Hughes Tool Co.

HUGHES TOOL COMPANY 739 because there was no formal substitution of the Union for Guards- Seafarers. The petition herein was filed on June 6, 1957. The foregoing facts do not indicate a schism or internal dispute within a contracting union resulting in the establishment of a new union which would challenge the representative status of the con- tracting union. On the contrary, they show a change occurred which is merely one of description and affiliation. Under these cir- cumstances we find that such change does not, by itself, render the renewed 1956 contract inoperative as a bar.' As indicated, Guards-Seafarers was ineligible for certification when the 1956 contract was executed, and, for this reason, the 1956 contract could not bar a petition so long as Guards-Seafarers remained a party to it.' However, as this statutory disability was removed prior to the contract's renewal date, by the above-described change in description, , and organization, and by disaffiliation from Guards- Seafarers we see no cogent reason for now holding that the contract is defective as a bar. Accordingly, as the petition herein was filed after the Mill-B date of the 1956 contract, we find that the contract, as renewed, is a bar to the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 See Dryden Rubber Division of Sheller Manufacturing Company, 118 NLRB 369; Michigan Bell Telephone Company,85 NLRB 303. 8 See Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 1189. Hughes Tool Company and International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Independent, Metal Workers Union, Locals 1 and 2, CUA. Case No. 39-RC-1189. December 12,1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On August 20, -1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon conclusion of the elec- tion, a tally of-ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally showed 2,483 votes were cast; of these, 947 were cast for Petitioner, 1,507 were cast for Intervenor, 28 were cast against participating labor organizations, and 1 was challenged. The challenged ballot was not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On August 26,1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct- affecting the results'of the election. The Regional Director investi- 119 NLRB No. 107. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gated the objections and on September 16, 1957, issued his report in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objections concerning the Intervenor's distribution of leaflets, containing altered reproductions of the Board's official secret ballot, before the election be sustained and that the election be set aside. Thereafter, Independent Metal Workers Union Local #1 of the Intervenor filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board,' having considered the Petitioner's objections, the Re- gional Director's report, the Intervenor's exceptions, and the entire record in the case finds as follows : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 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. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All hourly paid production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Houston, Texas, tool plant, including all salaried employees working in the production area, except timekeepers, and the cafeteria employees, excluding journeymen maintenance pipefitters and appren- tices, and refrigeration mechanics, executives, clerical, office and pro- fessional employees, electrical employees, printshop employees, in- dustrial relations department employees, accounting department employees, other than shop clerks, all engineering department em- ployees except mechanics, helpers, and laborers in the laboratory, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Objections In its objections the Petitioner alleged that the Intervenor "printed hnd distributed to the employees of the Employer a.facsimile ballot which is a violation and contrary to the Board's policy and also its finding in Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270." While not disputing the printing and distribution of the handbill, containing the marked facsimile ballot, to the employees on three shifts the day before the election, the Intervenor takes the position that the election should not be set aside for the following reasons : . (1) That the allegations contained in the objections did not state a ground for setting the election aside. 1 Purenant 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 pe e1 [ Members Rodgers, Bean , and Jenkins]. HUGHES TOOL COMPANY 741 (2) That the handbill in question clearly indicated that it was a propaganda leaflet of the Intervenor and did not mislead any em- ployee into assuming that it was the official position of the National Labor Relations Board. (3) That the vote was overwhelmingly in its favor. (4) That during the preelection conference held on the afternoon of August 19, the day before the election, no objections were raised by the Petitioner to the distribution of the handbill in question. . Intervenor's contention number (1), that the Petitioner's objections do not state a ground for setting aside the election, is based on the failure of the Petitioner in its objection to indicate specifically that the facsimile of the ballot distributed had been altered. While it is true, under established Board precedent that parties are entitled to reasonable notice of the grounds for setting aside an election,2 we agree with the Regional Director that such precedents are inappli- cable herein and that the Petitioner's objections herein satisfy the Board's requirement of reasonable specificity. Although it may have been better to have stated in the objections that the ballot in the handbill had in fact been altered, no one had been misled by this omission. This is particularly so because Allied Electric Products, Inc., (supra), and other cases cited by the Petitioner in the objections involved altered ballots 3 Finally, when the objections were filed, the Subregional office was supplied with copies of the handbill in question showing the altered ballot and no one has contended or suggested that any handbills containing unaltered facsimile ballots were distributed by the Intervenor. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Intervenor's contention (1). In contention (2), the Intervenor argues the facsimile of the official ballot in the handbill circulated by it, although marked, was clearly indicated as propaganda. As indicated above, the handbill was dis- tributed to employees in the three shifts on August 19, the day before the election. This handbill, a copy of which is attached to the Re- gional Director's report, is divided into three parts. Appearing on the upper third is the facsimile of the official Board ballot. Although identified as a sample ballot, it is marked with an "X" in the Inter- venor's box. The remaining sections of the handbill, as well as the entire back, contain written and pictorial propaganda material favor- able to the Intervenor and against the Petitioner. The Regional Director properly found that the Intervenor had violated the rule set forth in Allied Electric Products, Inc. In that case, 109 NLRB 2 E. g., Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc., 113 NLRB 879; Progressive Brass Poundry Co., Inc., 114 NLRB 963. 3 Sunerior Knitting Corporation and Alto Manufacturing Corporation, 112 NLRB 984; Wallace & Tiernan, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 1352; Scharco Manufacturing Corp., 110 NLRB 2112. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1272, the Board stated that "it will not permit the reproduction of any document purporting to be a copy of the Board's official ballot, other than one completely unaltered in form and content and clearly marked sample on its face, and upon objection validly filed, will set aside the results of any election in which the successful party has violated the rule." In circumstances similar to the instant case, where the altered ballot was clearly surrounded by propaganda, the Board has applied the Allied Electric Products, Inc., rule and set elections aside.4 Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director that sur- rounding of the facsimile ballot with propaganda does not excuse the alteration thereof by the Intervenor. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention. Finally, we find no merit in Intervenor's arguments (3) and (4) as neither would affect our determination herein. Thus, the Board will not attempt to assess the effect of the improper practices upon the voters' choice, nor would the failure to object at the preelection con- ference the afternoon before the election have erased the damage already done by the distribution of the handbill to the employees on the morning shift. Accordingly, we shall accept the Regional Director's recommenda- tion that the election herein be set aside and shall direct anew election. [The Board set aside the election.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 4 See cases cited in footnote 3; Bachmann Uxbridge Worsted Corporation, 110 NLRB 1195. Carolina Power and Light Company and Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No..11-RC-980. De- cember 12,1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Dyer, hear- ing 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, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con- nection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 119 NLRB No. 106.