Universal Producing Co.

548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A 1. Abbott Laundry Company, 29 Back Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 2. Abbot Linen Supply Company, 29 Back Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 3. Astor Launderers, 3912 Reading Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 4. George D. Luechauer, d/b/a Alpha Linen Service, 708 Richmond, Cincinnati, Ohio 5. American Linen Supply Company, 2136 Reading Road, Cincin- nati, Ohio 6. Crown Laundry Company, Inc., 1056 Water Works Road, New- port, Kentucky 7. Bernard H. Berding, d/b/a Domestic Laundry, 1407 Denman, Reading, Ohio 8. Fame Laundries, Inc., 227 Court Street, Covington, Kentucky 9. L. Harrison and H. Kulback, d/b/a Home Laundry, 1314 Wheeler St., Covington, Kentucky 10. Imperial Laundry Service, Inc., 4533 West Mitchell Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 11. Mariemont Laundry, Inc., 5601 Wooster Pike, Mariemont, Ohio 12. Master Launderers and Cleaners, Inc., 1646 Honer St., Cincin- nati, Ohio 13. E. George Emmick, George L. E. Emmick, and Robert H. Em- mick, d/b/a Modern Dry Cleaners and Launderers, 3112 Syra- cuse, Cincinnati, Ohio 14. New Way Linen Supply Co., 526 Livingston, Cincinnati, Ohio 15. Progress Launderers and Dry Cleaners, Inc., Vine St. and De- Camp St., Cincinnati, Ohio 16. Superior Laundry and Towel Supply Co., 1901 Western Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 17. Walnut Hills Laundry Co., 1022 Foraker Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 18. Ziegler Towel Supply, 2020 Dunlap, Cincinnati, Ohio Universal Producing Company and District Lodge 105, Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-3669. April 1, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on September 10, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on October 1, 1958, under the direction and supervision of 1 Unpublished. 123 NLRB No. 67. UNIVERSAL PRODUCING COMPANY 549 the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of the approximately 165 eligible voters, 165 valid votes were cast. Of these, 45 were cast in favor of the Petitioner; 119 were cast against the Petitioner; and 1 was challenged. On October 6, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and, on December 4, 1958, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the election be set aside and that a new election be directed by the Board. The Employer filed timely exceptions to this report, urging that this recommenda- tion be rejected and that the Board certify the results of the election. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case and makes the following findings : On September 19, 1958, the Employer's president and vice president spoke to all the employees in three separate groups. In its objections, the Petitioner contended that in the speech delivered by its presi- dent, the Employer stated in substance that even if the Petitioner were certified, the Employer would be under no legal obligation to bargain; that all existing benefits would be taken away if the Peti- tioner won the election; and that the employee union leaders might be discharged. The Petitioner also contended that the Employer disparaged the union leaders. Upon analysis of this speech, a copy of which was attached to his report, the Regional Director concluded that the Employer had interfered.with the election by informing the Employees that it would refuse to bargain if the Petitioner were certified, and that such certification would result in the discon- tinuance of employee benefits. Ile further concluded that the em- ployees were led to believe that selection of the Petitioner might result in a reduction in force. He found no substantial evidence of any threat to discharge the union leaders, and did not discuss the allegation that they were disparaged. As indicated, the Petitioner filed no exceptions. We disagree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the speech in issue interfered with the election. With respect to the alleged threat to discontinue existing benefits, the Regional Director quoted the following excerpt from this speech : "Should a contract be negotiated, present wages, benefits, etc. are first thrown out the window. When negotiating we would start from scratch. Nothing would be carried over...." 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In addition to this excerpt, the Employer at this point in the speech stated: ... and it is reasonable to assume that a contract, if and when negotiated would pattern [sic] Union plants for comparable work. We mention all of this because we want you to know exactly the kind of program and the kind of system the Union is asking to vote for [sic]. In considering these remarks in context, we, unlike the Regional Director, do not believe that they constitute an unlawful threat to discontinue existing benefits prior to negotiations. We find, rather, that the Employer was merely expressing its legal position that it did not have to start bargaining from the level of existing benefits, and informing the employees what they might expect as the result of any negotiations which might take place. These are statements which, as the Board has held, the Employer is privileged to make,' and we find therefore that they do not warrant setting the election aside. The Regional Director did not refer to any other specific language in the speech in support of his conclusion that the Employer had thereby interfered with the election, and we are unable to find any- thing therein which would support such a conclusion. Rather, with respect to the alleged anticipatory refusal to bargain, the speech con- tains nothing more than a statement of the Employer's legal position, in substance, that it was not required by law to bargain and sign a contract with the Petitioner unless and until the employees voted for the Petitioner. And with respect to the conclusion concerning a possible reduction in force, the speech contains nothing more than a prediction that time spent in dealing with the Petitioner would take time from sales and business operations, which would hurt the busi- ness, and thus the employees. As these statements contain no promise of benefit or threat or reprisal, we find that they did not interfere with the election. In view of the foregoing, we find,that Petitioner's objections are without merit and we therefore overrule them. As the Petitioner failed to 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 District Lodge 102, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.] 2 Guiberson Corporation, 121 NLRB 260; N.L.R.B. v. Nash-Finch Company, 211 F. 2d 622 (C .A. 8) ; Schick, Incorporated, 118 NLRB 1160 , 1162-1163 ; LaPointe Machine Tool Company, 113 NLRB 171.