Boro Wood Products Co., Inc.

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Boro Wood Products ' Company, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2869, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-775. August 5, 1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND SECOND DIRECTION, OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 30, 1955,' an election by secret ballot was conducted onApril 21, 1955, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate. At the conclusion of the election, the Regional Director' furnished the parties with a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 262 eligible voters, 91 cast ballots for, and 164 cast ballots against, the Petitioner. There were 3 void ballots but no challenged ballots. On April 26, 1955, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of election, alleging, inter alia, that the Employer distributed to its employees sample ballots containing a marking in the "NO" box. The Regional Director investigated the objections, and, on June 8,' 1955, duly served upon the parties his report on objec- tions, in which he found that the Employer's conduct in distributing to' its employees' sample ballots containing a marking in the "NO" box -was contrary to Board policy, and therefore recommended that the election be set aside on this ground? The Board, having considered the Regional Director's report,' the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and, recommendations of the ' Regional Director. , In' opposing'the Regional Director's recommendation, the Employer contends that as the ballot distributed was not an exact copy of the Board's official ballot, and as it was accompanied by an explanatory letter definitely identifying it' as a sample and listing both choices available to the employees, the employees could not have inferred that the document was endorsed by the Board. The Employer further contends that its right to engage in such activity is guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution and is privileged under, Section 8 (c) of the Act. In an effort to preserve for parties to an election an atmosphere of impartiality, completely free from the slightest suggestion that this Government agency endorses any particular choice, the Board an- nounced in its Allied Electric 3 decision that reproductions of any docu- 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. ' In view ' of his determination, the Regional Director found it unnecessary -to rule upon the Petitioner's other objections. The Petitioner filed no exceptions to this ruling. a'Allied Electric Products, ino., 109 NLRB 1270. 113 NLRB No. 56. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 475 ment purporting to be a copy of the .Board's official ballot would no longer be permitted, unless such .documents are completely unaltered in form, and content. The Board recently reaffirmed this principle in a case involving almost the identical facts presented here. The Board held that,even though the altered ballot be- accompanied by propa- ganda material, its tendency to mislead is not neutralized nor is its use justified." Nor can it be said that the first amendment of the Constitution' or Section 8 (cy of the Act prevents the Board from foreclosing the use of its own official document for partisan advantage. `Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, we find that the Employer by circulating the marked ballot interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election, and we shall direct that the'election be set aside and a new election held. [The Board set aside the election held April 22,1955.] [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 Wallace and Tiernan, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 1352, and cases there cited. Standard Oil Company of California (Richmond Refinery, Rich- mond, California) and E. L. Nicholson, Petitioner, and Inde- pendent Union of Petroleum Workers (Unaffiliated). Case No..°LO-RD-137.' August 5,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor, Relations Act, . a . hearing was held before L. D. Mathews, Jr., 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, an einployee''of the Employer, asserts that Inde- pendent. Union of Petroleum Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Union, is no longer the bargaining representative as defined in Sec= tion 9 (a) of the Act of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is the. certified and currently recognized representative of the employees in the unit designated herein., 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. At the, hearing, two 'unions, Office Employees', International 'Union, Local 243, AFL, and %International Union of-Operating Engineers, AFL; sought 'to intervene as 'joint intervenors:" The Petitioner "ob-' jetted to,the.intervention of the,outside union on the ground that this 113 NLRB No. 53. 11 ' ' " u