Amveco Magnetics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 905 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

AMVECO MAGNETICS, INC. 905
Amveco Magnetics, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers’
International Association. Case 16–RC–10443
April 4, 2003
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND ACOSTA
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an election
held September 11, 2002, and the hearing officer’s report
recommending disposition of them. The election was
conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement.
The tally of ballots shows 21 ballots cast for and 40 bal-
lots cast against the Petitioner, with 1 void ballot and no
challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the ex-
ceptions and brief, has adopted the hearing officer’s find-
ings1 and recommendations only to the extent consistent
herewith, and finds that a certification of results of elec-
tion should be issued.2
The hearing officer found that a 1-page document enti-
tled “Thought for the Day or Don’t Be a Chump,” which
the Employer posted on a bulletin board, contained an
implied threat to eliminate bonuses and overtime work if
the Union won the election.3 She, therefore, found merit
to the Petitioner’s Objection 5 and recommended that the
election be set aside and a new election conducted. For

1 The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer’s credi-
bility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule a
hearing officer’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis for
reversing the findings.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing offi-
cer’s recommendations to overrule Objections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. The
hearing officer granted the Petitioner’s request to withdraw Objection
6.
3 The document presents a “hypothetical situation,” with two sets of
wage computations, one reflecting straight time, overtime, and bonus
pay and the other reflecting a pay raise, but no overtime or bonus pay,
and a “new monthly bill” that was intended to represent union dues and
assessments.
the reasons explained below, we disagree and overrule
the objection.
The only witness who testified about the “Thought for
the Day” document was its author, the Employer’s vice
president, David Snelling. He said that he saw the docu-
ment on a bulletin board during the critical period.4
Snelling was not asked, and the record does not indi-
cate, where the bulletin board was located. In addition,
there is no evidence of the duration of the posting. Fi-
nally, although employees testified about other employer
campaign propaganda, there is no evidence that even one
employee saw the document or learned about it.
Although we can assume that, by posting the docu-
ment, the Employer did intend for it to be seen by em-
ployees, the unusually sparse record here does not permit
us reasonably to infer that the document could have in-
fluenced enough employees to affect the results of the
election, which the Petitioner lost by 10 votes and a
nearly 2–1 margin. Thus, in the absence of sufficient
evidence that posting the document would have affected
the results of the election, we see no basis for overturn-
ing the election. See, e.g., M.B. Consultants, Ltd., 328
NLRB 1089 (1999) (overruling objection where supervi-
sor’s promise of benefits could not have influenced more
than two employees and election was decided by six
votes). See also Metz Metallurgical Corp., 270 NLRB
889 (1984); Caron International, 246 NLRB 1120
(1979).
Accordingly, we reverse the hearing officer and over-
rule the Petitioner’s objection.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have
not been cast for Sheet Metal Workers’ International
Association and that it is not the exclusive representative
of these bargaining unit employees.
4 Although Snelling testified that it was possible that the document
was mailed or handed out to employees, there is no record evidence
confirming that either step was actually taken.

338 NLRB No. 137