Ferro Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 848 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tuttle & Kift , Division of Ferro Corp. and Local 705, Produc-
tion & Miscellaneous Workers Union of Chicago & Vicinity,
Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-6033. January 6,1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board herein on August 1, 1958,E an election by secret ballot was
conducted on August 27, 1958, by the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate by the Board. Following the election, the parties were fur-
nished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 341
eligible voters, 301 cast ballots; of these, 180 were for Local 705,
Production & Miscellaneous Workers Union of Chicago & Vicinity
(herein called Local 705), 90 were for the Intervenor, District 8,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (herein called
the IAM), 30 were against both labor organizations, and 1 was void.
The IA.M filed timely objections to the conduct of the election.
On October 3, 1958, following an investigation, the Regional Direc-
tor issued and served upon the parties his report on the objections.
The Regional Director recommended that the objections be over-
ruled and a certification of Local 705 be issued. The IAM filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recommen-
dations.
The Board2 has considered the objections, the report and recom-
mendations, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and
finds as follows :
The IAM bases its objections on two grounds. Both relate to
talks made by the Employer to groups of employees. On August
25, 1958, employees were called into the Company's loading room in
7 groups varying in size from a low of 28 to a high of 48. The
loading room, which is physically separated from the rest of the
plant, is used as an area to insert heating elements into the Com-
pany's products. Production employees, in pursuance of their duties,
are customarily in the loading room. In its first objection, the IAM
asserts that the calling of groups of employees to this room to hear
the Employer's talk was an improper interference with the election
within the Board's decision in Peoples Drug Stores, Inc., 119 NLRB
634. We find no merit in this contention. There is nothing in the
record of this case to support the supposition that the loading room
was either, in fact, a "locus of final authority" or so considered as
I Unpublished.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
122 NLRB No. 102.
TUTTLE & GIFT, DIVISION OF FERRO CORP. 849
such by these employees . Moreover, unlike the situations in Peo-
ples Drug Stores, Inc., and like decisions relied on by the IAM,' the
Employer neither interviewed the employees individually nor spoke
to them in small groups . In Head-Atlanta Paper Company, 120
NLRB 832, involved a somewhat analogous situation, the Board
noted : "It is the isolation of individuals, or of small groups of
employees, most often just a few, from the bulk of their fellow
workmen into the locus of managerial authority which supports the
inference that company expressions of antiunion sentiment in these
circumstances borders too close upon coercive influence over their
choice later expressed in the election." We hold here, as did the
Board in Head-Atlanta Paper Company, that the number of em-
ployees in each group here was not such as "suggests the isolation
of a few from among the many so as to create an aura of special
treatment directed to individuals as distinguished from the employ-
ees as a whole." . Absent this element of isolation in the "locus of
final authority," no inference of improper company influence can be
drawn from the assemblying of these employees in groups.
In its second objection, the IAM asserts that the position taken
by the Employer in these talks was detrimental to the IAM and
amounted to coercion. In a prepared statement read to each group,
the Employer urged the employees to vote against Local 705. The
employees- were told that negotiations for the sale of the Company
were in progress, that the sale would be beneficial to them as well
as the Company, but that the prospective purchaser would not buy
the Company if Local 705 was chosen as bargaining agent. The
Employer referred to a rumor then circulating throughout the plant
to the effect that the purchaser intended to close the plant and move
its business to another city. The Employer stated that he had been
assured by officers of the prospective purchaser that if the sale did
go through they would continue to operate the plant with the same
personnel and at the same location.
The IAM contends that the Employer did not definitely assure
the employees that such a move would not occur, and that, by telling
the employees that the plant could not be sold if Local 705 won the
election, the Employer left the inference that if the employees se-
lected Local 705 the plant would not be moved. The IAM argues
that the employees voted for Local 705 to prevent the sale and
movement of the plant and thus protect their jobs. This objection,
we find, also lacks merit. Not only is the IAM's theory as to the
s Armour and Company, 120 NLRB 522 (employer addressed employees in "small
groups" in its office ) ; The Great Atlantic et Pacific Tea Company , 120 NLRB 204 (em-
ployer interviewed employees individually in back rooms of the stores ) ; Carter-Lee
Lumber Company , 119 NLRB 1374 (employer interviewed employees individually in
private offices of employer 's officials and in an "upstairs room" which insured privacy) ;
Campbell Steel Company, et al., 120 NLRB 168 (employer interviewed employees indi-
vidually in its offices).
505395-59-vol . 122----55
850 DECISfONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' subjective reactions to these talks based on mere specu-
lation, but we also note that the IAM's basic premise is not sup-
ported by the record. The record shows that the Employer, after
repeating the assurances given him, told, the employees "there is
no need for us to worry about TK being moved away from Moni-
tor Avenue."
Contrary to the IAM's further contention, we find that the Em-
ployer's reference to employee dissatisfaction with the IAM and the
Employer's plea for a "No, Union" vote were clearly permissible and
not coercive.
For the foregoing reasons, we find in agreement with the Re-
gional Director that the objections are without merit and they are
hereby overruled' As Local 705 has received a majority of the
valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Local 705, Production & Miscellaneous Work-
ers Union of Chicago & Vicinity as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
4 Exception is also taken to a statement in the Regional Director 's report which the
IAM claims refers to it as a "wrong doer." In his report , the Regional Director termed
the Employer's remarks against Local 705 "coercive." He determined that since Local
705 won notwithstanding those remarks, to set aside the election because of the Employer's
conduct "would be permitting a wrong doer to gain by his wrongful acts ." It is clear
that the Regional Director was applying the questioned description to the Employer, and
not to the LAM. The IAM's exception is, thus , without substance.
We do not pass upon the question of whether the Employer 's conduct was coercive so
as to have prejudiced Local 705, since that union won the election.
Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO and Mid-Island Electrical Sales Corp.; Mid-Island
Lighting Fixtures Co., Inc. Case No. P -CB-2216. January 7,
1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 19, 1958, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, 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.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the
amended complaint, and recommended that these particular allega-
tions be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, together with a support brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins];
122 NLRB No. 105.