Sumner Williams, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1781 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

THE JACKSON CO., DIV. OF SUMNER WILLIAMS, INC. 1781
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
684-3627.
The Jackson Co., Division of Sumner Williams, Inc. and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 26-RC-
2601. October J1, -1966
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election by the Regional
Director for Region 26, an election was conducted under his super-
vision on April 21, 1966, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate. At the conclusion of the balloting, the Regional Director
furnished the parties a tally of ballots which showed that 80 valid
ballots were cast, of which 35 were for, and 45 against, the Petitioner.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely objection to conduct affecting
the results of the election based solely upon certain statements con-
tained in preelection letters issued by the Employer to the employees.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director con-
ducted an investigation of the objection and, on May 26, issued and
duly served upon the parties his Supplemental Decision, Order, and
Direction of Second Election, in which he found that one of several
statements forming the subject matter of the objection warranted
finding that the Employer interfered with the employees' freedom of
choice, and accordingly sustained the objection. Thereafter, in accord-
ance with Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision. By telegraphic order dated July 25, 1966, the
Board granted the request for review and stayed the holding of a
second election . Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record with respect to the issue
under review, including the Employer's brief, and makes the follow-
ing findings :
We do not agree with the Regional Director that the following
excerpt from the Employer's March 11, 1966, letter to employees,
160 NLRB No. 144.
1782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when considered in the context of the rest of the Employer's preelec-
tion campaign, warranted setting the election aside :
(1) This matter [meaning the pending election] is, of course,
one of concern to the Company. It is also a matter of serious
concern to you. Our sincere belief is that if a union were to rep-
resent you in your plant, it would not work to your benefit but
to your serious harm.
(2) We sincerely believe that the introduction of a union into
our plant is not necessary or beneficial to your welfare and
growth with this Company. We therefore, propose to use every
proper means to prevent a union from becoming established here.
As set forth by the Regional Director, the Employer's preelection
campaign consisted of a series of letters, all urging rejection of the
Petitioner. The above-quoted excerpt appeared only in the March 11
letter and was not repeated in the remaining 5 weeks preceding the
election conducted on April 21, 1966. Although the Petitioner's objec-
tion placed in issue all 'of the Employer's propaganda, the Regional
Director found that-apart from the excerpt-none of it exceeded
permissible bounds.
In sum, it appears that here, unlike other cases where the Board
has considered statements similar to the excerpt to be objectionable,'
the statements in question were published only once, over a month
before the election, and thus were but a fragment of the extensive
propaganda found otherwise to be permissible and were unaccom-
panied by any other objectionable activity by the Employer during
the preelection campaign. In these circumstances, we are unable to
find that the excerpted statements had any substantial impact on the
employees' freedom of choice in the election. Accordingly, and as the
Petitioner did not receive a majority of the ballots case, we shall
certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in
the unit found appropriate.]
1 See, ' e g., Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 28; J.P. Stevens Co., Inc, 157
NLRB 869; General Steel Products , Inc, 157 NLRB 636; Dixce Cup, Division of Ameri-
can Can Company, 157 NLRB 167 ; Marion Bottling Company, Inc , 156 NLRB 1094;
Benson Veneer Company, Inc ., 156 NLRB 782.