A. R. F. Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1456 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. R. F. Products , Inc. and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union
No. 2996, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-612. September
Q7,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On June 4, 1957, pursuant to "Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election," an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon completion
of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots. The
tally shows that of approximately 53 eligible voters, 30 cast ballots
for the Petitioner; 18 ballots were cast against the- Petitioner; and
there were 5 challenged ballots.
. On June 10, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and on June 24,
1957, issued and duly served upon the Petitioner his report on objec-
tions, in which he found the objections to be without merit and
recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record, the Board 1 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and
maintenance employees in the manufacturing and shipping depart-
ments at the Employer's Raton, New Mexico, plant, excluding office
and plant clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. In its exceptions, the Employer attacks the Regional Director's
report on objections generally, alleging that the report is "unwar-
ranted and should be revised" because the Regional Director's investi-
gation of the objections was incomplete and inadequate. The Em-
ployer also cited several specific instances of such alleged inadequacies.2
In support of its general allegation that the Regional Director's in-
vestigation was inadequate and incomplete, the Employer points to the
s Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Rodgers , Bean , and Jenkins].
2 These several instances will be treated separately hereinafter.
118 NLRB No. 198.
A. R. F. PRODUCTS , INC. 1457
fact that it submitted signed statements of 5 different employees in
support of its objections, and then recites that it is "reliably informed"
that the Board agent, during his investigation, contacted only 3 of these
employees as well as 3 other employees and a union organizer; and re-
cites further that the Board agent did not "purport to quote" the state-
ments made to him by the employees interviewed, but rather preferred
"to pin his reaction to what he heard, thus foreclosing a review of his
judgment."
With respect to the Employer's general allegation that the investi-
gation was incomplete and inadequate we note that the Employer has
not come forward with evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, to support
its allegation. Moreover, although the Employer implies generally
that the facts as set forth in the Regional Director's report are inac-
curate and not in accordance with the actual happenings, the Employer,
in its exceptions, does not affirmatively show that the facts are different
from those reported. Furthermore, the Regional Director's report
shows that at least 10 persons were interviewed in the course of the in-
vestigation, including those who had submitted statements 3 concerning
the alleged objections.
As to the specific instances referred to in the exceptions, the follow-
ing is shown :
(1) The Employer's objections alleged that there were threats of
violence against employees who spoke against the Union. The Re-
gional Director reported that the only evidence disclosed by the
investigation was two conversations between prounion employees and
employees who had not joined the Union. In reference to one such
conversation the Regional Director's report quotes a nonunion em-
ployee as stating that a prounion employee told him in the course of
a discussion in the shop "that if I did not join the Union I might have
to find another job. He did not explain what he meant by this."
According to the Regional Director, the named prounion employee
was interviewed, and explained that he meant that if the Union was
voted in it was commonly understood that the Union would then try
to get a union-security provision in its contract. The Regional
Director reported further that neither employee "considered the
remark as a threat." Presumably referring to the Regional Director's
finding that the employees did not consider the remark as a threat,
the Employer asserts that the remark in question is clear on its face,
that no issue of understanding is presented, and that the quoted phrase
clearly constitutes intimidation. We disagree. The remark in ques-
tion was made by one employee to another in the course of a shop dis-
3 Certain statements were submitted to the Regional Director concerning an alleged in-
crease in initiation fees. The Regional Director did not conduct an investigation as to
whether such statements had in fact been made for, as indicated infra, he treated the
mat ter on the basis of such statements having been uttered.
450553-58-vol. 118-93
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cussion about the Union, and there appears to be no basis for cloaking
it with "official" union sanction. Furthermore, the remark is clearly
ambiguous, in that it did not specify when membership in the Union
was required, nor did it constitute an unequivocal threat of discharge.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's specific contentions in this
regard lack merit.
According to the Regional Director, the second such conversation
pertained to an inquiry addressed by a nonunion employee to a fellow
employee about the Union, whereupon the latter responded by offering
to,come to the home of the former "and explain all about the union."
The Employer contends that the Regional Director toned down his
report of the incident, intimating that the offer to come to the non-
union employee's home was actually a threat of violence. However,
the Employer offered no evidence to indicate that the conversation in
question was different from that reported by the Regional Director,
and we perceive no indication of coercive conduct in this incident.
*(2) The Employer's objections alleged that threats were made that
employees who failed to sign up and pay initiation fees before the
election would be required to pay initiation fees "exorbitantly higher"
after the election. Signed employee statements were submitted by
the Employer to the effect that initiation fees would be $5 before the
election, but thereafter, or after a contract had been signed, the fees
would be $35. The Regional Director accepted the facts set forth
in the affidavits as true, and found that the offer of lower initiation
fees was chargeable to the Union, and found further that it was equally
applicable to all employees and was in no way contingent upon how
the employee voted in the election; and absent a showing that the
employees would be rewarded or penalized, the statement would not
warrant setting aside the election.
The Employer contends in its exceptions that involved here is in
effect a promise of economic benefit if the employees vote for the
Union, and a threat of reprisal if they do not. The Employer further
contends that this is clearly a violation of 8 (b) (1) of the Act, and
a fortiori coercive as far as its effect on the election; that it is also
violative of 8 (c) of the Act because it contained an expressed threat
of reprisal.
We agree with the Employer that the offer as reported means that
if the employees failed to join the Union prior to the election they
would suffer economic loss in the event the Union is successful and
obtains a union shop. However, we cannot perceive how this would
affect the employees' free choice in an election. As stated by the
Regional Director the remarks dealt with union membership and were
not contingent upon whether an employee voted for the Union or not.4
Moreover, the gist of the Union's position was merely a prediction
4 Otis Elevator Company , 114 NLRB 1490;1493.
H. L. GREEN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1459
upon what would happen if the Union were voted in, and if it suc-
ceeded in obtaining a union-security provision in its contract. We do
not believe this impaired the employees' freedom of choice in the
election, for it does not appear that the employees were promised
anything for voting for the Union, or threatened if they voted
against it .5
Accordingly we find that the Employer's exceptions lack merit;
and as the Employer has not otherwise excepted to the Regional Di.-
rector's findings and conclusions, we agree with the Regional Director
and find that the Employer's objections do not raise substantial and
material issues with respect to the election. Accordingly, they are
hereby overruled. As the Petitioner received a majority of the valid
votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union No. 2996,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate.]
5Lobue Bros., 109 NLRB 1182, is distinguishable. In that case the employees were
offered membership free of initiation fees, effective after the election and contingent upon
certification of the Union.
H. L. Green Company, Incorporated ( Store #15) and Retail,
Specialty and Variety Store Employees Union , Local 415,
Retail Clerks International Association AFL-CIO. Case No.
4-CA-1437. September 30,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 1.4, 1957, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent filed a
statement of exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report , the exceptions, and the entire record in the case and
hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
118 NLRB No. 200.