Farmtronix

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Farmtronix and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , Local Union No. 307, Petitioner.
Case 27-RC-6338
13 March 1985
ORDER DIRECTING HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered objections to an election held 14 July 1982
and the Acting Regional Director's report recom-
mending disposition of them. The election was con-
ducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agree-
ment. The tally of ballots shows nine for and six
against the Petitioner, with no challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the Employer's exceptions and brief and has adopt-
ed the Regional Director's findings and recommen-
dations only to the extent consistent with this
Order Directing Hearing.
The Regional Director recommended that the
Employer's objections be overruled in their entire-
ty and that the Union be certified as bargaining
representative. We disagree.
In its objections, the Employer alleged, inter alia,
that the Petitioner, through its officers, agents,
members, and/or its employee supporters, made
threats of serious physical harm and/or violence
against employees and their property. In support of
these objections, the Employer presented two wit-
nesses who testified that two known prounion em-
ployees "joked and teased" a known antiunion em-
ployee that he would find his truck in the creek at
an upcoming company picnic. Another employee
witness testified that, subsequently, when she spoke
to the antiunion employee who was the target of
these "jokes" about going to the picnic, he was
upset and expressed a fear of leaving his home be-
cause he had been told that "the Union had said
they could send someone in to blow his house up."
This witness further testified that on the afternoon
following the election she was told by the other
woman in her department that someone had threat-
ened the same antiunion employee that "they
would catch him in the parking lot after work and
beat him up." Additionally, the Employer present-
ed both a foreman who testified that he overheard
one of the two prounion employees state to the an-
tiunion employee that a "No" voter could find his
body at the bottom of the lake and another witness
who testified that on the day of the election the
same prounion employee stated that "there would
be no `No' voters around to vote an hour before
the election."
The Employer also presented another employee
witness who testified, inter alia , that in a conversa-
tion with the two prounion employees he was
asked if he would take the "Vote No" badge off
his cap if he were told to do so by a certain repre-
sentative of the Petitioner. When the witness re-
plied that he would not, one of the prounion em-
ployees stated, "Fat chance, [the Petitioner's repre-
sentative] would break you in half." When the wit-
ness responded that he could outrun the Petition-
er's representative and that he would hit him with
a pipe, one of the two prounion employees stated
that the witness "had better have the pipe waiting
or know where the pipe's at." The witness then re-
sponded, "There are other ways to take care of a
situation like that, a twenty-two shell is enough to
take care of that." This witness' testimony was cor-
roborated by the foreman who overheard part of
the conversation.
The same employee witness further testified that
on the same day as the above incident he over-
heard the two prounion employees state, in effect,
that "it might be time for a couple of house burn-
ings," and that on another occasion one of the two
prounion employees made a statement about "the
Union people sending out goons to break some-
body up, stab tires, or kick in the side of cars." The
witness responded that they "had better not mess
with [him]" and that the two "would have to keep
looking over their shoulder at all times."
The Acting Regional Director concluded that
the alleged threatening remarks were not shown to
be attributable to the Petitioner. Further , assessing
the various alleged threats as third-party conduct,
the Acting Regional Director concluded that there
was no atmosphere of widespread confusion and
fear of reprisal prior to the election. In this regard,
he found it obvious from the context in which a
number of the remarks were made that, as claimed
by the two prounion employees and other witnesss,
such remarks were made in a "jocular " vein. He
further noted that of the two employees who alleg-
edly were threatened directly by the two prounion
employees, one refused to affirm that any threats
were directed at him and the other admitted that
he countered any threats with threats of his own.
Finally, he noted that the foreman, on hearing the
alleged threat to the first antiunion employee, re-
monstrated with the two prounion employees in
the presence of the antiunion employee.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the alleged con-
duct here cannot be attributed to the Petitioner, the
investigation has revealed sufficient evidence of
widespread talk of violence to warrant a hearing
on the Employer's objections. Thus, the Employer
has presented witnesses who have testified to vari-
274 NLRB No. 118
FARMTRONIX
ous alleged threats of serious violence -by prounion
employees, including threats of bodily harm, house
burnings, and property damage which, if proven,
might indeed have created a general atmosphere of
fear of reprisal rendering a free expression of
choice in the election impossible. Furthermore,
contrary to the Acting Regional Director, it is not
obvious from the context here that certain alleged
threats were made in a jocular vein, particularly
given the apparent aggravated nature of the alleged
threats. And, although the Acting Regional Direc-
tor notes that one of the employees against whom
threats allegedly were directed testified that he re-
sponded with threats of his own, such a response
might well have served only to aggravate the gen-
eral atmosphere of fear and violence. Nor would
the foreman's admonishment to the two prounion
employees necessarily dissipate the impact of their
alleged threats, particularly where, as here, there is
evidence that the two employees subsequently
made similar remarks . Finally, although the Acting
Regional Director found that only two employees
allegedly were directly threatened, certain affida-
vits taken by the Regional Office, copies of which
the Employer has submitted with its exceptions, in-
dicate that other employees in this small (15)
voting unit were aware of a number of the alleged
threats. As noted, the vote was 9 to 6.
The evidence adduced through the witnesses
provided by the Employer raises substantial and
material issues warranting a hearing on whether
the alleged threats were made, the context in
which they were made, and their possible impact
on the election.' Considering all the evidence pre-
' As pointed out by the Acting Regional Director, the prounion em-
ployee who allegedly stated to the first antiunion employee that a "No"
899
sented and particularly the serious and aggravated
nature of the alleged threats by both prounion em-
ployees and others, real questions remain in this
case as to whether the election was conducted in a
general atmosphere of fear of reprisal. We, there-
fore, order a hearing on the Employer's objections.
ORDER
It is ordered that a hearing be held before a
hearing officer for the purpose of receiving evi-
dence to resolve the issues raised by the Employ-
er's objections. After the hearing, the hearing offi-
cer shall serve his report on the parties. Within 10
days from issuance of the report, either party may
file exceptions to the report with the Board in
Washington, D.C. An original and seven copies of
the exceptions must be filed. Copies must be served
on all parties and with the Regional Director. If no
exceptions are filed, the Board will adopt the rec-
ommendations of the hearing officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is remand-
ed to the Regional Director for Region 27 for the,
purpose of taking action consistent with this deci-
sion.
voter could find his body at the bottom of a lake denied making such a
remark Furthermore , although the Acting Regional Director stated that
the first antiunion employee provided an affidavit in which he averred
that he did not feel he had been threatened or harassed by any employee
or other persons , the Acting Regional Director also pointed out that this
employee refused to admit or deny the alleged threats by the two union
employees , and a witness provided by the Employer testified that this
same employee expressed to her his fear of leaving his house because he
had been told that the Union had said it could send someone in to blow
his house up A resolution of these issues properly can be made only after
a hearing
Also, a hearing might reveal in greater detail than did the investigation
the relationship , if any, between the Petitioner and the prounion employ-
ees who allegedly made threats