Thunderline Corp.

THUNDERLINE CORPORATION 627 Thunderline Corporation and Kenneth L. Glenn. Case 7-CA-8855 February 28, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY Upon a charge filed on July 28, 1971, by Kenneth L. Glenn and duly served on Thunderline Corporation, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7, issued a complaint on September 30, 1971, against Respondent, alleging that Respond- ent 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Exam- iner were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com- plaint alleges in substance that Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by its June 21 and July 6, 1971, letters to employees and its July 2, 1971, speech to employees. On October 4, 1971, Respondent filed its answer and on October 8, 1971, filed its amended answer to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the com- plaint, and requesting that the complaint be dismissed. On December 3, 1971, counsel for the General Coun- sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 9, 1971, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the Gen- eral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed an Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and a supporting brief. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at 5495 Treadwell Road, Wayne, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufac- ture, sale, and distribution of link seals, rubber, and other related products. During the last calendar year, the Respondent sold and shipped from its Wayne, 195 NLRB No. 121 Michigan, plant products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Michigan. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respond- ent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu- ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and its Local No. 157, herein called the Unions, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent admits that on June 21 and July 6, 1971, respectively, it sent to each of its employees letters signed by Company President Barton, and, on July 2, 1971, Barton read a speech on company time and prop- erty to all of its employees on the day and night shifts. The June 21 letter contains the following statement: "The company has come along (from my garage in Livonia) and with your confidence and your trust in us we can make it much stronger for the benefit of all of us." The letter concluded with the statement: "When the election is held, VOTE NO!" _ Respondent's July 6, 1971, letter indicated the Unions' need for dues and then stated: "We can do the job together without it costing you a dime." The letter also contained the following comments: "I admit we have made some mistakes in the past in communicating with our people. But this can be corrected.... We believe we can work much better together in harmony than through an outsider who is not [here every day] VOTE NO!" Respondent's July 2, 1971, speech contains the fol- lowing remarks: In other words, I believe you should save your money and anything the Union could do we can do a better job ourselves without their third party help. In closing, we have made some mistakes-we are not perfect and we hope to improve. Our com- munication has not been the best. These things can be corrected. But it seems to me that its [sic] better to do it facing the facts honestly, discussing our problems directly, then [sic] it is to be divided in a way that would make it impossible for us to resolve our problems peaceably. We are not so big that we can't work things out without the prob- lems that have been experienced in plants where unions take over. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the statements 'set forth , above establish that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent contends that its letters and speech were protected by Section 8(c) as they contained nothing more than opin- ions and views and not implied promises of benefit. We find merit in Respondent's contention. The letters-and speech contain no specific promise or coercive statement . They merely recite the Respond- ent's opposition to unions in terms customarily used in preelection campaign literature. Thus, the Respondent expressed the view that the company "could be" made much stronger for the benefit of "all of us." It also expressed the belief that "we can work much better together and can do a better job ourselves." The Re- spondent admitted it had made some mistakes in com- municating with the employees and expressed the gen- eral opinion that "this can be corrected." We do not believe that the Respondent's letters and speech, in the context of such customary preelection campaign propa- ganda statements either contained or implied any promise that wages, hours, or working conditions would be improved or that employees would receive any other benefits if the Unions lost the election.' In the absence of any coercive remarks or illegal conduct, we find, therefore, that the Respondent's let- ters and speech, standing alone, do not lose the protec- tion afforded by Section 8(c) of the Act because Re- spondent urged its employees to vote against the Unions. Accordingly, we find that the allegations of the complaint have not been sustained, and we shall dis- miss the complaint.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. ' The Fluorocarbon Company, 168 NLRB 629 , 650. The cases cited by the General Counsel in support of his motion appear to be distinguishable on their facts and in their context of other unfair labor practices as in L. P. Cassidy & Son, Inc., 171 NLRB No. 136. , In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to pass on Re- spondent's 10(b) contention.