Erie Dry Goods Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

ERIE DRY GOODS COMPANY 815
employees into rejecting a collective-bargaining representative, then
we can no longer have truly free elections.
For these reasons I would find that, by such threats to the employees,
the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in
the selection of a bargaining representative. Accordingly, I would
order that the election be set aside and direct that a new election be
held.
Erie Dry Goods Company and Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 6 RC 1687 and 6-RC-
1725. March 27,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION -
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
April 19, 1956,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 11,
1956, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Sixth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
by the Board. Following the election the parties were furnished a
tally of ballots. The tally showed that there were approximately 604
eligible voters, and that 605 ballots were cast, of which 88 were for
the Petitioner, 482 were against the Petitioner, 2 were void and 35
were challenged. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in number
to affect the results of the election.
On May 18, 1956, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi-
gated the objections and, on August 6, 1956, issued and duly served
upon the parties a report on objections in which he found that no
evidence was adduced in support of objections (1) and (2) and that
objection (3) did not raise substantial and material issues with respect
to the election. Accordingly, he recommended that the objections be
overruled and the results of the election certified. On August 31,1956,
the Petitioner field timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
On October 11, 1956, the Board directed a hearing before a Trial
Examiner "to resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner's objection
Number 3 and its exceptions to the Regional Director's Report." Upon
a motion of the Employer for clarification of that order, the Board
on October 25, 1956, issued an order directing that the hearing be
confined "only to the issues of fact raised by the meetings held by the
Employer's Assistant Personnel Director with small groups of
employees." 2
Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders
$ The order of October 11, 1956 , and the clarifying order of October 25, 1956, are not
reported in the printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 123.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 13 and 14, 1956, a hearing was held before Ralph
Winkler, Trial Examiner. On January 8, 1957, the Trial Examiner
issued and caused to be served on the parties his findings and recom-
mendations of objections to election, a copy of which is attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner found that the Employer's conduct did not inter-
fere with the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative
at the election and recommended that the Petitioner's objections to the
election be overruled, and that a certification of results of election be
issued. On January 24, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's report.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered
the Trial Examiner's report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are not in-
consistent with this Supplemental Decision and Order.
The Petitioner objected to the election upon three grounds : (1) The
Employer engaged in intensive coercive questioning of employees
during the period preceding the election; (2) the Employer changed
working conditions and wages during the election campaign in order
to influence the outcome of the election; and (3) the Employer engaged
in a continuous course of action through the distribution of literature,
individual promises, and threats to employees which created an atmos-
phere not conducive to the holding of a fair election.
The Petitioner submitted no evidence in support of objections (1)
and (2). Accordingly, they are hereby overruled.
Objection (3) is based on (a) employer speeches to employees on
May 5 and 10, 1956; (b) a letter dated May 9, 1956, sent to employees
by the Employer; and (c) meetings held with small groups of em-
ployees by the Employer's employment manager. The Regional Di-
rector found that (a) the speeches were completed more than 24 hours
before the election, and (b) the letter and speeches were privileged
under Section 8 (c) of the Act. Accordingly, he recommended that
these objections be overruled. In its exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report, the Petitioner has not challenged the factual findings of
the Regional Director. We agree with the Regional Director that sub-
parts (a) and (b) of objection (3) do not raise substantial and material
issues with respect to the election and hereby overrule them.
With respect to subpart (c) of objection (3), the Trial Examiner
found that Dorothy Cardoze, the Employer's employment manager,
conducted 17 meetings with small groups of employees during working
hours on May 7, 8, and 9, 1956, in the "training room" of the store.
3 The Trial Examiner properly rejected the Petitioner 's offer of proof concerning meet-
ings of the Employer 's officials with employees on May 5 and 10, 1950 , and the letter of
the Employer addressed to the employees on May 9, 1956 . These matters had been previ-
ously considered by the Board and were specifically excluded from the scope of the hearing.
ERIE DRY GOODS COMPANY 817
Employees were instructed by management to attend the meetings.
Following a prepared script, a copy of which is attached to the Trial
Examiner's report, Cardoze outlined the mechanics of a Board-
conducted election. Cardoze asserted that at these meetings she did
not ask the employees to vote for or against the Petitioner. Only 1 of
the approximately 600 employees who attended these meetings con-
tradicted Cardoze. Alice Povench, a witness for the Petitioner, testi-
fied that at the meetings she attended Cardoze remarked that "if we
voted `no' we would still have a very big harmonious family there and
if we voted `yes' we could be guaranteed to go out on strike carrying
placards." The Trial Examiner credited this testimony of Povench.
The Trial Examiner rejected the Petitioner's contention "that the
Cardoze meetings were partisan meetings within the Qualiton 4 prin-
ciple or that the voting demonstrations violated the Allied Electric 5
principle by misrepresenting the Board's position to endorse a par-
ticular choice in the election." Further, he held that the Cardoze
remark to which Povench testified was not a sufficient basis for
setting aside the election because of its nature and the "limited circum-
stances of its utterance"-this remark was made at only 1 out of 17
meetings, attended by about 15 of a total voting complement of 600-
odd employees.
We agree with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner, but not entirely
for the reasons which he stated. We do not adopt the Trial Exam-
iner's findings that Cardoze made the remark attributed to her by
Povench concerning the meaning of "no" and "yes" votes. Povench
was the only 1 of 600 employees who testified to having heard this
remark. Cardoze denied it and she was supported by five other
employees who were present at the meeting attended by Povench.
The Trial Examiner has not explained why he discredited these five
witnesses. Moreover, in a related matter the Trial Examiner refused
to accept Povench's testimony that during the meeting which she
attended Cardoze counted off a greater number of "no" than "yes"
votes during a demonstration of how Board agents counted ballots cast
in the election. Significantly, the Trial Examiner said: "Cardoze
denies doing so, [counting more "no" than "yes" votes] intentionally
at least, and no other witness who attended these meetings testified to
receiving the same impression as Povench did in this connection.
Without at all reflecting on Povench's credibility, I cannot find sub-
stantial support for her version. . . ." [Emphasis supplied.] All
the reasons given by the Trial Examiner for not crediting Povench's
version of Cardoze's alleged pantomime concerning the counting of
the votes are equally applicable to Povench's testimony about Cardoze's
"Qualtiton, 115 NLRB 65
5 Allied Electric Products , Inc, 109 NLRB 1270
423784-57-vol 117-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denial. There is thus no substantial support for Povench's version.
Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence establishes that the Trial Examiner's
resolution of credibility was incorrect.' Accordingly, we hereby re-
verse it and accept the corroborated denial of Cardoze that she
had made the statements about the effect of a "yes" and "no" vote
attributed to her by Povench.' In accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Trial Examiner, we hereby overrule objection (3) in its
entirety.
In view of the fact that the Petitioner did not secure a majority of
the valid votes cast in the election, and as we have overruled the
Petitioner's objections to the election, we shall certify the results
thereof.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, and that
this labor organization is therefore not the exclusive representative of
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
BStandard,Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
'In view of our reversal of the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolution as to Cardoze's
alleged "yes" and "no" remarks , we find it unnecessary to consider the possible applica-
tion of Gallaher Diug Company , 115 NLRB 1379 , as urged by the Petitioner.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The parties to this proceeding are Erie Dry Goods Company, Erie , Pennsylvania,
herein called the Company , and Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO,
herein called Petitioner.
Upon petition of Petitioner and pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of
Election (April 19, 1956 ), the Regional Director for the Sixth Region ( Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania) conducted an election by secret ballot on May 11, 1956 . The elec-
tion results are set forth below .' Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election , and on May 16, 1956 , the Regional Director issued a report
recommending that the objections be overruled . Petitioner filed exceptions to the
Regional Director 's report , and on October 11, 1956 , the Board directed a hearing
before a. Trial Examiner "to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner 's Objection No. 3
and its exceptions to the Regional Director 's report." The Company filed a motion
for clarification of the Board 's order of October 11 , 1956, whereupon the Board
issued a clarifying order on October 25, 1956, all of which are discussed hereinafter.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Erie, Pennsylvania, on November 13
and 14, 1956, before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were repre-
sented by counsel and were given full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross
examine witnesses , to introduce other evidence bearing on the-issues , and `to present
oral argument and briefs . The Company made several motions to- dismiss on the
merits.
Upon the record in the case , and upon observation of the demeanor of witnesses,
I make the following:
1 There wei e approximately 601 eligible voters , 570 valid votes were counted and 35
ballots challenged ; 88 votes were cast for , and 482 votes against, Petitioner.
ERIE DRY GOODS COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
819
A. Preliminary statement
Some recital, at greater length than is ordinarily necessary, is appropriate here
with respect to the various formal papers and Board orders so that the positions of
the parties may be fairly presented and the scope of this hearing clearly defined.
Petitioner's objection No. 3 is, as already stated, the subject of this hearing.
The Regional Director's report recites as to objection No. 3:
This objection is based on (1) Employer speeches to employees on May 5
and May 10, 1956; (2) Employer's letter of May 9, 1956 distributed to the
employees; and (3) meetings held with small groups of employees by the
Assistant Personnel Director of the Employer.
Meetings called by the Employer was held on May 5 and May 10, 1956.
Substantially all of the employees in the voting unit attended these meetings.
The meetings were addressed by Thomas Sutherland and R. A. Sommerhof,
President and Vice-President of the Employer, respectively. The May 10
meeting concluded approximately fifteen (15) or twenty (20) minutes prior
to the beginning of the twenty-four (24) hour period preceding the elec-
tion. No copies of these speeches are available but affidavits of employees
who attended the meetings, plus a summary outline submitted to the under-
signed by counsel for the Employer, indicate that the contents of the
speeches were substantially embodied in a letter of May 9, 1956 signed
by Mr. Sommerhof. This letter was addressed to the Petitioner and dis-
tributed by the Employer to all of the employees in the voting unit. .
The undersigned is of the opinion that the contents of the speeches and
of the letter constituted an expression of the Employer's opinion, argument
and electioneering propaganda privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act. -
Further discussing objection No. 3, the Regional Director dealt with the afore-
mentioned part (3) of objection No. 3, namely, the meetings with small em-
ployee groups, which were held on May 7-10, 1956; and, treating these May
7-10 meetings wholly apart from the impact, if any, of parts (1) and (2) of
objection No. 3, the Regional Director determined that his investigation did not
show the Company to have urged employees at these May 7-10 meetings to
vote against Petitioner in the election , and the Regional Director recommended
no breach of preelection conduct within the principle of the Qualiton case,
115 NLRB 65, discussed in footnote 5, infra.
In its exceptions to the Regional Director 's report , Petitioner stated in part
that "The Regional Director also erred in viewing these group meetings
in isolation and not in the perspective of the other captive meetings held by the
employer [on May 5 and 101, the distribution of literature by the em-
ployer, all part of an employer campaign to influence employees to' reject
the union ." Petitioner 's exceptions further stated as to this aspect of its objec-
tion No. 3 that "Regardless of whether the activity [as to the May 7-10 meet-
ings alone] to be protected or not, there can be no doubt that the other captive meet-
ings held by the employer on May 5 and 10 and the letter of May 9, 1956, can only
be characterized as highly partisan anti -union propaganda."
The Board 's order directing hearing stated that the instant hearing be held "to
resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner's Objection No. 3 and its exceptions to
the Regional Director's report." The Company then filed its motion for clarifica-
tion , asserting that Petitioner 's exceptions were confined only to the May.7-10 meet-
ings and requesting the Board so to limit the scope of the instant hearing. As in-
dicated above , the Board thereupon issued a teletype order of October 25, 1956,
reading as follows:
Board having duly considered Employer 's motion clarifies its decision as
follows: Petitioner's Objection No. 3 is based on certain speeches of the Em-
ployer to employees given on May 5 and May 10, 1956; Employer's letter of
May 9, 1956, distributed to the employees; and meetings held with the small
groups of employees by the Assistant Personnel Director of the Employer.
In its exceptions to Regional Director's Report, the Petitioner took issue with
the Regional Director's disposition of its objections with respect to the meet-
ings held by the Assistant Personnel Director. As only this exception was con-
sidered by the Board to raise substantial and material issues of fact the Board's
Order of October 11, 1956, directing a hearing is applicable only to the issues:
of fact raised by the meetings held by the Employer's assistant personnel di-
rector with small groups of employees.
,820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Cardoze meetings
Dorothy Cardoze , the Company 's employment manager in May 1956 and presently
its assistant personnel director , conducted 17 meetings of employees during work-
ing hours on May 7, 8, and 9, 1956. These meetings were held in the so-called
training room, a "fairly small" room on the fifth floor of the store building; each
meeting was attended by varying numbers of employees , ranging from 8 to 25 em-
ployees. Company Vice-President Sommerhof had earlier advised all employees
that Cardoze would conduct these meetings ; contrary to Cardoze 's testimony that
attendance at these meetings was voluntary , the record establishes that employees
were instructed to attend the sessions.
Cardoze testified that the sole purpose of these 17 meetings was to acquaint the
employees with the voting procedures in the then forthcoming Board election, and
she also testified that the decision to hold the meetings resulted from employee ques-
tions asked of her and store supervisors concerning the election . Voting machines
are used in political elections in Erie and Cardoze explained that she accordingly
felt the employees required instruction in the Board 's method of voting which merely
requires the voter to mark an "X" in a block opposite the voter 's choice. On the basis
of the entire record I find no credible support in the record that the employees needed
any explanation , or that they had inquired , concerning the election procedures.
Cardoze testified that at each of the 17 meetings she attempted to simulate the
conditions prevailing in an actual Board election . Thus, there was a voting booth
and a ballot box for depositing the ballot. At each session , Cardoze appointed
someone to act as a Government agent , someone to act as a voter , and someone to act
as a "watcher" or "observer ." Although Board election procedures entitle each
party to an election ( the Employer and each participating union ) to a watcher or
observer , Cardoze testified that she appoined but one observer in order "to save time"
involved in designating another watcher and obtaining a chair for such second
watcher, which explanation I consider untrue. Cardoze testified that in designating
an observer at these meetings she did not further describe the observer as a "store"
observer , and some other witnesses testified to a similar effect. On the other hand,
Petitioner witness Alice Povench testified that Cardoze did refer to the sole watcher
as a "store " observer at the meeting she attended ,2 and Company witness Jane Brei
testified that Cardoze said something to the effect at this same meeting that "no union
official would be present in the election room." Having considered the testimony
of all witnesses and the alleged text of Cardoze 's script, mentioned hereinafter, I
am satisfied that Povench is a credible witness and is to be believed in the mentioned
conflict with Cardoze and other witnesses.
Cardoze testified that she conducted each meeting strictly in accordance with a
prepared script, set forth in the appendix hereof, and that she did not vary from such
text except for one addition unnecessary to state here .3 She also testified that during
the voting demonstrations she stood at a table and simulated a counting of ballots,
with two imaginary piles of ballots , one for "yes" votes and the other for "no" votes.
Povench testified that in this phase of the demonstration , Cardoze counted off a greater
number of "no" than "yes " votes. Cardoze denies doing so, intentionally at least, and
no other witness who attended these meetings testified to receiving the same impression
as Povench did in this connection .4 Without at all reflecting on Povench 's credibility, I
cannot find substantial support for her version of the matter , although it may well be
true that in her opinion Cardoze did indicate a greater number of "no" ballots.
Povench further testified that, at the conclusion of the meeting she attended, Car-
doze remarked to the group that "if we voted `no' we would still have a very big
harmonious family there and if we voted `yes' we could be guaranteed to go out on
strike carrying placards." Cardoze denies this remark, as do other witnesses.
Again, however , on the basis of the entire record I credit Povench 's testimony and
find accordingly.
C. Petitioner 's offer of proof
Before resolving the issues as to Cardoze 's group meetings , it should be mentioned
that Petitioner also sought to adduce evidence relating to the Company letter of
May 9 and to the store meetings conducted by company officials on May 5 and 10,
as reported in the Regional Director's report mentioned above. Petitioner urged that
such matters were material to an appraisal of Cardoze 's employee meetings within the
'Approximately 15 employees attended this saute meeting
a The sentence in this text that "None of these fellows who have been marching through
the stole will be there" refers to "union organizers ," according to Cardoze
It is observed that some company witnesses gave testimony materially difterent from
Cirdoze's in this connection
ERIE DRY GOODS COMPANY 821
Qualiton case , 115 NLRB 65.5 Petitioner offered to prove that company officials at the
May 5 and 10 meetings and in the May 9 letter urged the employees to vote against
the Union and it contended that the impact of these propagandizing remarks carried
over to the Cardoze meetings . According to Petitioner , the Cardoze meetings can
be properly viewed only in the backdrop of these proffered contemporaneous matters.
Regardless , however, of whatever merit I might, have found in Petitioner 's argument,
I felt constrained to sustain the Company's objection that the Board's aforemen-
tioned clarifying order foreclosed consideration of the May 5 and 10 meetings and the
May 9 letter.6
Petitioner contends that , even apart from Cardoze 's statement about a "har-
mcnious" family resulting from a "no" ballot , the Company 's voting demonstrations
conveyed and were intended to convey the impression that the Company and the Gov-
ernment were together controlling the election procedures to the exclusion or minimi-
zation of Petitioner 's role in the election; among other things in support thereof,
Petitioner points to Cardoze 's statements that the Company had constructed the vot-
ing booth used in the demonstration and which also would be used in the actual elec-
tion , that no union organizers would be present at the election , and that the Company
prepared the list of eligible voters. Petitioner also refers to Cardoze 's failure to ap-
point a union observer at the demonstration and to Cardoze 's identifying the lone
watcher appointed by her as a "store" observer . These factors , contends the Peti-
tioner, show the partisan nature of the Cardoze meetings and which , considering all
the circumstances , according to Petitioner , bring these meetings within the prohibitions
of both Allied Electric Products , 109 NLRB 1270 ,7 as well as the Qualiton case,
supra. Petitioner further urges that an employer in any event should not be per-
mitted to reconstruct the voting scene because the situation " is fraught with danger
even though the employer may sincerely be acting in the role of a neutral. In the
first place , such a `training course' readily leads to the impression that the employer
is either entirely, or in great part , responsible for the election process. This impres-
sion is completely contrary to the Board's election scheme. . . . Secondly , this type
of `training course' may be too readily turned to partisan advantage , while at the same
time have an outward air of neutrality . The instant case readily demonstrates this
proposition. . . .'
While I do not accept Cardoze 's explanation for the meetings , namely, questions
from employees concerning the election and the difference between Board procedures
and Erie political procedures , I nevertheless must reject Petitioner 's claim that the
Cardoze meetings were partisan meetings within the Qualiton principle or that the
voting demonstrations violated the Allied Electric principle by misrepresenting the
Board's position to endorse a particular choice in the election . In the circumstances
present here , but wholly apart from a consideration of the Company 's aforementioned
letter to employees and the May 5 and 10 meetings , the only matter of substance
established by the record within the Qualiton situation is Cardoze's announced pre-
diction as to the results of a union victory, to which Povench credibly testified. So
far as the record shows , however, this remark was made at only 1 out of 17 meetings,
which single meeting was attended by about 15 of a total voting complement of 601
employees . The nature of this remark and the limited circumstances of its utterance
are not, in my opinion , sufficient basis for setting aside the election in the present
case. Nor am I persuaded by Petitioner 's further contention that the election results
be set aside because Cardoze urged all employees to vote in the election.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
5 This case holds that "the technique of calling employees prior to an election into an
employer's office individually or in small groups and urging that they reject the Union is
in itself conduct which interferes with a free choice by the employees in the selection of it
bargaining representative, and warrants setting aside the election " In applying this
principle, it is immaterial that the conduct occur in a "separately located, private office"
as distinguished from an "executive office" as long as such "interviews" are conducted by
a "responsible agent of the Employer " Supreme Trailer Company, 115 NLRB 962, 963
The principle also applies even though "no large room was available where all employees
could assemble" and also "regardless of the noncoercive tenor of the Employer's remarks "
Radiant Lamp Corporation. 116 NLRB 40 The groups in the Supreme Trailer case,
supra, ranged from 4 to approximately 24 employees
Should the Board reverse this ruling, it is pointed out that the Company concedes
the accuracy, of the Regional. Director's report respecting the excluded matters
7 Holding that the Board "particularly looks with disfavor upon any attempt to misuse
its processes to secure partisan advantage, and especially does it believe that no par-
ticipant in a Board election should be permitted to suggest either directly or indirectly
to the voters that [the Board] endorses a particular choice" (109 NLRB 1271-1272).
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
Many of you folks have asked questions about the election and the voting. Now,
I have never been through an election like this before and I know a lot of you
haven't so I thought we should find out about how this voting works. So with your
questions in mind I talked with the store lawyers and found out a little about it.
1. NOTICE
You've all seen these notices which are posted throughout the store.
The election will be held Friday, May 11th from 10:00 A. M. to 6:00
P. M. at the Recreation Office, First Floor, City Hall Annex. You know the
entrance through the 7th Street Store. This building is right across the
way and we'll give you a little map tomorrow.
Now, folks, you know we wanted to have the election held right/in the store
Auditorium. But to keep the election from being postponed by the silly objec-
tions used we figured you wouldn't mind walking across the street to vote. We
know you feel that way. Now sometime on Friday, between the hours of 10:00
and 6.00 P. M. you will be given the time to go across the street to vote. Mr.
Sutherland and all of us will be awfully unhappy if everyone eligible doesn't
vote. We want you all to vote.
2. CUT OUT BALLOT FROM NOTICE
Now let's say when you walk into the room to City Hall Annex and you
walk up the half dozen steps. You turn right into what they call the Recreation
Room. It will be marked as the election place. There will be a table some-
thing like this and chairs and there will be a Government man sitting there.
He is there to see that everyone gets a vote and that the balloting goes smoothly
and fairly and in an orderly manner. (Choose Government man.)
Then there will be watchers from the store to see that no one gets to vote
who shouldn't and those who are entitled to a ballot will get one. (Choose
watchers.)
Now no supervisors and no union officials are allowed in that room. None
of these fellows who have been marching through the store will be there. The
Government man has a list of all the regular full time and regular part time
people who are eligible to vote. We prepared it and you can be sure that the
list is very carefully and accurately drawn.
3. BALLOT BOX
This box is a ballot box. The Government man may use a box like this or
a canvas bag. (Choose voter.)
4. Now let's say your the voter.
You will step up to the table and the Government man will ask your name.
A watcher will check off your name on the list with a colored pencil. And
then the Government man will give you a ballot. This is an exact duplicate
like you saw on the Election notice. It might be a different color-shocking
pink or vermillion-but it will be just like this sample. It will read like this
but not have the word "sample" on it, of course.
5. Take ballot and walk over to the booth.
This is one of the booths we have built and which will be over there. Draw
aside the curtains. You will see the shelf for you to write on and a pencil on
a string. And then you follow the instructions. Only make an X in the square
of your choice. This is an important vote. No other mark must be put on
this ballot-No initials-No nothing-No check marks.
6. You see you are alone in the booth and then you come out of the booth, fold your
ballot and drop it in the box or bag.
The next voter will use the same procedure, give her name, gets a ballot, votes
right and drops it in the box.
7. Let me remind you of one thing:
As I said all regular and regular part-time people will get their chance to
vote. I want to impress upon you that you should vote. If you don't vote,
it's like letting someone else vote for you. Don't allow that. It's a majority
HARDBOARD FABRICATORS CORP. 823
of votes cast that counts. Why if only a dozen people went over, do you
realize that 7 votes would decide this election for over 500 people.
8. I asked what happened after the polls closed at 6:00 P. M.
No one can vote after that hour.
Then the count of the votes begin . The Government man opens the box or
bag. He dumps the ballots out on the table and flattens them out face down.
The Government man starts counting the ballots and the watchers tallies them.
9. Now we take all the No's-and the Yes's and then the count is in! And the results
are announced right then and there.
10. So there is the way it works . • Thanks, folks, for coming.
Hardboard Fabricators Corp . and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8561. March 27,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan Cohen, hearing
officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor,' Local 821, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition
contending that their current contract is a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner urged that the contract is not a bar and furthermore
that the Intervenor is defunct in regard to the representation of
employees herein involved.
On August 15, 1952, the Intervenor and the Employer's predecessor
executed a contract for 1 year to be continued from year to year unless
either party gave written notice 60 days prior to termination of its
desire to modify or terminate. No such notice was given in June 1953.
On January 15, 1954, the present owners took over the physical assets
and the employees of the Company. Shortly thereafter, the repre-
sentative of the Intervenor met with the Employer. In the course of
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner 's motion to revoke the inter-
vention on the ground that the Intervenor failed to show any present interest in the
employees . The motion is hereby denied. It is well established in Board policy that an
intervenor has a colorable claim to representation sufficient for purposes of intervention
where it has had contractual relations with and is currently recognized by the employer.
Holland Furnace Company , 95 NLRB 1339, 1340
117 NLRB No. 125.