Craft Manufacturing Co.

CRAFT MANUFACTURING CO. 341 Objection 5: Although there is evidence that the Employer distributed antiunion literature and displayed antiunion placards and banners, during working hours and on company premises, up until 2 hours before the election, there is no showing that such material was of a coercive nature. With respect to the Petitioner's apparent contention that the above-mentioned conduct is violative of the "24-hour rule" established by Peerless Plywood,4 an examination of that case clearly reveals that the Board therein expressly reserved to parties the privilege of distributing campaign literature on company premises at any time before an election .5 Ac- cordingly, it is recommended that this objection be overruled. Objection 6: The investigation discloses evidence that on May 8 and 10, 1958, one of the supervisors involved in objection 1 interrogated an employee concern- ing her union activities. The supervisor in question denies having engaged in such conduct. As is the case with objection 1, above, the incidents of interroga- tion involved only 1 of 385 voters. In the opinion of the Regional Director, this incident is too isolated to afford a basis for setting aside the election.6 Accordingly it is recommended that this objection be overruled. Objection 7: Although it appears that the Employer engaged in antiunion elec- tioneering in the vicinity of the polls up until the election started, there is no evidence that such conduct took place while the polls were open. Since there is no showing that the conduct in question was of a coercive nature, it is recom- mended that this objection be overruled. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As set forth hereinabove, the Regional Director is of the opinion that the ob- jections raise no material or substantial issues with respect to the results of the election. The Regional Director, therefore, recommends to the Board that the objections herein be overruled and that the results of the election be certified. * Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427. 5 Montrose Hanger Company, 120 NLRB 88. 9 Independent Nail & Packing Company, supra. Even if the threat incidents (see objection 1) and the interrogation incidents are considered together, they only involve 2 out of 385 eligible voters. Craft Manufacturing Co. and International Union, UAW-AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5917. December 5, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on June 16, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was held on July 16, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit found ap- propriate by the Board. Following the election a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties. The tally shows that, of approximately 62 eligible voters, 57 cast valid ballots, of which, 31 were for the Petitioner, 9 were cast for the Intervenor, District Lodge No. 140, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, 17 were against the participating labor organizations, and 4 were challenged. As the challenged ballots were insufficient to affect the results of the elec- tion, the Regional Director did not consider them. On July 23, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election and requested the Board to set ' Unpublished. 122 NLRB No. 44. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD aside the election and order a new election or a hearing on the objections. In accord with the Board's Rules and Regulations the Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the issues raised by the objections, and on August 29, 1958, served on the parties a report on objections, in which he recommended that the Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety and the Peti- tioner be certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions, and the entire record in this case. In its objections the Employer alleges in substance that (1) many of the employees did not express their choice because they were unable to understand the election procedure or ballot; (2) the Peti- tioner interfered with the employees' free choice by distributing a handbill on the afternoon preceding the election which contained false and misleading statements ; and (3) the Petitioner, by acts of coercion, prevented the employees from expressing a free choice. As to objection (1) the Employer asserts that 12 of 61 eligible voters, or about 20 percent, are displaced persons from Poland or the Ukraine who did not understand the election procedure or ballot because they neither speak nor write English and, therefore, the election did not express their true intention. The Regional Director found that : there was considerable discussion about the election at the plant for several weeks prior to the election; there was election compaigning which included the circulation of leaflets and a speech by the Employer to the assembled employees; the two displaced persons who gave affidavits understood and spoke English; none of the voters requested information or instruction during the election; and the Employer, although it had the opportunity to do so at preelection conferences, did not raise this issue until after the elec- tion. In these circumstances the Regional Director found, and we agree, that the objection does not raise a material or substantial issue. As to objection (2), the Employer asserts that on the afternoon before the election the Petitioner distributed a leaflet, stating : All of you must know about the William Eaves discharge case : -The UAW is going to win reinstatement for Eaves. We are going to continue to help William Eaves. William Eaves has five year's service. Forty-five minutes before vacation shutdown, CRAFT MANUFACTURING CO. 343 Eaves was notified by his foreman that he was discharged ! He asked why and was told he was spending too much time in the washroom. He had never been warned, never been suspended ! Out of the clear blue sky came a thunderbolt. It was unfair because Eaves has been a good worker. He has received merit raises from the company which certainly indicates that they thought Eaves was okay. But something happened and this un- fair discharge resulted. The Employer contends that this campaign propaganda is delib- erately false and misleading, beyond the permissible limits of cam- paign propaganda, and was distributed at a time when the Employer was unable to refute it. The discharge of Eaves occurred more than 2 weeks before the election and presumably was a subject of dis- cussion among the employees. The leaflet was calculated to show that this discharge was not for cause, as contended by the Employer, but because of union activity, raising questions of fact which can only be resolved in an unfair labor practice proceeding. In any event the alleged false factual statements in the leaflet were not matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the Petitioner alone and, in our opinion, were reasonably regarded by the employees as campaign propaganda which we believe they could evaluate. In these circumstances, particularly since the discharge occurred more than 2 weeks prior to the election, we believe it is immaterial that the Employer had only a short period of time to reply to this propa- ganda.2 Absent elements of gross fraud, coercion or forgery, which are not present here, the Board has consistently held that it will not pass judgment on campaign propaganda,3 but instead will leave such matters to the good sense of the voters to evaluate. As to objection (3), the Employer asserts that when the Petitioner began organizing the plant in 1958 it threatened an employee, Sam Houston, with bodily harm if he did not sign up with the Petitioner and that immediately after the election one of the Petitioner's repre- sentatives threatened at least two employees, Eggleston and Cud- worth, who had voiced objections to the union, that they would be fired. However, it is the Board's policy to consider on the merits only acts of alleged interference which occurred between the date of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and the date of the election.4 As the alleged acts of interference herein occurred outside such period, we will not consider them. 2 Dorn back Furnace & Foundry Company, 115 NLRB 350; and Houston Shell and Concrete Division, 118 NLRB 1511. 'Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation, etc., 120 NLRB 1284. 4 Set, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118; and Franchester Corporation, 110 NLRB 1391, 1395. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing and the record as awhole, we find that the Employer's objections do not raise substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election. Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director's recommendation we hereby overrule the Em- ployer's objections and deny its request for a hearing on the objec- tions. As the Petitioner has received the majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified the International Union, UAW-AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the produc- tion and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Chi- cago, Illinois, bulk milk cooler manufacturing plant including ship- ping employees, but excluding toolroom employees, machine mainte- nance employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining.] Pease Oil Company ; Evans Oils, Inc. and Local 449, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. Case No. 3-CA-1091. Decem- ber 8, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On August 21, 1958, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding recommending dismissal of the complaint for jurisdictional reasons, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing in connection with the jurisdictional issue and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case. In view of the Board's recent revision of its jurisdictional standards, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's findings of fact, but not his conclusions or recommendations. Respondent Pease is, engaged in the wholesale and retail distribu- tion of gasoline, fuel oil, and automotive accessories within . New York State. From November 1, 1956, to November 1, 1957, Pease 122 NLRB No. 53.