Geyer Manufacturing Co.

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that an affirmative claim to represent the employees in the island toolroom as a separate bargaining unit has not been raised by either certified labor organization and we therefore dismiss the petition filed by the Employer herein.,' The Employer has, however, made a proper request for an order clarifying the unit in Case No. 39-RC-380. The unit description in that case will be amended accordingly. [The Board amended the certification of representatives issued in Case No. 39-RC-380 to include in the unit description thereof all island toolroom employees and dismissed the petition.] 8 See Ampereo Electronic Corporation, 109 NLRB 353, 354. Geyer Manufacturing Co., Division of The Wood Shovel and Tool Co. and Lodge No. 1988, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5748. March 27,1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region on October 23, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted November 8, 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 furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 57 eligible voters, 14 cast votes for the Petitioner, 34 against, and 6 were challenged. On November 15, 1957, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the election and the conduct thereof, and timely served copies upon the Employer. The objections alleged in substance that (1) during the course of the election campaign the Employer published and sent to its employees a series of letters and leaflets, together with photostatic copies of newspaper articles in an effort to persuade employees to vote against the union; (2) that the letters, leaflets, and newspaper articles contained false, slanderous, and misleading statements; and (3) that approximately 1 week before the election the Employer deducted 3 dollars from each employee's paycheck and returned it in an envelope on which it was stated, "The union wants us to take this $3.00 out of your check each month and send it to them." In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on January 30, 1958, issued 120 NLRB No. 33. GEYER MANUFACTURING CO. 209 and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to the elec- tion-in which he recommended that the Board overrule the objections. On February 5, 1958, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report on objections. - Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 1 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 employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) 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 plant clerical employees but excluding office employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors 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 employees were not in a position to appraise the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the Employer's letters which, it contends, are false, slanderous, and misleading; (2) the Board should not condone the deduction of moneys from the employees' paychecks without authorization by the employees; and (3) by returning the deducted money to the employees in a separate envelope which contained anti- union propaganda the Employer compelled its employees to accept and read antiunion propaganda which contained a deliberate falsehood. The Employer sent four letters to the employees on October 29, 30, 31, and on November 4, respectively. The letters of October 30 and 31 appear to be the ones on which the Petitioner bases its ob- jections. The letter of October 30 alleged that the Petitioner's con- stitution afforded no civil rights to members of the union; that it provided for an iron discipline over the members which was imple- mented by heavy fines, suspension and expulsion; that employees of other employers could vote the employees out on strike; and that the Petitioner exacted many fees and assessments in addition to its regular membership dues. Attached to the letter was a photostatic copy of a newspaper column by Victor Reisel entitled, "No Civil Rights Within Unions." '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 Bean and Jenkins]. 483142-59-vol. 120-15 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD The letter of October 31 stated that the Petitioner had the reputa- tion of being "strike-happy" and that in the spring of 1956 it ran bne of the most violent strikes in history in a New York aviation com- pany and subsequently violated its pledge not to take disciplinary action against nonstrikers. This letter was accompanied by repro- ductions of two newspaper articles relating to strikes by the inter- national of the petitioning local union against other employers. One article, entitled, "A Wounded Baby's Cries," described the violence at a struck plant which culminated in the shooting of a young-child. The other article, entitled, "Union Arrogance Costly Mistake," re= 'feired'to a strike in which, the pickets would not allow shareholders and newspaper reporters to cross the picket line to attend the com- pany's annual meeting. Petitioner does not contend-that the newspaper articles were forged or that the letters were factually false. It is contended, however, that the Regional Director failed to evaluate the ability of the em- ployees to appraise the truth or falsity of the Employer's statements contained-in its letters and that by unlawfully deducting money from the employees' paychecks and returning it in an envelope containing antiunion propaganda the Employer compelled its employees to accept and read antiunion propaganda containing a deliberate falsehood. We do not agree. The statements complained of are obvious propa- ganda, clearly recognizable as such by employees presumably com- petent properly to evaluate it.' In the Gummed Products 3 and Comfort Slipper4 cases, and more recently in Tuttle cC Kilt, Inc.' we reiterated the principle that campaign propaganda which includes exaggeration, inaccuracies, partial truths, name-calling, and false- hoods, while not condoned, may be excused provided it is not coupled with forged campaign -material or other campaign trickery or so misleading as to prevent the exercise of a free choice by employees in the election of their bargaining 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 Lodge No. 1988, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, and'that said labor organization is not the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the unit found appr'opriate.] ' - 2_See Merck & Co.; Inc , 104 NLRB 891. - The Gummed Products Compdriy,'112 NLRB 1092. Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112 NLRB 183. 5 118 NLRB 125.