Perkins Machine Co.

PERKINS MACHINE COMPANY 697 in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. ROBERTO ALVARO MANUFACTURING, INC., ROBERTO ALVARO, INC., Employer. Dated- ------------------ By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap- plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fernandez- Juncos Station, Post Office Box 11007 , Santurce, Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 723- 3200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Perkins Machine Company and International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 223, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3894. March 22, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges filed on August 14, 1962, by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 223, AFL-CIO, here- inafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region, issued a complaint dated September 28, 1962, against Perkins Machine Company, Warren, Massachusetts, herein called the Respondent, alleg- ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and the notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the Respondent solicited its employees to resign from the Union and to revoke their authorizations to the Union for deduction of dues, and thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. On November 5, 1962, all parties to this proceeding executed a stipulation of the record, and requested that the proceeding be trans- ferred directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision and order. The request states that the parties have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance of an Intermediate Report by a Trial Examiner. The parties also agreed that their stipulation and certain specified documents shall constitute the entire record in the case. 141 NLRB No. 65. 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 13 the Board granted the parties' request to transfer the case to the Board. Briefs were thereafter filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent, a Maine corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Warren, Massachusetts, is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of stamping presses and accessories. It receives in Massachusetts directly from points outside Massachu- setts materials having an annual value exceeding $50,000, and ships from Massachusetts directly to points outside Massachusetts products having an annual value exceeding $50,000. The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 223, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On April 24, 1961, the Board certified the Union as exclusive bar- gaining representative in a unit of production and maintenance employeees of the Respondent. On or about August 23, 1961, the Re- spondent and the Union entered into a collective-bargaining agree- ment covering employees in the above-described unit. The contract, by its terms, was effective from August 23, 1961, to August 22, 1964. Article II of the contract provides for maintenance of membership in the Union and for the deduction of dues from wages of union mem- bers. The contract further provides that there shall be a 15-day annual "escape" period, allowing employees to withdraw from the Union and to revoke their checkoff authorizations; that the "escape" period "shall immediately precede the anniversary dates of this Agreement"; and that "Notice of Revocation must be sent by reg- istered mail to the Company and the Union." On August 3, 1962, just prior to the commencement of the 15-day "escape" period, the Respondent addressed to each employee who was 1 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. PERKINS MACHINE COMPANY 699 a member of the Union the following letter, signed by Bertram W. Perkins, treasurer : DEAR ---------------- As you may recall, the contract between the Company and the union permits union members to resign from the union during a short period each year. The period runs from August 8th to August 23rd. Accordingly, as a union member you have a short opportunity in the next few days to resign from the union, if you choose to do so. If you wish to get out of the union, you can follow the pro- cedure set forth below. Keep in mind that the union contract expressly permits you to resign from the union only from August 8 to August 23rd. If you want to resign, you must resign between those dates-or wait until August of next year. The decision is yours to make. The Company simply wants to be sure you know about, and understand, your rights and privileges. Whether you resign from the union, or whether you remain a member will not make any difference in your wages, benefits, position or treatment by the Company. If you want to resign from the union- 1. You should date and sign two copies of the enclosed letter addressed to the Company and the union. (Keep the third copy for yourself.) 2. Between August 8th and August 23rd, 1962, you should mail the two signed copies-one to the Company and one to the union-in the enclosed envelopes. 3. Be sure that the envelopes are both sent by registered mail. The contract between the union and the Company requires reg- istered mail for these notices to be effective. We repeat-the Company is not urging you either to remain a member of the union or to resign from the union. As far as the Company is concerned, that is a matter for each man to decide for himself without pressure from either the Company or the union. There were enclosed with the foregoing communication two enve- lopes, addressed to the Respondent and the Union, marked "Regis- tered Mail," and the following form, which was prepared by the Respondent : DEAR SIRS: Under Article II, Paragraph 3(b) of the contract dated August 23, 1961, between the Company and the Union, I am hereby notifying you that I revoke my authorization for 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD deduction by the Company of union dues from my wages and that I hereby resign my membership in the Union. Very truly yours, The General Counsel, relying on Hexton Furniture Company 2 and The Red Rock Company," contends in substance that the Respondent, in preparing and transmitting to its employees a notice of resignation from the Union and a revocation of authorization for deduction of dues, solicited employees to resign from the Union and to cancel their checkoff authorizations, and thus interfered with restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of .the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). We disagree. In our view, the Respondent acted lawfully in bringing to the attention of its employees their contractual right to resign from the Union and to revoke their dues deduction authorizations. Signifi- cantly, the Respondent's communication is free from any threat of reprisal or promise of benefit in the event the employees decided not to resign from the Union or to revoke their authorizations for deduc- tion of Union dues. On the contrary, the Respondent's letter begins with a recitation of the employees' rights under the contract; is replete with such noncoercive statements as "The decision is yours to make" and "Whether you resign from the union, or whether you remain a member will not make any difference in your wages, benefits, position or treatment by the Company"; and ends with a clear statement of Respondent's neutral position. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any other evidence of coercion, we find that the Re- spondent's communication of August 3, standing alone, did not inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint.4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Perkins Machine Company , Warren, Massachusetts, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 111 NLRB 342. $ 84 NLRB 521. 4 The cases relied on by the General Counsel are distinguishable In Hexton Furniture, the employer not only posted a notice calling the attention of employees to their right to revoke their checkoff authorizations but, in addition, called two meetings of employees for the purpose of informing them of their rights to revoke their authorizations and dis- tributed checkoff authorization revocation forms to foremen, who spoke individually to employees asking them if they wished to withdraw from the union Further, in Hexton, some of the foremen were "more insistent," returning frequently to employees who had not yet signed the forms. In Red Rock, unlike the instant case, the employer called em- ployees into its office individually and asked them to sign certain documents indicating that they wished to withdraw from the union Moreover, in Red Rock the Board, in finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1), expressly relied on the employer's hostility to the union, as evidenced by its contemporaneous violations of Section 8(a) (3) and (5) of the Act In the instant case, however, on the record before is, there is no evidence of any union animus on the part of the Respondent. DENVER-COLORADO SPRINGS-PUEBLO MOTOR WAY, INC. 701 2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 223, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo Motor Way, Inc., Petitioner and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1468, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 27-RM-122, 27-RM-123, and 27-RM-1f4. March 22, 1963 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a, hearing was held before F. T. Frisbey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chair- man McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer-Petitioner is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The representation question : The Employer, on August 1, 1962, filed three petitions requesting three separate units of bus operators, terminal employees, and main- tenance employees respectively in the Employer's northern division, which was acquired by purchase in July 1959 from American Bus- lines, Inc. These employees had been covered in a single overall unit by a contract between the American Buslines and the incumbent Union, the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1468, AFL-CIO, which contract the Employer had assumed upon purchase of the line and which expired on July 31, 1962. The Intervenors, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO, and the International Association of Machinists, District No. 86, AFL-CIO, hold contracts covering em- ployees in separate units of bus operators and maintenance employees respectively in the Employer's southern division. The Brotherhood contended that through its contract for bus operators in the southern division it was entitled to represent all the employer's bus operators, 141 NLRB No. 60.