Houston Chronicle Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Houston Chronicle Publishing Company and Louis
House Petitioner and Houston Mailers Union
Local No 360 affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
Case 16-RD-1165
March 20, 1989
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held November 9, 1988,1 and the hearing
officer's report recommending disposition of them
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement The tally of ballots shows
74 for and 84 against the Union, with 18 chal-
lenged ballots 2
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs and adopts the hearing of-
ficer's findings and recommendations only to the
extent consistent with this Decision and Direction
of Second Election
In support of its objections, the Union presented
evidence at the heanng relating to a contest, a
preelection barbecue, and various memoranda that
the Employer disseminated to the employees
throughout the decertification campaign The hear-
ing officer recommended that the Union's objec-
tions be overruled in their entirety The Union ex
cepts to the hearing officer's recommendation re-
garding the contest and, for reasons set forth
below, we find merit in this exception 3
During the preelection campaign, shortly after
October 24, the Employer mailed to all employees
a booklet entitled "The Red Light Contest " A
cover letter, which invited the employees to par-
ticipate in a contest to test their knowledge of the
decertification process and the Union, offered a
$250 prize to the person with the highest score
' All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise specified
2 During the hearing the parties stipulated that for purposes of this
proceeding only in order to streamline the proceeding to resolve the ob
jections and to achieve a final tally the Employer and the Petitioner
would not contest the 11 ballots challenged by the Union and that those
ballots would not be counted Accordingly as the remaining seven chal
lenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election no evidence was received on them
Z In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the hearing offi
cer s finding that there was no evidence that the Employer s memoranda
contained anything that would warrant setting aside the election and that
the preelection barbecue constituted a legitimate campaign device
The contest booklet listed the sources of the an-
swers to the questions Some of the answers were
contained in "Straight Answers to Important Ques
tions," campaign literature that the Employer had
mailed to all bargaining unit employees on October
24 Each participant was to fill in his name and ad
dress on his entry A total of 25 employees partici
pated The contest closed on November 3 and the
winner was announced on November 4 The con-
test entries were graded by James Garza, employee
relations manager , and the person with the highest
score received a $250 cash prize As noted above,
the election was held on November 9
The hearing officer found the instant case distin
guishable from National Gypsum Co ,4 and con
cluded that the contest was not objectionable We
disagree
We conclude that the contest and the accompa
nying prize in the circumstances of this case tended
to interfere with employee free choice in the elec-
tion We rely primarily on the fact that the em-
ployees were required to identify themselves As
stated in National Gypsum, participants `were re-
quired to identify themselves on their entry forms,
thereby enabling the Employer to know which em
ployees participated and which did not, and which
employees were familiar with its campaign materi-
al " National Gypsum, supra at 1003 Here, as in
National Gypsum, [t]his information indicated to
the Employer where additional campaign efforts
should be focused, and afforded the potential for
directing pressure at particular employees " Id We
thus distinguish this case from Stride Rite Corp,
254 NLRB 297 (1981), and Thrift Drug Co, 217
NLRB 1094 (1975), in which the Board found that
the raffles did not constitute objectionable conduct,
because in those cases participants, except for those
who claimed prizes, remained anonymous Accord
ingly, we sustain the Unions objection and find
that the election conducted on November 9, 1988,
must be set aside and a new election held 5
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication ]
4 National Gypsum Co 280 NLRB 1003 (1986)
a Contrary to the hearing officer we find this case to be indistinguish
able from National Gypsum The $250 prize here was comparable to the
$270 television sets and $261 cash prizes offered in National Gypsum In
National Gypsum there similarly was no evidence that the employer used
the names of participants to alter its campaign strategy As noted above
in each case the employer possessed the potential for directing pressure
at particular employees as a result of the information obtained from the
contest Id Furthermore in National Gypsum as here there was no evi
dence that the questions solicited the employees view on unionization
and voting in the election was not a condition precedent to participating
in the contest
293 NLRB No 38