Fisher Cheese Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 626 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fisher Cheese Company and Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union Local No. 908, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 8-
CA 11512
September 28, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS JENKINS
ANI) MURPIIY
Upon a charge filed on or about November 14,
1977, by Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers
Union Local No. 908, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein called the Union, and duly served
on Fisher Cheese Company, herein called Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 8,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing on Decem-
ber 23, 1977, against Respondent. alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the
parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleged in substance that on or about October
25. 1977, Respondent, by letter to its employees,
threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if
they signed union authorization cards.
On or about December 29, 1977, Respondent filed
its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint. On
or about January 3, 1978, Respondent filed a motion
to make more specific, and on January 11, 1978, Gen-
eral Counsel filed a response to Respondent's motion.
Administrative Law Judge Charles W. Schneider, on
January 23, 1978, denied Respondent's motion on the
basis of the General Counsel's response, which he in-
terpreted as providing the information requested by
Respondent. 'Thereafter, on January 22, 1978, Re-
spondent filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a
Motion for Summary Judgment and a brief' in sup-
port thereof, requesting that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety. On February 8, 1978, the Board
issued an order transferring proceeding to the Board
and a Notice To Show Cause why Respondent's Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment should not be granted.
On or about February 13. 1978, the General C('ounsel
filed a response to Respondent's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and General Counsel's motion to the
National Labor Relations Board for summary judg-
ment and a brief in support of his position.
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 proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment
According to the General Counsel and Respon-
dent, the facts in this case are not in dispute, and
there is no matter in issue that requires a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge. The sole issue is
whether a statement by Respondent, admittedly
made in a letter to its employees, constitutes an unfair
labor practice. For reasons set out below', we con-
clude that the statement violates Section 8(a)( 1) of the
Act. Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and we deny Re-
spondent's request to dismiss the complaint.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINS O()F FA(I
1. 111E BUSINESS OF1 RESPONI)DENI
The Respondent, Fisher Cheese Company, is an
Ohio corporation with a facilitv located in Wapako-
neta, Ohio, the sole facility involved, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture of cheese products. In the
course and conduct of its business operations, Re-
spondent annually ships goods valued in excess of
$50.000 from its Wapakoneta, Ohio, facility directly
to points located outside the State of Ohio.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. 111 I. ABOR ORGANIZAI()ION INVO()IVEl)
Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union
Local No. 908, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I11. 1I11F INFAIR I AB R PRA('I'I('IS
On or about October 25, 1977, Respondent sent a
letter to its employees containing the following state-
ment, which is alleged to violate Section 8(a)( 1) of the
Act:
238 NLRB No. 91
626
FISHER CHEESE COMPANY
Don't be fooled into signing misleading union
cards. 'The Teamsnl.erx claim that these cardsi are
secrte. This is not the truth. In many, instances,
the signed card is disclosed to the Company bhx
the union, the NLRB, or both of them. Be care-
ful about what you sign-don't sign ANY-
THING unless you KNOW what you are sign-
ing and what it might mean to you, your family.
or your fellow employees.
Respondent contends that the statement constitutes
an expression of opinion protected by Section 8(c) of
the Act. The General Counsel, on the other hand.
contends that the statement constitutes a threat of
retaliation for union activity. We agree with the Gen-
eral Counsel.
Respondent's statement is substantially the same as
statements which the Board found to be unlawful in
Hobart Brothers Comprany. 150 NLRB 956 (1965). en-
forcement denied 372 F.2d 203 (C.A. 6, 1967), and in
Sparton Manli(/lcluring Company,ll 150 NIRB 948
(1965), enfiorcement denied 355 F.2d 523 (C.A. 7.
1966). The final sentence, cautioning employees to
"be careful" about what they sign, uses precisely the
same language considered to be coercive by the
Board in the Hobart and ,Sparton decisions. That lan-
guage clearly suggests the possibility that harm will
come to employees as a result of disclosure to Re-
spondent of the names of employees who signed
union authorization cards. Accordingly, we find that
Respondent's statement quoted above constitutes an
implicit threat that Respondent will engage in repri-
sals against those employees who sign union authori-
zation cards.' We further find that by making the
statement Respondent engaged in conduct which in-
terfered with. restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and violated Section 8(a)( l ) of the Act.2
IV. 11HF 1 iFFI ()1 OF [I tt NFAIR I An()R PRA( tIH iS
U PON ( O()MMI R( I
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
Ill, above, occurring in connection with its operations
(f1. borer;,a Inc . 165 NLRB ( 1967 ): Ehlim (orp . 2 Ih NL RB 691 ( 1975)
:Member Murphy adheres to her posimtiln that under the guise of protect-
ing statultorx rights. the right of free speech should not he improperl] and
unnecessaril] limited as seems to her is too frequentl? done h> finding
unlawful ceiled threats or disguised forbidden implicatiolns in ecers strong,
and perhaps not so strong. statement of position or preference made in an
organizing context See, e.g, her partial dissent in 'he I usrid Par king (Cins
pal'm 223 NILRB 139, 140 (1976): also 1 S Airtes & C(nompans. Doisioin o/
.4rii(a nted Drn (;) God (C'rporaic,o 221 NL RB 1344. In 2 ( 1976). hus. the
right of1 employees to he free from enmploer crccillon must he balanced
against the right if the emplo ,,er to free speech. Member Murhp? finds that
here the Respondent's language vai, a cleir threat that an emplosee and
family risked relalila or? actiin ' hen nolt i it became awa ire o 1 the sign-
ing of a uinion crd Accordingl]. she conciurs in the result in the present
proceeding. ince such a threat olerhblla nced the Eliplo er's right of free
speech
described in section I. above. have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. TiHE R[FMi Dl
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the Act, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CoN( t i.SIo)NS o( LA^s
1. Fisher Cheese Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning otf Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers
Union I.ocal No. 908, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America. is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening its employees with reprisals for
signing union authorization cards. Respondent has
interfered with. restrained. and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights cguarantteed in Section 7
of the Act. in violation of Section 8(a)( I of the Act.
4. 1The atforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices afflecting commerce ithin the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the 'Act.
ORI)ER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent.
Fisher Cheese Company. Wapakoneta, Ohio. its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals for sign-
ing union authorization cards.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with.
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its tacility at Wapakoneta, Ohio, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
' It the ~cent thai this ()rder is erlorccd bih a judgment of a t nited States
('ourt of Appeals. the Cords in the notice reading "Posted bh Order of the
National I .ihor Relations Board'' shall read "'os ed Pursuant to a Judgment
of tile U nited States ('Court of A ppeals -nlorcing a.l Order of the National
i abor Relatiilns BoaHrd "
627
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTI(E To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THIE
NAIIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WF wNIL NOT threaten employees with repri-
sals for signing union authorization cards.
WE Wll.l NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
FISHER CHEESE COMPANY
628