General Electric Co.

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since Respondent's activities impede or hinder the self-organization of its em- ployees and since the Respondent has expressed its hostility to such self-organization at various times in the past 17 and as the possibility of future similar type violations exists, it shall be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3191 , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Local Union No. 497, herein called the Teamsters, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by its discharge of George Bulick. [Recommended order omitted from publication.] 17 The Lawson Milk Company, supra. General Electric Company and International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No..9-CA-2667. July 30, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On January 28, 1963, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board, has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The ruling are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Ex- aminer, but not his recommendation that an order issue. 143 NLRB No. 103. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 927 Respondent has approximately 600 employees at its Circleville, Ohio, plant. On May 28,1962, the Union filed a petition seeking to represent production and maintenance employees at this plant. Thereafter the parties entered into a consent election agreement. An election was held on June 28, 1962, which the Union lost. During the weeks pre- ceding the election, both the Union and, the Respondent conducted vigorous campaigns setting forth their respective positions as to the election. There is no contention that any of this campaigning, except for the acts of interrogation discussed hereinafter, was unlawful. From March to June 1962, four minor supervisors asked four em- ployees some questions about the Union, such as what the employee expected to gain by having a union, and how the Union was getting along. The acts of interrogation were disconnected and appear to have been unplanned. No threats or promises of benefit were made during these interrogations and the background is free of unfair labor prac- tices. Although we believe that the Respondent overstepped the bounds of permissive lawful action by the interrogation, we do not believe that the conduct is sufficiently serious when viewed in total con- text to justify issuing a remedial order. Accordingly, contrary to the Trial Examiner, we shall dismiss the complaint. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE The unfair labor practice charge on which the complaint herein is based, was filed on August 10, 1962, and the complaint was issued on October 4, 1962.1 This case was heard by Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders at Circleville, Ohio, on November 20. The General Counsel and General Electric Company, herein the Re- spondent or the Company, were represented by counsel, and all parties participated fully in the hearing. Both the General Counsel and the Respondent submitted briefs, and they have been duly considered by me in arriving at my findings and recommendations herein. The complaint alleges that at various times in 1962, respective foremen employed by the Respondent at the Circleville plant engaged in interrogations violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Since the allegations of the complaint of the facts upon which the jurisdiction of the Board is predicated, are admitted in the answer, I find that during the past 12 months, which is a representative period, the Respondent shipped and delivered goods and products in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000, directly from its Circleville, Ohio, plant to points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Respondent's gross sales were in excess of $500,000. I find, therefore, that the Respondent is engaged in "commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce" as those terms are defined in Section 2(6) and (7) respectively of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein the Union, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 'All dates are 1962 unless specifically stated otherwise. 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Company, at its Circlevile, Ohio, plant, manufactures fluorescent lamps.2 On May 28 the Union filed a representation petition which led to an election on June 29, and at which a majority of ballots were cast for no union. Further background ma- terial and exhibits in this record show that various articles, bulletins, and letters were distributed to employees from time to time by both parties invloved in this proceeding.3 In arriving at my findings and recommendations herein, I have carefully reviewed and fully considered the background material pertinent to this proceeding. The testimony and exhibits were received and admitted only to shed light on the true character of allegations occurring within the permissible period, and solely to explain ambiguous and equivocal conduct and motives. Illinois-Ruan Transport Corporation, 132 NLRB 216, and Alumatic Windows, Inc., 131 NLRB 1210. B. The pertinent testimony 1. As to Supervisor Charles Hart Employee Richard Justice credibly testified that around May 1, in a regular "grad- ing interview" with his supervisor, Foreman Hart informed him that he had heard Justice was a union organizer, then inquired as to what Justice thought he would gain by having a union in the plant. Justice testified that Hart then also inquired if he had heard of the "troubles" the Company had encountered at its Bucyrus plant,4 and that he further asked Justice if he knew of the procedures in removing a union once organized. Justice stated that within 1 week prior to the election on June 29, Hart again inquired of him as to how he thought the Union was getting along, and that Hart then also informed him that it would be helpful to know how many au- thorization cards the Union had. Supervisor Hart admitted in his testimony that he had asked Justice how he felt about the Union, and on a couple of occasions had also inquired as to how the Union was progressing, and if Justice thought the Union would organize the plant. Hart denied that he had ever asked or told Justice it would be helpful to know how many cards the Union had signed, but admitted that a week or so before the election he had asked Justice how many cards the Union had signed. Employee Ruby Chester credibly testified that in April she was called into the office for an interview, and that Supervisor Hart then inquired if she had heard any talk on the floor about the Union. She stated that a few days later Hart also informed her that he had complaints about her talking union on the floor to other employees. Chester further testified that a day or two before the election she was wearing a union badge, and that Hart then asked what the Union had to offer her and why she was wearing the badge. She also stated that on other occasions Hart informed her that the Union caused "a lot of trouble," and told her that the employees at the Respondent's Bucyrus plant were trying to get the Union out of the plant. Hart admitted that he had an interview with Ruby Chester, but testified that this was a regular policy of the Company in helping employees with their work, but could not remember mentioning anything about a union at the interview . Hart then ad- mitted that a few days before the election he asked Chester what the Union could 2It appears from the exhibits that during the relevant period herein, the Circleville plant employed an approximate average of 616 employees, and that during May and June of 1962 there were 38 supervisors employed at the plant. 3 On April 18 the Union distributed a bulletin setting forth five specific conditions at the Circleville plant. This was followed by a bulletin dated May 28, and shortly there- after the Union distributed a bulletin entitled, "Your right to organize is protected by the U.S. Government." On June 12 employees were shown a film of the October 1960, strike violence at other General Electric plants, and subsequently thereto various other bulletins and papers were also distributed to employees by the Union ( Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 2 to 5.) The General Counsel argues that 8(a) (1) allegations must be con- sidered against the background of the campaign by the Company to defeat the Union as shown by the various antiunion newsletters and bulletins distributed by the Respondent to employees (General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 2 to 4.) In this respect employees received a copy of the February-March issue of the "News ," and in June received the "Circleville Lamp News Letter entitled 'Questions and Answers,' " and "IUE Promises vs. Facts," and on June 26 employees were sent a letter signed by the plant manager. 4 Bucyrus is another of the Respondent 's fluorescent lamp plants in the general area of Circleville. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 929 give her that she did not already have, and that he also discussed with her the problem at the Bucyrus plant, and explained that the employees had hired a lawyer in their attempts to remove the Union. 2. As to Supervisor Campbell Mary Myers credibly testified that in early April she was called into the office, and was asked by Supervisor Campbell how she liked her job at the plant and he then also inquired as to what Myers thought of the Union. During the course of this conversa- tion Campbell told Myers not to talk to any employees except the employees in her own unit.5 3. As to Supervisors Sparks and Turner Alvie Glenn credibly testified that in March, Supervisor Sparks approached Glenn at his work station, and asked him how many cards he had signed up; Sparks had heard that he had 350 cards signed, and had also informed Glenn that "it would cause confusion and hard feelings if the Union got in." Sparks admitted that he had made a statement to Glenn to the effect that he had heard that Glenn had 500 union cards signed. Sparks stated that at this time he did not know that the Union was trying to organize the plant. Glenn further testified that in June he had asked Supervisor Turner if he had signed a union card in 1959, and a discussion then followed as to rates of pay and what the organized plant at Bucyrus was paying employees for similar work. Glenn stated that later in June Turner asked him what position he held in the Union.6 C. Concluding findings The four-supervisors of the Respondent involved in this proceeding-all freely admitted in their testimony that they had various union conversations with the em- ployees who testified for the General Counsel. Certain aspects of Supervisor Hart's testimony very nearly corroborates that given by Richard Justice, and in incidents where statements were attributed to Hart by Ruby Chester, his only denial was that he could not remember mentioning anything about the Union. Supervisor Sparks admitted, as aforestated, that he inquired of Glenn whether he had a certain number of cards signed because he had heard about it through another employee, and wanted to find out if it were true. Supervisor Turner admitted certain aspects of statements attributed to him by Glenn. Based on these reasons, and upon my observations and demeanor of the witnesses, I have credited the testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel. The Respondent argues that apart from the issue of credibility, any and all state- ments made by the Respondent's supervisors were protected free speech under Section 8(c) of the Act, and which, in part, involves the principles as announced by the Board in the Blue Flash doctrine? I find no merit in the Respondent's arguments. In the Blue Flash case the matter investigated by the employer through interrogation of employees as to their union allegiance, was the question of the Union's claimed majority status. The Board there held that such interrogation conducted for a "purpose legitimate in nature" did not violate the Act, but then went on to say that the test is whether, under all the circum- stances, the interrogation tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. In the instant case the Union filed a petition for election on May 28, and this record is completely void of any question by the Respondent as to the Union's majority, nor are there present any other factors which would establish the interrogations in question as "legitimate in nature." On the contrary, the record here is clear that the Respondent had no legitimate cause to inquire. The General Counsel argues that the bulletins and letters sent to employees by the Respondent, as aforestated, constituted a showing of union animus The Respondent 5 Campbell stated that he and Myers had a conversation, but that Myers voluntarily had come into the office relative to her job duties , and then she had inquired of Campbell if the Union was a good thing. 9 Turner denied that he had asked Glenn what position he held in the Union, but ad- mitted that he did have one or more union conversations with Glenn , and that on one occasion told Glenn that he could not see how a union would help him Turner further admitted that he and Glenn had also discussed pay scales at the Respondent's Bucyrus plant. 7 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintains that this background material only shows that the Company was attempting. to defend itself against a vicious attack initiated by the Union. Even assuming, here,. arguendo, that this record shows no established or overt union animus by other con- duct on the part of the Company, nevertheless, the circumstances under which some of the questioning was accomplished, including the use of company offices, and the privacy of the interviews, can only indicate hostility toward union advocates. In many instances the interrogations were in the usual form-secret but systematic, and for the usual purpose-identification and an exploration of the strength of unions sentiment. Even unaccompanied by other unfair labor practices or antecedent hos- tility, I find such interrogation presumptively and implicitly coercive .8 In Blue Flash the Board also recognized a second class of cases in which a cease and desist order against interrogation might not serve the purposes of the Act. That class embraced those situations where the circumstances under which the interroga- tion was conducted indicated it was free from restraining or coercive impact. The Board acknowledged that employees and minor supervisors frequently engage in friendly and casual conversations related to unions and indicated that a realistic appraisal might well establish that interrogation occurring in such a context was free from suggestion of interference or restraint. Where, too, the interrogation is con- fined to isolated incidents involving few employees and is unaccompanied by threats the Board will indulge the employer. Again however, the conduct under scrutiny here cannot be so described. The already credited testimony of Justice, Myers, Glenn, and Chester is that super- visors in several instances not only initiated the conversations respecting union activ- ity, but on occasions called them into the plant offices to conduct the interrogations. There is some testimony in this record that Supervisor Sparks and Glenn would con- tinually be "kidding" with each other, however, Glenn testified when Sparks asked him how many cards he had signed, Sparks was not joking. Glenn then stated, "With the Company, the Union wasn't a joke " 9 Myers testified that when Super- visor Campbell first brought up the Union in his discussion with her, she was "afraid." Justice stated that Supervisor Hart inquired of him on various occasions as to how he thought the Union was getting along. Chester was asked why she was wearing a union badge. To characterize such interrogations as either casual or friendly is to abort the meaning of the words. Under these circumstances the recreated question- ing was an attempted extraction of the views of the employees.ia The instant case does not come within the Blue Flash rule. In addition to the above, it should also be noted that there is no testimony in this record by the Respondent-credible or otherwise-informing or even indicating, that the employees would not be subject to reprisals for engaging in their union activities. In The Western Reserve Telephone Company, 138 NLRB 755, the Board held that the employer violated the Act by asking for a show of hands of employees who had signed union cards, since the employer did not tell the employees they would not be subject to any reprisals for engaging in union activities. The element of "no reprisals" is lacking in this proceeding, and is a ready distinction of such cases wherein this element or factor was present, and where the interrogations were deemed permissible with this specific understanding and actual pronouncement by the em- ployer. There is a further suggestion by the Respondent that none of the super- visors' comments or statements had any effect upon the employees' union activities, and that the employees involved herein continued to support the Union, wore badges before the election, and passed out pamphlets for the Union. However, the question is not whether the employees stopped their union efforts, or whether employees actu- s It is noted that the Board majority in Blue Flash made an express disavowal of such evidence as a prerequisite to finding such interrogation unlawful. 9 Whether a supervisor asks how many union cards an employee may have had signed, or whether he states that he has heard that the employee has had a certain number signed, the result is the same. Such an interrogation or statement elicits from an employee an immediate response that be is either for or against the Union Such a statement, con- sidered in the context with Sparks' statement that "it would cause confusion and chard feelings if the union got in," indicated to Glenn that his employer and his supervisor were unalterably opposed to the Union 10 There is also considerable court authority that Section 8(c) of the Act does not apply to interrogations which are implicitly coercive N.L R B v Minnesota Mining & Manu- facturing Company, 179 F. 2d 323, 326 (C.A. 8) ; N L R.B v L. J. Williams, d/b/a Williams Lumber Company, et al., 195 F. 2d 669, 672 (CA 4 ) , cert. denied 344 U S 834 • N L R B v. Kropp Forge Co., 178 F. 2d 822, 825, 827-829, (C A. 7), cert. denied: 340 U. S. 810. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 931 ally felt intimidated, but whether the Employer engaged in conduct which may reason- ably be said to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.il In addition to the above it also appears to me that the interrogations herein were not so isolated as not to support a finding as suggested by the Respondent. Here we had four employees interrogated by four supervisors on several and different oc- casions, and certainly such instances were too numerous to be considered isolated. In Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a Statler Hilton Hotel, 138 NLRB 135, the Board held that a supervisor's statements to two employees, on separate occasions, were not "isolated," and warranted the issuance of a remedial order. In Kohler Co., 128 NLRB 1062, the Board held that supervisors' unlawful statements to an employee on two different occasions were not so isolated as not to support an 8(a) (1) finding. The surrounding circumstances in this case, which are singly and in combination unfair labor practices, and upon which it is found Respondent violated Section, 8(a)(1) are: (1) Hart's interrogation of Justice to the effect that he had heard Justice was a union organizer; his inquiry as to what Justice would gain by having a union; asking how the Union was getting along; and wanting to know from Justice how many authorization cards the Union had; (2) Hart's interrogation of Chester as to what she had heard about the Union, and asking what the Union had to offer her and why she was wearing the union badge; (3) Campbell's interrogation of Myers as to, what she thought of the Union; (4) Sparks' interrogation of Glenn as to how many union cards he had signed up; (5) and Turner's interrogations of Glenn as to what position he held in the Union. The above instances of interrogations were attempts by the Company to inquire into attitudes, loyalties, identification of union leaders, and progress of the union organizational efforts without any legitimate cause to inquire, coupled with the definite implication that the employees would be better without the Union; they therefore constitute violations of Section 8(a) (1).12 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce,, and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since I have found that the Respondent, by interrogating their employees, inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that they shall cease and desist from such activity and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, General Elec- tric Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: " Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v . N.L R B., 185 F. 2d 732, 733-734 (CAD C) , cert. denied 341 U.S. 914 . See also, NL.R.B. v. Valley Broadcasting Company, 189 F. 2d 582, 586. (C.A. 6). 12 See also, P-M Garages, Inc. et at., d/b/a P-M Parking System, 139 NLRB 987. 717-672-64-vol. 143-60 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Questioning employees concerning their or other employees' membership in or activities on behalf of International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of their employees, in a manner constituting interference, restraint , or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its plant facilities at Circleville , Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall , after having been duly signed by the Respond- ent's representatives , be posted by the Respondent and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14 It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, notify the said Regional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. is In the ex ent that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order" "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner-of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question employees concerning their or other employees' membership in or activities on behalf of International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our em- ployees, in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------- ----------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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, Transit Building, Fourth and Vine Streets, Cincinnati , Ohio, 45202, Telephone No. Dunbar 1-1420, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.