Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.

LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY 661 sibly that of Keefer. It would therefore appear that if the cards in which Hornyak's solicitation is involved are eliminated, the Peti- tioner's showing is not adequate. The Board has held that such solicitation by supervisors does, in fact, impair a petitioner's show- ing.' As the Petitioner's showing is, under these circumstances, inade- quate, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] a See, for example, Desilu Productions, Inc., 106 NLRB 179. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company and International Longshore- men's and Warehousemen's Union (Ind.), Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-3307. December 5, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on August 2, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 26, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. The parties were furnished a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 26 eligible voters, 20 cast ballots for the Petitioner, and 4 cast ballots against the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the' Rules and Regula- tions of the Board, the Regional Director caused an investigation of the objections to be made and, on October 16, 1957, issued and served on the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objections are without merit and recommended that they be over- ruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative in the unit found appropriate by the Board. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report as it relates to the Employer's second objection and requested a hearing on that objection. Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem- bers Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins]. The Employer's second objection stated that the Petitioner had promised, and misrepresented, to the employees of the Employer that in the event they were organized by the Petitioner, and there should be a subsequent strike, the Petitioner would supply waterfront work I 'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 119 NLRB No. 94. 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at $30 per day for those who needed it. The fact, the Employer alleged, was that the Petitioner could not supply such work because waterfront work is under the jurisdiction of a different local. The Regional Director found that there was evidence that the Petitioner's representatives had said they would be able to supply 2 or 3 days per week of waterfront work, that any member could register in its hiring hall for permanent or temporary work, that they could then be referred for longshore work, and that the Petitioner was apparently competent to do this. In its exceptions to these findings of the Regional Director, the Employer argues: (1) He did not pass upon the most important aspect of the Employer's allegation-that the strike worker would be paid $30 per day; (2) the Regional Director did not meet the Employer's allegation that the Petitioner would in fact provide work; he found only that it would refer registrants; (3) newspaper articles dated October 22, 1957, reveal that the union directly concerned with longshore work is organizing the sons of its members into a club, from which will be drawn any extra help that may be needed. While this news is dated some 2 months after the election, the Employer believes that the Petitioner must have known this earlier, although it was not known either to the Employer or to the public. For these reasons, the Employer contends, the employees would not have voted for the Petitioner had they known the true facts with respect to waterfront work, and it therefore requests a hearing to determine the extent of the misrepresentations made. It is also to be noted that the Employer nowhere suggests the $30 figure is erroneous. We do not agree. The Board's guiding principle, as the Regional Director pointed out, is that it will not undertake to censor or police campaign utterances, absent threats or other elements of intimidation, unless the ability of the employees to evaluate them has been so im- paired by trickery that their uncoerced desires cannot be determined.' The Board has found this to be the case where unions have misrep- resented matters peculiarly within their knowledge, especially in re- spect to wage rates, because wage rates are obviously a most important factor in the evaluation of unionization.' We do not believe that any misrepresentation here, if there were such, is of such critical impor- tance. Indeed, it might be argued that by pointing out the possibility of a strike the Petitioner was in fact militating against its prospects in the election. In sum, we do not believe that the promise of munif- icent strike benefits impairs free choice as does misrepresentation of wage rates. We therefore find it unnecessary to determine the extent of the Petitioner's misrepresentations, if,any, and deny the Employ- er's request for a hearing. 2 See, for example , Merck & Co., Inc., 104 NLRB 891. g The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026; The Gummed Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092. ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS 663 As noted above, no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Direc- tor's findings on the Employer's remaining objections; those findings are accordingly adopted. Having considered the Regional Director's report on objections and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and hav- ing found the Employer's exceptions without merit, we hereby over- rule them, in accordance with the recommendations of the Regional Director, and deny the Employer's request for a hearing. As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the elec- tion, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union (Ind.) as the designated collective-bargaining represent- ative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] Alaska Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of Amer- ica, Inc. and William H. Wright International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local Union 942 and William H. Wright and Griffin F. Johnson. Cases Nos. 19-CA-988, 19-CB-305, and 19-CB-305-1. December 6, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On August 3, 1954, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. This Order was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by a consent decree entered on December 10, 1954. The decree pro- vided, inter alia, that International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local Union 942, hereinafter referred to as the Union or Respondent Union, make whole William H. Wright for losses of earnings suffered by reason of discrimination against him caused by the Union. The Union and representatives of the Board were subsequently unable to reach agreement on the amounts of back pay due Wright under the terms of the court's decree, and the Regional Director directed a hearing to resolve the disagreement. The hearing was held on November 13 and 14, 1956, before Trial Examiner Howard Myers, who issued a Supplemental Intermediate Report on Decem- ber 11, 1956. As set forth in the copy of his report attached hereto, the Trial Examiner found a specific amount of back pay due William H. Wright and recommended that the Union reimburse him in accord- ance with his findings. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the 119 NLRB No. 93.