Detergents, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1334 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall instead apply our new election rule enunciated in Peerless
Plywood Company.'
In this case , we recognize that the Employer ' s speech ante-
dated the decision in Peerless Plywood , and therefore we do
not, of course, attach to the Employer ' s conduct any intent to
violate our new rule . However, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the election be set aside under Bonwit Teller,
and while we find it unnecessary to determine whether the
prior rule was violated , we believe that the freedom of choice
guaranteed to employees will be better served by setting aside
this election and holding a new election under our new rule.
The resulting inconvenience to the Employer is overbalanced
by the interests of the employees in expressing their choice
in a poll entirely free of interference from any source.
[The Board set aside the election held on April 21, 1953.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publi-
cation.]
3107 NL RB 427, Member Murdock , while adhering to the views expressed in his dis-
senting opinion in the Peerless Plywood case , considers himself bound by the majority
opinion
DETERGENTS , INC. and UNITED GAS, COKE , AND CHEM-
ICAL WORKERS , C. I. O. Case No. 9-CA-668 . February 26,
1954.
DECISION AND ORDER
On October , 30, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore
issued his Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report attached here-
to. Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief . The General Counsel
and the Union filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report , the Respondent's ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case , and here-
by adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following modification:
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . In doing so,
107 NLRB No. 281.
DETERGENTS, INC. 1335
however, we do not rely, as did the Trial Examiner, on Pro-
duction Manager Erickson's speeches and Erickson's refusal
to grant the Union's requests to address the employees under
like circumstances. Although the Trial Examiner found that
the Respondent's speeches were not coercive, he concluded
that the Respondent's refusal to grant the Union's requests was
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act under the Bonwit-Teller
doctrine as applied in complaint cases.
In Livingston Shirt Corporation, 107 NLRB No. 400, a Board
majority' held that, in the absence of either a privileged or an
unlawful broad no-solicitation rule, an employer does not com-
mit an unfair labor practice if he makes noncoercive speeches
to his employees on company time and property and denies
the union an opportunity to reply under similar circum-
stances.
As the record does not reveal that the Respondent promul-
gated either a privileged or an unlawful broad no-solicitation
rule, we find that the denial of the Union's requests was not
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and we shall dismiss
this portion of the complaint.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Detergents, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with economic reprisals because
of their union affiliations or activities, and interrogating them
as to their activity on behalf of any labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers, C.I.O., or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refraifi from any or all of such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
1Although Member Murdock dissented therein from the reversal of the Bonwit-Teller
doctrine, he now deems himself bound by the majority decision.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its Columbus, Ohio, plant copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix." I
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent or its representative, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of at
least sixty (60) con.:ecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent
has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by refusing the Union's
requests to speak to its employees on company time and prop-
erty.
2 This notice is hereby amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon
having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
and an answer having been filed by the above-najtied Respondent, a hearing involving alle-
gations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was held in Columbus, Ohio, on
September 9, 14, 15, and 16, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent since April
1953, through a number of named officials and agents and by interrogation, threats, and
disparity of treatment has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings and con-
clusions. Brief oral argument was held at the close of the hearing and a brief has been re-
ceived from the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsantg Chemical Company. It is an Ohio
corporation , maintaining its principal office and place of business at Columbus , Ohio, where
DETERGENTS, INC. 1337
it engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of a detergent product. In the course of
its business it annually purchases raw materials , supplies, and equipment valued at more
than $ 750,000, of which more than $ 500,000 is shipped to the Columbus plant from points
outside the State of Ohio. It sells and ships finished products valued at more than $ 750,000
outside the State of Ohio
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers, C.LO., is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At the time of the events here involved the Respondent had about 100 employees on its
payroll. Most of the conduct at issue occurred during a period of organization among the
Respondent's employees, from its beginning in March 1953 to the holding of a Board election
on May 28, 1953.1
Without exception, the findings as to events herein described are based upon testimony
uncontradicted by the management representatives involved Counsel for the Respondent
apparently rested his case upon (1) the testimony of Production Manager Robert M. Erickson
to the effect that on or about April 26 he told his subordinate supervisors not to interrogate,
threaten, or discriminate against employees for joining the Union, and (2) the fact that in
most cases General Counsel's witnesses were unable to fix the precise date of events con-
cerning which they testified. The first point requires little discussion. The issuance of in-
structions, alone, is questionable proof that the instructions were followed. For some years
there has been a Federal statute prohibiting interference, restraint, and coercion of em-
ployees in matters of their union activity, but court records are replete with instances of
violations, both by employers and by unions, of such governmental instructions As to point
(2), the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that uncertainty as to the exact date of an exchange
of words is a common human experience, and that a witness' candid admission that he cannot
fix the precise day and hour of an event of this nature is not, at thersame time, a confession
that the event did not occur.
It is undisputed, and is found, that sometime in April Harry Koppenhaver, admitted by the
Respondent to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, told a minor supervisor, Irene
Nichols, in the presence of employee Opal Harrison, to go around among the girls and tell
them, while he would tell the men, that if the Union came in the bonus would be taken away,
wages would be cut, and free uniforms and other privileges would be withdrawn Koppenhaver
told Nichols on this occasion that Erickson had instructed him to pass this information along
to the employees Thereafter, on a number of occasions, Koppenhaver told Harrison, who
wore a union button in the plant, that he wished she would reconsider "the union" because
if the Union got in she "would get hurt," and that if Erickson found out who started the Union,
they would be fired.
The testimony of Beatrice Theis is undisputed, and it is found, that following Koppenhaver's
instructions, above described, Nichols came to her and to other girls and told them that if
the Union came in their privileges would be removed, and that Koppenhaver had instructed
her to tell them so.
The testimony of Nellie Bright and Ruth Tramel is undisputed and it is found that their
supervisor, Nellie Batory (admitted by the Respondent to be a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act), interrogated them about the Union in April. Batory queried Bright as to her
"beliefs" about the Union, asked her if she had attended a union meeting the night before,
and then told her that "if this foolishness doesn't stop they are going to take your bonus away
from you." Batory asked Tramel, also, if she knew anything about the union meeting, and
then told her that Erickson had said that if the Union got in the bonus and uniforms would be
taken away.
The testimony of Phyllis Tramel is undisputed and it is found that in April, Robert Owen,
conceded by the Respondent to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, came to her
machine and said that he had heard that she and her husband had started the Union. She denied
'Case No. 9-RC-1934. Objections to this election are pending before the Board.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it He asked her if she had not worked at another plant and belonged to the union there. She
admitted this.
The testimony of John Wiggins is undisputed , and it is found , that Koppenhaver queried him
about the Union on two occasions , told him that Erickson was "mad as hell" about it and
would take away various privileges.
The testimony of various present and former employees is undisputed , and it is found,
that upon an undetermined number of occasions Erickson himself called the employees to-
gether during working hours and voiced his antiunion opinions Early in April he told them
he never wanted a union in the plant . Early in May he cited the benefits the employees were
then receiving from the Company , without a union in the plant just before the election
Erickson again called the employees together and urged them to "vote right "
Although there is insufficient evidence to establish that Erickson actually threatened or
coerced employees by the remarks made at any of these meetings , the record plainly estab-
lishes that by disparity of treatment the Respondent , by Erickson's speeches , interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees On April29aunion representative , by letter , after stating
that it had come to his attention that "an antiunion speech" had been given to employees on
company time the day before, requested as follows:
So that your employees hear both sides of the story regarding the union and the em-
ployees's rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
the union hereby requests that right to address the employees of your company with
similar circumstances to talk to workers on company time and property
On May 6 Erickson bluntly denied the request . On May 19 the Union repeated its request,
citing occasions of other speeches on May 1 and May 11 by company representatives to the
employees On May 21 Erickson again denied permission.
In summary , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the foregoing incidents of
interrogation and coercive threats, and by its refusal to grant the Union the privilege of an-
swering its antiunion speeches under like circumstances , the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed bySection7of the Act 2
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above , have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce in the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers, C.LO., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
2 The record contains evidence as to an incident when the union representative was ordered
from a driveway near the plant . Although such testimony is undisputed, the circumstances
are such- -the question not being wholly resolved as to whether or not the representative was
on company property - - that the Trial Examiner makes no finding as to whether or not the
event constituted an unfair labor practice.
H. R. VANOVER COAL COMPANY 1339
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we
hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of, or interrogate them
as to, their membership in or activities on behalf of any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations , to join or assist United Gas, Coke, and Chemical Workers, C.LO., or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to join or assist any labor organization , and to engage
in any self-organization or other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from such activities except
to the extent that such right is affected by an agreement made in conformity with Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
DETERGENTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ................ By .............................................................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
H. R. VANOVER d/b/a H. R . VANOVER COAL COMPANY
and ALEX EVANS, STEVE GRAY, CLAUDE LEVEL, and
TRUMAN SMITH, Individuals . Case No . 9-CA-564. February
26, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1953, Trial Examiner Samuel Binder issued his
Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto . Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report.
The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is denied as the
record , including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents
the issues and positions of the parties.
107 NLRB No. 286.