Universal Electric Co.

UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1101 In view of the foregoing, and all the facts as disclosed by our review of the record, especially the close proximity of the shipping and receiv- ing sections to the production area and the degree of integration of the shipping and receiving functions with other functions performed in the production areas, we are unable to conclude that the requested group possesses that degree of functional distinctness and autonomy which would warrant a finding that they have a separate community of interest.' We find, therefore, contrary to the Regional Director, that the unit sought is too narrow in scope to be appropriate.2 Accord- ingly, as the Petitioner does not seek an election in a broader appro- priate unit, we shall dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 1See The Wm. H. Block Company, 152 NLRB 594; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc, 113 NLRB 375. 2 The cases of Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc., 111 NLRB 237, and H. P. Wasson & Company, 153 NLRB 1449, relied upon by the Regional Director as support for his contrary con- clusion, are factually inapposite. Universal Electric Company and International Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC- 6878. January 01, 1966 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 10, 1965, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the con- clusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots showing that of approximately 756 eligible voters, 692 cast valid ballots, of which 307 were for, and 380 were against, the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Regional Director con- ducted an investigation, and on August 19, 1965, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to election and recommenda- tion, in which he recommended sustaining that portion of objection No. 3 pertaining to an Employer speech delivered on June 9, 1965, and overruling all other objections.' Accordingly, the Acting Regional In the absence of exceptions thereto, we shall adopt the recommended dismissal of the remaining objections pro forma. 156 NLRB No. 98. 1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director further recommended that the election be set aside and that a second election be directed. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to so much of the Regional Director's report as found merit in objection No. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees including truckdrivers, plant clerical employees, and shipping department employees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, guards, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Acting Regional Director found, in accord with Petitioner's Objection No. 3, that a speech made by the Employer's president, Hoddy, at the plant slightly more than 24 hours before the election, was coercive in character and hence warranted setting aside the elec- tion. More specifically, he found that the thrust of the speech was to emphasize and to capitalize on the past experiences of other local employers who had moved allegedly to escape the consequences of unionization at their plants, thus inferring that the same results might well follow if the Petitioner were successful in its attempt to represent the employees. Our disagreement with the Acting Regional Director stems, basi- cally, from his interpretation of the speech. As a matter of relevant background, it appears that the speech in issue had been preceded by an aggressive campaign in which both the Employer and the Union had engaged in extensive distribution of campaign propaganda. That of the Employer was largely directed to showing that unions had selfish financial interests in organizing and did not always serve the best interest of their members, while that of the Union was directed to show that benefits it had obtained in union plants were greater than those the Employer was providing voluntarily and that the UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1103 employees' future "security" was dependent upon unionization. In a letter sent by the Union to the Employer a few days before the elec- tion, the Union asked that the Employer hold an open meeting of its employees at which its representative and the Employer could both debate their points of view. The Employer did not grant this request. Although the Acting Regional Director regarded the Employer's failure to do so as relevant to the Petitioner's objections to the speech thereafter made by Hoddy, he noted that the union objections did not specifically assert a right of "equal access" and that he would not recommend setting aside the election solely because of the Employer's failure to provide the Union with equal time or access 2 Turning now to the subject matter of the speech: Hoddy began with the remark that he was there to answer the question put to him by a named prounion employee as to why the Employer did not want a union. In responding, Hoddy restated the Union's claims that the employees' future job security depended upon their unionization. Hoddy then set out to demonstrate that unions "could not create jobs" ; that a number of named local employers, who had been unionized in the past, had suffered financial losses thereafter due to uneconomic demands and/or strike action; that some of those employers had either moved their plants thereafter or had shut down their operations; and that the unions involved had not thereafter created jobs for the 1,800 to 2,000 "unfortunate workers" of the communtiy who lost work opportunities, but that the Employer had done so for 300 to 400 of them, "many of whom were now in our midst." Describing the union campaign as an "invasion" which had already produced ill will, dis- content, division, and confusion, he then went on to detail the benefits and the "security" already provided by the Employer; and asked the employees to give "serious thought" to the "facts" he had laid out and to ask other employees who had "suffered through" the experiences to talk to them about the matters he had related. We perceive nothing in the foregoing remarks which warrants find- ings that the employees would reasonably construe Hoddy's narra- tion of the experiences of other local employers who had moved from the community as a threat that the Employer would likewise move his plant in the event of unionization or as a prediction that such a move inevitably follow as a result. Assuming that his narration of these events was partisan in nature and represented an exaggeration of the circumstances involved, the employees could, we believe, evaluate the same as campaign rhetoric. Moreover, as is pointed out by the Employer, the occurrences about which he spoke were matters which had been generally known and openly discussed in the small com- munity of 25, 000 people living in the city of Owosso. 2 No exception was filed -to this aspect of the Acting Regional Director's recommendation. 1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Considering all the facts, we are persuaded that Hoddy's remarks created an unreasoned atmosphere of fear or that they otherwise impaired the employees' free exercise of choice in the election. We therefore dismiss Petitioner's objection No. 3.3 As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, and as the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast for International Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of Amer- ica, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.] MEMBER BROWN , dissenting: I would adopt the Acting Regional Director's finding that the Employer's preelection speech instilled in the employees the fear of inevitable job loss, and that the Employer thereby interfered with the employees' free choice in the election. My colleagues' description of the Employer's repeated efforts to link unionism with loss of work as being merely "campaign rhetoric" does not accurately reflect the coercive impact inherent in the June 9 speech. Thus, the Employer referred to 1,800 jobs lost by employees of the Redmond Company when that firm moved allegedly because of high costs generated by "union pressures." A further relocation by Redmond, again allegedly due to the "invasion" of a union and the existence of union "pressure," was stated by the Employer to be the cause of an additional loss of work for 2,000 employees. The Employer also indicated that unionism forced job losses on employees of the Woodard Company, another local employer, and clearly implied that because of union activity Woodard "built another plant in North Carolina." The theme of job loss again was emphasized by reference to earlier campaign literature displayed by the Employer which, it stated, indicated how "union pressure" caused "vast numbers of coal miners" to become unemployed and "so destitute" that certain Federal programs purportedly were needed "to provide them the necessities of life." The Employer then related the adversities of the above employees to its own work force by noting that its employees now were involved in a union "invasion" which already had brought "disrespect, ill will, discontent, division, and confusion" to the plant. 8 See Decorated Products, Inc., 140 NLRB 1383, 1385 , where we found nonobjectionable certain statements by an employer and asserted : "In such statements the Employer was merely answering prior propaganda of the Petitioner as to the benefits to be gained from unionization and pointing out certain disadvantages which could result. This an em- ployer has a right to do where, . . . It is done in a noncoercive manner." LOCAL 2346, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 1105 In light of all the foregoing statements, and the speech viewed in its entirety, I cannot agree with my colleagues' conclusion that the employees would not reasonably construe such remarks .as pointing to a loss of employment which necessarily would follow the advent of the Union. Nor, in my opinion, is the speech made lawful because the relocation of the companies may have been generally known in Owosso. If this has any significance, it is only to heighten the employ- ees' fear of unemployment which the Employer sought to impress upon them. The nature of such comments manifestly create and intensified a fear that job security could not be maintained if the Union won the election. Thus, by repeatedly emphasizing this theme, the Employer did not simply answer prior propaganda but created an atmosphere in which an uncoerced vote could not be cast. Accord- ingly, I would direct the Regional Director to hold another election. Local 2346, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Erectors, Inc.] and Lathers' Local No. 39 a/w Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers' International Union, AFL- CIO and Foster Engineering Company, Ltd., Party of Interest and J. C. Penney Company, Party of Interest Indiana and Kentucky District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Erectors, Inc.] and Lathers' Local No. 39, a/w Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers' International Union, AFL-CIO and Foster Engineering Com- pany, Ltd., Party of Interest and J. C. Penney Company, Party of Interest. Cases Nos. 25-CC-134 and 925-CC-137. January 24, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On October 22, 1965, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent District Council had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent Local 2346 had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged and recommended that the complaint against it in Case No. 25-CC-134 be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent District Council filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 156 NLRB No. 102.