Paula Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 673 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

PAULA SHOE CO , INC 673
signed the certification on conduct of election Accordingly, the Re-
gional Director found that the Petitioner's designation did not confuse
the eligibles and that all eligibles were given full opportunity to cast
ballots for whichever union they wished
The Board has held in prior schism cases that the use of the same
numerical designation by two competing locals would not confuse
the voters in an election 2 The instant case differs from prior cases
only in that here it is the seceding local which is objecting rather than
the original local As to the language used on the ballots, the Re-
gional Director has broad discretion in determining the method by
which an election shall be conducted and the Board generally inter-
cedes only when there is an abuse of such discretion 3 There is no
evidence indicating that the Regional Director acted arbitrarily or
capriciously in having the ballots in English rather than Spanish, or
that the problem was in fact raised prior to the election The desig-
nated observers certified that the election was fairly conducted and
there is no indication that the voters were unduly rushed or handi-
capped in casting their ballots
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director's conclusion
that the Petitioner's objections raise no substantial and material
issues with respect to the election and, following his recommendation,
we hereby overrule them As the tally of ballots shows that a major-
ity of the valid votes have been cast for Local 492, Bakery & Con-
fectionery Workers International Union of America, we shall certify
it as the collective-bargaining representative in the appropriate unit
[The Board certified Local 492, Bakery and Confectionery Work-
ers International Union of America, as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees of the Employer in the unit found
appropriate I
2 See, e g, Internattional Harvester Company, East Mohne Works, 108 NLRB 600, 605,
Radso C"mgrorat on of Ameraea, 89 NLRB 699, 701
e Manchester rotted F'ashsons, Inc , 108 NLRB 1366
Paula Shoe Co., Inc. and )Union de Trabajadores de Muelles Y
Ramas Anexas de Ponce, P. R., Local 1903, UTM IRL-AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No 04-RC-1090 Auqust 27,1958
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On May 27, 1958, 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
Twenty-fourth Region among the employees in the agreed appro-
121 NLRB No 83
487926-59-Vol 121----44
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate unit Following the election, the Regional Director served
on the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
139 eligible voters, 122 cast ballots, of which 69 were cast for the
Petitioner, 51 were cast against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged
There was one void ballot The challenged ballots were insufficient
in number to affect the results of the election
On June 3, 1958, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election In accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director caused`an inves-
tigation to be made of the objections, and on June 26, 1958, issued his
report and recommendation on objections to election in which he rec-
ommended that the objections be overruled On July 7, 1958, the
Employer filed exceptions to the report and a brief in support thereof
The Board L has reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the objec-
tions, the Regional Director's report and recommendation on objec-
tions to election, and the Employer's exceptions and brief Upon the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings of
fact
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
2 The labor organization involved claims to represent certam
employees of the Employer
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4 The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act All production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Ponce, Puerto Rico, shoe
factory, excluding office and clerical employees, instructors, adminis-
trative, executive and professional personnel, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
5 The Employer objected to the election on three grounds First,
it alleged that the Petitioner, on May 6 and 20, distributed among the
employees handbills which represented that the Regional Director had
postponed the election from its originally scheduled date because of
the Employer's improper actions, and that the Petitioner had with-
drawn charges filed against the Employer because the Employer had
admitted its guilt with respect thereto, and that such statements were
made for the purpose of showing that the Board favored the Peti-
tioner in the election, were false, and were not subject to evaluation
by the employees because they were within the peculiar knowledge of
i 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 [Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Fanning]
PAULA SHOE CO., INC. 675
the Petitioner. The Regional Director's report finds that the hand-
bills were part,of a battle of words waged by the Petitioner and the
Employer prior to the election. The Employer also circulated hand-
bills to the employees on May 5, 19, and 23. In them it accused the
Petitioner of filing groundless charges against it and refusing to waive
them in order to block the election. The Petitioner's handbills sought
to justify its filing, and later withdrawing, of the charges. Both
parties were fully informed of the facts, and of the Regional Director's
disposition of the charges,and his reasons therefor. We find, in agree-
ment with the Regional Director, that even if the Petitioner's state-
ments were untrue and made for the purpose alleged, they were not
based on facts within the special knowledge of the Petitioner. On
the contrary, the Employer was in a position to, and did, completely
refute the statements and their implications before the election was
held on May 27. We therefore find that the employees were able to
evaluate the alleged misstatements made by the Petitioner prior to
the election,2 and, as recommended by the Regional Director, we over-
rule this objection.
Secondly, the Employer objected to the Petitioner's distribution
among the employees on the day before the election of a handbill
reproducing substantial parts of the Board's official notice of election
and official sample ballot allegedly marked so as to imply that the
Board favored the Petitioner. The handbill is approximately the
size of, and similar to, the right half of the Board's official notice.
It bears the same title, "Notice of Election," and contains the same
information as that portion of the Board's notice and sample ballot,
with the following exceptions : It omits all reference to the United
States Government, the Board, and Board agents, the words "Official
Sample Ballot," the paragraph explaining the purpose of the ballot,
and the word, "Sample"; it changes the position of the name of the
Employer; it, adds a paragraph from the left-hand side of the Board's
official notice, and a cross in the "Yes" box with the notation below,
"Vote this way"; and it is followed by campaign propaganda. Under
these circumstances, particularly the omission from the handbill of
any reference to the Government, the Board, or the Board's agents,
and the omission of the words, "Official Sample Ballot," we find, as
did the Regional Director, that the handbill did not purport to be
a copy of the Board's official notice and ballot. It therefore did not
fall within the proscription of Allied Electric Products, Inc.,' as
alleged by the Employer. Accordingly, we find that the second ob-
jection is without merit, and we overrule it.
Finally, the Employer objected to a statement at the bottom of the
Petitioner's handbill discussed above, "If you want to avoid that the
2 Sec Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co, 117 NLRB 744.
3 109 NLRB 1270. Cf. Stratford Furnroture Corporation, at at., 116 NLRB 1721, 1723.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jew Sandler continue to mistreat you, vote for UTM," as designed to
incite racial and religious prejudice against its plant manager and
thus impair a free choice by the employees in the election The report
shows that this statement was the only reference to this issue made
in the course of the preelection campaign The Board has previously
indicated that while it does not condone appeals to prejudice, the
mere mention of a racial or religious issue is not grounds for setting
aside an election 4 We therefore find, in agreement with the Regional
Director, that under the circumstances of this case there is no merit
in this objection, and we overrule it
As we have overruled the Employer's objections to the election, and
as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of the ballots cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
[The Board certified Union de Trabajadores de Muelles y Ramas
Anexas de Ponce, P R, Local 1903, UTM-IBL-AFL-CIO, as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the
Employer ]
i Chock Full 0' Nuts, 120 NLRB 1296, Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc, 120 NLRB 750
Clifton Deangulo , Business Representative, Local Union No. 98,
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association , AFL-CIO and
York Corporation
Local Union No. 9$, Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO and York Corporation . Cases Nos 9-CC-124
and 9-CC-125 August 28,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1958, Trial Examiner George A Downing, issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in, and were engaging in certain, unfair
labor practices and recommending that Respondents cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other
alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the Charging Party
filed timely exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief The Respondents filed a memorandum in support of the
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
121 NLRB No 80