TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

74 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
In one case, the Board held that the payment of $2 by an employer
as "lunch" money to employees who attended preelection meetings did
not warrant setting aside the election 88 The Board noted the absence
of a showing that the meetings were held within the 24-hour pieelecton
period or that the payments were conditioned upon how the
employees voted
(i) Employee interviews
The Boat d has consistently set aside elections where the employer
resorted to the technique of calling upon all or a majority of the
employees in the unit individually, in the employer's office or at their
homes, to urge them to vote against a proposed bargaining representative,
regardless of whether the employe]. 's remarks to the employees
were coercive in character In setting aside the election in one case,
a maprity of the Board held that office and home interviews of a substantial
number of employees for the purpose of encouraging rejection
of the union, together with the employer's interrogation of six employees
in the plant during the critical period, evidenced a systematic
technique of interviewing, the cumulative effect of which interfered
with a fi ee election 89
(u) Preelection threats and promises
.Pieelection threats oi piomies hich tend to influence the employees'
vote are grounds for setting aside an election But statements
regarding the effects of union organization or severance from an existing
broader unit will not be held to have intei feted with an election if
they are mere expressions of opinion or the party's legal position fl°
(3) Iffect of Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The Board will set aside elections because of substantial interference
therewith arising from conduct which, in an unfair labor practice
proceeding, would also be held violative of the act But, in such cases,
the interfei ence with the election is found to exist without regard to
whether the interfering conduct would be deemed an unfair labor
practice in a complaint case This is because the effect of pi eelection
conduct on an election is not tested by the same criteria as conduct
alleged by a complaint to be violative of the act
On the other hand, where the conduct alleged to have inter feted
with the election could only be held to be such interference upon an
initial finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, it is Board
"Jot Transportation Corp • above, Member Fanning dissenting in other respect%
89 The Hut ley Co, 130 NLRB 282, Members Rodgers and Kimball dissenting
"See Wed-McLain Co , 130 NLRB 19, where the Board viewed the employer s stair
ments as an eximorann of opinion nailer thin no threat,' of eennomlc reprien1 either
espress or implied