Houston Chronicle Publishing Co.

332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Houston Chronicle Publishing Company and Louis House Petitioner and Houston Mailers Union Local No 360 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO Case 16-RD-1165 March 20, 1989 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT The National Labor Relations Board, by a three member panel, has considered objections to an election held November 9, 1988,1 and the hearing officer's report recommending disposition of them The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement The tally of ballots shows 74 for and 84 against the Union, with 18 chal- lenged ballots 2 The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and adopts the hearing of- ficer's findings and recommendations only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Direction of Second Election In support of its objections, the Union presented evidence at the heanng relating to a contest, a preelection barbecue, and various memoranda that the Employer disseminated to the employees throughout the decertification campaign The hear- ing officer recommended that the Union's objec- tions be overruled in their entirety The Union ex cepts to the hearing officer's recommendation re- garding the contest and, for reasons set forth below, we find merit in this exception 3 During the preelection campaign, shortly after October 24, the Employer mailed to all employees a booklet entitled "The Red Light Contest " A cover letter, which invited the employees to par- ticipate in a contest to test their knowledge of the decertification process and the Union, offered a $250 prize to the person with the highest score ' All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise specified 2 During the hearing the parties stipulated that for purposes of this proceeding only in order to streamline the proceeding to resolve the ob jections and to achieve a final tally the Employer and the Petitioner would not contest the 11 ballots challenged by the Union and that those ballots would not be counted Accordingly as the remaining seven chal lenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election no evidence was received on them Z In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the hearing offi cer s finding that there was no evidence that the Employer s memoranda contained anything that would warrant setting aside the election and that the preelection barbecue constituted a legitimate campaign device The contest booklet listed the sources of the an- swers to the questions Some of the answers were contained in "Straight Answers to Important Ques tions," campaign literature that the Employer had mailed to all bargaining unit employees on October 24 Each participant was to fill in his name and ad dress on his entry A total of 25 employees partici pated The contest closed on November 3 and the winner was announced on November 4 The con- test entries were graded by James Garza, employee relations manager, and the person with the highest score received a $250 cash prize As noted above, the election was held on November 9 The hearing officer found the instant case distin guishable from National Gypsum Co ,4 and con cluded that the contest was not objectionable We disagree We conclude that the contest and the accompa nying prize in the circumstances of this case tended to interfere with employee free choice in the elec- tion We rely primarily on the fact that the em- ployees were required to identify themselves As stated in National Gypsum, participants `were re- quired to identify themselves on their entry forms, thereby enabling the Employer to know which em ployees participated and which did not, and which employees were familiar with its campaign materi- al " National Gypsum, supra at 1003 Here, as in National Gypsum, [t]his information indicated to the Employer where additional campaign efforts should be focused, and afforded the potential for directing pressure at particular employees " Id We thus distinguish this case from Stride Rite Corp, 254 NLRB 297 (1981), and Thrift Drug Co, 217 NLRB 1094 (1975), in which the Board found that the raffles did not constitute objectionable conduct, because in those cases participants, except for those who claimed prizes, remained anonymous Accord ingly, we sustain the Unions objection and find that the election conducted on November 9, 1988, must be set aside and a new election held 5 [Direction of Second Election omitted from pub- lication ] 4 National Gypsum Co 280 NLRB 1003 (1986) a Contrary to the hearing officer we find this case to be indistinguish able from National Gypsum The $250 prize here was comparable to the $270 television sets and $261 cash prizes offered in National Gypsum In National Gypsum there similarly was no evidence that the employer used the names of participants to alter its campaign strategy As noted above in each case the employer possessed the potential for directing pressure at particular employees as a result of the information obtained from the contest Id Furthermore in National Gypsum as here there was no evi dence that the questions solicited the employees view on unionization and voting in the election was not a condition precedent to participating in the contest 293 NLRB No 38