Excelsior Underwear Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1236 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 15-RC-3232 insofar
as it relates to General Electric Company, Mississippi Test Support
Department; Allied-Webb, a Joint Venture; Glantz Contracting Cor-
poration; and Consolidated American Services, Inc.; and dismissed
the petition in Case No. 15-RC-3168 in its entirety.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Excelsior Underwear Inc. and Saluda Knitting Inc.' and Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
K. L. Kellogg & Sons 2 and International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local No. 3, AFL-CIO, and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO , Joint Peti-
tioners. Cases llNos. 11-RC-1876, and 21-RC-8955. February 4,
1966
DECISIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS OF
RESULTS OF ELECTIONS
In the Excelsior case, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the
Regional Director for Region 11 on December 6, 1963, among the
employees in the unit described below. After the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi-
mately 247 eligible voters, 246 cast ballots, of which 35 were for, and
206 against, the Petitioner, and 5 challenged. The challenges were
insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. The Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results.
The objections, as summarized by the Regional Director, related to
the following:
(1) The Employer's conduct on November 29 in mailing to all
employees an 8-page letter allegedly containing material misstate-
ments as to Union dues and initiation fees, as well as provisions of
the National Labor Relations Act, threats of plant closings, strikes
and violence, and a predetermined position of refusing to bargain
in the event the Union were to be selected as bargaining
representative.
(2) The Employer's conduct in refusing to supply the Union
with a list of employees and their addresses for the purpose of
allowing the Union to answer the letter referred to in Objection
No. 1.
I Referred to herein as the Excelsior case.
2 Referred to herein as the Kellogg case.
156 NLRB No. 111.
EXCELSIOR UNDERWEAR INC. 1237
(3) The Employer's conduct on or about December 4, in post-
ing a notice at its plants materially misrepresenting Union of-
ficials' salaries.
(4) The Employer's conduct on December 5, in giving a speech
to employees on Company time containing promises of benefit if
the employees did not select the Union as their bargaining
representative.
(5) The conduct of certain townspeople of Saluda, South Caro-
lina, in speaking to groups of employees on December 3 and 4, and
informing them that other companies interested in relocating in
Saluda, South Carolina, would not do so if the Union were selected
as bargaining representative. Said townspeople allegedly also
stated that Union representatives were Communistic and did not
believe in God.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on January 10, 1964,
issued and served upon the parties his report and recommendation on
objections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled
and that a certification of election results be issued. Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
In the Kellogg case, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, a mail election by secret ballot was conducted by the
Regional Director for Region 21 between May 15 and 28, 1964, 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 31 eligible voters, 30 cast votes, of which 9 were for,
and 21 against, the Joint Petitioners. The Joint Petitioners filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Objection No. 1 alleged that the Employer, on or about May 5 and
13, 1964, sent to each employee letters containing certain false and
coercive material. Objection No. 2 complained of the Employer's
denial of the Joint Petitioners' request for a list of employees' names
and addresses so that it would have an opportunity to mail campaign
material to those employees.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on July 16, 1964, issued
and served upon the parties his report and recommendation on objec-
tions, in which he recommended that objection No. 1 be sustained,
objection No. 2 be overruled, and the election be set aside and a new
election directed. The Joint Petitioners filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's recommendation that objection No. 2 be
overruled.'
3 The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation with
respect to objection No. 1.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 2, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board, having
determined that the Employers' denial of the Petitioners' request for
the names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in the elections
in these two cases presented a question of substantial importance in
the administration of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
ordered that the two cases be consolidated, and that oral argument
be heard before the Board on May 20, 1965. The parties were given
permission to file further briefs and directed to focus their attention,
in briefs and argument, on the following questions :
I. Can a fair and free election be held when the union involved
lacks the names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in that
election, and the employer refuses to accede to the union's request
therefor?
II. If such information should be made available, should the
requirement be limited to situations in which the employer has
utilized his knowledge of these names and addresses to mail anti-
union letters or literature to employees' homes?
III. If some requirement that the employer make addresses
available is to be imposed, how should this be implemented? For
example, should such names and addresses be furnished to a mail-
ing service with instructions to mail, at the union's expense, such
materials as the union may furnish? Or,, should the union be
entitled to have the names and addresses?
The Board also invited certain interested parties to file briefs amicus
curiae and to participate in oral argument. This invitation was
accepted by : The chamber of commerce of the United States; Ameri-
Can, Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations;
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO ; and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO.
The National Association of Manufacturers, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO, and Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, filed briefs but did not participate in the argument.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America participated in the argument but did not
file a brief.
Upon the entire record in each of these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The Petitioner (Joint Petitioners in Kellogg) is a labor orga-
nization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
EXCELSIOR UNDERWEAR INC. 1239
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(a) In Excelsior the parties stipulated, and we find, that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees, plant clerical employees, and
janitors at both the Employer's plants in Saluda, South Carolina,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
(b) In Kellogg the parties stipulated, and we find, that all drillers,
derrickmen, rotary helpers, yardmen, mechanics, and welders, exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, professional employees, truckdrivers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in Excelsior are without merit and
hereby rejected.
6. Objection No. 2 in each of these cases poses the question whether
an employer's refusal to provide a union with the names and addresses
of employees eligible to vote in a representation election should be
grounds on which to set that election aside. The Board has not in
the past set elections aside on this ground. For, while the Board has
required that an employer, shortly before an election, make available
for inspection by the parties and the Regional Director a list of
employees claimed by him to be eligible to vote in that election, there
has been no requirement that this list contain addresses in addition
to names. The rules governing representation elections are not, how-
ever, "fixed and immutable. They have been changed and refined,
generally in the direction of higher standards.4
We are persuaded, for the reasons set out below, that higher stand-
ards of disclosure than we have heretofore imposed are necessary,
and that prompt disclosure of the information here sought by the
Petitioners should be required in all representation elections.
Accordingly, we now establish a requirement that will be applied in all
election cases. That is, within 7 days after the Regional Director
has approved a consent-election agreement entered into by the parties
parties pursuant to Section 102.62 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, or after the
Regional Director or the Board has directed an election pursuant to
Sections 102.67, 102.69, or 102.85 thereof, the employer must file with
the Regional Director an election eligibility list, containing the names
4 Sewell Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 66, 70. See also Peerless Plywood Com-
pany, 107 NLRB 427, Gummed Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092; Hollywood Ceram4cs
Company, Inc ., 140 NLRB 221 ; Dal-Tex Optical Company , Inc, 137 NLRB 1782, at
1786-1787.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and addresses of all the eligible voters. The Regional Director, in turn,
shall make this information available to all parties in the case. Failure
to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the
election whenever proper objections are filed.5
The considerations that impel us to adopt the foregoing rule are
these : "The control of the election proceeding, and the determination
of the steps necessary to conduct that election fairly [are] matters
which Congress entrusted to the Board alone." 6 In discharging that
trust, we regard it as the Board's function to conduct elections in
which employees have the opportunity to cast their ballots for or
against representation under circumstances that are free not only
from interference, restraint, or coercion violative of the Act, but also
from other elements that prevent or impede a free and reasoned
choice.' Among the factors that undoubtedly tend to impede such
a choice is a lack of information with respect to one of the choices
available.s In other words, an employee who has had an effectiveoppor-
tunity to hear the arguments concerning representation is in a better
position to make a more fully informed and reasonable choice.
Accordingly, we think that it is appropriate for us to remove the
impediment to communication to which our new rule is directed.
As a practical matter, an employer, through his possession of
employee names and home addresses as well as his ability to com-
municate with employees on plant premises, is assured of the continu-
ing opportunity to inform the entire electorate of his views with respect
to union representation. On the other hand, without a list of employee
names and addresses, a labor organizii,tion, whose organizers normally
have no right of access to plant premises,9 has no method by which it
can be certain of reaching all the employees with its argument's in
5In the event that the payroll period for eligibility purposes is subsequent to the direc-
tion of election or consent -election agreement , the eligibility list shall be filed within 7 days
after the close of the determinative payroll period for eligibility purposes . In order to be
timely, the eligibility list must be received by the Regional Director within the period
required No extension of time shall be granted by the Regional Director except in ex-
traordinary circumstances nor shall be filing of a request for review operate to stay
the requirement here imposed.
However , the rule we have here announced is to be applied prospectively only . It will
not apply in the instant cases but only in those elections that are directed , or consented
to, subsequent to 30 days from the date of this Decision We impose this brief period
of delay to insure that all parties to forthcoming representation elections are fully aware
of their rights and obligations as here stated
6 N L.R.B. v. Waterman Steamship Corporation , 309 U.S. 206, 226; see also N L.R B. v.
Shirlington Supermarket, Inc., et al ., 224 F. 2d 649 , 651 (C.A. 4).
7 See General Shoe Corporation , 77 NLRB 124, 126-127
B See Bok , The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections under the
National Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv . L. Rev. 38, 46, 92 (1964).
9 N L R B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S 105
EXCELSIOR UNDERWEAR INC. 1241
favor of representation, and, as a result, employees are often com-
pletely unaware of that point of view. This is not, of course, to deny
the existence of various means by which a party might be able to com-
municate with a substantial portion of the electorate even without
possessing their names and addresses. It is rather to say what seems
to us obvious-that the access of all employees to such communications
can be insured only if all parties have the names and addresses of all
the voters.10 In other words, by providing all parties with employ-
ees' names and addresses, we maximize the likelihood that all the
voters will be exposed to the arguments for, as well as against, union
representation.
Nor are employee names and addresses readily available from
sources other than the employer. The names of some employees may
be secured with the assistance of sympathetic fellow employees, but,
in a large plant or store, where many employees are unknown to their
fellows, this method may not yield the names and addresses of a major
proportion of the total employee complement." Additionally, there
are not infrequently employees on layoff status, sick leave, leave of
absence, military leave, etc., eligible to vote,12 yet unknown to their
fellow employees. Furthermore, employees are frequently known to
their fellows only by first names or nicknames, so that there may be
significant problems in obtaining the home addresses even of those
employees whose names are known. Finally, all the foregoing diffi-
culties are compounded by the more or less constant turnover in the
employee complement of any employer.13
In sum, not only does knowledge of employee names and addresses
increase the likelihood of an informed employee choice for or against
representation, but, in the absence of employer disclosure, a list of
names and addresses is extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain.
"A union that does not know the names or addresses of some of the voters may seek
to communicate with them by distributing literature on sidewalks or street corners ad-
joining the employer 's premises or by utilizing the mass media of communication. The
likelihood that all employees will be reached by these methods is, however , problematical
at best. See N.L.R.B. v. United Aircraft Corp., et al ., 324 F. 2d 128 , 130 (C . A. 2), cert.
denied 376 U.S. 951. Personal solicitation on plant premises by employee supporters of
the union , while vastly more satisfactory than the above methods , suffers from the
limited periods of nonworking time available for solicitation (generally and legally for-
bidden during working time , Peyton Packing Company, Inc ., 49 NLRB 828 , 843) and, in
a large plant , the sheer physical problems involved in communicating with fellow employees.
11 See, e .g., The May Department Stores Company , d/b/a The May Company , 136 NLRB
797, 808 , enforcement denied 316 F. 2d 797 ( C.A. 6), in which , after some 20 months of
organizational effort, the union possessed Dames and addresses of only 1250 out of ap-
proximately 3,000 eligible voters.
12 Vent Control, Inc., etc., 126 NLRB 1134 ( layoff ) ; Otarion Listener Corp ., et al., 124
NLRB 880 ( sick leave ) ; Channel Master Corporation , 148 NLRB 1343 (leave of absence)
Brown Cigar Company, 124 NLRB 1435 , 1437, footnote 3 (military leave).
'8 See 88 Monthly Labor Rev ., 1022-1024 ( August 1965).
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, as we have stated, we shall in the future regard an
employer's refusal to make a prompt disclosure of this information as
tending to interfere with prospects for a fair and free election.14
A requirement that all participants in an election contest have the
opportunity to ascertain the names and addresses of the voters is not
uncommon. Lists of registered voters in public elections are open to
inspection and copying by the public.15 When stockholders wish to
participate in election contests (or other proxy contests), management
either must provide them with the names and addresses of other stock-
holders or mail campaign material for them.16 Any candidate for
union office is entitled to have the union distribute his campaign litera-
ture to all members.17
We see no reason why similar opportunities should not be available
in a representation election. As one thoughful commentator has stated,
"Since the opportunity for both sides to reach all the employees is
basic to a fair and informed election, the reasons for requiring dis-
closure seem just as strong as those leading to similar requirements
under other provisions of the law." 18
While the rule we here announce is primarily predicated on our
belief that prompt disclosure of employee names and addresses is
necessary to insure an informed electorate, there is yet another basis
on which we rest our decision. As noted (supra) an employer is
presently under no obligation to supply an election eligibility list
until shortly before the election. The list, when made available, not
is While we have discussed the importance of disclosure in the context of the typical
case in which the employer and union are the parties engaged in communicating with
the electorate, it should be noted that the requirement here imposed applies equally to
the case in which an election has been directed upon a petition by an employee or group
of employees who seek to decertify an existing bargaining representative or to rescind
that representative's authority to enter into a union-security agreement of the sort
otherwise authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. In these latter cases, the petition-
ing employees would be entitled, to the names and addresses of their fellow employees as
an aid in their efforts to communicate their arguments against continued union representa-
tion or continuance of an existing union-security agreement Similarly, the union, as a
party to the election, would be entitled to employees' names and addresses so as to com-
municate its position. In short, the disclosure requirement here adopted applies when-
ever a Board election has been scheduled and insures all parties to the election, whatever
their viewpoint, of an opportunity to communicate with the electorate. The only excep-
tion is in the expedited election conducted pursuant to 8(b)(7)(C). In this situation,
we believe that the timespan between the direction of election and the conduct thereof
is too brief, taking into account the time required for the employer to compile and file
a list of names and addresses, for the union to be able to make any meaningful use of
this information. Hence, in that limited situation, we do not require disclosure.
15 29 C J.S. Elections § 50.
16 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-7, 8.
17 73 Stat. 532, 29 U.S.C. § 481(c).
Is Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 38, 99-100 (1964) ; Cf. Summers, Judicial
Regulation of Union Elections, 70 Yale L. J. 1221, 1227-1228 (1961). Another manifesta-
tion of the concept that all participants in an election should have access to the electorate
is embodied in 48 Stat. 1088, as amended, 47 US C. § 315(a), which provides for equal
time for political candidates on radio and television.
EXCELSIOR UNDERWEAR INC. 1243
infrequently contains the names of employees unknown to the union
and even to its employee supporters. The reasons for this are, in large
part, the same as those that make it difficult for a union to obtain,
other than from the employer, the names of all employees; i.e., large
plants with many employees unknown to their fellows, employees on
layoff status, sick leave, military leave, etc. With little time (and no
home addresses) with which to satisfy itself as to the eligibility of the
"unknowns," the union is forced either to challenge all those who
appear at the polls whom it does not know or risk having ineligible
employees vote. The effect of putting the union to this choice, we
have found, is to increase the number of challenges, as well as the
likelihood that the challenges will be determinative of the election, thus
requiring investigation and resolution by the Regional Director or the
Board. Prompt disclosure of employee names as well as addresses
will, we are convinced, eliminate the necessity for challenges based
solely on lack of knowledge as to the voter's identity. Furthermore,
bona fide disputes between employer and union over voting eligibility
will be more susceptible of settlement without recourse to the formal
and time-consuming challenge procedures of the Board if such dis-
putes come to light early in the election campaign rather than in the
last few days before the election when the significance of a single
vote is apt to loom large in the parties' calculations. Thus the require-
ment of prompt disclosure of employee names and addresses wifi
further the public interest in the speedy resolution of questions of
representation.
The arguments against imposing a requirement of disclosure are
of little force especially when weighed against the benefits resulting
therefrom. Initially, we are able to perceive no substantial infringe-
ment of employer interests that would flow from such a requirement.
A list of employee names and addresses is not like a customer list, and
an employer would appear to have no significant interest in keeping
the names and addresses of his employees secret (other than a desire
to prevent the union from communicating with his employees-an
interest we see no reason to protect). Such legitimate interest in
secrecy as an employer may have is, in any event, plainly outweighed
by the substantial public interest in favor of disclosure where, as here,
disclosure is a key factor in insuring a fair and free electorate. Cf.
N.L.R.B. v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 352 U.S. 938, reversing per curiam
235 F. 2d 319 (C.A. 9) ; N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149;
FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279
The main arguments that have been presented to us by the Employ-
ers and the amici curiae supporting the Employers relate not to any
infringement of employer rights flowing from a disclosure requirement
but rather to an asserted infringement of employee rights. Thus, it is
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
argued that if employees wished an organizing union to have their
names and addresses they would present the union with that informa-
tion. By compelling the employer to provide the union with informa-
tion that the employees have chosen not to divulge, the Board, it is
asserted, compels employer interference with the Section 7 rights of
employees to refrain from union activities. We regard this argument
as without merit. An employee's failure to provide a union with his
name and address, whether due to inertia, fear of employer reprisal,
or an initial predisposition to vote against union representation, is
not, as we view it, an exercise of the Section 7 rights to refrain from
union activity. Rather, in the context with which we are here con-
cerned-a Board-conducted representation election-an employee
exercises this right by voting for or against union representation.
Similarly, we reject the argument that to provide the union with
employee names and addresses subjects employees to the dangers of
harassment and coercion in their homes. We cannot assume that a
union, seeking to obtain employees' votes in a secret ballot election,
will engage in conduct of this nature; if it does, We shall provide an
appropriate remedy.19 We do not, in any event, regard the mere
possibility that a union will abuse the opportunity to communicate
with employees in their homes as sufficient basis for denying this oppor-
tunity altogether. See Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141; Staub v.
City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313.20
The argument is also made (by the Employer in the Excelsior case)
that under the decisions of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. The Bab-
cock cf; Wilcox Company,21 and N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of
America (Nutone Inc.),22 the Board may not require employer dis-
closure of employee names and addresses unless, in the particular case
involved the union would otherwise be unable to reach the employees
with its message. We disagree. We think that the issue presented by
10 See Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 116 NLRB 1732 ; Orleans Manu-
facturing Company, 120 NLRB 630, 634 ; Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 119
NLRB 131, 133-134.
m Another argument made against disclosure of employee names and addresses in con-
nection with an election proceeding is that a union might petition for an election with
no real intention of participating therein, but solely to obtain employee names and
addresses, intending , on receipt thereof , to withdraw the election petition and utilize its
newly acquired information as a basis for further organizational efforts. We think that
the likelihood of such misuse of the Board 's processes is minimized by our practice of
requiring at least a 30 percent showing of representation before further processing the
usual RC ( union ) petition , and also by our practice of imposing ( absent a showing of
good cause to the contrary ) a 6-month ban on entertaining an election petition filed by a
union which has withdrawn from an election after a hearing has been held or a consent-
election agreement approved by the Regional Director. See Campos Dairy Products,
Limited, 107 NLRB 715. In any event, in view of the importance of disclosure for a
fair and free election, we do not regard the bare possibility that some unions may mis-
use the information disclosed as grounds for our denying all unions ( as well as employees
who seek to unseat unions , see footnote 14, supra ) access to employee names and addresses.
u 351 U.S. 105.
22 357 U.S. 357.
EXCELSIOR UNDERWEAR INC. 1245,
these cases is distinguishable from that presented in Babcock or Nutone-
and that, even assuming the availability of other avenues by which
a union might be able to communicate with employees, we may prop--
erly require employer disclosure of employee names and addresses so
as to insure the opportunity of all employees to be reached by all
parties in the period immediately preceding a representation election.
Initially, as we read Babcock and Nutone, the existence of alterna-
tive channels of communication is relevant only when the opportunity
to communicate made available by the Board would interfere with a
significant employer interest-such as the employer's interest in con-
trolling the use of property owned by him. Here, as we have shown,
the employer has no significant interest in the secrecy of employee
names and addresses. Hence, there is no necessity for the Board to
consider the existence of alternative channels of communication before
requiring disclosure of that information. Moreover, even assuming
that there is some legitimate employer interest in nondisclosure, we
think it relevant that the subordination of that interest which we here
require is limited to a situation in which employee interests in self-
organization are shown to be substantial. For, whenever an election
is directed (the precondition to disclosure) the Regional Director has
found that a real question concerning representation exists; when the
employer consents to an election, he has impliedly admitted this fact.23
The opportunity to communicate on company premises sought in Bab-
cock and Nutone was not limited to the situation in which employee
organizational interests were substantial; i.e., in which an election had
been directed; we think that on this ground also the cases are distin-
guishable. Finally, both Babcock and Nutone dealt with the circum-
stances under which the Board might find an employer to have commit-
ted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8 of the Act, whereas
the instant cases pose the substantially distinguishable issue of the cir-
cumstances under which the Board may set aside an election. "[T]he
test of conduct which may interfere with the `laboratory conditions'
for an election is considerably more restrictive than the test of conduct
which amounts to interference, restraint, or coercion which violates
Section 8(a) (1)." 24 Whether or not an employer's refusal to disclose
employee names and addresses after an election is directed would con-
stitute "interference, restraint, or coercion" within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act, despite the existence of alternative channels of
23 Section 9(c) (1) ; see also Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, Section 101 18. We also require disclosure when an election is
directed pursuant to an employee petition to decertify a currently recognized union or
to rescind the authority of such a union to enter into a "union - shop" agreement. See
footnote 14, supra. In these situations , the employee interest , though opposed to union
representation or membership , is also required to be substantial before an election will be
directed See Section 9(c) (1) (A) ( u), 9(e) (1 ) ; and Board 's Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended , Section 101 18 and 101 27.
24 Dal-Tea; Optical Company , Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-1787; see also General Shod
Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126-127.
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
communication open to the union, is a question on which we express no
view because it is not before us. However, we are persuaded, for the
reasons previously stated, that disclosure is one of the "safeguards
necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representa-
tive by employees" 25 and that an employer's refusal to disclose, regard-
less of the existence of alternative channels of communication, tends to
interfere with a fair and free election. Thus Babcock and Nutone,
which dealt with the substantially different issue of whether the
employers' conduct violated 8(a) (1), are, for this reason also,
inapposite.
Finally, we wish to state our reasons for rejecting the approaches
to the disclosure issue suggested by questions II and III in the notice
of hearing. We do not limit the disclosure requirement to the situation
in which the employer has mailed antiunion literature to employees'
homes (question II) because we believe that access to employee names
and addresses is fundamental to a fair and free election regardless of
whether the employer has sent campaign propaganda to employees'
homes.26 We do not limit the requirement of disclosure to furnishing
employee names and addresses to a mailing service (question III)
because this would create difficult practical problems and because we
do not believe that the union should be limited to the use of the mails
in its efforts to communicate with the entire electorate .27
Inasmuch as the rule we have here announced is to be applied pro-
spectively only (see footnote 5, supra), we reject Petitioners' excep-
tions to the Regional Directors' recommendations with respect to objec-
tion No. 2 in both Kellogg and Excelsior. As we have also rejected the
Petitioner's remaining exceptions in Excelsior, we shall accept the
Regional Director's recommendation and certify the results of that
election. With respect to Kellogg, while we have rejected the Joint
Petitioners' exception to the Regional Director's recommendation as to
objection No. 2, the Employer has filed exceptions to the Regional Di-
ii N L R B v. A J. Tower Company, 329 U.S. 324, 330; see also N.L.R.B. v Waterman
Steamship Corporation, 309 U.S. 206, 226.
p Compare The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a The May Company, 136 NLRB
797, enforcement denied 316 F. 2d 797 (C A. 6) , Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 145
NLRB 846, enfd in part 339 F. 2d 889 (C A. 6).
21 See S & H Grosssnger's, Inc., 156 NLRB 233. See also Eldersveld and Dodge,
Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda . An Experiment in Voting Turnout and Attitude
Change in Katz, Public Opinion and Propaganda , pp. 532, 541 (1954) , Karsh, Diary of a
Strike, p. 106 ( 1958 ) ; Klapper, The Effects of Mass Media , part 2 at 9-14 (1949)
In the briefs and arguments of the Employers and amid curiae supporting the Em-
ployers, much has been made of Board decisions setting aside representation elections be-
cause an employer or his agents called on all or a majority of employees in their homes
in the period preceding the election. See, e g , Peoria Plastic Company , 117 NLRB 545.
The argument is made that it would be inequitable for the Board to preclude employers
from visiting employees in their homes and at the same time insist that unions be fur-
nished with employee names and addresses so that they may engage in home visits The
short answer to this argument is that employers are free to communicate with their
employees in the plant ; a union , as a practical matter, is severely limited in its efforts at
inplant communications See Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 119 NLRB 131,
133-134 ; see also footnote 10, supra.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 1247
rector's recommendation that the election be set aside on the basis of
two campaign letters sent by the Employer and that a new election be
directed. We have read the letters of the Employer in their entirety
and the Union's propaganda and conclude that, under all the circum-
stances, the Employer's letters could clearly be evaluated by the em-
ployees as partisan electioneering and do not warrant setting the
election aside.28 Accordingly, we shall also certify the results of that
election.
[The Board certified, in Excelsior Underwear Inc. and Saluda Knit-
ting Inc., Case No. 11-RC-1876, that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and that this labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate, and also, cer-
tified, in K. L. Kellogg cep Sons, Case No. 21-RC-8055, that a majority
of the valid ballots was not cast for International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local No. 3, AFL-CIO, and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, and that these labor
organizations are not the exclusive representative of the employees in
the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
28 Member Brown would accept the Regional Director's findings and recommendation.
General Electric Co. and International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
McCulloch Corporation and International Union , United Auto-
mobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 9-RC-5965 and 21-RC-
8228. February 4,1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the
Regional Director on August 26, 1964, among the employees in the unit
described below. After the election, the parties were furnished with a
tally of ballots which showed that of 72 eligible voters, 70 cast valid
ballots, of which 31 were for the Petitioner and 39 against. Petitioner
filed timely ebjections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director issued and served upon the
parties his report and recommendation on objections in which he rec-
ommended that the objections be overruled and that a certification of
results of election be issued. Petitioner filed exceptions only to the
Regional Director's recommendation with respect to objection No. 5.
156 NLRB No. 112.