Burnside Steel Foundry Co.

92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Burnside Steel Foundry Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC-11791 August 14, 1969 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director for Region 13 on March 27, 1969. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 368 eligible voters, 355 cast ballots of which 148 were for, and 177 against, the Petitioner, with 2 void and 28 challenged ballots. The challenges were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director for Region 13 investigated the issues raised by the objections, and on May 15, 1969, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which he recommended that objection 1 and an unnumbered objection be overruled, and that objection 2 be sustained. Accordingly, the Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside and that a second election be directed. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the Report and a brief in support of its exceptions, and the Petitioner filed a brief opposing the exceptions and supporting the Regional Director's Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Chicago, Illinois, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director' s Report,' the Employer's exceptions thereto and supporting brief, the Petitioner' s brief in opposition to said exceptions and in support of said Report, and the entire record in this case , and finds as follows: Objection 2 is based upon a slide shown by the Employer during an antiunion speech delivered to the employees . The slide was a photograph of a sample official secret ballot containing the names of the Employer and the Petitioner . There was an "X" in the "No" box. Below the ballot, and as part of the slide, the following printed lines appeared: ONLY YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE CAN DECIDE YOU ARE FREE TO VOTE AS YOU WANT In Our Opinion A UNION IS NOT NECESSARY at BURNSIDE This slide was one of several which, together with the Employer's speech, stressed, in noncoercive terms, the Employer's belief that the employees did not need union representation. It was shown after the showing of an unmarked ballot, and accompanied by remarks indicating that the decision on how to vote was entirely up to the voter. Unlike a poster or a leaflet, the slide was unavailable for consideration out of context. We do not believe that the use of the ballot in this case tended to suggest Board approval of the material thereon. Compare Superior Knitting Corporation, 112 NLRB 984, 986, concerning Board policy not to permit the reproduction and distribution of marked sample ballots. See also Rett Electronics, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 168. For the above reasons, we disagree with the Regional Director's recommendation and shall overrule Petitioner's objection 2. As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of valid votes have not been cast for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, in the election herein , and that said Union does not constitute the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. in the absence of any exceptions, thereto, we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's recommendations that objection I and an unnumbered objection be overruled 178 NLRB No. 32