Natter Manufacturing Corp.

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Natter Manufacturing Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union 98 B-I 170, AFL-CIO,, Petitioner. Case _1-RC- April 17, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On August 28, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election in the above- entitled proceeding, in which he overruled the Petitioner's objections to the election hereinbefore conducted on July 13, 1973, and certified the results thereof.' Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision on the grounds, inter alia, that in overruling Objection 2 he erred in finding that the Employer's leaflet distributed to employees on the day of the election did not contain a material misrepresentation affecting the election results. By telegraphic order dated October 25, 1973, the request for review was granted as to Objection 2 and denied in all other respects. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review. 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 Employer's brief on review, and makes the following findings: Objection 2 alleged that the Employer made material and substantial misrepresentations of fact in a leaflet which it distributed to employees at their work places less than 24 hours before the election. The leaflet,2 bearing the advice, in large capitalized letters, "confidential, for supervisors," contained the following message: We have been advised that the National Labor Relations Board has found Local 170 guilty of five (5) unfair labor practices at Accuride. The 1 The tally of ballots for the election showed that of approximately 325 eligible voters, 301 cast valid ballots, of which 150 were for, and 151 against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. Union was found guilty of harassment, intimida- tion, and coercion toward employees at Accuride. You can give this information to your employees. The decision was reached today: July 12, 1973 The subject matter of the leaflet concerns an unfair labor practice case which arose out of the Petitioner's involvement in a labor dispute at another company in the Los Angeles area known as Accuride. Contrary to the statement in the leaflet that the Board had found the Petitioner guilty of unfair labor practices, the facts are that the Petitioner had signed an informal settlement agreement with respect to charges of unfair labor practices filed against it and the agreement contained a nonadmission clause. The Regional Director concluded that the leaflet did not contain such a "substantial departure" from the truth so as to warrant setting the election aside, that the subject of the leaflet was not within the special knowledge of the Employer, and that, in the absence of special knowledge, misrepresentations are likely to have less impact inasmuch as the employees are more capable of evaluating the accuracy and significance of the material. The Employer, in its brief on review, supports the Regional Director's conclusions, arguing further that, as the leaflet clearly refers to the National Labor Relations Board, it would have been easy for employees to check with that Agency concerning the actual facts. In Dubie-Clark Co., Incorporated, 209 NLRB No. 21, just issued, the Board found objectionable a similar mischaracterization of a Board-approved informal settlement agreement containing a nonad- mission clause. In that case, the petitioning labor organization made a misrepresentation about the employer's involvement in an unfair labor practice case 3 days before the election and referred employ- ees to the notice which the employer had been required to post in the plant. Here, the misrepresen- tation was made on the day of the election and the employees, even if they were disposed to check into the accuracy of the statement contained in the leaflet, had very little time to do so. Accordingly, Objection 2 is hereby sustained, and we shall set aside the election and direct that a new one be conducted. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] 2 The leaflet was punted in English and in Spanish , because there were many Spanish-speaking employees in the unit. 210 NLRB No. 27