The William Carter Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1973

208 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY 1
The William Carter Company, Inc. and International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 10-RC-9344
December 28, 1973
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On August 31, 1973, the Regional Director for
Region 10 issued a Supplemental Decision, Order,
and Direction of Section Election in the above-
entitled proceeding in which, inter alia, he adopted a
Hearing Officer's report and recommendations,
sustaining the Petitioner's Objection 2, which alleged
conduct affecting the results of the election hereto-
fore held on December 2, 1972,1 and directed a new
one be held. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request
for review, alleging error in sustaining Objection 2,
involving the withholding of "fictitious" dues, and
the challenges of three employees.
On September 24, 1973, the National Labor
Relations Board, by telegraphic order, granted the
request for review. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a
brief in support of the Regional Director's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs of the parties, and makes the
following findings: 2
With respect to Objection 2, the record reveals that
on November 22, 1972, a regular payday, the
employees were assembled in a small room in the
Employer's plant in groups of approximately 20
employees. There the plant superintendent read from
a prepared text, stating to employees, in substance,
that a $25 deduction had been made from each of
their paychecks which represented the amount of
union dues payable by Petitioner's members for the 5
months since the Petitioner began its organizing
campaign. He explained that the purpose of the
deduction was to illustrate that the Petitioner was
after their money. He further said that the employees
would receive the deducted money in cash after
signing a receipt for it. Finally, the employees were
told to protect themselves and their future by voting
"no" in the election. The paychecks were then
distributed to the employees. Immediately thereafter
the employees signed receipts and were given the
additional $25 in cash.
The Regional Director adopted the Hearing Offi-
cer's conclusion that the Employer exceeded the
permissible boundaries of electioneering and inter-
fered with the laboratory conditions necessary for a
valid election by temporarily withholding fictitious
union dues from each employee's paycheck and
subjecting employees to an antiunion speech before
giving them the remainder of their pay. We disagree.
The foregoing activity of the Employer was a mere
dramatization of a fact of life that the acquisition of
union membership, like the purchase of any other
service, involves a monetary consideration. While it
is true that the Employer contemporaneously voiced
its opposition to the Union, the statements did not
exceed the permissible limits of free speech. Nor does
it appear that the Employer misrepresented the
Union's dues structure. Finally, there was no
substantial delay in the distribution of the employ-
ees' pay. In these circumstances, we find, contrary to
the Regional Director, that the Employer's conduct
did not interfere with the free choice of the voters in
the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the
objection and as the tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner did not receive a majority of the ballots
cast, we shall certify the results thereof.3
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes have not been cast for International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, and that said
labor organization is not the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the appropriate unit herein
involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
I The tally of ballots showed that of the 376 cast ballots, 186 were for,
and 190 against, the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged The Regional
Director adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation that five
challenges be sustained and that one challenge be overruled but not
opened and counted since it would not affect the results of the election In
addition, the Regional Director overruled the Hearing Officer's
recommendation that Objection I be sustained, and adopted his
recommendation that other objections be overruled, to which no request
for review was filed
2 As the ballots of three employees involved in the request for review
could not affect the election results, we do,not pass on their elegibdrty. As
noted previously, we need not pass upon the issues raised by the challenges
We find no merit in the Employer's further contention in its request for
review that there was error in setting this case for hearing after an
investigation without first issuing a report on objections
3 See TRW, Inc., 173 NLRB 1425, Caressa, Inc, 158 NLRB 1745, The
Mosler Safe Company, 129 NLRB 747 Cf. Yazoo Valley Electric Power
Association, 163 NLRB 777
208 NLRB No. 1