Morse Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1312 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. W. Morse , W. F. Morse and Joseph D. Morse d/b/a Morse
Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon Sand
and Gravel Co. and Teamsters Local Union No. 324, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO and Carroll W.- McLain
and Harold Bond , Charging Parties . Cases Nos. 36-CA-757
and 36-CB-137. September 6, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 5, 1957, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The General Counsel and
the Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
No other party filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Murdock and Rodgers].
The Respondent Union's request for oral. argument is hereby denied
as the record, including the exceptions, in our opinion, adequately
presents the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner incorrectly found that during the 12-month
period preceding the date of the issuance of the complaint, the Re-
spondent Company received more than $236,000 from the State of
Oregon and the United States Bureau of Public Roads for bridge and
road building, and paving services, rendered in connection with the
construction and repair of State highways, United States Forest Serv-
ice access roads, and other channels of interstate commerce, located
within the State of Oregon. We find, as the record shows, that, during
this period, the Company received in excess of $100,000 for services
and materials in connection with construction and repair of such
channels of interstate commerce as State and Federal roads, exclusive
of United States Forest Service access roads.'
'Madison County Construction Co., 115 NLRB 701; Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115
NLRB 32.
118 NLRB No. 1.72.
MORSE BROTHERS 1313
2. We find no merit in the Respondent Union's contention that
the Trial Examiner acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and
showed bias and prejudice in that he made "grossly untrue findings."
It is true that the Trial Examiner overstated the amount which each
employee was required to pay the Respondent Union under the terms
of the union-security contract found to be illegal. However, this was
not material to any issue in the case and does not establish that the
Trial Examiner was arbitrary or prejudiced or otherwise unfair.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. The Respondent Union, Teamsters Local Union No. 324, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Giving effect to any of its agreements with the Respondent
Company, dated September 10, 1956, or to any earlier oral agreements,
or to any extensions, renewals, modifications, or supplements thereof,
unless and until the Respondent Union has been certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of said
Respondent Company's employees in an appropriate unit, and then
only if the agreement to be given effect conforins to the provisions of
the National Labor Relations Act.
(2) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Company, its
agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate in any manner against
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(3) Restraining or coercing in any other way employees of said
Respondent Company, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights mnay be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices in the Salem-
Harrisburg-Lebanon area, and all places where notices to its members
are customarily posted, copies of a notice attached hereto marked
2 We note that the Trial Examiner commented that the General Counsel "wisely"
elected to proceed under the violations alleged in this complaint although he could have
alleged a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) on the same facts. We find it unnecessary to
go into such question.
450553-58-vol. 118-84
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Appendix A." s Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
an official representative of the Respondent Union, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(2) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" for posting,
the Respondent Company being willing, at its offices in the Lebanon-
Harrisburg area in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted by the Respondent Company. Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall,
after being signed as provided above, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for said posting.
II. The Respondent, F. W. Morse, W. F. Morse and Joseph D.
Morse d/b/a Morse Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and
Lebanon Sand and Gravel Co., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Recognizing the Respondent Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent Company's employees for purposes of
collective bargaining, unless and until said labor organization has been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of said employees in an appropriate unit.
(2) Giving effect to any of its agreements, dated September 10,
1956, with the Respondent Union, or to any earlier oral agreements,
or to any extensions, renewals, modifications, or supplements thereof,
unless and until said Respondent Union has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
the Respondent Company's employees in an appropriate unit, and
then only if the agreement to be given effect conforms to the pro-
visions of the National Labor Relations Act, provided, however,
that nothing herein shall be construed to require the Respondent
Company to vary any substantive provisions of such agreement, or
to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights that they
may have thereunder.
(3) Threatening its employees with discharge or promising them
benefits to induce their employees to become members of any labor
organization, or in any other way interfering with the rights of em-
ployees to join or to refrain from joining any labor organization.
..
(4) Interfering with the administration of, or contributing support
to. any labor.organization.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
MORSE BROTHERS 1315
(5) Discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in a labor organization , except as such conduct may be
permitted by a lawful contract executed pursuant to Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Respondent
Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent Company's
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining , unless and until
said Respondent Union shall have been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of the Respondent
Company's employees in an appropriate unit.
(2) Post at its offices in the Lebanon -Harrisburg area copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix B." 4 Copies of the
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Company,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order , what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
* See footnote 3, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Or TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 324, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTI3ERI-IOOD Or TEAMSTERS , CIIAUFrVti s, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS Or AMERICA , AFL-CIO, AND To ALL
EMPLOYEES Or F. W. MORSE , W. F. MORSE AND JOSEPH D. MORSE
D/B/A MORSE BROTHERS , HARRISBURG SAND AND GRAVEL CO., AND
LEBANON SAND AND GRAVEL CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members, and the' employees of
Morse Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon
Sand and Gravel Co., that :
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreements with the above-
named Companies dated September 10, 1956, or any earlier oral
agreement, and will not enter into, give effect to, or enforce any
extension , renewal , modification, or supplement of that agree-
Ment or agreements , or any superseding agreement , unless and
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until we shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative of the employees of Morse Brothers,.
Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon Sand and Gravel
Co., in an appropriate unit, and unless the agreement that may
subsequently be entered into conforms to the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Morse Brothers, Har-
risburg Sand and Gravel Co., Lebanon Sand and Gravel Co., their
agents, successors, or assigns, to condition the hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment, upon mem-
bership in, affiliation with, or dues payments to our labor or-
ganization, except where lawful provision therefor shall have
been established by an agreement in conformity with the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause
Morse Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., Lebanon Sand
and Gravel Co., their agents, successors, or assigns to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees of
said Companies in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 324, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREIIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other lnaterial..
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF F. W. MORSE, W. F. MORSE AND JOSEPIr
D. MORSE D/B/A MORSE BROTHERS, HARRISBURG SAND AND GRAVEL
CO., AND LEBANON SAND AND GRAVEL CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreements with Teamsters.
Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,.
MORSE BROTHERS 1317
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO,
dated September 10, 1956, or any earlier oral agreement, and
will not enter into, or give effect to, or enforce any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement of that agreement or agree-
ments, or any superseding agreement, unless and until the above-
named Union shall have been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the representative of our employees in an
appropriate unit, and unless the agreement that may subsequently
be entered into conforms to the provisions of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or promise
them benefits to encourage their membership in or activities on
behalf of any labor organization, or threaten them with reprisal
or economic loss because of their union affiliations, activities, or
sympathies, or the lack thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or co-
erce our employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement made
in conformity with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, except
to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement made
in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
F. W. MORSE, W. F. MORSE AND JOSEPH D. MORSE
D/B/A MORSE BROTHERS , HARRISBURG SAND
AND GRAVEL CO., AND LEBANON SAND AND
GRAVEL CO.,
Employer.
Dated-- -------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the Act, was heard at Corvallis,
Oregon, on December 11 and 12, 1956, pursuant to due notice to all parties.' The
In this report Respondent , Teamsters Local Union No. 324 , International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, is referred to
as the Union or Local 324; the Respondents F. W. Morse, W . F. Morse and Joseph D.
Morse d/b/a Morse Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon Sand and
Gravel Co ., as Morse Brothers or the Company ; and these two parties jointly, as the
Respondents ; Carroll W . McLain and Harold Bond , as the Charging Parties ; the General
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consolidated complaint, dated November 21, 1956, was issued by the General Counsel
and duly served on the Respondents. The complaint was based on charges duly
filed by the Charging Parties. On the same date the Regional Director of the Board
(Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington) issued an order consolidating the cases
and giving notice of hearing to the Respondents. The complaint alleged in sub=
stance that Morse Brothers and the Union, on or about September 7, 1956, executed
a contract which required that the employees of Morse Brothers obtain and retain
membership in the Union as a condition of employment, and that by certain conduct
leading to the execution of the contract, and certain conduct in enforcement of the
contract, the Company had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3), and the Union in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
Each respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Upon the pleadings, and the evidence as a whole, I find that F. W. Morse, W. F.
Morse and Joseph D. Morse constitute an Oregon partnership doing business under
the names of Morse Brothers, Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon Sand
and Gravel Co. This combination of Morse enterprises is hereafter called the Com-
pany. The Company is engaged in highway construction, paving, and contracting
work, and in the sale of ready-mix concrete, asphalt, sand, gravel, and related
products in the State of Oregon. The principal office and place of business of the
Company is at Lebanon, Oregon. The Company also owns and operates sand and
gravel pits, concrete batch plants, and related facilities at Lebanon, Oregon, and
Harrisburg, Oregon. Upon all the evidence, I find that in.the course and conduct
of its business during the 12-month period preceding the date of issuance of this
complaint, the Company received more than $236,000 from the State of Oregon and
the United States Bureau of Public Roads for bridge and road building, and paving
services, rendered in connection with the construction and repair of State highways,
United States Forest Service access roads, and other channels of interstate commerce,
located within the State of Oregon.
Upon all the evidence I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION; THE CONTRACT; ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE STATUS
It is undisputed and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
The pleadings admit that on or about September 7, 1956, the Company through
its agent, Associated Concrete Products Manufacturers Association,3 entered into
a contract with the Union which contained the following union-security provision:
ARTICLE 1. Union Security. The Union agrees upon reasonable notice to
supply to the Employer, hereinafter named, competent and trustworthy em-
ployes. Non-Union men may employed [sic] at the regular Union wages;
said Non-Union man or men, as the case may be, must make application to
become a member of the Union and if found to be satisfactory to the Employer
and found worthy by the Union after thirty (30) days of employment, such
persons will be admitted to full membership in the Union on the same basis as
all other members have been or are being admitted and shall remain a dues
paying member in good standing as a condition of continued employment.
It is also undisputed, and I find, that the Union was not at any time the designated
bargaining representative of a majority of the Company's production and mainte-
nance employees, or of the Company's truckdrivers. The evidence indicates that
Counsel of the Board and his representative at the hearing, as the General Counsel ; the
National Labor Relations Board, as the Board ; and the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended, as the Act.
2 Madison County Construction Company, 115 NLRB 99.
2 Hereafter called the Association.
MORSE BROTHERS 1319
on or around September 7, 2 of approximately 20 truckdrivers employed by the
Company were members of the Teamsters organization, but it is not clear as to
which Local of the organization they belonged. It also appears that their member-
ship in the Teamsters was obtained and maintained to further a policy of the Com-
pany, hereafter explained, so cannot be considered voluntary designations of the
Union. Upon all the evidence, I find that prior to September 7, the Union was
not the duly designated bargaining representative of any of Morse Brothers employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. No conflicting testimony
There are no conflicts in the testimony as to the basic facts disclosed by this
proceeding.
The testimony of the witnesses presented by the General Counsel stands uncon-
tradicted in the record, and is mutually corroborative, even to details. Therefore, I
have credited the testimony of those witnesses.4
I have also credited the testimony of Harland E. Kelly and Charles Westergard,
union representatives, called as witnesses by the General Counsel, for as far as it
goes their testimony is not in conflict with the testimony of those witnesses mentioned
above.
A composite of this uncontradicted testimony affords a succinct narrative of the
sequence of events giving rise to this litigation.
B. Background
The operations of Morse Brothers are conducted from plants at Lebanon and
Harrisburg, Oregon. At Lebanon the Company employs approximately 25 to 30
men during the summertime, and approximately 20 men during the winter. Seven
men are truckdrivers. At Harrisburg there are 22 to 25 employees in the summer,
and approximately 18 to 20 during the winter. Approximately four are truckdrivers.
Morse Brothers has been a member of the Association since 1947. However, the
Association had never been authorized to act as bargaining agent for the Company
until September 7, 1956. The Company admitted in the pleadings that the Union
was not the majority designee of its employees in an appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining, and Joseph D. Morse, one of the partners, testified
that the Company was never informed by any member of the Union that it represented
any of the Company's employees.
Joseph D. Morse also testified that in 1948 some of his drivers who were engaged
in delivering ready-mix concrete to a union construction job were stopped from
making deliveries by representatives of the Union. At that time, union representa-
tives told the Company that if the Company would have union drivers on the trucks
delivering to union jobs, that deliveries would not be held up in the future. After
that, the Company installed the policy of having on the payroll two union ready-mix
truckdrivers who were assigned to make deliveries at union jobs. It is clear from
all the evidence that prior to September 6, 1956, the Union made no attempt to
organize the employees of the Company by the usual organizational methods, such
as solicitation of employees, explanations of the benefits of union membership, or
the enrollment of the employees as members of the Union.
C. Events prior to September 7 5
Wayne H. Shields testified that early in 1956 his company, the W. H. Shields
Construction Company, a general contractor, began the construction of a new high
school at the city of Lebanon. The value of the contract was $1,250,000. Con-
struction on the job began about April 1. On approximately that date the Company
submitted a bid to Shields which quoted a price per yard for providing 5,000 cubic
yards of ready-mix cement to the contractor. The Company's bid was accepted by
Shields, and deliveries of the ready-mix proceeded without difficulty or delay until
September 6.
On that day the superintendent for Shields notified Wayne H. Shields that two
representatives from the Union had been on the job and had discussed with him the
4 Joseph D. Morse, Alfred P. Blair, Forrest Morse, Wayne H. Shields, William Morse,
Carroll McLain, Harold Bond, and others, whose testimony corroborates the testimony of
those named. Any testimony of a witness which has been rejected has been noted, with
reasons for the rejection, elsewhere in this report.
5 All dates in this section of this report are in the year 1956 unless noted otherwise.
1320 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact that the Company was providing the concrete for the job. Early on the same
afternoon, Harland D. Kelly, an organizer for the Union, and Charles Westergard,
secretary of the Salem Building Trades Council, of which the Union is a member, came
upon the construction job site. The union representatives informed Shields that they
were considering picketing the job because Morse Brothers was not a union shop.
They explained to Shields that they had tried to organize the employees of Morse
Brothers in the past, and had not been successful. Shields pointed out to them that
he had agreed with the representatives of the Building Trades, at the beginning
of the job, that he was going to use union subcontractors with the exception of
Morse Brothers, and that the union representatives had agreed that he might use
Morse Brothers, despite its nonunion character. Shields suggested that Westergard
and Kelly get in touch with Morse Brothers, to see if they couldn't work out some
solution to the situation. Westergard said that he didn't give a damn about signing
up Morse Brothers-all he wanted was for them to get their equipment off the job.
Shields complained that he was caught between two fires. He was in no position
to dictate to Morse Brothers that their employees join the Union, as he had no
control over those employees. On the other hand, if the Union placed a picket on
the job, there wasn't anything that he could do about it. The union representatives
then said that they were going to have a picket on the job on the following morning.
Shields said that he couldn't stop them, if that was their decision.
After this conversation with Kelly and Westergard, Shields called the Company
on the phone and talked to Joseph Morse. He related to Morse his conversation
with the union representatives and told Morse that he couldn't afford to have his
job shut down for any length of time, and that he would like the Company to get
together with the Union and see if they couldn't straighten the matter out.
Morse at that time indicated his willingness to do that. Shields also told Morse that
he was willing to shut his job down for a day while they straightened the matter
out, and that he thought the Union had not made a final decision to put a picket
on the job.
D. Events of September 7, 1956
On September 7, 1956, Shields reached the job site about 7:45 a. m. Gentry,
a business agent for the Carpenters Union, was present, and a picket carrying a
sign was on duty at the main entrance to the job site. The picket sign read:
SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS BEING OBSERVED
SALEM BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL
Shields instructed his men who were gathered near the job office to stand by, that
there would be no work until such time as the picket was removed, and he didn't
know just when that would be. Gentry notified the union men to the same effect.
A few moments later Westergard and Kelly came to the job site, and Shields,
Westergard and Kelly went into the office where they. telephoned Joseph Morse who
came to the office in a few moments. In the discussion which then took place the
attitude of Westergard was the same as on the day previous. He wasn't interested
in holding an election or trying to organize the Morse employees. He was interested
in getting the Morse equipment off the job and getting a "fair contractor" on the
job. He was not receptive to any suggestions that the union representative go to
the plant of Morse Brothers and try to work something out to their mutual satis-
faction. Both Westergard and Kelly presented a contract with the Union to Morse
and demanded that he sign it immediately; they offered him no other alternative.
Morse said that he would like a little time to think it over, and confer with his
brothers. Morse then left the meeting. Westergard also left but Kelly remained.
Later in the morning the three Morse brothers returned to the office. Kelly was
present at that time so Shields excused himself and left the three brothers with
Kelly. After the three Morse brothers and Kelly had conferred for approximately
1r/2 hours, they called Shields back to the office. They told him that the Morse
brothers had agreed to sign the union contract. Kelly then went to the door and
dismissed the picket, who immediately left the premises. Shortly thereafter the
Morse brothers and Kelly left.
In his testimony, Joseph D. Morse gave a full account of the events of this date.
He testified that at 7:30 a. m. he went to the Shields' job site in Lebanon and
immediately noticed that there was a picket on duty in front of the job office. He
waited to talk to Shields. When the latter arrived, Shields told Morse that if he
couldn't get cement from Morse Brothers he'd have to pay a premium of $3 per yard
by getting it from Albany, Oregon. It appeared he would have to do that because
the various building trades were refusing to work because of the picket.
About 8:30 a. m. Kelly of the Union and Westergard of the Council arrived.
Kelly said that he wanted Morse to sign a contract with the Union. Morse replied
MORSE BROTHERS 1321
that if the Union could get over 50 percent of Morse Brothers employees to sign up
with the Union, that the Company would be willing to sign a contract with the Union.
Kelly said that he couldn't do that, and added that after Morse Brothers signed
the contract, in the following week he would go down and talk to the employees.
Morse asked Kelly if they would withdraw the picket if the Company had only
union drivers deliver ready-mix to the job. Westergard said that arrangement would
not do. Morse then said he would like to discuss the situation with his brothers.
Around noon he talked with his brothers in the Lebanon office and they came to
the conclusion that they had no alternative but to sign the contract. After they
made this decision they went back to the job site and discussed the situation with
Shields, and then called Alfred P. Blair who was the labor relations representative
of the Association. They told Blair what had transpired and told him that they
authorized him to sign in their behalf the contracts required by the Union. The
Morse brothers then drew up and signed a letter, in terms which Kelly had demanded,
which reads as follows: 6
September 7, 1956.
MR. HARLAN KELLEY: Signing of the agreement between the Lebanon and
Harrisburg Sand & Gravel Companys and the Employers & Teamsters Union,
Local #324, will be taken care of by the Associated Concrete Manufacturers'
Association.
Yours very truly,
They gave this letter to Kelly, and told him that Blair had talked by phone to
Graham, secretary of the Union, and that arrangements had been made for signing,
of the formal contracts. Kelly also said that he would go to the Lebanon and Harris-
burg plants the following week, and sign the men up. At the time the contract and
letter were exchanged, Morse Brothers and Kelly agreed that the contract should
be effective immediately.
On the following day work was resumed on the construction site and deliveries,
by Morse Brothers were not thereafter interrupted.
Alfred P. Blair testified that he is the manager of the Association. It was one of
his duties to bargain with the Union on behalf of 15 or 16 cement companies who
were members of the Association and were located within the jurisdiction of Local
324. In the same area, however, there were 4 or 5 cement companies who, like
Morse Brothers, were members of the Association, but were unorganized; these
companies had no contractual relation with the Union. Blair said that in the past
on each occasion that the contract between the cement companies of the Association
and the Union had been negotiated, the Union had requested that Morse Brothers,
be included in the contract even though both parties knew that the Union did not
represent any of Morse Brothers employees. On each occasion, when the Union
had asked to include Morse Brothers in the contract, he had answered that they
would consider that question when the Union could show that it represented a
majority of the employees of Morse Brothers.
On September 6 around 9 a. m. Blair received a telephone call from Joe Morse,
who told him about the picketing on the Shields job and discussed the situation with
Blair. After discussing it, Joe Morse said that the Company might as well enter
into a contract in order to stop the picketing and that type of difficulty in the future.
Blair then said that he would phone Ward Graham, secretary of the Union, and dis-
cuss the matter with him. Blair then called Graham and told him that he had just
received a call from Morse with regard to the Lebanon Sand and Gravel, and that
the Company was willing to sign a contract with the Union. Graham then informed
Blair, for the first time, that the contract would also have to cover the Morse plant
at Harrisburg, and that Graham's Local had jurisdiction over both plants. Blair
replied that on that basis Morse Brothers would sign for both plants. Graham
said that would be satisfactory. In the course of this conversation neither Graham
nor Blair discussed the question of whether the Union represented any of the
Morse employees,at either plant.
Blair then phoned Joseph Morse and told him the substance of his talk with
Graham; that the contract contained three things: (1) that the men would all be
required to join the Union within 30 days; (2) that the Company would have to pay
into the "AGC Teamster Welfare Trust," and (3) after January 1, 1957, the Company
would have to pay into a "Teamster Pension Fund." Blair also told Morse that he was
required to give Kelly a letter, stating the intention of the Company to sign up with
the Union, so that Kelly could remove the picket from the Shields job.
On September 10, Blair met with Graham and signed three union contracts on
behalf of Morse Brothers. The first of these contracts (General Counsel's Exhibit
O General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No, 6) brought Morse Brothers' operations under the terms of a contract between
Associated General Contractors of America and the Joint Council of Teamsters
No, 37. It included a provision that the Company would pay 71/z cents per employee
per hour into the "AGC Teamster Welfare Trust."
The second of these contracts (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7) provided that
Morse Brothers would make payment of $10.40 per month per regular employee to
the "Salem, Oregon, Teamsters' Security Fund."
The third of these contracts (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2) is a labor agree-
ment in conventional form, but of unusual brevity, dealing with wages, hours, rates
of pay, holidays, etc. Article 12, Pension Fund, provided that Morse Brothers
would make. monthly payments of 10 cents per hour, per employee into the Teamsters
Pension Fund.7
On this occasion Blair asked Graham how much the initiation and dues were
which the men would be required to pay by virtue of the union-security provision of
the contract. Graham said that the men would be required to pay $40 initiation
fee, plus December dues $5, and Fourth Quarter dues $15, a total of $60. Blair told
Graham that he thought the men might be reluctant to pay that much money, and
asked him if he could not obtain some special concession from the Union in the
matter of these sums. A few days later Graham called him and said that "since
they now had the company over the barrel in this case, they saw no reason to make
any changes in the initiation fee." Blair told him that possibly the amount of the
initiation fee might cause trouble with the men, because he could foresee that some
of the employees might be reluctant to pay such a large sum of money. Graham
then said that the Union was "having trouble getting the fellows signed up" and he
asked Blair to take some applications to Morse Brothers' plants and have the men
sign them and send them to him. Graham explained that if Blair did that, "We
wouldn't even have to go near the plant. All you do is have Morse Brothers send
us a check for approximately a thousand dollars, send in the applications and we
would take care of it from here." Blair agreed to talk to the employees of both
plants and see what would happen.
On September 18, about 4:30 D. m., Blair met with the employees at Harrisburg,
and on September 19, at lunch time, he met with the employees at Lebanon. These
meetings were arranged by the Company. He told the men that the Company had
signed a contract with the Union, believing it was for the best interests of the Company
to stay out of trouble with the Union, and to maintain employment for the men
without interruption. He explained that the contract called for certain specific things,
including the membership of the employees in the Union. He explained the welfare
plan, the pension plan, and the amount of the initiation fees and dues. The same
question arose at both plants. The men asked if they had to join the Union. Blair
replied, in each instance, that since the Company had signed a contract calling for
them to be members of the Union they would have to join, or upon request of the
Union the Company would have to fire them and replace them with people who
would join the Union. Several of the men then asked if there was anything that they
could do under the law so they would not have to join. He replied that he represented
the employer, and he was a poor person to advise them as to their rights. However,
he told them that there were some provisions under the State law which might be
applicable to their situation, that the only thing they could do would be to go to
the State Labor Examiner and place their case before him. On or about September
26 and 28, W. F. Morse and F. W. Morse spoke to groups of employees in a similar
vein.
About 10 days after Blair spoke to the employees at Lebanon and Harrisburg,
Kelly also spoke to them. He read the entire contract to them, and explained some
of the benefits of the Union. Then some of the men asked him if they definitely
had to join. He again read that part of the contract which required that they obtain
and retain membership in the Union within 30 days. When they asked Kelly about
the pension plan, he replied that he really didn't know the details of the program
because it was still in the process of being worked out. However, each employer by
virtue of the contract was required to pay 10 cents per hour per employee toward
the pension plan. Some of the men expressed dissatisfaction with that arrangement.
They said that since they worked for and earned that 10 cents an hour, they thought
they should know what the Union would give them for it, before it was paid to the
Union.
a Note : This is not a duplication in the narration of these payments : $10.40 per
month per employee to the Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund is covered by article 11,
Health and Welfare, of this particular contract, which incorporates the second above
by reference.
MORSE BROTHERS 1323
When the men expressed a reluctance to join, Kelly said that the men had to join
the Union, "because the contract has already been signed, you have got to join the
Union, .or we can send men down to replace you after this 30-day period is up."
However, despite the talks by Blair, the two Morses, and Kelly, the employees
selected the Charging Parties as their representatives to seek the help of the State
Labor Examiner, and when that mission proved futile, to seek the assistance of the
Board. Thereafter the instant charges were filed.
Testimony of Union Representatives
Charles Westergard, secretary of the Salem Building Trades Council, testified that
he was the responsible officer in charge of the Council's picketing activities. He said
that the picketing activities of the member locals of the Council were conducted
through the Council. Usually a member local asked that the Council picket a
particular employer or job. When the Council granted the local's request, he, as
secretary of the Council, took the picket or pickets, and the picket sign to the site
of the picketing, and started it off. Thereafter he, or a representative of the local
which had requested the picket, had authority to terminate the picketing. Usually
this was done when the picketing had achieved the desired objective. Approximately
3 or 4 days before September 7, the Union requested that the Shields job be picketed
because Morse Brothers was supplying ready-mix concrete to the Shields job. On
September 6, after receipt of this request, and complaint about Morse Brothers,
Westergard and Kelly went to Wayne H. Shields and pointed out to him that a
"substandard condition" existed on the job. Westergard said that by "substandard"
he meant that the wages and working conditions of Morse Brothers employees were
not on a standard with the rest of the area. He told Shields that Morse Brothers
did not pay into the Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund, nor did they pay into the
Teamsters Pension Plan, so the Council could not regard Morse Brothers as main-
taining the standard of other employers. The union representatives asked Shields
to take some corrective action in regard to the situation. Westergard said that the
Council and its member locals have a policy of refusing to work with nonunion men.
Westergard testified that in his conversation with Shields he did not threaten to picket
his job. However, his parting remark to Shields was, "that the Union would see
him in the morning."
Westergard testified that on the morning the picketing was initiated, he had a
conversation with Morse. Morse asked him to go to the plants of the Company in
Lebanon and Harrisburg, and to organize the men. He told Morse that he wasn't
interested in Morse Brothers plants.
Westergard testified that the picket was taken off the Shields job by the action of
Kelly of the Union. 'Either Kelly or Graham of the Union had authority to remove
the picket as soon as the Union was satisfied. At the time the picketing was initiated,
Westergard told the employees of Shields who were on the job site that the Council
had been forced "to resort to the banner." When they saw him on the job site, and
saw the picket sign, they picked up their tools and quit work. One man was at work
greasing the power crane, and another man was greasing the bulldozer. He went to
them, where they were at their machines on the job site, and told them a picket had
been placed on the job. They immediately quit work.
Concluding Findings
It is undisputed that prior to September 7, 1956, the Union did not represent a
majority of the employees of the Company in an appropriate unit for collective
bargaining. Nevertheless, on that date the Union initiated picketing on the Shields
job site for the purpose of forcing the Company to assist it, in forcing the Com-
pany's employees to join the Union. This plan or scheme of the Union was in direct
violation of the employees' rights, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It is
clear that Morse Brothers was not at first a willing partner of the Union, but when
faced with the economic pressure placed upon it by the Union, through Shields, Morse
Brothers surrendered, and thereafter was an active participant in the illegal enterprise.
There can be no doubt as to the purpose of the picketing on the Shields job site.
On September 6, the union representatives told Shields that the Union had no
quarrel with him, except that he was obtaining his ready-mix concrete from Morse
Brothers. Westergard testified that conditions on the Shields job were "substandard,"
as later, blazoned on the picket sign, because the Company was not paving into
the pension and welfare funds of the Union. That statement was the first indication
of the Union's real motive in these events. Both Kelly and Westergard urged Shields
to put pressure on Morse Brothers "to sign up with the Union." When the Morse
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
brothers appeared on the Shields job site, they were told that the picketing of the
Union would continue until the Company signed the contract with the Union, which
was then and there presented to them. When Blair , acting for the Company , talked
to Ward Graham , secretary of the Union , he was informed of the exact terms upon
which the Union would accept the Company 's surrender . These terms were all
related to the payment of money by each employee of the Company to the Union:
(1) 71/2 cents per hour worked , to the A. G. C . Teamsters Welfare Fund; (2) 10
cents per hour worked , to the Teamsters Pension Fund ; ( 3) $10.40 per month per
employee to the Salem , Oregon, Teamsters Security Fund ; ( 4) all employees to
immediately join the Union and pay $40 initiation fee, and $20 current dues, for
a total of $60 ; and (5 ) that thereafter all employees remain in good standing with
the Union , paying dues of $60 per year.
The conduct of the Union , as displayed in the undisputed testimony of this case,
appears strange , until it is analyzed. It appears strange , because this labor organi-
zation made no effort to induce the employees of the Company to join the Union
by the usual methods of persuasion , lawfully directed to the mind of the employees.
Prior to the placing of the picket on the Shields job, no representative of the Union
talked to any of the employees whose affiliation they sought . Even after Morse
Brothers signed the unlawful contract , the union officials appeared averse to talking
to the employees . Graham asked Blair to sign up the men , and Kelly did not go
near the employees until it was clear that the Company could not hand over their
employees to the Union.
However, Graham displayed an interest similar to Westergard 's-an interest in
payments into the Union 's variety of "Funds." Graham told Blair to send the
Union "about $ 1,000 and they would take it from here ." Through all of this
activity , this labor organization seems to have been interested solely in the acquisition
of money for its various funds, without regard to the rights or desires of the em-
ployees. This overwhelming interest in payments is understandable when the
evidence is analyzed . In Schedule A, attached hereto, I have made a computation
in accordance with the exhibits in evidence , and the testimony , which shows the
sums of money due the Union under the terms of the contract with the Company.
According to that schedule , each employee of the Company , tinder pain of dis-
charge, was required to pay to the Union in the first year of membership the sum
of $588.80. All employees of the Company ( 51 employees being taken as the
mean employment level) would contribute to the Union in the course of the first
year the not inconsiderable sum of $30,028.80.
This financial aspect of the case places in proper focus all of the Union's conduct,
including its purpose . It placed its picket on the Shields job for the purpose of
coercing Morse Brothers to assist it in fastening on each employee of the Company
an undesired membership featured by all the usual duties and obligations thereby
entailed, and the additional contractual obligation to pay the Union the sum of
$588.80 per man per year . The amount of money here involved explains the lack
of interest of union representatives in talking to the men. If the Company took the
money from their pay , the employees could be disregarded entirely. It also explains
why the men refused to join the Union and appealed to the Board for assistance.
The testimony is undisputed that when Kelly spoke to the men they questioned him
about the 10-cent-per -hour payment to the pension fund. He explained that the
pension plan was not complete , that the Union had decided that each employee
would pay in 10 cents per hour, but that the Union had not yet decided what it
would pay out to the men in benefits . It was not unnatural that the men were
dissatisfied with that arrangement , and told Kelly that they thought they should
know what they were going to get for their money before they paid it in.
The Act does not permit employees to be coerced in this manner . In John B.
Shriver Company , 103 NLRB 23 , the Board had occasion to deal with coercion by
means of a similar unauthorized contract and its enforcement by a union and an
employer. It said:
Unless there be validity to the Respondents ' alleged affirmative defenses
considered at length below , there can be no doubt of the Respondents ' violation
of the sections of the Act set out above . It is undisputed that the Union repre-
sented none of the . . . employees when the Respondent Company agreed
to accord the Union exclusive representative status. Even without a con-
tractual requirement for compulsory union membership, an employer illegally
assists and supports a labor organization by granting it exclusive recognition
when he knows it does not represent a majority in an appropriate bargaining
unit at the time the grant is made. The illegal assistance and support is only
aggravated where, as here , the agreement that grants recognition also requires
MORSE BROTHERS 1325
the covered employees as a condition of their employment to join and pay dues
to a labor organization they have not freely chosen. By including such a
contractual requirement, the employer not only violated Section 8 (a) (1) and
(2), but Section 8 (a) (3) as well. See, e. g., Hollywood Ranch Market, 93
NLRB 1147; Printz Leather Company, 94 NLRB 1312. And the labor organi-
zation which executes and gives effect to the illegal agreements also commits
an unfair labor practice, violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the
Act. See, in addition to cases already cited, New York State Employers Asso-
ciation, Inc., 93 NLRB 127; Childs Co., 93 NLRB 281; Acme Mattress Co.,
91 NLRB 1010.
The rationale of the above decision is not rendered inapplicable because the
union used picketing of a secondary nature as its tool to effect its purpose, the illegal
coercion. It is true that the General Counsel could have alleged a violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) on the instant facts. However, in this case in which the
Union's coercive purpose is so clearly violative of the fundamental principle of the
Act, he wisely and properly elected to proceed against the Respondents, by invoking
the sections alleged in the complaint.8
On the basis of the undisputed testimony set forth above, I make the following
specific findings:
(1) On September 7, 1956, the Union and the Company executed a contract
affecting the hours, wages, and working conditions of the Company's employees at
a time when the Union did not represent a majority of the Company's employees in
an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
(2) That the aforementioned contract contained a union-security provision which
required all employees of the Company to obtain membership in the Union within
30 days of the execution of the contract, and retain membership in the Union there-
after as a condition of continued employment.
(3) That after the execution of the contract the Company and the Union attempted
to enforce the union-security provision by coercion and threats made to employees
in the course of speeches by F. W. Morse and Alfred P. Blair on September 18, 19,
26, 28, 1956, and by the speeches of Harland Kelly, representative of the Union, on
September 25, 26, 1956. These speeches were made pursuant to a joint purpose to
coerce the employees into joining the Union. In each speech the employees were
told that by the union-company contract they were required to join the Union within
30 days, and that unless they complied with the contract provision their employ-
ment would be terminated upon the expiration of that period.
(4) On September 7, 1956, the Union by picketing the job site of the W. H.
Shields Construction Company, induced and encouraged the employees of that
construction company to concertedly refuse to perform services for the construction
company, for the purpose of forcing and coercing Morse Brothers to sign the
unlawful contract above described.
(5) That by the above conduct the Union has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the
Act, and the Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section 111, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Company described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and from any like
or related conduct, and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Union, knowing that it had not been authorized to act
as the collective-bargaining representative by a majority of the employees of the
Company in an appropriate unit, coerced the Company into recognizing the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of those employees, and that, without
authority, and for an unlawful purpose, coerced the Company into executing an
8Denver Building Trade and Construction Trades Council, 90 NLRB 1768. Building
Service Employees International Union Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 632.
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement covering said employees, it will be recommended that the Respondents
cease giving effect to said contract,9 or to any extensions, modifications, or supple-
ments thereof, or to any superseding agreement of the parties, unless and until the
Union shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of the Company's.
employees in an appropriate unit. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed as.
requiring the Company to vary wages, hours of employment, rates of pay, seniority
or other substantive provisions in its relations with the employees themselves, which
the Company had established in the performance of said agreement, or to prejudice
the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
The Respondent Union's illegal activities are such as to indicate a purpose to
defeat the Company's employees in the exercise of other basic rights under the Act.
The unfair labor practices found to have been committed are potentially related
to other unfair labor practices described by the Act, and danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent Union's conduct in the past.
The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedial order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent
guarantees of Section 7, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the Recommended
Order will provide that the Respondent Union cease and desist from in any other
manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. F. W. Morse, W. F. Morse and Joseph D. Morse d/b/a Morse Brothers„
Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Co., and Lebanon Sand and Gravel Co. constitute an
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By causing the Company to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees or prospective employees of the Com-
pany in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By interfering with the administration of a labor organization, and by con-
tributing support thereto, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
7. By discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment and the terms
and conditions of employment of its employees for the purpose of encouraging
membership in a labor organization, the Company has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the, meaning. of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
9 Since the Union had no authority whatsoever to represent the employees, I deem it
proper to require disavowal of the entire contract, and not merely the discriminatory-
provisions thereof.
SCHEDULE A
Payments to Union by Each Employee of Morse Brothers According to Contracts,
in Evidence, and the Testimony
Payment:
Teamsters Pension Plan
Per hour worked____________________________________ $0.10
Hours per week_____________________________________ 40
Total per week----------------------- - - ----------- $4.00
per year (52 weeks, vacations not excluded)_____________ $208.00Total
COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE 1.32 7
Payment:
A . G. C.-Teamsters Welfare Fund
Per hour worked____________________________ ________ $0.075
Hours per week____________ _________________________ 40
Total per week__________________________ ________ $ 3.00
Total per year ( 52 weeks, vacations not excluded ) ------------ $ 156. 00
Salem, Oregon , Teamsters Security Fund
Payment, per month , $10.40.
Total per year ( 12 months)______________________________________ 124.80
Initiation fee-------------------------------------------------- 40.00
Dues, per month , $5.00----------------------------------------- 60. 00
Total per employee , first year______________________________ 588. 80
Average number of employees, 51.
Total from employees ____________________________________ 30, 028. 80
Compagnie Generale Transatlantique ( French Line ) and Steam-
ship Office Workers Union Local 1809 , International Longshore-
men's Association , Independent , Petitioner . Cases Nos. 8-RC-
8543 and 2RC--8558. September 6, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election issued on
March 4, 1957,? an election was conducted on March 25, 1957, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second
Region, among employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore
found appropriate. Upon completion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
107 eligible voters, 104 cast ballots, of which 55 were for the Petitioner
and 44 were against. There were four challenged ballots, a number
insufficient to affect the results of the election. One ballot was void.
On April 1, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In objection 1, the Employer
alleged that the Petitioner, by a letter addressed to employees on
October 16, 1956, admonished, threatened, and warned the employees
that other employees would not work with them if they failed to join
the Petitioner. In objection 2, the Employer alleged that the Peti-
tioner deceived and misled the employees by communications directed
to them bearing dates of October 29, 1956, January 2 and February 7,
1957, which exaggerated benefits which the employees might receive
if the Petitioner prevailed in the forthcoming election. Finally, the
Employer alleged in objection 3 that the Petitioner misled the em-
ployees by informing them that their leadership would be drawn
from fellow employees when in fact this did not occur, and that the
employees were accordingly unable to arrive at a free choice in the
election.
1 117 NLRB 535.
118 NLRB No. 108.