both that opportunities for electioneering by A. F. of L. Union representatives inside the polling place existed and that the said representatives took advantage of these opportunities to engage in such electioneering.

(b) By companies.-The investigation indicates that electioneering inside the polling place was carried on by representatives of the Companies to an extent which may have occasioned serious prejudice to the proper conduct of the election. In many cases representatives of the Companies, by wearing A. F. of L. Union buttons, by remarks made to other representatives in the presence of and in the hearing of voters, and by direct statements to voters, indicated their preference for the A. F. of L. Union. Such conduct inevitably conveyed to voters an impression of a similar preference by the Companies themselves. This impression was undoubtedly fortified by the similar conduct of occasional supervisory employees who succeeded in entering the voting place. It was further emphasized, in one instance, by the close personal relationship between one company representative and a company official; and in another by the fact that one company representative was an A. F. of L. Union official.

III IMPROPER USE OF ELECTION MACHINERY BY A. F. OF L. AND COMPANIES DURING

ELECTION

1. Improper challenge of strikers

(a) By A. F. of L.-Not very much emphasis has been placed on this point, standing by itself. Such evidence as exists was obtained and is discussed below in connection with the objection based upon A. F. of L. Union and company cooperation in the improper challenge of strikers. It is perhaps unnecessary to Pilt out that strikers were fully eligible to vote under the decision of the Board and therefore challenges of strikers as such were improper.

(b) By companies.-The investigation indicates that company representatives challenged voters because they had gone on strike, giving as the reason for the challenge, first, that the workers had struck, and, second, when the first ground was explained as insufficient, that the workers had quit. One company representative openly declared the intention of challenging all employees who had gre of strike. To facilitate such challenges, certain lists had been prepared and were brought to the voting place by this individual and other company representatives. These lists showed which employees had gone on strike. They are discussed further in connection with the improper use of blacklists below under *III. 2.** They are, however, only symptomatic of the extent to which such inpoper challenges appear to have been made. Unfortunately, the exact extent of this practice is difficult of determination, because in at least some instances representatives, when they were told that striking did not disqualify a voter, erarged the basis of the challenge to a claim that the employee had quit and COLL.Lued to challenge on this ground. The significance of such improper challenging is explained in the following section.

4o1 By A. F. of L. and companies in cooperation.-The investigation indicates that the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies did cooperate in improper challenge of strikers. There is evidence that company representatives planned to cooperate with A. F. of L. Union representatives in the challenge of strikers. One such plan was openly discussed in the presence of a C. I. O. Union represertative. There is further evidence that such challenging of strikers by the repre-entatives of the Companies and those of the A. F. of L. Union continued substantially throughout the election.

Perhaps a brief explanation is necessary to reveal the full significance of this improper challenging. As will be explained below under "III, 2," for some time there has been in existence among the Companies a blacklist. During the election voters seemed to be afraid that if their names were used in connection with the voting they might somehow be placed upon this blacklist. When a vote is challenged in election conducted by the Board it is placed in a secret envelope, which, in turn, is placed within a second envelope, on which is written, inter alia, the name of the voter. The extent to which the coincidence of this fear of the use of names with the necessity for such use when a ballot is challenged may have deterred individuals from voting is discussed below under "IV, 1." According to one estimate, this result obtained in many cases.

2. Improper use of blacklist

(as By A. F. of L.-The investigation reveals evidence that the A. F. of L. Union had a blacklist at the hearing, containing the names of certain members

of the C. I. O. Union. It is indicated that an A. F. of L. Union representative was seen using such a blacklist during the election. There is evidence that this was admitted by the A. F. of L. Union representative in question. It is suggested that reference to the existence of this blacklist was made by A. F. of L. Union representatives in radio broadcasts during the election period.

(b) By companies.--The investigation indicates that company representatives used blacklists at the election. It is well established that blacklists have been in use in this industry for a period of several years. Such blacklists were brought to the election; one of them having been obtained during the investigation. The original marks on this list have been obliterated beyond recognition. The investigation reveals that this list was kept by a company representative during the election in a manner which at least made it available for his use and probably brought it and its actual use to the attention of voters. There is evidence that other similar lists were brought by other company representatives to the election and used therein. Several such lists also were obtained during the investigation. While the actual use of blacklists would clearly be prejudicial to the fair conduct of an election, their mere possession and display would be conducive to the same result.

(e) By A. F. of L. and companies in cooperation.-The investigation demonstrates that the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies cooperated in the use of the blacklists above described. There is evidence, as indicated above, that for several years some sort of blacklist has been in existence. It appears that the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies cooperated in the preparation and use of this blacklist. Only a few days before the election was held a copy of such a blacklist signed by an A. F. of L. Union representative is said to have been posted by some of the Companies. During the election one such blacklist was used by a company representative to ascertain who among those who had not voted were favorably disposed to the A. F. of L. Union. A list of such individuals was then prepared and handed to an A. F. of L. Union representative to facilitate the bringing of such individuals to the polls. In another instance a company representative gave to an A. F. of L. Union representative a list of voters to be challenged. This list appears to have been prepared from a blacklist.

3. Improper attempts to create anti-C. 1. O. prejudice

(a) By A. F. of L.-(b) By companies.--The evidence relative to these two points is of some importance. More significant, however, is the evidence obtained in this same connection but having to do with attempts to create antiC. I. O. prejudice through cooperative action between the A. F. of L. Union and the companies. These three phases of the investigation will therefore be treated as one in the next section. A further discussion of this problem will be found below under "IV, 2" relating to the part played by agents of the Board in connection with improper influence against C. I. O. Union challenges.

(e) By A. F. of L. and companies in cooperation.-The investigation reveals numerous instances of cooperation between A. F. of L. Union and company representatives allegedly seeking to cast discredit on the C. I. O. Union by indieating that its representatives alone insisted on challenging certain voters. In many instances in which the C. I. O. Union representative alone challenged a voter, representatives of the A. F. of L. Union or of the Companies, pointed out to voters that both the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies were willing. but that it was only the C. I. O. Union that didn't want them to vote. In still other such instances they stated, apparently without contradiction that the A. F. of L. Union, the Companies and the Board were willing, but again, that the C. I. O. Union alone was protesting. In some of these two types of instances, it appears that the challenge was well grounded; in others, that it was not. While it is clear that the provocation to make such statements is greater in cases in which the challenge is frivolous, the effect on the conduct of election is apt to be the same in both types of instances. There is evidence to show that this effect was to create an atmosphere prejudicial to the fair conduct of the election. For the creation of this effect, censure attaches to those whose conduct brought it into being. For failure to obviate this effect, censure attaches to the agents of the Board as discussed below under "IV, 2."

4. Improper miscellaneous cooperation between the American Federation of Labor and companies

The Investigation indicates certain miscellaneous instances of cooperation between A. F. of L. Union and company representatives not properly subject to

classification under any of the other categories in this report. In one such instance it appears that a company representative instructed an A. F. of L. Union representative as to whom to challenge. In another, a company representative Supplied an A. F. of L. Union representative with a special list which both representatives then used in deciding whom to challenge. In a third, a compiny representative and an A. F. of L. Union representative took such a similar position as to all problems which arose that it was said to be impossible to distinguish one from the other insofar as their actions were concerned. In a fourth, a company representative who arrived late sought permission to challenge several voters who had already cast their ballots. He explained, however, that he wished to make these challenges not on his own behalf but on behalf of the A. F. of L. Union representative, who had been there all the time.

Such instances all tend to indicate that there was in general a spirit of cooperation between representatives of the A. F. of L. Union and representatives of the Companies, which may well have militated against a free and unfettered devision of voters. This section lends additional significance to and derives added importance from joint consideration with the improper challenge of <rikers, the improver use of blacklists and the improper attempts to create zati-C. I. O. prejudice discussed above.

IV. IMPROPER CONDUCT BY AGENTS OF BOARD

I. Inaccuracy in eligibility lists and consequences thereof

Various separable objections are grouped under this broad heading. It is elarged that certain names which should have appeared on the eligibility lists wr omitted therefrom. It is likewise charged that certain names which Sorld not have appeared upon these lists, were included therein. It is asserted flar various voters appeared upon the eligibility lists as entitled to cast straight Fedots when, in fact, they should have been entitled to cast only segregated On the other, it is claimed that voters appeared on the eligibility lists as entitled to cast only segregated ballots when, in actual fact, they should have bern entitled to cast straight ballots. It is contended that many names were listed with incorrect Social Security numbers.

A a result of these errors, according to The Objections, many employees refused to go to the Companies to obtain letters setting forth the true facts in order to correct errors which appeared as to them. As a further result, it is asserted that many voters refused to cast ballots because they considered temselves entitled to cast straight ballots and were allowed only to cast Lallenged or segregated ballots. As an additional result, according to the C. I. O. Union contentions, certain voters who actually were ineligible were alved to cast unchallenged ballots. All of these factors, according to The Chietions, led to a timely protest by the C. I. O. Union representatives, which protest was disregarded. In final conclusion, it is asserted that the result was confusion, lack of confidence and an atmosphere of coercion which prednded the free and fair conduct of the election.

The number of inaccuracies in the eligibility lists as discussed below, seemed tl sufficiently large to justify a complete check of these lists against the reurds of the Companies. This check has been made and the results obtained aret forth in an analysis attached to this report.

T: king up the contentions in the order named, it appears, in the first place, that certain individuals were actually omitted from the eligibility lists. Confe, exists as to the number involved, but all available evidence indicates that at least a few, and possibly many eligible employees were omitted from the 1978 The evidence shown by the attached analysis is probably the most accurare available on this point.

In the second place, there is evidence to sustain the contention that certain names appeared upon the eligibility lists although the individuals named were 4 eligible to vote under the decision of the Board. This number seems to Ive been somewhat smaller than the number of omissions. It is none the ss of significance, as indicated in the attached analysis.

In the third place, it appears that certain voters were listed as entitled to east straight ballots when, in point of fact, they should have been listed as erly entitled to cast segregated ballots. It was estimated that at one table alone, only seven were listed as segregated whereas there should have been at least twenty-five or thirty so listed. The number of such cases in all canneries is shown in the attached analysis.

In the fourth place, it is shown that in numerous instances, employees were listed on the eligibility lists as segregated, whereas, in point of fact, they should have been listed as entitled to cast straight or unsegregated ballots. Evidence indicates that such errors existed in the eligibility lists of substantially all of the canneries and in an extremely large total number of instances. The best evidence of the exact number of such errors is probably contained in the attached analysis. In explanation of this large number of errors, it should be explained that the Companies refused to provide the Board agents with any information at all until shortly before the election. Even then they did not give enough data to make possible anything more accurate than a rough estimate as to the employees whose ballots should be segregated. It would be an act of supererogation to dwell upon the serious effect which such a large number of errors must have had upon the conduct of the election. In the fifth place, it apparently is true that certain names were listed with incorrect Social Security numbers. The evidence discloses that a few such names appeared upon the eligibility list, as set out in the attached analysis. In the sixth place, there is evidence to show that employees refused to go to the Companies to obtain information justifying the correction of errors that existed as to their status as set forth on the eligibility lists. Before consideration of the evidence, it might be advisable to explain that whenever, because of one of the errors discussed above, the representatives could not agree as to the proper status of a voter it was customary to ask the voter to go to the company at which he had been employed, and obtain a statement as to the facts. Many of the voters seem to have been afraid to take this action because of the general use of blacklists. Whether or not this fear was unreasonable on the ground that there was no reason to believe that the necessity for obtaining such statements was limited to members of either union, is beside the point.

The existence of the fear is alone of significance, and that such fear did exist is shown by substantial and credible evidence. The evidence, however, as to the exact number of employees who refused to go for statements, is somewhat conflicting. It does appear, nevertheless, that irrespective of the exact numbers involved, a substantial number of employees did refuse point-blank to go to the Companies for statements. A further and equally considerable number of employees did refuse point-blank to go to the poles, did not come back to vote.

In the seventh place, evidence indicates that certain employees refused to vote challenged or segregated ballots, whereas, had no error been committed, they would have been entitled to and would have voted unchallenged ballots. One individual has estimated that he himself saw twenty-four or twenty-five such cases and heard of many more. Another has stated that there were many such cases. According to a third, however, this actually occurred in very few instances. It is apparent that it will be almost impossible to establish the exact number. One may reasonably conclude, notwithstanding this conflict, that there were several such cases.

In the eighth place, it appears that employees ineligible to vote under the order of the Board actually voted unchallenged ballots. Opinions as to the number of such cases vary from a statement that there may have been only one to an assertion that there were a lot. The names of six such persons are advanced by various individuals as properly subject to classification in this category.

In the ninth place, it is established that timely protest was made. Although the protest was not disregarded, it did not lead to adequate corrective action. Several attempts to get more complete information from the Companies, and to hasten the preparation of the data ultimately obtained, met with little success. Conferences held in Monterey and in San Francisco resulted only in the obtaining of a part of the necessary data less than four days before the election was scheduled to take place. Some of the essential information was not disclosed at all. Efforts to correct the eligibility lists during the election itself were made. These efforts. however, were not entirely successful, partly because of the lack of time, partly because of further resistance by the Companies.

In the tenth place, as a result of the foregoing, an atmosphere of confusion, lack of confidence, and coercion seriously prejudicial to the proper conduct of the election was created. The volume of evidence accumulated on this point precludes more than a brief summary. Numerous arguments and disputes developed during the election over the segregation of ballots, the challenge of voters, the electioneering inside and outside the voting place, the preparation and use of lists, and even

the personalities of the participants themselves. None of the parties, with the exception of the agents of the Board, seem to have made any effort to maintain order and decorum. The participants in these arguments became extremely excited, and at times it was necessary to ask them to leave the voting tables because of the effect it was having on the voters. Not infrequently the language used in such arguments was objectionable.

In conclusion, the least that can be said of the above allegations of inaccuracies in the eligibility lists and consequences resulting therefrom is that they alone may have gone far to destroy the orderly and quiet atmosphere so essential to a fair and secret election. Irrespective of the party or parties whom these numerous errors may or may not have favored, and regardless of the identity of those who aust assume responsibility for their commission, their very existence may well have precluded the proper conduct of the election.

2. Improper influence against C. I. O. challenges

(a) By agents of Board.-The investigation indicates that agents of the Board did use influence against C. I. O. Union representatives' free exercise of the right to challenge. There is evidence showing that certain C. I. O. Union representatires felt that agents of the Board "talked them out of" challenges. There is evidence indicating that Board agents attempted to induce certain C. I. O. Union representatives to refrain from challenging in order to reduce the number of challenges by other representatives who, it appears, were exasperated because of the C. I. O. Union challenges. There is evidence establishing the fact that agents of the Board suggested the possibility of removal of C. I. O. Union representatives believed to be making groundless challenges.

It is fairly clear that many challenges were being made, some with and some without proper grounds. It is likewise clear that because of the reluctance of Teters to place their names on challenged ballot envelopes, such challenges were seriously prejudicial to the fair conduct of the election. Under such circumstances it was the duty of the agents of the Board to attempt by persuasion, and, if necessary, by disciplinary action, to eliminate all groundless challenges. At the same time it was their duty to guard against the creation of an atmosphere of prejudice against the union whose representatives were making such challenges. It appears from the evidence that too much emphasis was placed on attempts at persuasion and not enough on the use of discipline on the one hand and the guarding against an atmosphere of prejudice on the other. It appears, as a consequence, that an atmosphere was created which was prejudicial to the fair conduct of the election.

(b) Through permitting such conduct by A. F. of L. and companies.-The evidence revealed by the investigation which has bearing upon this point is dis cassed by implication because inevitably involved in the sections immediately preeeding and immediately following this section. It should be noted, however, that in one case a C. I. O. Union representative was deterred from challenging by statements by A. F. of L. Union and company representatives that if he did not withdraw a challenge they would challenge every C. I. O. Union voter. In other cases C. L. O. Union representatives were "talked out" of challenging by A. F. of L. Union and company representatives. This problem has already been discussed in some of its aspects under III. 3, above.

(e) By agents of Board cooperating with A. F. of L. and companies.-It appears from the investigation that at least an impression of such cooperation may have been created. Evidence indicates that Board agents appealed to C. I. O. Union representatives to refrain from challenging in instances in which the A. F. of L. Union representatives and company representatives agreed that the employee was eligible. The issue here is not whether this action was taken with a deliberate purpose of cooperating with the A. F. of L. Union and company representatives. The issue is simply whether or not such an impression was reated in the minds of voters. The evidence indicates that this probably was the case.

4. Board's agents improperly allowed instruction of voters in foreign languages

At the outset it should be emphasized that instruction of voters in foreign languages may be improper, whether or not the person giving the instruction is a supervisory employee. Thus, instructions of this character given by