Anchor Coupling Co., Inc.

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Anchor Coupling Co. Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-7898 November 15, 1967 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director for Region 7 on April 7, 1967, among employees in the stipulated unit. After the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximate- ly 120 eligible voters, 120 cast ballots, of which 55 were for the Petitioner, 63 against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an in- vestigation and, on July 20, 1967, issued and duly served upon the parties his report and recommenda- tion on objections to election and notice of hearing. In his report, the Regional Director found that cer- tain allegations contained in the Petitioner's objec- tions were without merit and recommended that they be overruled. He also found that Objection 2 and that part of Objection 8 relating to alleged state- ments by the Employer raised substantial and material issues of fact, and ordered that a hearing be held with respect to these objections. As no excep- tions were filed to the Regional Director's report, the Board issued an Order on August 4, 1967, adopting the Regional Director's recommendation with respect to the objections found to be without merit, and approving the holding of a hearing on the issues raised by the remaining objections. The hearing was held on August 7 and 8, 1967, before Shirley N. Bingham, Hearing Officer. The Employer and the Petitioner appeared and par- ticipated. On September 1, 1967, the Hearing Of- ficer issued and served upon the parties her report and recommendations on objections, in which she recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report, and the Employer filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's report, the Petitioner's excep- tions, the Employer's brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings, only to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision. 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 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, skilled trades, and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Plymouth, Michigan, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, truck drivers, and plant clerical em- ployees, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Hearing Officer concluded that preelec- tion conduct engaged in by the Employer, through its supervisors, Alice Gentry and Robert Portman, does not warrant setting aside the election held on April 7, 1967. We do not agree. The credited testimony shows that, in various conversations with employee Mary Bartha, Gentry made the following statements: The other girls are telling me that you are for the union, is that so, Mary? ... you are the last person that I ever thought would be for that union, I just can't believe it. You are the very last person that I ever thought would do anything like that. There they come with their union buttons on, they don't need to come over here asking me for jobs .... Now Mary, ... you go over there and go to work on them about the union, tell them what they are going to have to do, if they are going to vote for that union when they don't have work like now they are going to be sent home, they are not going to get any work. ... some other union girls if that union don't get in they are going out of here .... some of the girls will get raises but not all, not those union ones.... Sue LaBlue would go.... Employee Delores Benson was told by Gentry that, "if the union gets in these girls [who were on temporary assignments] wouldn't be over here working, they would be sent home. If the union doesn't get in like we have it now we would find mostly anything for you girls to do." On the day before the election, employee Vir- 168 NLRB No. 40 ANCHOR COUPLING CO., INC. 219 ginia Davenport complained to Portman, who was then assistant plant superintendent, about work as- signments and earnings; the following is the sub- stance of their conversation: He [Portman] tried to explain to me to the best of his ability, he said that things would be straightened out around here .... These things he intended to straighten out. I asked him about the pay, he said that right now during negotiations [the pendency of the election] . . . we can't promise anything he said no definite price but he says "I can tell you I think the company has realized their mistake and that we will be making some different changes around here. Between March 20 and the date of the election, employee Gladys Stewart spoke to Portman on the subject of hours and merit increases, and received the following reply: "If you will give just a little time, if we are given another chance I think all this will be changed and I will do the best that I can to make it possible that these grievances that everybody is complaining about will be changed." The Hearing Officer found in Gentry's state- ments to Bartha and Benson' suggestions that benefits might be lost in the event of the Petitioner's selection as the employees' bargaining representa- tive, but she viewed this evidence as isolated and in- substantial, and not sufficient to warrant setting aside the election. Concerning Portman's remarks to Davenport and Stewart, the Hearing Officer found that they contained no threats or promises of benefit. Clearly, Gentry's statements to Bartha and Ben- son contained threats of economic reprisal against employees if the Petitioner won the election, and Bartha was directed to communicate to the other employees the economic peril of voting for the Peti- tioner. In his communications with employees Stewart and Davenport, Portman asked that the Employer be given "another chance" and promised "some different changes around here." We believe that these remarks, considered in the context in which they were made, can only be interpreted as promises of economic benefit to employees if the Petitioner lost the election. The foregoing threats of economic reprisal and promises of benefit can hardly be characterized as isolated or insubstantial in their impact on the election.2 We find that the Employer's conduct interfered with the employees' free and untrammeled choice in the election and we shall therefore set aside the election and direct that a second election be held.3 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the election in this case conducted on April 7, 1967, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Election 4 omitted from publication.] ' The Hearing Officer inadvertently refers to Stewart instead of Benson on p 14 of the report R There is evidence that an officer of the Employer told its employees prior to the election that they would not be discriminated against re- gardless of the result of the election We do not believe that this general declaration was sufficient to neutralize the effect of the supervisors' coer- cive conduct 3 See Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417, 1419. An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 7 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all the parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236.