Bristol Textile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1986

277 N.L.R.B. 1637 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

BRISTOL TEXTILE CO. 1637
Bristol Textile Co. and Retail , Wholesale and De-
partment Store Union , Local 1034, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 4-RC-14343
13 January 1986
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held 14 November 1980 and the Regional
Director's report recommending disposition of
them.' The election was conducted pursuant to a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots
showed 15 for and 12 against the Petitioner, with 2
challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect.
the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief, and adopts the hearing of-
ficer's findings2 and recommendations only to the
extent consistent herewith.
The Employer's Objection 1 alleges that the Pe-
titioner's agents threatened to slash the automobile
tires of, and take other unspecified action against,
those employees who voted against the Petitioner.
Additionally, it alleges that the Petitioner's agents
in fact slashed the automobile tires of certain man-
agement officials.
The hearing officer recommended, inter alia, that
the Employer's Objection 1 be overruled. He found
that the Employer presented credible evidence that
only one tire-slashing threat was made and that this
threat was made by employees who were not
agents of the Union. Accordingly, finding that this
third-party threat would not have created a general
atmosphere of fear, coercion, or confusion among
the unit employees, he concluded that a second
election was unwarranted. For the reasons set forth
below, we reverse.
The threat was made during a discussion be-
tween two well-known prounion employees, broth-
ers Anthony and Albert Pirollo. The hearing offi-
cer found that as employee Kenneth Lapergola
i The Employer originally filed three separate objections to the elec-
tion. The Board on 13 February 19134 issued an unpublished Decision and
Order adopting the Acting Regional Director's recommendation to dis-
miss the Employer's Objections 2 and 3, but ordering a hearing to be
held on the Employer's Objection 1.
2 The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil-
ity 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
We have further considered the Employer's contention that the hearing
officer has evidenced bias in this proceeding. We have carefully consid-
ered the report and the record and find these charges unsupported and
without merit.
was walking through the plant 2 days before the
election, he overheard Albert saying to Anthony
that they would slash tires of employees who op-
posed the Union if the Union lost the election. Ac-
cording to Lapergola, both immediately stopped
talking when they noticed him walking, by.
As outlined above, the hearing officer concluded
that this threat was insufficient to set aside the
election. We disagree.
First, contrary to the hearing officer, we find
that Anthony Pirollo was an agent of the Union.
Aside from a few meetings, the Union's only link
with employees was through Anthony, whom the
Union's vice president, Donald Sullivan, identified
as "my contact." At Sullivan's request, Anthony
made weekly reports to him concerning the cam-
paign. Anthony also relayed employees' questions
to Sullivan, who dealt exclusively with Anthony.
Sullivan testified that Anthony was the "spokes-
man" for employees because "he was the only one
I really talked to." Anthony testified employees
came to him and "wanted to know what . . . was
going on with the Union." He confirmed that em-
ployees recognized he "represented the Union" at
the plant. No Union official had access to the
plant.
Thus, although the Union did not designate An-
thony its representative or pay him for his services,
he nonetheless served as the Union's presence
within the plant. Sullivan used him as a conduit be-
tween the Union and the employees, who per-
ceived him as the Union's representative. For these
reasons we find that the Union held out Anthony
as its general agent.
Second, we find that insofar as Anthony was the
Union's agent the tire-slashing threat is attributable
to the Union. Although the threat was actually
made by Albert Pirollo, it was made during a con-
versation with Anthony and Anthony did not dis-
avow it.3
Finally, we conclude that the threat would rea-
sonably have tended to interfere with the employ-
ees' free and uncoerced choice in the election.4
The threat to slash the tires of employees who vote
against the Petitioner was plainly coercive on its
face. Further, Lapergola told two other employees
about the threat, who in turn disseminated it to at
least four other employees.
2 The fact that the comment was not intended to be overheard is irrel-
evant See Crown Stationers, 272 NLRB 164 (1984).
4 Having found that the threat is attributable to the Union, the proper
test is not whether the threat created an atomsphere of fear and confu-
sibn, but whether it would reasonbly tend to interefere with the employ-
ees' free and uncoerced choice in the election. Baja s Place, 268 NLRB
868 (1984)
277 NLRB No. 182
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In these circumstances , where a change of only a threat, we find that the Pirollo brothers' threat
few votes would have altered the election results warrants setting aside the election.
and where a number of employees knew of the [Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]