Provincial House, Inc.

PROVINCIAL HOUSE, INC. Provincial House, Inc. and Michigan Council No. 55, American Federation of State, County and Munici- pal Employees, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 30-RC-2014 February 22, 1974 DECISION. ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO Pursuant to a petition filed on March 19, 1973, and a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec- tion approved on April 13, 1973, an election by secret ballot was held on May 4, 1973, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 30, among the employees in the appropriate unit described below. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 61 eligible voters, 33 cast ballots for, and 17 cast ballots against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Employer 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 investigated the objections and on June 4, 1973, issued a Notice of Hearing on Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of Election in which he directed that a hearing be held for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve issues raised by the Employer's objections, and further ordered that the Hearing Officer make findings of fact, including resolutions of credibility and recommenda- tions to the Board. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was conducted by Hearing Officer James H. Warmoth on July 16 and 17, 1973, at Saulte Sainte Marie, Michigan. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues was accorded to all parties. Following such hearing, the Hearing Officer issued his Report on Objections on August 22, 1973, finding no objectionable conduct, and recommending that the Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety and that the Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the i Siegal testified he "believed" that a question concerning the crossing of picket lines came up at the May 3 meeting, as well as at an earlier time Q And do yoi, recall what your response to that question was? 215 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On 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 certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. All employees at the Employer's Saulte Sainte Marie, Michigan, location but excluding beauty operator, activities director, registered nurses, li- censed practical nurses, professional employees, confidential employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Hearing Officer's report and the Employer's exceptions and brief, and hereby makes the following findings: In its Objection 1(b) the Employer contends that the Petitioner's staff representative, Robert Siegal, advised employees that "people who tried to cross picket lines won't make it, we have ways of taking care of people who try to break picket lines." At the hearing Siegal admitted and the Hearing Officer found that Siegal did say that "the Union had ways of taking care of people who tried to cross its picket lines." However, the Hearing Officer also found that the statement was made outside the preelection period and was nothing more than "mere puffery." We disagree with these latter findings of the Hearing Officer. Siegal's own testimony establishes to our satisfac- tion that he made the statement at a meeting of employees on the eve of the election, May 3.1. Further, we find that this statement is not innocent "puffery," but is instead a clear threat of forcible union reprisals against anyone who crossed a picket line established by the Union, thus creating an impression that the Union could, and would, resort to whatever means-lawful or unlawful-might be required effectively to exercise its power over employees. We do not believe that threats of this A My response was that we had ways of taking care of people I told them we had ways of taking care of people who toed to cross a picket line. 209 NLRB No. 24 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD kind of raw exercise of power are consistent with the atmosphere necessary for the conduct of a free and fair election. We shall, therefore, set the election aside.2 2 Accordingly, we need not and do not reach the question raised by Objection 1(b) pertaining to the Union's offer to waive initiation fees ORDER It is hereby ordered that the election conducted herein on May 4, 1973, among certain employees of Provincial House, Inc., Saulte Sainte Marie, Michi- gan, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.]