Harvey Hubbell, Inc.

PYLE-NATIONAL DIV. OF HARVEY HUBBELL, INC. 439 Pyle-National Division of Harvey Hubbell, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union 1756, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA_47241 June 12, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO are whether Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, and whether the objections filed by the Union to the results of an election held on November 4, 1971, should be sustained and the election set aside.' A hearing was held before me on March 2, 1972, at Augusta, Georgia. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent have been considered. Upon the entire record, and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, ^ I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT On April 19, 1972, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,2 findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recom- mended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Pyle-National Division of Harvey Hubbell, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. I On May 16, 1972, by order of the Board, Cases II-RC-3388 and I I-RM-182 were severed from Case I I-CA-4724 2 We find no merit in Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner's refusal to grant its motion to sequester the witnesses constituted a denial of due process The Trial Examiner is permitted to exercise broad discretion in determining whether or not to grant such a motion, and under Board policy, such a ruling will not be overturned unless the objecting party clearly demonstrates the manner in which the ruling prejudiced its case No such evidence has been presented here, and our review of the record convinces us that the Trial Examiner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant Respondent's motion Cf N LR B v The Burke Machine Tool Company, 133F2d618(CA 6) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: In this consolidated proceeding under Sections 9(c) and 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the issues to be decided r Pursuant to a charge filed on November 10, 1971, the Regional Director of Region II issued a complaint and notice of hearing on January 31, 1972 Objections to the election held on November 4 were filed on November 10, 1971 Finding that certain allegations in the complaint 197 NLRB No. 79 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Connecticut corporation, manufactures outdoor light equipment, electrical conduit fittings, and related products at its plant at Aiken, South Carolina. Its annual interstate sales and purchases each exceed $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union 1756, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization under Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees about their union sympathies and desires. The Union relies on this interrogation and Respondent's alleged failure to post properly the official notice of election as grounds for setting aside the November 4, 1971, election, which the Union lost by a vote of 81 to 72. A. Interrogation About October 29, 1971,2 L. J. Kitchens, the foreman of Respondent's pole shop, called employee Leroy Jordan over to his desk, said he was talking to Jordan "off the record" and "I just want to know what you think about the Union." Jordan, well known as a union supporter, replied, "You know how I feel about the Union." Kitchens asked Jordan if he thought the Union would be of any help. Jordan said the Umon "would help us all." Kitchens then asked him, "In what way do you think the Union will help us?" Jordan answered that it would help "all of us to better our . . . jobs and things, help us especially in the Pole Shop." Later that day, Kitchens again asked Jordan how he felt about the Union and "could the Umon help us any.,, On November 2, Kitchens walked up to pole shop employee Jasper Staley and asked him, "What do you think about the Union?" Staley said, "I haven't given it any related to the issues raised by the Union 's objections to the election, the Regional Director on February 8, 1972, ordered that the objections be consolidated for hearing with the complaint. 2 All dates hereafter are in 1971 unless otherwise stated 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD thought." Kitchens then asked him why he wanted a union, what a union could do, and why he thought it could help the employees. About a week before the election, Kitchens asked pole shop employee Sellous Thomas how he felt about the Union. Thomas replied that he thought the Union "could help us." Kitchens initiated the foregoing conversations, gave no explanation why he was questioning the employees about their union sympathies, and did not assure them that union supporters would suffer no economic reprisals. I find by Kitchens' questioning of Jordan, Staley, and Thomas concerning their union sympathies that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Action Advertising Co., Inc., 195 NLRB No. 122; Engineered Steel Products, Inc., 188 NLRB No. 52. B. The Posting of the Notice of Election The Board's official notice of election form includes a "Rights of Employees" section which "was adopted for the purpose of alerting employees to their rights under the Act and in order to warn union and management alike against conduct impeding fair and free elections." Overland Hauling, Inc., 168 NLRB 870. Before the election, Respondent posted notices of election in several locations, including the pole shop and the cafeteria. The notice in the cafeteria was properly posted for about 2 days before the election, but the other notices were folded so as to conceal the "Rights of Employees" section of the notice. These notices, save for the notice in the pole shop, were unfolded the day before the election. The notice in the pole shop remained folded so as to conceal the "Rights of Employ- ees" I section j during'the entire preelection period. Leroy Jordan credibly testified that approximately 44 employees worked in the pole shop at the time of the election and that these employees did not go to the cafeterias but ate - their , lunch at the I pole' shop. Jasper Staley testified that all the employees attended a talk in the cafeteria by a company representative a few days before the election. He further testified that he saw a fully opened up election notice while standing in the voting line in the cafeteria where the election was held, but that the notice was 6 or 7 feet away, that he paid no attention to it,' and that ' he' "couldn't read the small writing." Respondent's posting of the notice of election was such as to afford the employees in the bargaining unit only a limited opportunity to read the "Rights of Employees" section. Indeed, the notice was so posted in the pole shop as to conceal the "Rights of Employees" section during the entire preelection period. It thus appears that Respondent denied 'its employees "access to information deemed necessary to the conduct of an election and thus interfered with the laboratory conditions essential for a free expres- 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become the findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 4 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by sion of preference by the voters." Overland Hauling, Inc., supra. I find that Respondent prevented a fair and free election by the foregoing conduct and by its interrogation of pole shop'employees concerning their union sympathies before the election. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization under Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 3 ORDER Respondent, Pyle-National Division of Harvey Hubbell, Inc., its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from coercively interrogating employees as to their sympathies respecting labor organiza- tions during the course of a labor organization's organiza- tional efforts among company employees, or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Aiken, South Carolina, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5 It is further recommended that the election which was held on November 4, 1971, be set aside and that Cases Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 5 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " PYLE-NATIONAL DIV. OF HARVEY HUBBELL, INC. I I-RC-3388 and I I-RM-182 be remanded to the Region- al Director for Region 11 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively question employees con- cerning their feelings with respect to International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union 1756, AFL-CIO or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of 441 their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. PYLE-NATIONAL DIVISION OF HARVEY HUBBELL, INC., (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 . Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Telephone 919-723-9211 x 360. I