Electro-Voice, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ELECTRO-VOICE, INC.
Electro-Voice, Inc. and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC
and its Local 663, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-8535
June 22, 1971
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed on December 21, 1970, and
election by secret ballot was conducted on January 13,
1971, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for Region 10, among the employees in
the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which
showed that 56 voters cast ballots for, and 115 against,
the Petitioner, and there were 7 challenged ballots. The
challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed timely objections to the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Proce-
dure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director con-
ducted an investigation and, on March 23, 1971, issued
and duly served on the parties his Report on Objections
in which he recommended that Objections 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
12, and 13(a), (b), and (c) be overruled and that Objec-
tions 11 and 14 raise issues of credibility that could best
be resolved by a hearing. He also recommended that
Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 be sustained and that the
election be set aside and a second election directed.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's recommendations with respect to
Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 14. The Petitioner filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's recommenda-
tions with respect to Objections 4, 8, 9, and 13(c). The
Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs in support of
their exceptions.
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 powers
in connection with this case 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 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
425
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the
parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding group leaders, truck drivers, the shipping
and receiving clerks and all other plant clerical
employees at the Employer's Sevierville, Tennes-
see, plant; but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's
Report, the Employer's exceptions and brief, and the
Petitioner's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations
with respect to Objections 1, 2, and 3.
The Regional Director recommended sustaining Ob-
jections 1, 2, and 3, based on a series of four speeches
made by management during the critical period before
the election. In these speeches the plant manager and
the industrial relations director admittedly made the
following statements.
Plant Manager Mitchell said that the Employer's
unionized facility in Buchanan, Michigan, had lost 165
jobs in 5 years. He asked if that sounded like the kind
of job security the employees wanted, one out of every
three jobs disappearing within 5 years, stated that it
could happen "if irresponsible dues hungry union or-
ganizers have their way"; noted that the Sevierville
plant had expanded during the same period; described
the president of IUE Local # 900 in Buchanan as in-
strumental in sending Buchanan jobs to Tennessee; and
assured the employees that improvements could only
be granted by the Employer.
Industrial Relations Director Boyce told the em-
ployees that the Union could not provide a single be-
nefit and could get only what the Employer was willing
and able to provide-Union or no Union. After de-
scribing strike violence in detail, Boyce stated that a
favorite union trick was to bring in pickets from other
plants-including Buchanan employees-characteriz-
ing these pickets as trained union goons' who delighted
in roughing up people, destroying cars, throwing paint
bombs, shouting obscenities, and making threats, as
well as paid professional union representatives for
whom, such practices were the basis for promotion up
the union ranks. Boyce stated that the Buchanan
benefits had accumulated over a 25-year period and
resulted in the loss of 221 jobs. He predicted that that
plant would have zero jobs in the near future and asked
the employees if this was the progess they wanted.
' The misspelling of this word in the Employer's purported copy of his
speech is obviously a typographical error.
191 NLRB No. 96
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boyce stated that if the employees voted no, they
could continue working without fear of strikes, lost
paychecks, violence, and loss of customers, but if they
voted they would surrender their rights to a notoriously
strike-happy Union; and that the Employer would at-
tempt to work out a suitable agreement but the law did
not obligate it to do more. Boyce remarked that the
Employer had "its fingers well burned" by the Union
in Michigan; it had a good memory, had learned its
lesson well, and would not make the same mistakes
here it had made there. Boyce added that the Em-
ployer's product could not be sold competitively at
Buchanan's high cost levels and claimed that this was
contribution the Union .had made to "less jobs" in Bu-
chanan, and that the Buchanan local wanted the
Tennessee employees organized, confused and out on
strike to prevent future losses of work for Buchanan
employees.
The Regional Director concluded, and we agree, that
these speeches conveyed the futility of selecting the
Petitioner to improve their employment conditions, as
such selection could only result in a disastrous strike or
decline in the number of jobs as had happened at Bu-
chanan and that the Employer thereby created an at-
mosphere of fear that interfered with the employees'
free choice in the election. We therefore adopt the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendations that
these objections be sustained. Having so found, we find
it unnecessary to rule on the other matters raised by the
exceptions to the Regional Director's Report.'
2 The Regional Director's recommendations that Objections 7, 10, 12,
and 13(a) and (b) be overruled were not excepted to and are adopted pro
forma. Chairman Miller does not agree that Objections 1, 2, and 3 should
be sustained , as he would find the speeches to be legitimate campaign
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election of January 13,
1971, among the unit of employees hereinbefore set out
be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election' omitted from publica-
tion.]
utterances in these circumstances . However, he concurs in the result, as he
would set the election aside based on Objections 8 and 9 The Regional
Director recommended that these objections be overruled, but the Peti-
tioner has excepted to this recommendation These objections are based on
a raffle admittedly conducted by the Employer on the date of the election.
After the employees voted they reported to the stockroom where the Em-
ployer gave them raffle tickets to carts of groceries valued at the equivalent
of a year's union dues. After the election, the Employer awarded the grocer-
ies to the voter with the winning ticket The announced purpose of the raffle
was to encourage voting. Chairman Miller feels that such raffles create a
carnival-like atmosphere which diverts employees from the real issue of the
election. Buzza-Cardoza, a Division of Gibson Greeting Cards Inc., 177
NLRB No 38 (dissenting opinion), accord, Lach-Simkins Dental Laborato-
ries, Inc., 186 NLRB No 116 (dissenting opinion). Member Fanning and
Brown would not set the election aside on this basis. Tunica Manufacturing
Co., 182 NLRB No 111, section III, B, 2 (e).
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B.v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S. 759. Ac-
cordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the
names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer
with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days after the date of
issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director. The
Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election.
No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require-
ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objec-
tions are filed.