director not to pro- ceed with the election herein directed until he shall have first determined that the Peti- tioner has made a sufficient showing of interest among the employees in the unit found appropriate herein. ' Comus Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4004. July 25,1955 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 11, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon completion of the election, all parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of approximately 137 eligible voters, 129 cast valid ballots, of which 42 were for and 87 were against the Petitioner. The tally also showed that there were three challenged ballots. On May 16, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi- gated the objections and on June 15, 1955, duly issued and served upon the parties his report oil objections, in which he recommended that the election held on May 1.1, 1955, be set aside. On June 25, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. As stipulated by the parties the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- 113 NLRB No. 33. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS 275 tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its New Bedford, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Regional Director found that on May 11, 1955, within 2 hours before the scheduled time for the election, the Employer's presi- dent made speeches to massed assemblies of employees on the Em- ployer's premises during working hours, in which he "advocated among other things, retention of the happy family relationship and the lack of need for outsiders." The Regional Director further found that the making of these speeches violated the Board's rule established in the Peerless Plywood case,' that employers and unions alike are prohibited from making election speeches on company time to massed assemblies of employees within 24 hours before an election. He there- fore recommended that the election be set aside. The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation, stating merely that the "informal statement" made by the Employer's president to the employees was not addressed to a massed assembly of employees, and that the statement related primarily to the employees' right to vote and freedom of choice without retaliation or reprisal from the employer. The Employer does not, however, offer any evi- dence in support of its exception, or any specific explanation of circumstances contrary to those found by the Regional Director. We therefore find no merit in the Employer's exception. Under the circumstances, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's finding that the Employer's speeches violated the Board's rule against election speeches made to employees on company time within 24 hours of an election.2 We therefore set aside the election of May 11, 1955, and direct that a new election be conducted. [The Board set aside the election of May 11, 1955.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 1 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. a Ibid Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Local. No. 88 and Harold A. Thomas, Jr. and G. Carroll Stribling. Case No. 14-CC-56. July 26, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On September 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union had not engaged in unfair labor practices with- 113 NLRB No. 31.