Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc.

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR,RELATIONS BOARD (11) of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. At all times material herein the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By withholding the payment of the Easter bonus on March 30, 1956, from the employees of the aforedescribed appropriate unit and by failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Lodge 129 of District 64, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, in regard to said payment of the Easter bonus , the Re- spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC1000. May 1, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on October 16, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on November 8, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh 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 there were approximately 48 eligible voters and that 40 cast ballots against the Petitioner and 8 cast ballots for the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an objection to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director caused an investigation of the objection to be made and on January 21, 1958, issued and served on the parties his report on objections, in which he found the objection without merit and recommended that it be overruled and the results of the election certified. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a timely ex- ception to the Regional Director's report. On October 25, 1957, some 2 weeks before the election in this case, the Employer mailed to its employees an 8-page letter, which among other matters, discussed the Petitioner's position on the issue of racial integration. The substance of the letter, in this respect, is that the Petitioner is strongly prointegration, has submitted a prointegra- tion brief in the Supreme Court, is striving to eliminate segregation from every phase of American life, and is a member of AFL-CIO, which at its last convention contributed $75,000 to NAACP. 1 Not published. 120 NLRB No. 102. SHARNAY HOSIERY MILLS , INC. 751 In its objection the Petitioner urged that the election be set aside because the injection of the racial issue created an atmosphere of hate and bias against it. The Regional Director found that the letter con- tained no threats of reprisal or promises of benefit and did not exceed the permissible bounds of preelection propaganda. He therefore rec- ommended that the objection be overruled. In its exception to the Regional Director's report the Petitioner states that it does not claim that the Employer's conduct constituted either threat of reprisal or promise of benefit but only that the injec- tion of this issue was solely to prejudice the employees against the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not at any time suggest that there is any misrepresentation in the Employer's letter. The issue before us is a narrow one. The Petitioner concedes that there were no threats or promises, and it is not suggested that the Employer misrepresented the Petitioner's position. We are asked, rather, to hold that the mere mention of the racial issue, in an election campaign, is per se improper and grounds for setting aside any and all elections where such might occur. We have not, in the past, attempted so to limit campaigning, but have relied on the good sense of the voters to evaluate the statements of the parties. We are satisfied that this is the better course, and adhere to it in this case. Therefore, we would apply here the principles we have developed in the past. We note that there is no misrepresentation, fraud, vio- lence, or coercion and that the statements here were temperate and factually correct. They therefore afford no basis for setting aside the results of the election. In accord with the Regional Director's recommendation we overrule the Petitioner's objection and exception. As the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and that said Petitioner is not the exclusive representative of the employees at the Employer's plant in Madison, North Carolina, in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN, concurring : While under the special circumstances of this case we concur in the result reached by our colleagues, we again express our concern over the injection of the racial issue in any election. In this regard we call attention to our respective positions in Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Meter Plant), 119 NLRB 117.