The Tetrad Co., Inc.

THE TETRAD CO., INC. 203 that their prospects of recall are no better than those of the employees on the "laid-off for lack of work" list. Accordingly, the "excused absence" employees, too, are ineligible to vote.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 To the extent that the Board held otherwise in the above-cited case involving another plant of the Employer, we hereby overrule it. The Tetrad Co., Inc. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-9371. November 21, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election,' dated June 10, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 1, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that 37 votes were cast for the Petitioner, 41 votes were cast against the Petitioner, and 13 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election. As the challenged ballots were suffi- cient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the provisions of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7, investigated the challenges as well as the objections, and on October 6, 1958, issued and duly served on the parties his report on challenged ballots and objections to the election. In his report, he recommended that one of the objections 2 be sustained, that the elec- tion be set aside, and that the challenges to 9 of the 13 ballots be sustained.' Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's findings as to the challenged ballots. The Employer also filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's finding with respect to the objections. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds : 1 Unpublished. 3 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to consider the other objections in view of his recommendation to set the election aside. 3 The Regional Director did not deem it necessary to resolve the four remaining challenged ballots, because they could not affect the results of the election. 122 NLRB No. 31. 204 DECISIONS OF • NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Objections The Regional Director found that the Employer caused all of the employees.in the voting unit to stop work and assemble in the grinding room at 4 p.m., on July 1, 1958, a half hour before the election. On ..this occasion, the Employer addressed the employees and strongly urged them to vote against the Union. We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the speech delivered under the above conditions was violative of the Board's 24-hour election rule, as expressed in the Peerless Plywood case,' and that the fact that the Employer was not aware of this rule is immaterial .1 In these cir- cumstances, we shall therefore set the first election aside and direct that a new election be conducted. The Challenges As we are setting aside the election and directing a new election, we find it unnecessary, to pass upon any of the challenged ballots. However, those persons considered in the pending unfair labor prac- tice proceedings against the Employer may vote in the second election subject to challenge. [The Board set aside the election held on July 1, 1958.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 4 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 5 Banner Die Fixture Co., 107 NLRB 1332. East Tennessee Packing Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC- .4161. November 21, 1958 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 Courtney Carswell , hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees .of the Employer.' 1 Independent Union of Meat Cutters and Packinghouse Employees intervened on the basis of a contractual interest. 122 NLRB No. 25.