Banner Die Fixture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1332 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prepared for distribution to employees makes no mention of
the alleged rule . There was also evidence that in the present
and earlier elections , employees had carried into the plant
with them, and posted or distributed, campaign literature
friendly to the Petitioner without interference-by the Employer.
The hearing officer admitted that there was no documentary
evidence of the existence of the alleged no-solicitation rule.
In making his finding , he relied on 2 items of circumstantial
evidence : ( 1) In previous elections neither the Employer nor
the Petitioner had directly distributed campaign literature on
plant premises ; and (2 ) on one occasion in May 1951, and again
in April 1953, the latter described above , supervisors had
prevented employees from distributing literature on company
property. The past practice is not necessarily indicative of a
prohibition imposed by the Employer. The 2 separate incidents,
2 years apart , are too isolated to spell out a general rule. We
conclude on the basis of a preponderance of all the evidence,,
contrary to the hearing officer , that there was no company rule
against the distribution of campaign literature on company time
and property. Accordingly, we find that the Employer did not
interfere with the election by distributing the High Noon article
on company time and premises and by refusing the Petitione?
the opportunity of distributing an answer thereto under similar
circumstances.
The hearing officer found, and we agree , that the article
High Noon was not coercive.
As we have found that the Petitioner' s objections are without
merit , we hereby overrule them.
The Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the votes cast in
the election . We shall therefore certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for the Petitioner , International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, AFL, and that the Petitioner is not the exclusive
representative of the employees employed at the Employer's
Milford, Riegelsville , Warren Glen, and Hughesville, New
Jersey, plants, in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be
appropriate.]
BANNER DIE FIXTURE CO. and LOCAL #155, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, Petitioner . Case No . 7-RC-2059. February 25, 1954
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , ORDER, AND
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued here-
in on April 8, 1953,1 an Order issued herein on April 20, 1953,
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
107 NLRB No. 267.
BANNER DIE FIXTURE CO. 1333
an election by secret ballot was conducted among employees of
the Employer on April 21, 1953. Thereafter on May 8, 1953, a
Supplemental Decision and Order was issued. The tally of
ballots furnished the parties after the election, in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, shows that, of the
89 ballots cast , 38 were for the Petitioner, 47 were against the
Petitioner, and 4 were challenged.
On April 24, 1953, the Petitioner filed objections to the con-
duct of the election. On July 8, 1953, after having duly investi-
gated the issues raised by such objections, the Regional Direc-
tor of the Seventh Region issued and duly served upon the
parties his reports on objections, in which he found that one
objection was in effect a post-election challenge and without
merit, and that another objection raised material issues with
respect to the conduct affecting the results of the election
which required that the election be set aside. Within the proper
time therefor, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report on objections.
Having duly considered the matter, the Board finds as fol-
lows:
1. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director's
recommendation that one objection was without merit, we adopt
that recommendation.
2. The Petitioner's objection to the election which the Re-
gional Director found had merit, was that the employees of the
Employer were assembled on company property the day of the
election, during working hours, to listen to the antiunion speech
by the Employer's president and that the timing of this speech
precluded a presentation of the Petitioner's views under equal
conditions. The facts relating to the objection are as follows:
On Friday, April 17, 1953, the president of the Employer
spoke to the night-shift employees at the Detroit plant. On
Saturday, April 18, 1953, he spoke to the employees at the
Fraser department, and on April 21, 1953, he spoke to the em-
ployees on the day shift at the Detroit plant. The content of the
speeches was not coercive.
The Union held an organizational meeting on the evening of
April 20, 1953. It made no request of the Employer to address
the employees, and contends that it did not learn of the speeches
of April 17 and 18 until after it had filed its objections, and
that it did not learn of the speech of April 21 until the last
voting period had commenced. The Employer challenges the
reasonableness of the denial of notice of the speeches of April
17 and 18 by the Petitioner when approximately 40 percent of
the employees had heard the speeches.
We find it unnecessary to consider further the contention of
the parties and the recommendations of the Regional Director
which are directed to the applicability of these facts to the
Bonwit Teller doctrine2 which the Board no longer follows. We
2 Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608, remanded 197 F 2d 640 (C. A. 2), employer's petition
for certiorari denied 345 U S. 905.
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall instead apply our new election rule enunciated in Peerless
Plywood Company.3
In this case , we recognize that the Employer ' s speech ante-
dated the decision in Peerless Plywood, and therefore we do
not, of course , attach to the Employer ' s conduct any intent to
violate our new rule . However, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the election be set aside under Bonwit Teller,
and while we find it unnecessary to determine whether the
prior rule was violated , we believe that the freedom of choice
guaranteed to employees will be better served by setting aside
this election and holding a new election under our new rule.
The resulting inconvenience to the Employer is overbalanced
by the interests of the employees in expressing their choice
in a poll entirely free of interference from any source.
[The Board set aside the election held on April 21, 1953.1
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publi-
cation.]
3107 N L RB 427, Member Murdock, while adhering to the views expressed in his dis-
senting opinion in the Peerless Plywood case, considers himself bound by the majority
opinion.
DETERGENTS , INC. and UNITED GAS , COKE , AND CHEM-
ICAL WORKERS, C . I. O. Case No . 9-CA-668 . February 26,
1954.
DECISION AND ORDER
On October , 30, 1953, Trial Examiner C . W. Whittemore
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 here-
to. Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief . The General Counsel
and the Union filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's ex-
ceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case, and here-
by adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following modification:
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . In doing so,
107 NLRB No. 281.