Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc.

ROSEWOOD MFG. CO., INC. Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, Union, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 26-RC-6469 August 16, 1982 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMAN Pursuant to authority granted it by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- member panel has considered the objections to an election held on December 18, 1981, and the Re- gional Director's report recommending disposition of same.' The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommenda- tions. Our dissenting colleague finds that the Employ- er's campaign in the instant case was fully protect- ed by Section 8(c) of the Act. However, he ne- glects to note that for over three decades the Board has maintained that Section 8(c) was intend- ed by Congress to apply only to unfair labor prac- tice cases and not representation proceedings. Gen- eral Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124 (1948). See also Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782 (1962). In light of this longstanding precedent, we see no reason why it should be changed at this time. See also Blue Cross of Kansas City, Inc. and Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc., 259 NLRB 483, fn. 2 (1981). In evaluating preelection conduct in a represen- tation proceeding, it must be determined whether, under all the circumstances, the conduct in ques- i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was 39 for, and 53 against, the Petitioner; there was I challenged ballot, which was insufficient to affect the results. tion "destroyed the laboratory conditions in which the Board must hold its elections and prevented the employees' expression of a free choice in the elec- tion." Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., supra at 1787. See also Liquid Transporters, Inc., 257 NLRB 345 (1981), and Turner Shoe Company, Inc. and Carmen Athletic Industries, Inc., 249 NLRB 144 (1980). In the instant case, we agree with the Regional Direc- tor's determination that the Employer's emphasis on linking the selection of the union with unprofi- tability, low productivity, subsequent plant closure, and loss of jobs was coercive, thereby destroying the laboratory conditions and preventing the em- ployees from expressing a free choice in the elec- tion. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director's recommendation that the elec- tion be set aside and a second election be held. [Direction of Second Election omitted from pub- lication.] 2 CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER, dissenting: I have carefully examined the leaflets and letters distributed by the Employer during the critical period, as well as the text of the speech delivered to employees by Charles Blauer, the Employer's president. I do not find that his material constitutes threats to close the plant if it was unionized, nor threats to employees that it would be futile to vote for unionization. Rather, in my view, the Employ- er's campaign was fully protected by Section 8(c) of the Act, and simply provided the employees with a different perspective regarding the merits of unionization.3 Accordingly, I would overrule Ob- jections 1 and 3, contrary to the recommendation of the Regional Director, and would remand the case for hearing on Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 2 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 3 Contrary to my colleagues, I do not decide that certain statements protected by Sec. 8(c) of the Act may not nonetheless be objectionable. What I find here is that the material in question does not constitute threats and, as such, happens to be protected by Sec. 8(c) as well as being unobjectionable. 263 NL,RB No. 55 420