Greensboro News Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 701 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greensboro News Company and Greensboro News-
paper Guild, Local 80, affiliated with the News-
paper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case
I 1-RC-4956
August 13, 1981
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election,' a secret-ballot election was held
on February 13, 1981.2 The tally of ballots showed
that, of approximately 70 eligible voters, 27 cast
ballots for, and 37 cast ballots against, representa-
tion by the Petitioner. There were five challenged
ballots, an amount insufficient to affect the out-
come.
The Petitioner timely filed objections to the con-
duct of the election.
Following an investigation of the objections, the
Acting Regional Director issued his Report on Ob-
jections recommending that the Petitioner's Objec-
tion 3 be sustained, and that a second election be
conducted. The Board has reviewed the Acting
Regional Director's report in light of the Employ-
er's exceptions and brief, and adopts his findings3
and recommendations, as modified by this Deci-
sion.
The Acting Regional Director found that the
Employer's statements to employees during the
campaign warranted sustaining Objection 3. We
agree.
On February 5 the Employer gave a speech to
the employees that included the following:
A union would be bad for me, too. At pres-
ent, your supervisors and I can deal with you
as individuals with regard to any aspect of
your employment-wages, benefits, hours, and
problems.
If the Union comes in, the Union will be
your representative and we must deal with
them, not you.
Further, in a series of communications during the
campaign the Employer advised employees that if
they selected the Petitioner as their representative
"it will be bad for all of us" and that they will all
be "worse off."
Section 9(a) of the Act expressly preserves the
employees' right to approach management direct-
'The stipulated unit is:
All employees employed in the Advertising Department of the Em-
ployer including retail sales, zone/bureau retail sales, classified sales,
national sales, sales services' typists and dispatchers, artists, layout
clerks, co-op coordinator, and printer, excluding all other depart-
ments, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 All dates are in 1981.
' In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the Acting Re-
gional Director's recommendation that Objections , 2, and 4 be over-
ruled.
ly. 4 The Acting Regional Director found the Em-
ployer's speech with respect to the right to ap-
proach management objectionable because it con-
tradicts Section 9(a). However, the Acting Region-
al Director characterized the speech as a mere mis-
representation of the law. We conclude that the
speech, read in the context of the Employer's state-
ments that employees would be worse off, could
reasonably be construed as a threat to deprive em-
ployees of their right to deal directly with the Em-
ployer. 5 Associated Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc.,
255 NLRB 1349 (1981).
The speech was not, as the Employer contends,
an explanation of the "fact[s] of industrial life."
Rather, it was an improper threat by the Employer
to terminate the existing beneficial situation. While
an employer may explain that with union represen-
tation the union will be a participant in employer-
employee relations generally, an employer cannot
threaten to retaliate against its employees' selection
of a union representative by cutting off the em-
ployees' Section 9(a) right to deal directly with
management.
The Employer argues that it did not threaten its
employees but merely stated a limitation on its
right to deal with them. It contends that, whereas
Section 9(a) of the Act focuses on the employees'
access to management, the Employer's speech fo-
cused on its own inability to deal with employees if
the employees were to select union representation.
We find the Employer's attempted distinction spe-
cious. Communication requires two parties. The
Employer's statement that with a union it could
not deal individually with employees about wages,
benefits, hours, and problems implied that neither
party would be able to approach the other to dis-
cuss on an individual basis any condition of em-
ployment, including grievances. In these circum-
stances, we find that the Employer threatened its
employees with the loss of their right under Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act to present their individual
grievances to it if they selected the Union to repre-
sent them. Accordingly, we sustain Objection 3, set
aside the election, and direct that a second election
be held as set forth below.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
Sec. 9(a) provides:
[A]ny individual employee or a group of employees shall hae the
right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have
such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining
representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the
terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect:
Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given
opportunity to be present at such adjustment.
5 Because we find that the statement constitutes a threat, we find it un-
necessary to pass on the Acting Regional Director's finding that the
statement constitutes a misrepresentation.
257 NLRB No. 100
701