N. N. Hills Brass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 164 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances, I think that sound administrative practice requires
that this Board not penalize a party on the technical grounds that it
has not correctly interpreted an ambiguous provision in the Board's
regulations. As there has been no showing that Petitioner acted in
bad faith in interpreting the term "holidays" to include State holidays
such as Good Friday, I think the Board should follow the practice
pursued in Western Wear of California, Inc.,' of applying to future
cases only, a first construction of a Board regulation. Indeed, such a
practice seems to be required by Section 102.90 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, which states :
The Rules and Regulations in this part shall be liberally con-
strued to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act.
Accordingly, I would take such action as might be necessary in order
to enable this Board to consider on the merits the Petitioner's objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
s 87 NLRB 1363.
N. N. Hills Brass Co . and Bakery, Grocery, Laundry Drivers and
Helpers Local 559, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,.
Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-3998. September X2,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated June 3, 1955
(not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders),
an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding on June 23, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the First Region among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in the aforesaid Decision and Direction of
Election. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that, of
approximately 91 eligible voters, 90 of whom cast ballots, 63 voted for
the Union and 26 voted against the Union. One of the ballots cast
was void.
On June 30, 1955, the Employer filed timely objections to the con=:
duct of the election. Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules
and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and on July 18, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties a report
on objections, in which he found the objections to be without merit
and therefore recommended that the Board dismiss the objections and.
certify the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer filed
114 NLRB No. 35.
N. N." HILLS BRASS CO. 165
timely exceptions to-the Regional Director's report, in substance, re-
asserting its original objections and further, claiming that the'Regional
Director had not conducted an adequate investigation.'
The Employer objected to the conduct of the election on the grounds
that -the Union allegedly "circulated -among the employees in the
collective-bargaining unit statements concerning'the Employer which
were false, misleading, inflammatory and highly material, and that
such statements were issued to the employees at s-ach a time that it
was no longer possible under the Peerless Plywood rule of the Board
for the Employer to reply effectively." In support of its position,
the Employer relies upon an allegedly false statement, contained in
a letter distributed by theUnion on the day of • the election, to the
effect that Employer's counsel was probably receiving in excess of
$5,000 as a fee for keeping the Union from representing the employees.
In agreement with the Regional Director, we find that this statement,
even if false, was not of such a nature as to warrant the setting aside
of the election; we cannot reasonably conclude that this statement
could have so affected the employees as to impair their ability to make
a free, uncoerced, Iand uninhibited choice of a collective-bargaining
representative in the election.2 Further, it is clear that the Union's
circulation of its''lett er on the day of the election did not violate the
rule established in the' Peerless Plywood case 3 against',campaign
speeches made within 24 hours of the, time scheduled for the election.
The Board specifically • exempted from. this rule the circulation of
campaign literature within the 24-hour period. In Comfort Slipper,
supra, the Board also expressly rejected the argument that under the
Peerless Plywood rule, the distribution of union literature must be so
timed as to give the employer opportunity to -reply. Accordingly,
we find no merit. in 'the Employer's'"objections. They are ' hereby
dismissed. - -
As the Union received a majority' of the valid ballots cast in the
election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Bakery, Grocery, Laundry Drivers and
Helpers Local 559, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, as the designated
collective-bargaining representative of the employees of N. N. Hills
Brass Co. in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be appropriate.1
'Contrary to the Employer's assertion ,' we find that the Regional Director 's investiga-
tion of the objections was adequate and proper.
2 See Merck .& Co., Inc.,,104 NLRB 891; Comfort Slipper, 112 NLRB 183; cf. Gummed
Products , 112 NLRB 1092. ' ^ ' ' I ' . -
107 NLRB 427.