Carl T. Mason Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 480 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
least in part because of the Union's representation that it was waiving
payment of its "regular initiation fee."
It is manifest from all the foregoing that the Union's purported
waiver of its so-called "regular initiation fee" involved a substantial
misrepresentation as to a material fact," and that cards obtained
through such misrepresentation do not reflect the free will of em-
ployees signing them.
Accordingly, as the Union was not freely designated by a majority
of the employees as their representative in the appropriate unit, the
Union was not entitled to exclusive recognition. This being so, the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (5) by refusing to recognize
the Union.
We do not agree with our colleagues that the "misrepresentation here does not com-
pare in gravity with that struck down by the court in Rohtstein ." We consider the
misrepresentation involved in the instant case to be as grave as that involved in Rohtstein
or, at least, sufficiently serious to vitiate the cards. And , there appears to be no warrant
for our colleagues ' assertion that "in Rohtstein the one crucial card was signed only
because of the nakedly false assertion that the union had already achieved its majority."
For all that appears , there may well have been one or more other factors which induced
the employee to sign the crucial card . In any event , it is clear that the misrepresenta-
tion in the instant case substantially contributed to induce the employees to execute the
cards.
Carl T. Mason Co., Inc. and Machinery, Scrap Iron , Metal and
Steel Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , Handlers, Helpers and Alloy
Fabricators Union , Local No . 714, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-8195. May 6, 1963
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director
on December 20, 1961, among the employees in the unit described
below. After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 69 eligible voters, 12
ballots were cast for, and 50 ballots were cast against, the Petitioner,
and 2 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results and conduct of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on February 8, 1962,
issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which
he recommended that all the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
142 NLRB No. 56.
CARL T. MASON CO., INC. 481
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and
maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Itasca, Illinois,
plant, but excluding office and plant clerical employees, technical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner's objections are twofold: First it objects to the
matter contained in a series of documents sent by the Employer to
the employees during the critical period; second, it objects to the show-
ing of the film "And Women Must Weep" to an employee audience,
prefaced by reading to that audience a portion of one of the Employer's
above-noted documents which includes the statement that the Em-
ployer is not going out of business, but hopes that some ill-considered
action by the employees will not force it out of business.
The Regional Director considered these objections separately, and
found each without merit. We disagree. The Petitioner's exceptions
to the Regional Director's report, in our view, have substantial merit,
and for the reasons below we shall set the election aside.
In election proceedings, it is the Board's function to determine
the uninhibited desires of the employees under conditions as nearly
ideal as possible. The Board has long recognized, however, that elec-
tion propaganda is often characterized by "prattle rather than preci-
sion" and the verbal exchanges involved generally can be evaluated
by the employees themselves as partisan electioneering. Under such
circumstances the Board has generally not interfered with the election
process. However, where the proper laboratory conditions have been
jeopardized by material misrepresentations, threats, or promises of
benefit, either express or implied, the Board has not hesitated to set
elections aside. We are of the opinion that the Employer here has
overstepped the bounds of permissible campaigning, and that its con-
duct has rendered a free election impossible.
We are specifically concerned with letters distributed to the em-
ployees. We note the following statements which appear in these
letters :
We do not want a bunch of rules and regulations to tell us
how to work, and we do not want outsiders coming between the
Company and its employees. We have come a long way in the
one year since last fall. But the job is only begun. We still
have a long way to go to put the Company completely back on
its feet and to have everyone prosper. If the start we have
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made together is destroyed,, our newly gained business would
go elsewhere. This is a business of a relatively small number
of large customers. We can not afford to have any of our
customers, new or old, large or small, place their business some-
where else. If this happened, the future of our Company could
be in serious trouble.
What would you do if you were to learn on short notice that
you would be out of work because of a strike?
-you would not be eligible for unemployment insurance
-no other company would hire you because you might be
only a temporary employee
-you would be unable to get a loan
-your savings would be depleted
* * * * * * *
What would happen to our customers if there were a strike.
Ours is a business of making deadlines, of delivering material to
fit the timing of customers sales campaigns. How long do you
think we would keep our customers if we failed on delivery and
they knew no work was being done due to a strike? Cancelled
orders can mean customers permanently lost. If there are no
customers, there is no business-this certainly is not job security.
[Emphasis in original.]
But what happens to a company during a strike? Well, some
companies that have been making a profit and have been strong
for many years, can weather a strike even though the employees
can't, but not so with Masons. You know from our meetings
the condition of this company a year ago at the time of the
change. It was on the verge of collapse. Taxes unpaid, over-
drawn at the bank, sales way down and the many problems as
discussed with you in our meetings. A lot of progress has been
made since then. Sales are up-almost double. The old taxes
are nearly paid off. We have gone from last year's $91,000 loss
to profits in some months this year. But for the year, we are
trading dollars and this is not enough to correct the problems
carried over from the past.
* * * * * * *
We aren't going out of business. We are simply hopeful that
some ill-considered action will not force us out of business.
I am being completely honest and above board in everything
I say here. This situation is not like many others, where the
company may be prospering but holding back a fair shake for
employees. We are not prospering but we're improving. We
have come a long way up but the company was a long way down.
There is still much to be done.
CARL T. MASON CO., INC. 483
Employers are not allowed by law to give raises or make prom-
ises before an election but you can be sure of one thing-if by
teamwork, we solve our problems and make a profit, it will not
require a union to see that the employees share in the benefits.
There can be no doubt that these statements were intended to instill
in the employees a sense of fear that unionization, with its possibility
of strikes, would inevitably result in loss of business and thus loss
of their jobs. The statement that the Employer is not going out of
business is not a negation of this proposition, but rather an intro-
duction to the next sentence, which preserves the possibility but
attempts to alter the reason by attributing this action to some ill-
considered action by the employees. In the entire context of what
has been said in this letter, it is clear that the ill-considered action
is choice of the Union, which will bring on the dire consequences
that the Employer has already described. And this is to be con-
trasted with the last paragraph of the quoted material above, where
the rewards that will flow from the continued functioning of the
present team are presented.
These statements, standing alone, would be sufficient, in our view,
to warrant setting aside the election. But they do not stand alone.
The Employer reenforced the effect of much of the material quoted
above by reading it to an audience of employees before showing them
the film "And Women Must Weep." We have already discussed
that film in Plocliman and Harrison,' and there indicated the grounds
of our disapproval. Clearly its powerful emotional effect would
strengthen the message the Employer was attempting to convey, that
choice of the Union would bring on strikes and many dire conse-
quences. Any possible doubt that any employee would have as to
what the Employer was thinking of when he referred to an ill-
considered action that would force him out of business must have
been removed by the showing of the picture.
We perceive no reason for attempting to treat the Employer's
conduct in fragments. We have already indicated our belief that what
happens in an election campaign is to be appraised in total context.
We do not intend context to be limited to a mere textual analysis of
documents. If any party to an election chooses to use several media
to deliver its message they all interact upon and influence each other.
Especially is this so where, as here, a speech is given as preface to a
film. The effect upon the employees is caused by the total experience,
and it is that experience which we must appraise. We therefore hold
that the Employer's entire course of action warrants our setting aside
the election.
1 Plochman and Harrison Cherry Lane Foods, Inc., 140 NLRB 130.
712-548-64-vol. 142-32
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOOH, concurring :
I agree that the election in this case should be set aside. However,
I do so not only because of the statements issued by the Employer, but
also and more importantly, because of the showing of the motion
picture "And Women Must Weep."
Twelve days before the election, the president of the Employer
assembled the employees in two groups to deliver an antiunion speech
and to show them the film "And Women Must Weep." This is the
same film shown to employees in the Plochman and Harrison case,
supra (see footnote 1), where a majority of the Board set aside the
election because of this fact.
As the majority opinion in Plochman notes, the film purported to be
a true story account of the 1956 Potter-Brumfield strike in Princeton,
Indiana, which involved a different company, a different industry, a
different union, and a different community. The film is not a docu-
mentary. It is a staged production based on a contrived script, played
by professional actors, including an actress who impersonates a minis-
ter's wife, the narrator. The film tells the story of property destruc-
tion, violence, and the near murder of a child allegedly committed by
a union during the course of a strike ostensibly called for no justifiable
reason. It is organized with sequences skillfully put together so as
to achieve the maximum dramatic and emotional impact. The profes-
sional acting is smooth and extremely lifelike. In fact, the entire
production is so well conceived that the ordinary viewer is likely to
consider that it represents the literal truth. No attempt has been
made, however, to prove that events happened exactly as they are
portrayed in the film. In fact there is ground for believing that the
film has distorted the true picture, not only by telling only one side of
the story, but by misrepresenting facts.2
The Board has said that in election proceedings it seeks "to provide
a laboratory in which an experiment may be conducted, under condi-
tions as nearly ideal as possible, to determine the uninhibited desires
of the employees." 3 Ideal laboratory conditions would be those in
which election appeals were addressed only to reason and based only
2 The Board 's public records disclose that in connection with the Potter-Brumfield
strike , the International Association of Machinists , which represented the Potter-
Brumfield employees , filed unfair labor practice charges against the company ( Case No.
35-CA-728). These unfair labor practice charges were dismissed in part and settled
in part. On the other hand, there is no record that Potter-Brumfield ever filed unfair
labor practice charges against the union . A court injunction also was issued in connec-
tion with the Potter-Brumfield strike which enjoined picket line violence, but at the
same time enjoined the company from interfering with legitimate picketing . Both the
union and the company were subsequently held in contempt for violating the injunction.
3 General Shoe Corporation , 77 NLRB 124, 127.
CARL T. MASON CO., INC. 485
on facts. Unfortunately, such rigorous standards are not absolutely
attainable in practice. Accordingly, the Board has had, necessarily,
to tolerate less than optimum conduct where in its view the departures
from the optimum were not so grave or serious as to warrant a deter-
mination that the election under challenge did not represent a free
and uncoerced choice by the employees. Within this area, which
perforce does not lend itself to precise definition, the ultimate question
to be resolved, namely, the validity of the election proceedings, is all
too often one of degree. Yet it is fair to say that in the Board's own
decisions 4 and also in the spate of court authority which has recently
appeared,5 there is a discernible, even a marked, tendency to apply
more stringent restrictions upon election propaganda techniques. We
may not blind ourselves to this trend.
The Board recently stated : 6
Our function, as we see it, is to conduct elections in which the
employees have the opportunity to cast their ballots for or against
a labor organization in an atmosphere conducive to the sober and
informed exercise of the franchise, free not only from interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion violative of the Act, but also from
other elements which prevent or impede a reasoned choice.
Viewed against these tendencies and standards, the showing of films
such as "And Women Must Weep" seems to me to fall incontrovertibly
within a proscribed area. Indeed, I believe it would trench upon less
stringent limitations.
The use of professionally scripted and acted motion pictures in
Board elections is a new tactical device of enormous potential and
influence. The motion picture is a much more powerful instrument
than the printed or spoken word in arousing emotions and influencing
attitudes? Not only is its initial impact greater, it also has a more
lasting effects From their experience in political elections and their
reading of newspapers, most people have learned to treat charges,
statements, and promises made in political campaigns with a measure
of skepticism. They have learned that exaggerations, misstatements,
and appeals to prejudice are an inevitable part of such campaigns,
' E.g., Sewell Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 66; Dal-Tex Optical Co., 137 NLRB
1782; The Trane Co., 137 NLRB 1506; Hollywood Ceramics, Inc., 140 NLRB 221;
Walgreen, 140 NLRB 1141
5 E.g., N.L R.B. v. Trancoa Chemical Corp., 303 F. 2d 456 (C A. 1) ; N.L R B. v Houston
Chronicle Publishing Co., 300 F. 2d 273 (C.A. 5) ; Cross Company v. N.L.R.B., 286 F. 2d
799 (C.A. 6) ; Celanese Corporation of America v. N.L.R.B., 279 F. 2d 204 (C.A. 7), cert.
denied 34G8 U.S. 925.
6 Sewell Manufacturing Company, supra.
4 See Note, "Motion Pictures and the First Amendment," 60 Yale L.J. 696, 704-708
(1951) ; Doob, "Public Opinion and Propaganda," 498-526 (1949) ; Charters, "Motion
Pictures and Youth, in Public Opinion and Communications," 397 (Berelson & Janowitz
ed. 1950) ; Perentesis, "Effectiveness of Motion Picture Trailers as Election Propaganda,"
12 Public Opinion Q. 465 (1948).
8 Ibid.
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and this experience is a help in evaluating propaganda used in Board
elections.
However, the case of motion pictures used as propaganda in elec-
toral campaigns attendant upon Board elections is different. There
is no body of similar experience available to the ordinary voter to
permit him to evaluate such presentations. Few individuals are able
to see behind the impression of authenticity that a skilled director
may create by the use of characters, dialogue, and situation. A so-
phisticated person would probably recognize a film such as "And
Women Must Weep" for what it is, propaganda intended to create
antiunion feeling, and will appropria tely weigh or discount its one-
sided and distorted message.' But such films are not meant for so-
phisticated audiences. I have no doubt that among audiences of
working men and women, as well as others, "And Women Must Weep"
is emotionally overpowering. It pictures a labor dispute as one in
which Americanism, religion, family, motherhood, and innocent child-
hood are arrayed on one side, and goons, brutes, and murderers on
the other or prounion side. To achieve this result dramatic liberties
were apparently taken with the facts to an extent not fully revealed
by this record.
"And Women Must Weep" is not mere "prattle" to be tolerated as
such.10 Nor does it contribute "to the sober and informed exercise of
the franchise." It has no relevance to the election at the plant of the
Employer. As I pointed out above, it deals. with a strike more than
6 years ago by another union at a plant of a different company. The
clear tendency if not the purpose in showing the film was quite plainly,
in my view, to create such an atmosphere of emotional prejudice that
employees would not be able to make a reasoned choice of a bargaining
representative. I do not think it material that the film was shown
12 days before the election, rather than 1 day as in Plochman and
Harrison." The effect could no more be dissipated by a lapse of 12 days
than it could by a lapse of 1 day, particularly in the absence of evidence
that the Petitioner by its own propaganda was able to neutralize the
emotional impact of the film.
I do not believe that the Board should tolerate the use of propaganda
devices such as this film in elections conducted under its auspices.
Such motion pictures are more destructive of freedom of choice than
the kind of deceptive hoax perpetrated in United Aircraft 12 or the
misrepresentations of fact in Houston Chronicle," which the Board in
the first case, and the court of appeals in the second, held lowered cam-
paign standards to the point where the elections would have to be
9 But see N .L.R B. v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., Supra; N .L.R.B. v. Trancoa
Chemical Corp, supra.
10 Olson Rug Company v . N.L.R.B., 260 F . 2d 255, 257 (C.A. 7).
11 Plochman and Harrison Cherry Lane Foods, Inc., supra.
17 United Aircraft Corporation, 103 NLRB 102.
23 N.L.R.B . v. Houston Chronical Publishing Company , supra.
CARL T. MASON CO., INC. 487
held over again. Where, as in the instant case, factual accuracy has
apparently been sacrificed in order to create an emotional state of
intimidation and fear, I believe we would be derelict in our statutory
obligation if we condoned such tactics.14
Because I believe that the showing of "And Women Must Weep," as
well as the coercive statements made by the Employer destroyed the
"laboratory" conditions requisite for the holding of a free election, I
join Members Fanning and Brown in voting to set aside the results
of the election.
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEnoM, dissenting :
The Employer during the critical period distributed to its employees
documents which, inter alia, stressed the following: (1) unionization
would involve certain financial obligations and changes in working
relationships; (2) strikes, "the key to the union's power," are costly
to employees as well as the Employer and can lead to adverse economic
effects; (3) employee economic gains are dependent upon an em-
ployer's business stability and profit position; and (4) the conduct
of the Petitioner's officials and their handling of internal union affairs
leave much to be desired. The Employer, also, approximately 12 days
before the election, showed to its assembled employees a film entitled
"And Women Must Weep." The film dealt with events surrounding
a strike involving an unidentified union and plant in Princeton, In-
diana. Prior to the showing of the film the Employer stressed the
points covered under (2) and (3) above, and specifically noted that
the movie was not to be construed as referring to the Petitioner.
Our colleagues find that the overall impact of the above documents
and film "overstepped the bounds of permissive campaigning." For
these reasons, they would set the election aside. We disagree, and
find, in accord with the recommendations of the Regional Director,
that the documents and film in question were noncoercive in nature and
fall into the category of permissible campaign propaganda.
As to the documents, our colleagues are specifically concerned with
the two letters covering the subject matter summarized under (1),
(2), and (3) above."
The first letter was distributed on December 1, 1961, almost 3 weeks
before the election. The second letter bears no date, and when it was
u I further believe that the increasing use of such films, purportedly documentary but
in fact contrived , should be more extensively scrutinized in Board proceedings or before
other appropriate and competent tribunals . Facts of record relating to the instant situa-
tion suggest the strong likelihood of validity to generalized assertions that the film in
question is much more false and misleading in fact that we can presently find within
the confines of data now available to us as a matter of public record.
13 Exhibits A and B. Exhibits C through I contain excerpts from the Petitioner's con-
stitution and reprints of articles from leading Chicago newspapers adversely describing
the practices of the Petitioner and its officials . No specific exceptions are made by the
Petitioner as to the accuracy and the truth of the excerpts and reprints in question.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distributed is only speculative. However, the timing of the documents
in any case appears to be of little import. Although our colleagues
talk of viewing "total context," here again they are, in fact, applying
a standard different from that which they profess to adopt.16 Thus,
here again, certain selected segments of the documents in question are
considered in the abstract without regard to the total election cam-
paign of the parties of which the whole documents were an integral
part; and, on the basis of this sort of an approach, broad and un-
warranted conclusions are drawn which will not withstand careful
scrutiny. For example, in the letter dealing with possible adverse
effects of unionization upon both the employees and the Employer,
we are unable to conclude that they "generated a sense of fear" in the
employees, or promised that "rewards" would be forthcoming only
if the Union were defeated. In the letter of December 1, 1961, the
Employer said, and we quote the pertinent passages of the letter in
full context :
The union wants to organize the plant for the purpose of ob-
taining monthly dues. The union contract makes everyone join
the union. If you refuse to join, or if you do not pay your dues,
the union will have you fired. This is not job security, it is union
security. The dues are at least $5.00 per month or $60.00 per
year, plus fines, assessments, and political contributions, plus any
loss of wages due to strikes. A union does more to take away in-
dividual freedom than it does to protect it. The union is interested
in its own security and to make sure the dues rolls in every month.
Your rights as an individual are lost when there is a union con-
tract. With a union, they decide whether your complaints can be
presented to the Company. You may feel you have a just com-
plaint, but unless it would benefit the union, your complaint may
never be considered.
A union contract sets up a rigid set of rules and regulations
which must be followed. We believe we have a good team in this
plant. The time study survey proved that as a whole, the people
at Mason's put forth good effort. By the same token, I person-
ally hope you see the willingness and effort on the part of the
new management to make this even more of a team, where the
employees are more fully informed and where we are all working
together to further improve the position of this Company.
When a union comes in, a wedge is driven between the employees
and the company by the outside union leader, who never worked
at the company, and who doesn't know anything about the com-
16 See, e g., Lord Baltimore Press, 142 NLRB 328; Oak Manufacturing Company, 141
NLRB 1323.
CARL T. MASON CO., INC. 489
pany's problems. The union brings a contract with rigid rules
and regulations which must be followed. All individual attention
is then lost since the contract controls. Neither union nor com-
pany is allowed to deviate from these rigid rules.
In the undated letter, the Employer said, and again we quote the
pertinent passages in full:
What would you do if you were to learn on short notice that
you would be out of work because of a strike?
-you would not be eligible for unemployment insurance
-no other company would hire you because you might be
only a temporary employee
-you would be unable to get a loan
-your savings would be depleted
What would you do? What could you do? Let's hope this
never happens here at Masons; but it is what happens when the
union calls a strike.
The strike is the key to the union's power. Strikes can be caused
by a union making rash and unreasonable demands on the com-
pany, which could put a company out of business and you out of
a job. The union may call a strike to back up promises in order
to save face with employees. Strikes can also be caused by having
an irresponsible "hot head" as a union leader.
Don't be fooled ! If the union leader wants a strike, he will get
his way. Employees will be shamed, coerced, and pushed into
approving the union leader's right to call a strike.
Have you ever stopped to think of how much a strike would
cost you? If the union called a strike for a 5¢ per hour raise and
if the strike lasted one week; it would take you 45 to 50 weeks to
make up the wages you lost by striking. If the strike lasted four
weeks, it would take you four to five years to make up the loss.
In the 116 day steel strike of last year, it will take the employees
10 to 20 years to make up what they lost.
What would happen to our customers if there were a strike.
Ours is a business of making deadlines, of delivering material to
fit the timing of customers sales campaigns. How long do you
think we would keep our customers if we failed on delivery and
they knew no work was being done due to a strike? Cancelled
orders can mean customers permanently lost. If there are no
customers, there is no business-this certainly is no job security.
But what happens to a company during a strike. Well, some
companies that have been making a profit and have been strong
for many years, can weather a strike even though the employees
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
can't, but not so with Masons. You know from our meetings the
conditions of this company a year ago at the time of the change.
It was on the verge of collapse. Taxes unpaid, overdrawn at the
bank, sales way down and the many problems as discussed with
you in our meetings. A lot of progress has been made since then.
Sales are up-ali.iost double. The old taxes are nearly paid off.
We have gone from last year's $91,000 loss to profits in some
months this year. But for the year, we are trading dollars and
this is not enough to correct the problems carried over from the
past.
More money for everyone has to come from somewhere. A union
adds nothing to the company's ability to pay higher wages. If
there is no profit, there is nothing with which to pay extra wages.
There is only one answer to increased prosperity for everyone
at Masons and that is for the company to make a pro fit. And the
only way to profit is increased production. There is no other
answer.
As we read the foregoing passages, it appears to us that all the
Employer was doing was to inform the employees in a noncoercive
manner that unionizatic n may well entail changes in employee-
employer relationships, a ad that it may carry risks and responsibili-
ties as well as benefits. Certainly, employees are entitled to such in-
formation if they are to cast an intelligent vote concerning their
choice of representatives, and both the courts and the Board in recent
cases have, in fact, found similar expressions of opinion by employers
permissible.17
As for the film "And Women Must Weep," the basis for objection 2
which our colleagues would find as additional ground to bolster their
position, we have previously indicated our position on this matter in
our dissent to Plochman and Harrison (140 NLRB 130). We are
obliged to observe however, that Members Fanning and Brown in the
Plochman case set the election aside at least in part because the film
was shown on the eve of the election. Here, of course, the movie was
shown 12 days before the day of the election, and its impact, if any, on
the basis of their own rationale, would appear to be inconsequential.ie
For the above reasons, we would, therefore, sustain the Regional
Director and certify the results of the election.
17 See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc , 308 F. 2d 1 (C A. 4) ; Union Carbide v. N.L.R.B.,
310 F. 2d 844 (C.A. 6) ; Seven-Up Bottling Co, 140 NLRB 611; Allen-Morrison Sign
Co., Inc, 138 NLRB 73; Decorated Products , Inc., 140 NLRB 1383; Arch Beverage
Corporation , 140 NLRB 1385.
'e Chairman McCulloch, regarding objection 2, consistent with his opinion in Plochman
and Harrison, holds that the film by itself is an independent basis for overturning this
election regardless of timing He relies upon alleged misrepresentations involved therein.
We are unable to find in either the objection in question , the Regional Director's report,
or the exceptions thereto any issues of misrepresentations raised by the parties.