National Screw & Mfg. Co. of Cal., 1360 (1962)

Accordingly, we find that all skilled and semiskilled employees engaged in binding and handling of books at Employer's Camden, New Jersey, operations, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election 9mitted from publication in this volume.] I In accord with the agreement of the parties , we find that the 35 temporary part-time employees at the Jackson Street operation are ineligible to vote.

NATIONAL SCREW & MFG. CO. OF CAL. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,

UNITED AIITOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-2452.

December 23,1952

Supplemental Decision and Order On June 6, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region among certain of the employer's employees, to determine whether or not they wished the Petitioner to represent them in collective bargaining. A tally of ballots was furnished the parties after the election. It shows that of approximately 108 eligible voters, 101 cast valid ballots: 36 for the Petitioner, 63 against, and 2 challenged.

On June 11, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election, in which it alleged that the Employer had engaged in improper conduct which affected the result of the election.

On August 21, 1952, the Regional Director issued his report on objections, in which he made certain findings supporting one of the objections, and recommended that the election be set aside.' On September 2, 1952, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.' The Petitioner started an organizing campaign among the Employer's employees about September or October 1951. On October 31 the Petitioner, alleging that the Employer had been conducting antiunion meetings on company time and property, requested by letter permission to present its case to the employees under similar circumstances. The request was denied by letter on November 9, 1951.

'Because they were insufficient to affect the results of the election , the Regional Director made .no findings concerning the challenges.

The Petitioner did not file exceptions to any adverse findings.

101 NLRB No. 218.

NATIONAL SCREW & MFG. CO. OF CAL . 1361

The Petitioner wrote requesting such permission again on November 14, pointing out to the Employer that it was legally obligated to grant such permission under the Board's decision in the Bonwit-Teller case, 96 NLRB 608. This letter was not answered.

In the period shortly preceding the election, the Employer conducted several other meetings on its premises among its employees to rebut statements made by the Petitioner.

On June 4, 1952, 2 days before the election, the Petitioner again requested of the Employer permission 'to attend and address any meeting you may hold with your employees prior to the election.' This request was also refused, the Employer attaching a copy of its prior refusal of November 9, 1951.

During the plant lunch period on election day, June 6, 1952, the Petitioner stationed a sound truck in the street adjacent to the outside lunch area in which the employees were at lunch, and a representative of Petitioner talked over the public address system. The exact proportion of employees present in the lunch area is not known, the Regional Director finding simply that 'a substantial number' were there. It is agreed that they could have heard the speech from the sound truck; whether those employees in the plant buildings could have heard is disputed.

During working hours on the same afternoon, the Employer called a meeting of the day shift, and delivered a 10-minute address devoted in the main to a rebuttal of statements which had been made to employees by the Petitioner.

There was no claim that the Employer made promises of benefits or threats of reprisals in any of these meetings.

The Employer, although not contesting the foregoing facts in its exceptions to the Regional Director's report, urges us to reject the Regional Director's recommendation to set aside the election, contending that the employees did in fact have a 'reasonable opportunity to hear both sides of the issue on which they were about to vote.' To support this contention, the Employer points to meetings conducted by the Petitioner at its union hall; its distribution of handbills, combs, and...