Onondaga Pottery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1143 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ONONDAGA POTTERY COMPANY 1143
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the purpose of con-
ducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances
permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
ONONDAGA POTTERY COMPANY and FEDERATION OF GLASS, CERAMIC &
SILICA SAND, WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
3-RC-559. September 16,1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On November 1, 1950, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third
Region. Subsequently, on April 27, 1951, the Board, upon objections
to the election filed by the Petitioner, set aside the election and directed
that a new election be held when the Regional Director advised that
circumstances permitted a free choice of bargaining representative?
On November 2, 1951, the Board, pursuant to that advisement, issued
a Direction of Second Election. This election was conducted on No-
vember 27, 1951, and, upon its completion, a tally of ballots was issued
and duly served upon the parties concerned. The tally reveals that
of approximately 1,712 eligible voters, 1,542 cast valid ballots, of
which 532 were for the Petitioner and 1,010 were against. The tally
also showed that there were 6 void ballots and 36 ballots which were
challenged.
On November 4, 1951, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
election alleging that the Employer had engaged in interference,
coercion, and discrimination against the employees. On May 21,
1952, the Regional Director issued a report on objections to the election
finding that the objections raised material issues with respect to the
conduct and results of the election and recommending that the elec-
tion be set aside.2 On May 26, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to
194 NLRB 88.
2 The Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside on the ground that
the Employer had interfered with the election when it made speeches on company time and
property on the day before the election and did not afford the Petitioner, upon request,
equal opportunity to address the employees The Regional Director did not make findings
on allegations that the Employer had also interfered with the election by permitting prep-
aration and display of antiunion signs and posters in the plant while restricting the
display of the Petitioner 's literature ; by announcing a wage increase ; and by threats of
loss of economic benefits made in individual letters to the employees and in speeches.
100 NLRB No. 188.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director's report, alleged that erroneous principles of law
had been applied, and requested that the Board hear oral argument and
dismiss the objections.3
The second election among the Employer's employees was held
November 27, 1951. On the preceding day, the Employer delivered
six speeches to various groups of employees. These speeches were
given on company time and the employees were instructed by their
supervisors to report to the plant area in which the talks were given.
The speeches themselves were clearly antiunion in content. Several
days prior to this, attorneys for the Petitioner had requested that if
the Employer chose to address the employees the Petitioner should
be given an equal opportunity to address the employees under similar
circumstances. This request was refused. The Employer does not
contest these factual findings as made by the Regional Director in
his report and adopted herein. The Employer, however, contends
that as there is no "charge" that solicitation by the Petitioner was not
permitted on the Employer's premises and as the Petitioner conducted
an extensive preelection campaign during which -it called on em-
ployees at their homes, held weekly meetings, and distributed leaflets
at frequent intervals to the' employees at the gates of the plant, the
employees had reasonable opportunity to hear both sides of the union
issue. Accordingly, the Employer requests that the Board find no
interference with the conduct of the election arising from the Em-
ployer's speeches on company time and property.
The Board makes no finding herein as to the inclusion of coercive
statements in the Employer's speeches of November 27. The Board
does find, as did the Regional Director, that the Employer interfered
with the election by utilizing company time and property for
electioneering speeches to employee assemblies while simultaneously
denying the Petitioner the same forum for a like use.. While both
the Employer and the Petitioner had opportunity to contact and
persuade employees concerning the issues of the election through
numerous media, it is clear that the Petitioner was denied this use
3 The motion for oral argument is herewith denied inasmuch as the Board finds the
record including the exceptions filed by the Employer fully and adequately presents the
facts and issues of the case On June 24, 1952 , the Employer requested by telegram
that the decision in the instant case be deferred pending disposition of charges filed by the
Petitioner in Case No 3-CA-469, or, in the alternative , that the cases be consolidated for
the purposes of hearing . Case No. 3-CA-469 involves charges of violation of Section
8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (4 ) by the Employer including allegations made herein . Inasmuch
as we consider the facts necessary for resolution of the question as to whether the
Employer interfered with the election of November 27 to be before the Board , the request
of the Employer is denied.
ONONDAGA POTTERY COMPANY 1145
of company time and property .4 Until the Employer utilized such
a privileged and- effective forum for campaigning, the Petitioner
was neither entitled of right to this particular opportunity nor was
its position in the minds of the employees jeopardized through lack
of such opportunity. Upon the Employer's use of company time
and property in this manner for electioneering and the concomitant
denial of similar use to the Petitioner, however, it is clear that the
employees were no longer able "to hear both sides of the story under
circumstances which reasonably approximate equality." s The Board
has previously held that such conduct whether in plant or retail store
constitutes interference with employees' freedom of choice in the selec-
tion of a bargaining representative and proper grounds upon which to
set aside an election so prej udiced.° We reaffirm that position herein.
In comparable circumstances, we have further held that solicitation
and extensive use of other approaches to the employees by the organiz-
ing union does not qualify the principle involved and we find no merit
in the Employer's contentions in that regard.7 Accordingly, we find
that the Employer again interfered with its employees' freedom of
choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. We shall there-
fore direct that the election of November 27, 1951, be set aside and shall
further direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at such
time as he deems appropriate.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of November 27, 1951, be, and
it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the
Regional Director for the Third Region for the purpose of conduct-
ing a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit
a free choice of a bargaining representative.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
4 While the limitations on union plant solicitation imposed by the Employer are not
precisely drawn in the record and the Employer asserts that "solicitation " was per-
mitted, it is nonetheless clear , as evidenced by the explicit refusal to the Petitioner's
representatives noted previously , that the Employer prohibited solicitation within the
plant on company time in manner equivalent to that which the Employer itself utilized.
5 Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608.
s Bonwit Teller, Inc., supra. In Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. N. L. R . B., 197 F. 2d 640
(C A. 2) the Board's Decision, on petition for review, was remanded to the Board for
certain modifications concerning charges of unfair labor practices . The court specifically
did not review the action of the Board setting aside the election on the rationale affirmed
herein See also Bsltmore Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 9313; Belknap Hardware
and Manufacturing Co, 98 NLRB 484; and Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97
NLRB 1559.
7 See Metropolitan Auto Parts, Inicorpo, ated, 99 NLRB 401.