The General Fireproofing Co.

830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Fireproofing Co. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5410. April 17, 1959 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated October 21, 1958, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 21, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the Board, among the employees in the collective-bargaining unit set forth in the stipulation. Upon the conclusion of the election, the Regional Director furnished the parties with a tally of ballots which showed that of 100 eligible voters, 93 cast ballots, of which 55 were for and 38 were against the Petitioner, with no challenged or void ballots. On December 1, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the objections, and, on or about December 31, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, recommending that they be overruled and the Petitioner be certified. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report. 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. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Em- ployer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production, maintenance, shipping, and receiving employees at the Employer's San Luis Obispo, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, and all guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. 5. The objections: In Objection 1, the Employer alleges that: At a meeting of the employees of the Employer held by the Petitioner before the election, at the Anderson Hotel, and on other occasions representatives of the Union made false and mis- leading statements . . . 123 NLRB No. 100. THE GENERAL FIREPROOFING CO . 831 (b) To the effect that the plant manager at San Luis Obispo was paid a bonus of $15,000 per year because of the wages not being paid to the employees, i.e., the low wages actually paid to the employees . . . and (d) That the plant manager at San Luis Obispo had claimed that he should get credit for "getting away" with the low wages he was paying the employees.' The Employer presented evidence that the statement forming the basis of Objection 1(b) was made at a union meeting, the night before the election, by representatives of the Petitioner to the approximately 64 eligible voters present. The Petitioner presented evidence to the contrary. As to Objection 1(d), the Employer presented evidence that the statement was made by Petitioner representative, Mullins, at the same meeting. Mullins did not deny making the statement. He admitted that he may have made it at the meeting but that if made, it was in fact a true statement having been made to him by the Plant Manager Bromley. Bromley denied he had made such a statement. The Regional Director found that the evidence on Objections 1(b) and 1(d) was in such conflict as to require a hearing to resolve the credibility issues. He concluded, however, assuming the statements were made, they did not form a sufficient basis for setting aside the election. The Employer in his exceptions to this part of the report contends that there should be a hearing and that the statements, if made, were not permissible campaign propaganda. We agree with the Regional Director. Assuming that a hearing would resolve the credibility issues in favor of the Employer, we do not believe that the amount of a bonus, if any, paid the plant manager was within the special knowledge of the Petitioner. Nor could the Petitioner have special knowledge that such a bonus, if there was one, was paid because of the alleged low wages of the employees. If such a bonus, regardless of amount, had been awarded the manager for excep- tional plant administration, the Petitioner, in developing its campaign propaganda, might well infer that the bonus was paid because of a saving to the Employer based on low wages. But, as such an assump- tion would be equally within the competence of the employees to make, based upon their independent knowledge, we find no basis for holding that the statement in Objection 1(b), under the circumstances, ex- ceeded the limits of permissible campaign propaganda.' The basis of Objection 1(d) is that the Petitioner falsely attributed to Bromley, the plant manager, the statement that he "should get 'The Regional Director recommended that Objections 1(a) and 1 ( c) (not set forth herein ), be overruled . As no exceptions have been filed to this recommendation , we adopt it and hereby overrule Objections 1(a) and 1(c). 2 General Electric Company (Clock; and Ttiner Department), 119 NLRB 944. Cf. Wheelerweld Division, C. H. Wheeler JLan.ufacturing Company, 118 NLRB 698, 702. auinined Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD credit for getting away with low wages." Assuming such a statement was falsely attributed to Bromley, we find that it was not a mis- representation serious enough to warrant vacating the election. In agreement with the Regional Director, therefore, we overrule Objections 1(b) and 1(d). 2. The essence of Objection 2 is that supervisory employees Alen and Leach interfered with the election, on behalf of the Petitioner. As set forth in the report, Allen and Leach, prior to their promotion to group leaders, had been active in the Petitioner's organizational campaign and this fact was known to the Employer, who at the time of their promotions, notified them not to engage in any such further activity. Both individuals contend they thereupon, ceased such ac- tivity and the Regional Director found the Respondent produced no evidence to the contrary. The Employer has excepted to this finding and, on the basis of affidavits submitted by various employees, con- tends that a hearing should be directed to resolve the alleged conflict. We have accordingly examined the evidence submitted by the Enm- ployer and, viewing it in the aspect most favorable to the Employer, we agree with the Regional Director that any statements made by Allen to employees Howard and Aynes were made in response to questions propounded to Allen by the two employees, in personal con- versations between them, and that the employees knew the replies they had solicited were expressions of Allen's personal opinions and in no way reflected the viewpoint of the Employer. Moreover, as found by the Regional Director, there was "substantial employee awareness that any activity in support of Petitioner on the part of Allen and Leach, after they were made group leaders and after the date of the election agreement was not condoned by the Employer." 3 We are therefore of the opinion that the statements of Allen to employees Howard and Aynes were not coercive in the context in which they were made and do not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the election.4 Objection 2 is therefore overruled.' Having found the Employer's objections to be without merit, and as the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid ballots cast. in the election, we shall certify it as the collective-bargaining represen- tative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the unit herein found appropriate.] 3 No exceptions were filed by the Employer to this finding. A we agree with the Regional Director that the alleged "organizational meeting" attended by Allen and Leach was a social gathering. Likewise, we do not regard as significant Allen's questioning of Canozzi as to Canozzi ' s attendance at a union meeting. 5 Underwood Machinery Company, 80 NLRB 1264.