Kelsey-Hayes Co.

HEINTZ DIVISION , KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY 151 clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional and technical em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act (3) All employees in the St Bernard District of Louisiana Gas Service Go , including inspectors, service operators, and janitors, but excluding foremen, head meter reader , meter readers, the welder (act- ing as foreman), and all office clerical employees , guards, watchmen, professional and technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act ORDER IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that, as the Petitioner has made no showing of interest in the Pines (Hammond) District, the petition is dismissed insofar as it relates to the Pines District [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ] Heintz Division, Kelsey-Hayes Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 4 RC-3932 January 14, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 14, 1959, under the di- rection and supervision of the Regional' Director for the Fourth Region Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 1,377 eligible voters, 1,299 cast valid ballots, of which 604 were for the Petitioner, 682 were for the Intervenor, Heintz Employees Union (Independent), and 13 were against the participating labor organiza- tions There were seven void ballots On July 16, 1959, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investiga- tion and on September 14, 1959, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he found merit to the objections and recommended that the election be set aside and a new one directed The Intervenor and the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the exceptions thereto, and upon, the entire record in this case, finds as follows 1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 126 NLRB No 16 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees 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. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including factory cleri- cals (including shop office clerks, receiving clerks, attendants, store- room clerks, store clerks, production clerks, production schedulers, material clerks, and general office clerks in the material control de- partment, the secretary in the jobbing department), secretaries in the jobbing, toolroom, shipping and plant engineering, and Second Street departments, the metallurigist in the Second Street department, the secretaries in the inspection, cold extrusion, and specialty depart- ments, the stenographer in the Second Street department, and the safety inspectors, timekeepers, draftsman in the cold extrusion de- partment, janitors, matrons, dispensary attendants, and all employees in the laboratory department of the Employer's Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania, plant, but excluding all employees in the administrative, sales, purchasing, accounting, mailroom, reception and travel, tele- phone, rate engineering, tool engineering, plant engineering, estimat- ing, and tool estimating departments, draftsmen and designers in Second Street department, confidential, professional, and technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. In its objections, the Petitioner contends that the Intervenor, by employing certain nonemployee males to distribute handbills to eligibles urging them to support the Petitioner on the day before the election, perpetrated a fraud on the employees, and so lowered cam- paign standards that the uninhibited desires of the employees could not be determined. The Regional Director's investigation revealed that a few days prior to the election the Intervenor selected from among spectators at a baseball game eight nonemployees males, five Negroes and three whites, to distribute handbills to employees at the plant gate on the morning of July 13, 1959. These individuals dis- tributed about 30 handbills bearing the legend : "Vote U.A.W.- C.I.O.-July 14, 1959." There was no identification on the handbill other than the signature of the printer, nor did the distributors wear any identification or in any way indicate that they were employed by the Intervenor. It is clear, as the Regional Director found, that the Intervenor caused the distribution to be made so as to lead the em- ployees reasonably to believe that it was sponsored by the Petitioner. Without adopting his reasons, we agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that such conduct warrants setting aside the election. HEINTZ DIVISION, KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY 153 Although the Board has traditionally declared that its policy is not to police preelection propaganda or methods of campaigning,' we have not hesitated to do 'so when we have felt that corrective action was necessary. Thus, in cases of fraud and trickery when the em- ployees involved are deprived of their ability to recognize propaganda for what it is and thus are deprived for their ability to evaluate properly the propaganda, we have set elections aside .2 In our opinion, the campaign tactics here employed by the Intervenor are equally pernicious. Such deception, because of the many imponderables in- volved in the selection of a bargaining representative, is fraught with the possibility of misleading and misdirecting the interests and de- sires of voters in many ways. We believe that the anonymous intru- sion of the Intervenor into the Petitioner's campaign interfered with the employees' ability to properly evaluate the campaign appeal thereby addressed to them and was detrimental to the proper condi- tions for holding a free and fair election. Therefore, to insure that our elections are conducted under proper laboratory conditions, we hold that the failure of parties in Board elections to identify them- selves as sponsors of campaign propaganda initiated by them consti- tutes grounds for setting aside the election. This view comports with the standards laid down by Congress in national elections which pro- hibit the distribution and publication of campaign propaganda with- out indicating the names of the individuals or groups responsible for such publication or distribution.' In these circumstances we find merit in the Petitioner's objection, and we shall therefore set aside the election and order a new election 4 [The Board set aside the election.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election. 1 See, e g , Lundy Packing Company, 124 NLRB 905 ( and cases cited in footnote 2) ; Paula Shoe Co., Inc., 121 NLRB 673 ( and cases cited in footnote 4) , Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., et al, 120 NLRB 1284 ; Montrose Hanger Company, 120 NLRB 88. 2 See United Aircraft Corporation, et al, 108 NLRB 52; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 119 NLRB 824; Chillicothe Paper Co., 119 NLRB 1263. 8 18 U.S:C A., sec 612 ( 1958). 4 Contrary to the Intervenor and the Employer we do not consider it important that the handbills in question were distributed only to a "few" employees, for we are con- vinced that sufficient employees were affected to have impaired the election atmosphere. See United Aircraft Corporation, et al., supra, at p. 107 . Nor do we consider it material that the Petitioner had opportunity to counteract whatever effects the above type of campaigning might have had since we feel that it is difficult , if not impossible , to counter- act campaigning of this type , particularly where, as here , the unidentified handbills were distributed on the day before the election . Of. Sylvania Electric Products , Inc., supra, at p. 830. As we are of the opinion that the facts and the issues have been adequately presented in the Regional Director 's report and in the Employer 's and the Intervenor's exceptions, we do not agree with the Employer and the Intervenor that a hearing is required or necessary, and hereby deny their request.