The William Carter Co., Inc.

THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY 1 The William Carter Company, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-9344 December 28, 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On August 31, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Section Election in the above- entitled proceeding in which, inter alia, he adopted a Hearing Officer's report and recommendations, sustaining the Petitioner's Objection 2, which alleged conduct affecting the results of the election hereto- fore held on December 2, 1972,1 and directed a new one be held. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review, alleging error in sustaining Objection 2, involving the withholding of "fictitious" dues, and the challenges of three employees. On September 24, 1973, the National Labor Relations Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the briefs of the parties, and makes the following findings: 2 With respect to Objection 2, the record reveals that on November 22, 1972, a regular payday, the employees were assembled in a small room in the Employer's plant in groups of approximately 20 employees. There the plant superintendent read from a prepared text, stating to employees, in substance, that a $25 deduction had been made from each of their paychecks which represented the amount of union dues payable by Petitioner's members for the 5 months since the Petitioner began its organizing campaign. He explained that the purpose of the deduction was to illustrate that the Petitioner was after their money. He further said that the employees would receive the deducted money in cash after signing a receipt for it. Finally, the employees were told to protect themselves and their future by voting "no" in the election. The paychecks were then distributed to the employees. Immediately thereafter the employees signed receipts and were given the additional $25 in cash. The Regional Director adopted the Hearing Offi- cer's conclusion that the Employer exceeded the permissible boundaries of electioneering and inter- fered with the laboratory conditions necessary for a valid election by temporarily withholding fictitious union dues from each employee's paycheck and subjecting employees to an antiunion speech before giving them the remainder of their pay. We disagree. The foregoing activity of the Employer was a mere dramatization of a fact of life that the acquisition of union membership, like the purchase of any other service, involves a monetary consideration. While it is true that the Employer contemporaneously voiced its opposition to the Union, the statements did not exceed the permissible limits of free speech. Nor does it appear that the Employer misrepresented the Union's dues structure. Finally, there was no substantial delay in the distribution of the employ- ees' pay. In these circumstances, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the Employer's conduct did not interfere with the free choice of the voters in the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the objection and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the ballots cast, we shall certify the results thereof.3 CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes have not been cast for International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. I The tally of ballots showed that of the 376 cast ballots, 186 were for, and 190 against, the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged The Regional Director adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation that five challenges be sustained and that one challenge be overruled but not opened and counted since it would not affect the results of the election In addition, the Regional Director overruled the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Objection I be sustained, and adopted his recommendation that other objections be overruled, to which no request for review was filed 2 As the ballots of three employees involved in the request for review could not affect the election results, we do,not pass on their elegibdrty. As noted previously, we need not pass upon the issues raised by the challenges We find no merit in the Employer's further contention in its request for review that there was error in setting this case for hearing after an investigation without first issuing a report on objections 3 See TRW, Inc., 173 NLRB 1425, Caressa, Inc, 158 NLRB 1745, The Mosler Safe Company, 129 NLRB 747 Cf. Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163 NLRB 777 208 NLRB No. 1