NLRB v. John S. Barnes Corporation
| Decision Date | 01 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1636.,72-1636. |
| Citation | 478 F.2d 1105 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. JOHN S. BARNES CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Julius Rosenbaum, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
James S. Petrie, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before HASTINGS, BARNES* and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court for enforcement of its order, 195 N.L.R.B. No. 123 as supplemented by 197 N.L.R.B. No. 10, issued against the John S. Barnes Corporation pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. The incidents giving rise to this action occurred in Rockford, Illinois, thus giving this court jurisdiction of the matter.
On May 26, 1964, Local 1553, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, filed a representation petition with the Board seeking to represent a unit of the Company's employees. A Board-conducted election was held in August, 1964, and the Union did not receive a majority of the votes cast. Objections to the conduct of the election were filed with the Board together with unfair labor practice charges. On a consolidated proceeding, the Board held that the Company violated § 8(a)(3) and § 8(a)(1) of the Act and set aside the August, 1964 election, 180 N.L.R.B. 911 (1970). A second election with a redefined unit was ordered.
The second election was held in May, 1970. The Union received an 85 to 75 majority of the ballots cast, with 12 ballots challenged. The Company filed seven timely objections to the election, but the Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the designated unit. The Company refused to bargain with the Union and the Board found the Company to be in violation of § 8(a)(5) and § 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Company was ordered to bargain with the Union but refused. This petition for enforcement of the order was then duly filed.
The Company only argues three of its original seven objections to the second election. We find that Objection No. 3, which protested the Union's distribution of a reproduced official Board document to which partisan messages had been added, was valid. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the other Objections, and we deny the application for enforcement.
On April 23, 1970, the Board issued its "Order Denying Motions" for stay of the second election. The Union on April 29, 1970 printed above a copy of this Order the words: "Now An Election Can Be Held As Promised!!!" and distributed the Order as a handbill to the employees.1
Two days later, on May 1, 1970, the Union printed and distributed a second circular, (Ex. "B," A. at 122).2 The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, in passing on the "Employer's Objections to Conduct of Election and Conduct Affecting Results of Election," held that (A. at 136).
The Regional Director then stated:
(Emphasis added.)
The Board affirmed the Regional Director's holdings without comment, on a motion for summary judgment.
The existence of "a message" added by the Union to the Board's order, is thus recognized by both the Regional Director and the Board. To say that portions of Exhibit B (appearing herein in note 2) "could in no manner be interpreted by the employees as an endorsement by the Board of the Union" flies in the face of reason and experience. To conclude that "the Union's messages merely proclaim that the Union was successful in obtaining an election" lies in the same category. It was more. It was a partisan statement, and we can only conclude it was added for a purpose which seems obvious.
The general rule governing election propaganda was stated in Stewart-Warner Corp., 102 NLRB 1153 (1953):
"The Board does not undertake to police or censor propaganda used in the elections it conducts, but rather leaves to the good sense of the voters the appraisal of such matters, and to opposing parties the task of correcting inaccurate and untruthful statements." 102 NLRB at 1158; Cf., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 60, 86 S. Ct. 657, 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966)".
An exception to this general rule was stated in Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270 (1954), where an election was overturned because the Union had distributed a document which was ostensibly an altered reproduction of an official ballot. The Board now argues that Allied Products ". . . will be invoked and the election set aside only when the printed material amounts to a copy or close facsimile of an official Board document, and is altered to give the appearance of favoring one of the parties in an election." (Petitioner's Brief at 29-30.) This position is totally inconsistent with the Board's prior decisions. In Rebmer, Inc., 173 NLRB 1434 (1968), the Board set aside an election where the Board's election notice had been reprinted and altered. The Board's ruling in Rebmer is, in our opinion the better rule, and is dispositive of the matter sub judice. It reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Handy Hardware Wholesale, Inc.
...warrant further comment that the Board could reasonably deny credence to this argument in the instant situation. N.L.R.B. v. John S. Barnes, 478 F.2d 1105, 1107 (7th Cir. 1973). The second objection concerned an alleged threat to a female employee to get her signature on a union authorizati......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Southern Health Corp.
...with disfavor upon attempts to stamp the approval of the U. S. Government on campaign literature. See, e. g., NLRB v. John S. Barnes Corporation, 478 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1973). Aside from this aspect of the case, the representation that the employer was deliberately misleading them by lying......
-
Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...reproduction of Board telegram); Mallory Capacitor Co., 1966, 161 NLRB 1510 (alteration of Board complaint); NLRB v. John S. Barnes Corp., 7 Cir., 1973, 478 F.2d 1105 (partisan comment added to Board order); Lake Odessa Machine Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 6 Cir., 1975, 512 F.2d 762 (partisan ca......
-
NLRB v. Clarytona Manor, Inc.
...by the employees as an endorsement by the Board of the Union' flies in the face of reason and experience." NLRB v. John S. Barnes Corp., 478 F.2d 1105 at 1107 (7th Cir., 1973). In that case, the message was considered to be in conjunction with an official Board document, and this court held......