GTE Sylvania, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GTE SYLVANIA, INCORPORATED 835
GTE Sylvania , Incorporated and United Electrical, Ra-
dio and Machine Workers of America (UE). Cases
I-CA-9394 and 1-RC-12713
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and interference with a Board elec-
tion. After the hearing briefs were filed by all parties.
Upon the entire record,2 the following findings and rec-
ommendations are made:
August 13, 1974
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On April 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Sid-
ney Sherman issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
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.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tachecT Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, GTE Sylvania, Incorporated,
Greenland, New Hampshire, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188,F.2d 362 (C A 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
SIDNEY SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The instant
charge was served on October 24, 1973,1 the complaint is-
sued on November 30, and this case was heard on January
22 and 23, 1974. The issues litigated related to alleged viola-
1
All dates hereinafter are in 1973, unless otherwise indicated.
I RESPONDENTS OPERATIONS
GTE Sylvania, Incorporated,3 herein called Respondent,
is engaged at its plant in Greenland, New Hampshire, in the
manufacture and sale of electrical products. It sufficiently
appears from the allegations of the complaint, as admitted
in Respondent's answer, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II THE UNION
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Amer-
ica (UE), hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organiza-
tion under the Act.
III THE MERITS
The pleadings raise the following issues:
1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by inter-
rogation , threatening reprisals for union activity, soliciting
an employee to dissuade others from supporting the Union,
and creating the impression of surveillance of union activi-
ty?
2. Whether by these and other acts Respondent inter-
fered with freedom of choice in a Board election?
A. Sequence of Events
After an organization campaign the Union on April 26,
filed a petition for an election. On May 7, the parties entered
into a stipulation for certification upon consent election and
the election was held on June 1. Of the 51 valid ballots cast
in the election, 27 were against, and 24 for, the Petitioner.
It filed timely objections. The Regional Director recom-
mended that a hearing be held on the issues raised by cer-
tain of the objections. Upon appeal the Board affirmed this
recommendation with some modifications. Since the subject
matter of the objections overlapped that of the complaint,
the RC case and the CA case was consolidated for hearing.
B. Discussion
1. The Essex-Goss incident
Goss testified that in May she asked her immediate super-
visor, Essex, if any of the employees would be discharged
for union activity, and she described his reply as follows:
And George said that during the campaign and during
the election there would be no firing. But perhaps after
the election the office knew who the people were that
were organizers for the union, and the least little thing
that happened you know-after the election, we
2 For a post-hearing action receiving certain matters in evidence, see the
Order of April 24, 1974
3 Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing.
212 NLRB No. 135
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could be fired. He didn't say we would be.
There was no contradiction of Goss's testimony that she
repeated this remark to the eight other members of her crew.
Essex denied that there was such a conversation. Howev-
er, Goss appeared to be a more sincere and candid witness
than Essex, who suffered selective lapses of memory and at
one point characterized his conversations with Goss as "off
the record." Accordingly, she is credited and it is found that
during the election campaign Essex warned that Respon-
dent knew what employees were active for the Union and
that after the election they might be discharged on the
slightest pretext. This remark contravened Section 8(a)(1) in
that it created the impression of surveillance, as well as
threatened reprisals for union activity.
2. Solicitation to speak against the Union
Godfrey testified that in the course of a conversation with
Rowe, an admitted supervisor, in his office during the pre-
election period he asked whether in a former employment
at a plant identified in the record only as the MacAllen
plant she had not been covered by a Union contract; that,
when she answered in the affirmative, he asked about the
scope of the employee benefits in that contract; that, when
she expressed disenchantment with the Union's accom-
plishments as reflected in that contract, he solicited her to
repeat that view to her fellow employees. Rowe denied that
there was any such conversation. However, for reasons in-
dicated below, Godfrey is deemed a more credible witness
and it is found that Rowe solicited her on that occasion to
speak to other employees against the Union. Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).4
3. Interrogation
The complaint alleges interrogation by Essex and Rowe.
There was no serious dispute that they engaged in extensive
and systematic interrogation of employees pursuant to in-
structions from higher management. Thus, Rowe acknowl-
edged that he was instructed by higher management "to find
out through the people and ask them what they thought the
union would do for them, to find out what the issues were,"
and that he complied with that instruction, citing his inter-
rogation in May of Sanders and DeBlois as to what they
thought the Union could do for them. Essex admitted ask-
ing employees how they felt about the Union and that he
explained to one of them, Nicholson, that, in making that
inquiry, he was doing his duty, and Essex did not take issue
with the testimony of another employee, Goss, that he asked
her for her opinion about the Union and that, when she
asked him whether he was an informer for the "office," he
answered only that he was doing his duty. Essex acknowl-
edged that he considered it part of his job to find out what
employees thought about the Union and that his superiors
4 Federal Stainless Sink Div. of Unarco Industries, Inc., 197 NLRB 489
(1972); The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc, 167 NLRB 776, 782,
(1967), enfd. 408 F.2d 374 (C.A. 5, 1969); Bonnie Bourne, An Individual, d/b/a
Bourne Co., 144 NLRB 805, 815 (1963), enfd. on this point 332 F 2d 47 (C.A
2, 1964); The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 128 NLRB 239, 248 (1960).
J
asked him about the Union sentiments of particular em-
ployees.
With regard to other, specific instances of interrogation,
Peele testified that late in May Rowe asked him what he
thought about the Union and what it could do for him.
Rowe did not unequivocally contradict this testimony and
it is credited. Godfrey testified that during the month of
May Rowe asked whether she thought the Union would win
the election and whether she had been contacted by Union
organizers . She is credited notwithstanding Rowe' s denial .5
In Cannon Electric Co., 151 NLRB 1465 (1965), the Board
found that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) merely
by issuing to its supervisors instructions to ascertain the
identity of union adherents, where it appeared the circum-
stances were such that the instructions were likely to be
divulged to employees. Here, it not only appears from
Rowe's testimony that supervisors did receive such instruc-
tions but also that Essex implied to employees that, in inter-
rogating them about their union sentiments, he was acting
pursuant to such instructions .6 In Cannon Electric, supra, the
Board explicated its ruling by quoting from the court's deci-
sion in Daniel Construction Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,' as follows:
... disclosure to employees that management has set
in motion a chain of events to ascertain and identify
union adherents can clearly restrain their freedom in
expressing their sentiments regarding organization.
This conclusion would apply even in the case of an em-
ployee like Goss, who made no secret of her adherence to
the Union; for, whether or not an employee 's union senti-
ments were already known to respondent , any notice given
to him that management was in the process of compiling
information about the identity of union adherents was rea-
sonably calculated to instill in him a fear that such compila-
tion would be used as a basis for selecting targets for
reprisals.
It is found that by the methodical interrogation conduct-
ed by Essex and Rowe , pursuant to instructions from higher
management, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.'
4. The objections to the election
The Union's objections to the election encompassed a
number of incidents in addition to those discussed above.
However, as the findings already made appear to afford a
sufficient basis for setting aside the election, no need is
perceived for any consideration of such other incidents. It
5 Respondent sought to impeach her by showing that in herjob application
she had not been candid about her medical history. Due weight has been
given to that circumstance However , as against this, one cannot overlook the
fact that , being no longer in Respondent 's employ, she, unlike Rowe, had no
apparent interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Moreover, this court was
favorably impressed by her demeanor and the circumstantiality of her ac-
count of her various conversations with Rowe during the election campaign.
6 That Goss so construed Essex's statement that he was doing his duty by
interrogating her is evident from her request that he convey her reply to the
"office.""
7 34l F.2d 805 (C.A.4, 1965).
8 Cannon Electric Co, supra.
GTE SYLVANIA, INCORPORATED
will, accordingly, be recommended that the election be set
aside on the basis of those findings and a new election
directed.9
IV THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be required
to cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate, affirma-
tive action. It will also be recommended that the election of
June 1, be set aside and a new one directed.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
1. By coercively interrogating employees about their
union sentiments, by threatening reprisals for union activi-
ties, by creating the impression of surveillance of such activ-
ity, and by solicitng an employee to speak against the
Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and
interfered with freedom of choice in the Board election held
on June 1.
2. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER 10
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and the fore-
going findings of fact, it is recommended that Respondent
GTE Sylvania , Incorporated, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall be required to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their atti-
tude toward United Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers of America (UE), or any other union, or soliciting them
to speak against that union to other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals because of their
activity on behalf of that union or any other union.
(c) Creating the impression of surveillance of employee
union activity.
(d) In any like or related manner, interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of any of
the rights guaranteed by the Act, except to the extent per-
mitted by the provisos to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following action, which is deemed necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent's plant in Greenland, New
Hampshire, copies of the "Appendix" attached hereto.11
Copies thereof, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of
at least 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election of June 1, be
set aside and a new election directed at such time as the
Regional Director shall deem appropriate.
837
9 There is evidence in the record that the employees were granted consider-
able latitude in discussing the pros and cons of the election issues during
worktime , and that supervisors were aware of, and frequently participated in,
such discussions . However , it would be sheer speculation to assume that the
freedom the employees enjoyed in this respect entirely neutralized the effects
of the widespread interrogation of employees found above, Essex's threat of
reprisals against those proselytizing for the Union, the impression created by
him of surveillance by management of employee union activities , and Rowe's
solicitation of Godfrey to campaign against the Union. Such speculation
seems particularly inappropriate in view of the fact that the result of the
election would have been reversed by a shift in only two votes , and in view
of Goss's credited testimony that she repeated Essex's threat to eight other
employees
i In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec, 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
11 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
aid or protection; and
To refrain from' any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interfers with these
rights.
WE WILL NOT lead employees to believe that we are
keeping a watch on their activities on behalf of United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UE), or any other union.
WE WILL NOT ask you how you feel about a union.
WE WILL NOT ask you to speak against a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to take any action against you
because of your activities on behalf of a union.
All our employees are free to belong, or not to belong to
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Ameri-
can (UE).
Dated By
GTE SYLVANIA , INCORPORATED
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by or covered by any other matenal. Any questions concerning
anyone . this notice or compliance with its provisions maybe direct-
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days ed to the Board's Office, 7th Floor-Bulfinch Building, 15
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Tele-
phone 617-223-3330.