C & K Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 1038 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C & K Coal Company and United Mine Workers of
America, Petitioner. Case 6-RC-5868-
March 27,K1972
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and approved
by the ' Regional Direc or for Region 6 of the National
Labor Relations Board on August 25, 1971, an election
by secret ballot was` conducted in the above -entitled
proceeding on September 17, 1971, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director . Upon the
conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was fur-
nished the parties in accordance with the Board 's Rules
and Regulations.
The tally of ballots shows that there were approxi-
mately 225 eligible voters and that 208 ballots were
cast , of which 99 were for, and 109 against, the Peti-
tioner . There were 11 challenged ballots.
On September 23, 1971 , the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the elec-
tion . The Regional Director completed an investigation
of the objections and challenged ballots and, on
November 18, 1971 , issued and served on the parties
his Report on Objections and Challenged Ballots. In his
Report, the Regional Director recommended that Peti-
tioner's Ojbections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 , 10, 12, 13, 14,
be overruled , that Objections 8 and 11 be sustained,
that the challenges to 2 of the 11 challenged ballots be
sustained , and that the election be set aside and a new
election held . Thereafter, the Employer filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director 's Report and a sup-
porting brief. The Petitioner filed a brief in support of
Union's objections and challenged ballots which were
sustained by the Regional Director.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that the following employees, as stipulated
by the parties , constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
195 NLRB No. 196
All production and maintenance employees of
C & K Coal Company, including truckdrivers who
work in any of the Employer's operations in Clar-
ion County, Pennsylvania; excluding office clerical
employees, contract truckdrivers and guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the entire record' in this
proceeding, including the Regional Director's Report
and the exceptions and briefs, and, contrary to the
Regional Director, overrules the Petitioner's Objec-
tions 8 and 11.2
Objections 8 and 11 are based on Employer speeches
made in the course of a meeting held on September 15,
1971. The meeting was voluntary and was attended by
about 200 employees. The speeches in issue were made
by Employer President Peter Chernichy and Employer
Vice President Ed Kriebel. Chernichy and Kriebel
spoke from prepared texts, and there is no evidence that
they deviated from the written texts.
Chernichy stated in pertinent part:
Some people have the idea that when a union
gets in, that automatically means higher pay and
better benefits. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Remember, if a union gets in, the company
and the union must bargain. All bets are off and
they start from scratch. None of present benefits
would be guaranteed you. And if the company and
union couldn't get together it might mean a long
strike.
In the course of the speech, Chernichy also stated
that the Petitioner "only delivers promises" and "can't
guarantee anything" and "that you have to look at the
risks involved and everything you might lose." Evalu-
ating these statements of the Employer mixed with the
Employer's reminders of the benefits it had freely
granted, the Regional Director concluded that the Em-
ployer conveyed to the employees the idea that their
benefits would be in jeopardy if they invoked their
statutory right to select a union to represent them.
Further, the Employer told the assembled employees
that selection of the Petitioner would mean "No more
personal talks with Pete or Ed. No! You must see the
Union Steward first." Since under Section 9(a) of the
Act an employee may present his grievances to his
employer, the Regional Director found that the Re-
spondent had threatened the denial of a statutory right
and had thus interfered with the employees' freedom of
choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.
1 In view of the Decision and Order herein, and inasmuch as the record,
including the briefs of the parties , adequately presents the issues and posi-
tions of the parties, the Employer's request for oral argument is denied.
3 As neither party has excepted to the Regional Director 's recommenda-
tions that the remaining objections be overruled and that the challenges to
prof2 of the 11 challenged ballots be sustained , we adopt these recommendations
orma.
C & K COAL CO. 1039
Having carefully examined the entire speech of the
Employer as well as the overall election campaign, we
find that the statements of the Employer do not war-
rant the setting aside of the election. There is no evi-
dence that any unfair labor practices were committed,
and we conclude that the Employer's statements were
not made in an atmosphere of coercion. In these cir-
cumstances, no unlawful meaning attaches to the Em-
ployer's "bargaining from scratch" statement. Wagner
Industrial Products Company, 170 NLRB 1413. That
statement can reasonably be interpreted as the Em-
ployer's legitimate contention that the selection of the
union would not automatically bring increased benefits.
We find that the Employer's speech contains no veiled
threat of a withdrawal of benefits should the employees
choose a union as their bargaining representative.
Likewise, in an election campaign devoid of threats
or coercion, the Employer's remarks regarding "No
more personal talks with Pete or Ed" may reasonably
be interpreted as the Employer's prediction of what the
Petitioner would demand in regard to contractual
grievance procedures . Bostitch Division of Textron, 176
NLRB No. 47.
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections
and sustained the challenges to 2 of the 11 challenged
ballots and as the tally of ballots shows that the Peti-
tioner has not received a majority of the valid ballots
cast , we shall certify the results of the election.'
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes
has not been cast for the United Mineworkers of
America and that the said labor organization is not the
exclusive representative of all the employees , in the unit
herein involved , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
' Having overruled the objections , we need not reach the other conten-
tions raised in the Employer 's brief.