National Furniture Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

National Furniture Company, Inc. and United Furniture Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1354.
October 16,1967
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by
secret ballot was conducted on February 28, 1957, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. Upon the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 209 eligible voters, 75
cast ballots for the Petitioner, 127 against the Petitioner, 2 ballots
were void, and 1 was challenged. The challenged ballot was not
sufficient to affect the results of the election.
On March 7, 1957, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. After an investigation, the Re-
gional Director on June 4, 1957, issued his report on objections to
election in which he found no merit in the Petitioner's objections and
recommended that they be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner and
the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's findings.
The Board 2 has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional
Director's report, and the exceptions, and upon the entire record in
this case makes the following supplemental findings :
The Employer excepted to the Regional Director's finding that a.
copy of the objections was "immediately" served upon the Employer
within the meaning of Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regu=-
lations.3 A copy of the objections was received on March 9, 1957;
by the Employer in Evansville, Indiana, in an envelope postmarked,
"New York 7, N. Y., March 6-3 P. M. 1957." On March 7, 1957,
the objections were timely filed at the Board's subregional office in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Murdock , Rodgers,
and Bean].
s Section 102.61 reads
. Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished , any party may file
,with the Regional Director four copies of objections to the conduct of the election or
conduct affecting the results of the election. . . . Copies of such objections shall
immediately be served upon each of the . other parties by the party filing them. . .
'119 NLRB No.1.
476321-58-vol. 119-2 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner filed an affidavit of service by mail with the sub-
regional office to the effect that a copy of the objections was deposited
in the United States mail, addressed to the Employer, on March 5,
1957, at the same time as its objections were mailed to the subregional
office.' The Employer contends, on the contrary, that the copy of the
Petitioner's objections, which the Employer received. on March 9, 1957,
must have been mailed on March 6, 1957, the date postmarked on the
envelope. The Employer therefore asserts that the above copy of
objections was mailed a day after the Petitioner's objections were
mailed to the subregional office and that this service was not "im-
mediate service" within the meaning of Section 102.61 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations.
The Board's Rules and Regulations concerning the date of service
provide in Section 102.82 that "The date of service shall be the date
when the matter served is deposited in the United States mail. . . ." 8
The evidence offered by the Employer is, in our opinion, insufficient
to warrant the conclusion that the Petitioner's affidavit falsely alleges
the date of depositing the objections in the mail. Accordingly, we
find in agreement with the Regional Director that the Petitioner
timely served a copy of the objections upon the Employer.
Objection 1: The Petitioner contends that, a series of, 10 preelection
letters sent by the Employer to its employees during the period No-
vember 19, 1956, to February. 26, 1957, contained threatening, intimi-
dating, and coercive statements as follows : The Petitioner asserts
that the Employer's letter of November 19, 1956, included an impli-
cation of the need to preserve individual bargaining along with threats
of layoffs, shorter hours, job insecurity, and bankrupted business.
The Petitioner further alleges that in a letter dated December 26,
1956, the Employer clearly implied that the closing of another em-
ployer's plant in Evansville, Indiana, was caused by the Union. In
a letter dated February 11, 1957, the Employer stated that unions
were "un-Christian, un-American, and un-Democratic." In two letters
dated February 16 and 19, 1957, the Employer referred to an incident
reported in a local newspaper concerning the shooting of a baby in the
course of a strike at another company's plant near Evansville, and
warned that, "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH A UNION!"
In a letter dated February 22, 1957, the Employer listed a. series of
plants which were forced out of business as a result of frequently
threatened or actual strikes. In letters dated February 23 and 25,
1957, the Employer, according to the Petitioner, continued its cam-
paign of slander and intimidation against the trade union movement
in general and the petitioning Union in particular. The Petitioner
' The Regional Director states that the envelope in which the objections were mailed to
the subregional office was inadvertently destroyed and that it was therefore impossible to
determine whether the two envelopes bore similar postmarks.
5 See Audubon Cabinet Company , Inc., and Period Tables, Inc., 117 NLRB 861.
NATIONAL FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 3
also filed with the Regional Director a supplemental statement of
position regarding the letter of February 25, 1957, that the Employer
through its production manager made a most drastic and coercive
threat by its final assertion, "Let me tell you in closing that I per-
sonally feel that any vote for this Union is a vote for a sure strike
or lockout."
The Regional Director properly finds that the letters of Novem-
ber 19 and December 26, 1956, cannot be considered as a basis for
objections to election as they were distributed prior to the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election, dated February 1, 1957s Concern-
ing the remaining letters to which the Petitioner objects, the Regional
Director correctly holds that the content of these documents, when
considered as a whole, was, permissible campaign propaganda of the
kind the Board has declined to police or censor but rather leaves the
approval thereof to the good sense of the voters? As for the final
statement in the Employer's letter of February 25, 1957, which the
Petitioner deems particularly objectionable, we are of the view that
it was not intended to threaten and did not have the effect of threat-
ening the Employer's employees with retaliatory action. In the
context of the preceding portions of the letter, wherein the Employer
points out that unions call costly strikes and that victories by this
Union had resulted in some plants going out of business, it would
appear that the Employer's statement that "any vote for this Union
is a vote for a sure strike or lockout" indicated nothing more than
that in the Employer's opinion the Union would cause a strike and
the closing of the Employer's plant if it won the election. As the
letters were at most an expression of the Employer's opinion and elec-
tioneering propaganda privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act, we
agree with the Regional Director that the first objection is without
merit.
Objection 2: The Petitioner asserts that in the month of February
19t7, just prior to the election, various foremen made coercive and
threatening statements to employees, particularly threatening them
with, discharge if they should: join or assist the Union. The Petitioner
did not submit and the Regional, Director's investigation did not
reveal any evidence in support of the Petitioner's contention. We
therefore agree with the Regional Director that this objection is
without merit.
Objection 3: The Petitioner asserts that prior to the election the
Employer discriminatorily discharged or laid off a number of em-
ployees as a result of which the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice
Stratford Furniture Corporation, 116 NLRB 1721 ; Bridgeport Moulded Products.
Inc.. 115 NLRB 1751; National Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc., 106 NLRB 1300.
T The Zeller Corporation, 115 NLRB 762 ; L. G. Ever18t , Inc., 112 NLRB 810.
4. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charges. As the Regional Director's investigation discloses that the
discharges occurred prior to the date of issuance of. the Decision and
Direction , of Election and that, moreover, the charges (Case No.
35-CA-726) were dismissed by the Regional Director, we find in
agreement with the Regional Director that this objection is without
merit.
Objections 4, 5, and 6: The Petitioner contends that the Employer,
by "divers and sundry other acts, statements, and conduct" during
January and February 1957, engaged in a campaign of coercion and
intimidation. The Petitioner further asserts that "the entire con-
geries of acts and statements" of the Employer prior to the election
made a free choice in the election impossible. In particular, the Peti-
tioner takes the view that community feeling stimulated by the
"emblazoned headlines in the newspapers" about the baby shooting
incident "so blanketed the thought processes of the employees in the
community with the screen. of emotional hysteria," as to warrant
setting the election aside.
The Regional Director finds that the Petitioner's reference to
"divers and sundry" other acts lacks reasonable specificity and there-
fore raises no issues to be considered on the merits. The Regional
Director also states that none of the newspapers which carried stories
and headlines during the middle of February 1957 concerning the
shooting of a 4-month-old daughter of a nonstriking employee of an
employer in Oakland City, Indiana, approximately 30 miles from the
Employer's plant in Evansville, Indiana, linked the Petitioner or
the Employer's plant with the shooting incident. Finally, the Re-
gional Director notes as to the Petitioner's contention concerning the
coercive impact of the totality of the Employer's conduct that the
various components of that conduct were considered in connection
with the preceding objections and were found by him not to constitute
improper interference with the election. We agree with the Regional
Director that these objections are without merit.
Upon the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the Peti-
tioner's objections concerning the Employer's conduct do not raise
substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election. We
therefore adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director and
hereby overrule all the Petitioner's objections. Accordingly, as the
Petitioner failed to secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall
certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and
that the said organization is not the exclusive representative of the
Employer's employees in the .unit heretofore found appropriate.]