Bachmann Uxbridge Worsted Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BACHMANN UXBRIDGE WORSTED CORPORATION 1195
which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group will
appropriately be included in the production and maintenance unit
and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group (i),10 and
the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by
a majority of the employees in the polled group, which the Board, in
such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
10See American Potash & Chemical Corpoiotion , supra, which adopts the dissenting
opinion in Pacific Intermountain Express Co., 105 NLRB 480.
BACHMANN UXBRIDGE WORSTED CORPORATION ( UXBRIDGE MILL) and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
1-RC-3622. December 6,1954
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein
on August 17, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
September 2,1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the First Region, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate by the Board. At the conclusion of the election, the
parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of
approximately 791 eligible voters, 730 valid ballots were cast, of which
218 were for the Petitioner and 512 against, 37 ballots were chal-
lenged, and 1 ballot was voided.
On September 8, 1954, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi-
gated the objections, and on September 29, 1954, issued his report
on objections, and recommended that the election be set aside.2
Thereafter, on October 1, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report on objections.'
The Petitioner objected to the election on the ground that the
Employer had, 2 days before the election, sent to each employee a
sample ballot similar in color to the Board's official ballot together
1 109 NLRB 868
2 Because the objection investigated furnished sufficient grounds for the Regional
Director to recommend that the election be set aside , the Regional Director did- not report
on the Petitioner 's remaining objections Because of this failure, the Petitioner filed ex-
ceptions to the report . In view of our determination here, we find it unnecessary to
consider the Petitioner 's exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
3 The Employer 's request for oral argument is denied because , in our opinion , the record
and the exceptions adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
110 NLRB No. 194.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with a letter containing instructions for a "No" vote.' The Regional
Director found that the ballot enclosed in each letter was clearly
marked "Sample Ballot" and furthermore, that it was similar in
form and content to the Board's official ballot used in the election
except for an imprinted "X" in the square under "No." The Regional
Director found, however, that the reproduction and distribution by
the Employer of altered copies of the Board's official ballot was con-
trary to the rule adopted by the Board in its recent decision in the
Allied Electrical Products case,5 and therefore recommended that the
election be set aside on that ground. In opposing the Regional
Director's recommendation, the Employer's principal contention is
that the Petitioner did not, by timely objection, raise the precise issue
on which the Regional Director recommended that the election be set
aside; moreover, the Employer maintains that the Allied rule should
not be applied retroactively upon the ground that the Board intended
the rule to have future application only.
In the Allied case, the Board stated that a purported reproduction
of its official ballot which has been altered for campaign purposes,
necessarily must tend to suggest Agency approval of the material
thereon. The Board decided that it would not in the future permit
the reproduction of any document purporting to be a copy of the
Board's official ballot other than one completely unaltered in form and
content and clearly marked sample on its face. The Board also decided
that upon objection validly filed, it would set aside the results of any
election in which the successful party had violated this rule.
It is manifest that the Petitioner's objections were not predicated
on a claimed violation of the Allied rule, as the rule had not been
enunciated at the time of the filing of the Petitioner's objections.
The Petitioner, nevertheless, by timely objections did bring in issue
the propriety of the reproduction of the Board's official ballot and
its distribution by the Employer. We find, therefore, that the objec-
tion was sufficient to bring the precise issue before us.6 Furthermore,
although the Board in the Allied case stated that the new rule was
to have future application only, the Board did not thereby intend
the rule to be applied only in cases involving conduct occurring after
the decision in the Allied case, but intended that the rule should be
applied in all such cases which might thereafter come before the
Board.7 In the circumstances, as the Petitioner has filed a valid and
timely objection, we find that the Employer's action in distributing a
* The Regional Director found that the similarity in color between the sample and
official ballot was purely coincidental and that the letter accompanying the ballot did
not exceed the permissible limits of free speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
5 All,ed Electric Products , Inc., 109 NLRB 1270.
6 See The Cross Company, 107 NLRB 1267 ; Banner Die Fixture Co., 107 NLRB 1332 ;
Hamilton Watch Company, 107 NLRB 1608. Cf. Shirlington Supermarkets , Inc., et al,
110 NLRB 470.
7 Tube Reducing Corporation, 110 NLRB 1080.
COLONIAL FASHIONS, INCORPORATED 1197
copy of the Board 's official ballot , altered as described above, tended
to interfere with a free choice in the election ." Accordingly, we shall
set aside the election of September 2 and direct a new election to
be held.9
[The Board set aside the election held on September 2, 1954.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
$Ibid.
9 As to the Employer's contention that a simple alteration of a ballot when, circulated
with a letter admittedly proper, does not in fact impair an employee's freedom of choice
in an election , we find that such contention affords no basis for departing from the
Allied rule, or for failing to apply it in the present case. Furthermore, we also find
without merit the contention that the application of the rule would be unreasonable in
the light of the large vote against the Union.
COLONIAL FASHIONS , INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS UNION , AFL. Case No. 5-CA-780. Decem-
ber 7, 1954
Decision and Order
On April 12, 1954, Trial Examiner Plost issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Respondent filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar as
they are consistent with this Decision and Order.
1. No exceptions were taken to the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Respondent discharged employees Mae Collier, Leuvinia Nicholas,
and Evelyn Rudd on October 21, 1953, to discourage membership
in and activity on behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section
8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act; and that the Respondent, through
Della Taylor, by threats and interrogation, violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act. We accordingly adopt these findings.
1 The second amended charge herein was filed on October 26, 1953, not on November 3,
1953, as inadvertently noted in the Intermediate Report.
110 NLRB No. 193.