TRW, Inc.

TRW ELECTRONIC COMPONENT DIVISION 21 TRW Electronic Component Division , TRW, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 38-RC- 318 January 5,1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election filed on December 12, 1966, and approved on January 3, 1967, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 20, 1967, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 13 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, of which 227 were for, and 342 against, the Petitioner. 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 and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Re- gional Director conducted an investigation and, on August 25, 1967, issued and duly served on the parties his report on objections in which he recom- mended that objections 2(a) and (4)(b) be sustained. Accordingly, the Acting Regional Director further recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 pol- icies 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 the employees of the Employer 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 purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time production and maintenance employees at the Wat- seka, Illinois, plant, including lead people, inspec- tion, shipping and receiving, and plant clerical em- ployees, excluding technical employees, office cler- ical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's Report, and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and hereby makes the following findings with respect to the Petitioner's objections. I In its objection 2(a), the Union contended that the Employer's timing of the announcement of the date of the annual Christmas dinner and its granting the employees an extra hour off the last working day before Christmas were calculated to influence the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. The Employer informed the employees on Wed- nesday, December 14, 1966, that a Christmas dinner for the entire Company would be held on Friday, December 23, from 12:30 p.m. until 1:30 p.m. Employees would be allowed to clock out at 1:30 and be paid for the remainder of the shift-ap- proximately 3 hours. Prior to 1966 dinners were held on a departmental basis on various days during the week before Christmas, and employees were usually excused from work about 2 hours before the end of the shift on the last working day before Christmas. The Acting Regional Director found that the tim- ing of the announcement, the granting of the addi- tional hour off for which payment was made, and the inclusion of an appeal for the employees' "loyal- ty" in the announcement constituted objectionable conduct which warranted setting the election aside. We disagree. We do not find the timing of the an- nouncement to constitute objectionable conduct since it was made a full month before the election and had to be made, as it was, prior to the week be- fore Christmas during which the dinners would-nor- mally have been held. Further, not only is the Em- ployer's explanation that the change was made for business efficiency plausible, but the change was in any event minimal and its effect too insignificant, remote, and speculative to warrant setting aside the election.2 Finally, it is our opinion that the para- graph about "loyalty" in the announcement did not constitute objectionable conduct since the Em- ployer's notices to the employees, even prior to the union campaign in the plant, contained similar ap- peals. In its objection 4(b) the Union contended that the Employer's campaign propaganda constituted a threat that the employees would be adversely af- fected economically if they chose the Petitioner in the election. The Acting Regional Director agreed and found that the Employer's campaign propagan- da warranted setting the election aside. We dis- agree. ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Acting 5, and 6 be overruled. Regional Director's recommendations that objections 1, 2(b), 2(c), 3, 4(a), ' American Thermos Products Company , 119 NLRB 557. 169 NLRB No. 6 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Acting Regional Director cited numerous excerpts from the Employer's literature and speeches , but these do not in all instances give an accurate portrayal of their content . For example, the Acting Regional Director quoted , from a letter by the plant manager to the employees, dated December 27, 1966 , the statement that "The union can do nothing to help . It can only hinder us." How- ever, he failed to take note of the first two pages of the letter which dealt with the business situation of the Company , the loss of condenser business as a result of strong Japanese competition , and the economic problems facing the Company. Im- mediately preceding the sentence found offensive by the Acting Regional Director are a series of questions , such as, "Can the union help us get back the condenser business we have lost ?" This piece of literature, taken as a whole , presented the Em- ployer's estimation of outside economic factors over which the Union could have no control and the Employer's view that the Union could not help solve these problems. In a similar vein , the Acting Regional Director relied on a letter dated January 16 from the plant manager to the employees which stated , in part, that, "I do not believe the union can do anything for us that we cannot do better for ourselves ." Omitted from this excerpt is the additional language of the letter, " I do not believe that the union can do anything to help us get orders from customers for our color convergence coils." Again, the Employer was merely amplifying its view that the Union could be of no help in solving the economic problems plaguing the Company. Similarly, the other material found violative by the Acting Regional Director was merely an asser- tion of the Employer's views, neither cloaked with threats of reprisals against employees if the Union should win the election , nor filled with intimations that the Employer alone controlled the employees' status and would not deal with the Union. An Employer is clearly permitted to present his partisan views of the economic condition of the company and its competitive position in the indus- try, as long as these are presented in a noncoercive manner.3 The Employer's letters and speeches were within the permissible limits of campaign propagan- da. Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and as the tally of ballots shows that Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. 3 Freeman Manufacturing Company, 148 NLRB 577.