Blue Island Newspaper Printing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1709 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

BLUE ISLAND NEWSPAPER PRINTING 1709
Blue Island Newspaper Printing, Inc. and Chicago
Typographical Union No. 16, Petitioner. Case
13-RC-16459
30 January 1985
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered objections to an election held 28 June 1984
and the hearing officer's report recommending dis-
position of them. The election was conducted pur-
suant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The
tally of ballots shows 20 for and 10 against the Pe-.
titioner, with no challenged ballots. The Employer,
Blue Island Newspaper Printing, Inc. (Blue Island),
filed objections to the election, and the Regional
Director directed that a hearing be held before a
hearing officer.
The Board has reviewed the record 1 in light of
the exceptions and briefs and adopts the hearing of-
ficer's findings and recommendations 2 as modified
and finds that a certification of representative
should be issued.
The hearing officer recommended that all six of
Blue Island's objections to the election be over-
ruled. Blue Island excepts as to the hearing offi-
cer's disposition of Objections 3, 4, 5, and 6. We
find no merit in Blue Island's exceptions but
modify and supplement the hearing officer's report
as follows.
Objection 3 concerned, in part, two statements
made by third-shift press employee John Hill that
allegedly created an atmosphere of fear which
interfered with a free and fair election. About 1-
1/2 weeks before the election, after Blue Island's
president made an antiunion speech at an employee
meeting, third-shift pressman John Kwiatkowski
heard Hill say, "I am going to have my own meet-
ing and take care of those who are going to vote
no." On the morning of the election prior to the
polls opening, third-shift Press Foreman David
Bujnowskis heard Hill, while in the press area, say,
"I will have to take Care of all your no votes." Hill
denied that he made these statements, but the hear-
ing officer found to the contrary.
1 We grant Blue Island's request that the word "paystubs" be correct-
ed to read "paste-ups" everywhere that it appears in the hearing tran-
scripts.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the hearing offi-
cer's recommendations that Objections I and 2 be overruled.
3 Notwithstanding Bujnowsld's job title, his name, as well as that of
another press foreman, appeared on the Excelsior list.
To judge whether threats by third parties 4 create
a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal that ren-
ders a free election impossible, we apply the fol-
lowing criteria recently articulated in Westwood
Horizons Hotel, 270 NLRB 802 (1984):
In determining the seriousness of a threat, the
Board evaluates not only the nature of the
threat itself, but also whether the threat en-
compassed the entire bargaining unit; whether
reports of the threat were disseminated widely
within the unit; whether the person making the
threat was capable of carrying it out, and
whether it is likely that the employees acted in
fear of his capability of carrying out the
threat; and whether the threat was "rejuvenat-
ed" at of near the time of the election.
Id. at 803 (footnotes omitted). In this case, in addi-
tion to Foreman Bujnowski, six employees worked
in the press area during the third shift: Hill, Kwiat-
kowski, Alonzo Dixon, Joseph Davis, Michael
Bocot, and David Lancaster. As Hill's threatening
statements were made in the press area, they
appear to have been directed to, at most, the other
third-shift press employees. As Kwiatkowski was
an outspoken opponent of the Union, it may have
been that Hill's statements were directed solely or
principally at Kwiatkowski. Dixon, Davis, and
Bocot testified that they did not hear the statement
Hill made 1-1/2 weeks before the election that he
would hold his own meeting and take care of those
who were going to vote no, nor did they hear
Hill's statement on the morning of the election that
he would take care of the no votes. Moreover,
they testified that they had not heard about such
statements being made. Lancaster did not testify.
Kwiatkowski, who heard Hill's earlier statement,
testified that another employee was standing in the
vicinity when this statement was made, but he
could not recall which employee it was. Kwiat-
kowski told only his foreman, Bujnowski, about
Hill's statement. Kwiatkowski also testified about a
conversation he had with Hill on the morning of
the election but did not testify that he had heard
Hill's statement that morning that he was going to
take care of the no votes. Therefore, we conclude
that Hill's threatening statements were heard by
only one foreman and, at most, two employees—
Kwiatkowski and the unidentified employee who
was in the vicinity when Hill made his first state-
ment. 5 We further conclude that the testimony of
4 We adopt the hearing officer's conclusion, for the reasons he states,
that Hill was not an agent of the Union.
5 It may be that Lancaster was the unidentified employee, as he was
the only third-shift press employee who did not testify. All the others,
except Kwiatkowski, denied hearing Hill's statement. Alternatively, It
may be that the unidentified employee did not hear Hill's statement.
273 NLRB No. 208
1710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the other employees that they did not hear Hill's
statements and had no knowledge of them affirma-
tively demonstrates that knowledge of Hill's state-
ments was not disseminated to the other employ-
ees.
As to whether Hill was capable of harming op-
ponents of the Union and whether it is likely that
the employees acted in fear of his carrying out the
threats, there was evidence that Hill at one time
had a fight with his brother, who also was an em-
ployee of Blue Island, outside of work concerning
a nonwork-related matter, but Hill had not been in
fights at work. Additionally, a long time ago Hill
had been a high school wrestler in the 105 pound
weight class. The hearing officer found that Hill
had a serious, almost brooding, demeanor. Davis
and Bocot both testified that Hill was a quiet
person. Kwiatkowski testified that Hill was mild
mannered but tried to cultivate a reputation of
being tough, although Kwiatkowski did not specify
what Hill did to try to develop this reputation.
Kwiatkowski also testified that, after he heard Hill
say that Hill was going to have his • own meeting
and take care of those who were going to vote no,
Kwiatkowski did not take seriously that Hill might
do something to opponents of the Union. We also
note that the language of Hill's two statements was
vague and susceptible to a variety of interpreta-
tions. On the basis of these facts, we conclude that
the hearing officer was correct in finding that Hill
was not especially capable of carrying out a threat
of physical harm. Moreover, we conclude that it is
not likely that the employees acted in fear of Hill's
threatening statements.
Finally, as to rejuvenation of the threat, Hill re-
peated his statement on the morning of the election
but, as discussed above, Foreman Bujnowski was
the only person to hear or learn of this statement.
Based on our analysis of Hill's, threatening state-
ments and the circumstances in which they were
made, under the criteria set forth in Westwood Hori-
zons Hotel, above, we conclude that, at most, only
three individuals had knowledge of Hill's state-
ments and the statements were unlikely to intimi-
date prospective voters. Therefore, we agree with
the hearing officer that Hill's statements did not
create a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal
rendering a free election impossible.
II.
We adopt the hearing officer's finding, in over-
ruling Objection 6, that Marilyn Setzke, 8 the most
prominent union supporter among the employees,
was not a supervisor. Moreover, even if she per-
formed the functions of a supervisor on the occa-
sions that both Josie Kwiatkowski, who was in
charge of stuffers, and Scott McManimen, who
was the senior stuffer, were absent, these occasions
were sporadic and insignificant. Setzke substituted
for Kwiatkowski and McManimen only six times
between 1 January and 30 July 1984, including
three times from 1 January 1984 to the date the
election petition was filed, 7 May 1984, and three
times from 7 May to 30 July 1984. 7 The substitu-
tions occurred irregularly rather than on any
scheduled basis. Therefore, even if Setzke per-
formed as a supervisor on the few occasions that
she substituted for Kwiatkowski and McManimen,
she did not spend a regular and substantial portion
of her working time performing supervisory tasks.
Accordingly, under Aladdin Hotel, 270 NLRB 838
(1984), she was not a supervisor within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11)8 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
In adopting the hearing officer's disposition of
Objection 6, we find it unnecessary to pass on the
alternative rationales set forth by the hearing offi-
cer supporting his disposition beyond his finding
that Setzke was not a supervisor.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have been cast for Chicago Typographical
Union No. 16 and that it is the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All full-time and part-time production and
maintenance employees but excluding all office
clerical employees, salesmen, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
6 The spelling of the name "Setzke" is corrected from that which ap-
pears in the hearing officer's report.
7 Although whether Setzke was a supervisor after 28 June 1984, the
date of the election, has no relevance to Objection 6, the evidence was
presented in terms of the number of times that Setzke acted as a substi-
tute prior to 30 July 1984, the final day of the hearing. Of the three times
that Setzke served as a substitute between 7 May and 30 July 1984, the
record shows that one of these occasions was on 27 May. It is not clear
whether the two other times were before or after 28 June. Even if we
assume that all three were prior to the election, our conclusion that
Setzke did not fill in for Kwiatkowski often enough or regularly enough
to be deemed a supervisor is not altered.
629 U.S.C. § 152(11).
1