Tuttle & Kift, Inc.

TUTTLE & RIFT, INC. 125 ceiving employees and helpers, all other production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. We shall, however, make no final unit determination at this time,, but shall be guided in part by the desires of the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Peti tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate-unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the employees in the group described above, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]. MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Sup- plemental Decision and Direction of Election. Tuttle & Rift, Inc. and Production and Miscellaneous Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5364. June 11, 1957 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election en- tered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the Thir- teenthRegion on February 12, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 27, 1957, under the supervision of the Regional Director among the employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the stipulation. Upon completion of the election, the parties were fur- nished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 229 eligible voters, 96 cast votes for the Petitioner, 125 against, and I was challenged. On March 5, 1957, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the elec- tion and the conduct thereof, and timely served copies upon the Em= ployer. The objections alleged in substance that (1) during the course of the election campaign, Tuttle & Kift, Inc., published a series of letters which it sent to its employees, together with a photostatic copy of newspaper articles in an effort to persuade employees not to join the Union, and (2) in one of the letters the Company referred to the Union as the "Capone Local." 118 NLRB No. 6. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on April 4, 1957, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections -to the election in which he recommended that the Board overrule the objections. On April 25, 1957, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report on objections. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board' makes the following findings of fact : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated and we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for -the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees including toolroom employees, group leaders, and model makers, but excluding office cleri- cal employees, plant clerks, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. In conformity with the Regional Director's recommendation, we find no merit in the Petitioner's objections. In its exceptions the Petitioner alleges, in substance, that: (1) The barrage of propaganda unleashed by the Employer was designed to instill fear among the employees that they would become the victims of murder, bombing, and racketeering; (2) the Employer resorted to trickery and distortion so misleading as to preclude rational evalua- tion of its propaganda; and (3) the Regional Director failed to apply to the Employer's tactics the criteria promulgated to preserve civilized standards of campaigning. From February 11 to 23, the Employer addressed a series of six let- ters to its employees. The last two, dated February 20 and 23, re- spectively, contain material on which the Petitioner rests its objections. The letter of February 20 recites the purported history of the Peti- tioner from its inception in 1908, associating it with a record of mur- ders, bombings, and investigations. The Petitioner replied -to this letter by challenging the Employer to 'a debate and issuing a copy of an article from the "Commerce Magazine" which praised the leader- ship of Ed Fenner, executive director of the Petitioner. On February 23, the Employer distributed with its letter a photostatic compilation of 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. WESTBROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 127 newspaper headlines and reports purportedly substantiating the his- tory of racketeering and violence referred to in the letter of February 20. The Petitioner replied with a renewal of its challenge to debate. There is no claim that the newspaper headlines and articles were forged or that the letters were factually false. The claim is that by reviving the record of violence and murder not associated with the present administration of the Petitioner, the Employer falsely stimu- lated a fear of violence among the employees and instilled a threat of physical harm which prevented the free choice of a bargaining agent. We do not agree. As in the Merck case,2 the statements com- plained of are obvious propaganda, clearly recognizable as such by employees free and competent to evaluate it. In the Gummed Prod- ucts 3 and Comfort Slipper 4 cases the Board reiterated the principle that campaign propaganda which includes exaggerations, inaccura- cies, partial trutjls, name-calling, and falsehoods, while not condoned, may be excused provided it is not so misleading as to prevent the exercise of a free choice by employees in the election of their bargain- ing representative. We accordingly adopt the Regional Director's recommendations and. overrule the objections. As the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast for Production and Miscellaneous Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705, and that this labor organization is not the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.] 2 Merck & Company, Inc., 104 NLRB 891. 9 The Gummed Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092. 4 Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB 183. Westbrook Manufacturing Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1540. June 12, 1957 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 Loren P. Jones, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 118 NLRB No. 18.