The Hiatt Shoe Co. Blue Star Shoes, Inc.

554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Hiatt Shoe Company Blue Star Shoes, Inc. and United Shoe Workers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-11, 689 February 24, 1972 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election executed on September 7, 1971, an election by secret ballot was held on October 1, 1971, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1, to determine whether or not certain employees of the Employer desired to be repre- sented for purposes of collective bargaining by the United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner. Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. The tally showed, that there were ap- proximately 253 eligible voters and that 218 ballots were cast, of which 53 were for Petitioner, 160, were against the Petitioner, 1 was challenged, and 4 were void. On October 8, 1971, the petitioner timely filed objec- tions to the conduct of the election. The Regional Di- rector, pursuant to the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, and in conformity with Sec- tion 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, caused an investigation of the issues raised by the objec- tions to be made, and, thereafter, on November 5, 1971,_ issued and served on the parties his report on objec- tions. In his report, the Regional Director recom- mended to the Board that Objection 1 filed by Peti- tioner be sustained, the election be set aside, and a second election directed. Thereafter, on December 9, 1971, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Re- gional Director's Report on Objections, and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. In essential agreement with the position taken by the Employer, we find that the Employer's conduct did not interfere with the election held herein. On the basis of the evidence revealed by his investigation, the Regional Director found that during the election campaign the Employer, disseminated campaign propaganda among its, employees which exceeded the bounds, of permissi- ble campaigning. The allegedly objectionable conduct consisted of a sentence contained in the Employer's letter to the employees dated September 28, 1971, in which he made a prediction as to the possible effects of unionization. The Board with Court approval, has held that such predictions are permissible, as in the instant case, where two conditions have been met. first, where they do not contain threats of retaliation and second, where they refer to demonstrably probable conse- quences beyond the control of the Employer. See N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. On the basis of the record herein, we cannot agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the Em- ployer's stated belief, i.e., that the employees' oppor- tunities for advancement and the Employer's possibili- ties for expansion would be hampered by the presence of a union, exceeded the bounds of permissible cam- paign propaganda' within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act. This statement was coupled at the time it was uttered with the explanation that it was the "strife and tension" which the Employer thought likely to be introduced by the Union which was the basis for the Employer's 'belief. The Employer also referred to ear- lier letters directed to the employees wherein the same basis for that belief had been further' elaborated on. In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Em- ployer's statement of belief amounted to a threat of possible retaliation against the employees involved for their continued support of the Union, notwithstanding the absence of economic necessity. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid bal- lots cast and as the objections of the Petitioner,do not warrant setting it aside, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for the labor organization appearing on the ballot, and that such organization is not the exclusive representative of all the employees, in the unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 195 NLRB No. 105