Harrison, M. A., Manufacturing Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 427 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

M. A. HARRISON MANUFACTURING COMPANY. INC. 427
M. A. Harrison Manufacturing Company, Inc. and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW. Cases 8-CA-13285 and 8-
CA- 13032
June 8, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 8, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
William F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed a brief in response to Respondent's ex-
ceptions.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
M. A. Harrison Manufacturing Company, Inc., Bir-
mingham, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Include the following as paragraph (c):
i In his recommended notice to employees, the Administrative Law
Judge included injunctive language providing that Respondent would not
in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce emplo-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec 7 of the Act.
However, the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to include
the injunctive language in his recommended Order We have modified
the recommended Order by including the appropriate injunctive lan-
guage
The Union-Charging Party herein was certified by the Board as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of Respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees on May 18, 1978. The last negotiating session held by
the parties took place on May 17, 1979.
Respondent argues in its brief that its refusal to bargain with the
Charging Party after the expiration of the certification year was lawful
under the Act since it believed that the Charging Party was in fact a mi-
nority union, and it had a good-faith doubt as to the Charging Parts
majority status.
We note that in addition to the unfair labor practices found herein, the
Board found in M A. Harrison Manufacturing Company, Inc., 253 NLRB
675 (1980), a related case issued by the Board on December 10, 1980, that
Respondent herein violated Sec 8(a)(5) during the certification year on
five separate occasions and, furthermore, was "engaging in a course of
conduct constituting bad-faith bargaining with no intention of reaching
agreement on a collective-bargaining contract."
In order to fully effectuate the policies of the Act, and to provide the
parties with a meaningful opportunity to bargain in good faith for a col-
lective-bargaining agreement, we ha'e modified the recommended Order
herein and have ordered that the certification year be extended through
year after Respondent commences to bargain in good faith pursuant
hereto. See, generally, Glomac Plastics, Inc., 234 NLRB 1309 (1978), and
Big Three Industries, Inc., 201 NLRB 700 (1973)
256 NLRB No. 71
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collec-
tively with the above-named Union as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the appropri-
ate unit described above, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement. Regard the Union as exclusive
agent as if the initial year of certification has been
extended for an additional year from the com-
mencement of good-faith bargaining pursuant to
the Board's Decision and Order."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILl NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of our production and mainte-
nance employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to inflict bodily
injury on striking employees, damage the
property of striking employees, tell employees
that the Union cannot win and that they might
as well give up, threaten returning strikers
with reprisals, or threaten to close the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
as the exclusive representative of all our pro-
duction and maintenance workers at our Bir-
mingham, Ohio, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an under-
stand is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. WE WILi. regard the
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Taylor was leaning against his car kicking and pounding
Carrender's car. Miller testified that he heard Taylor say,
"I'm going to get you goddamn strikers." Then, when
Carrender drove off and Taylor gave up chasing her car,
he returned to where Miller had remained and chal-
lenged Miller to get out of his car. Miller apparently de-
clined to do so and Taylor went back into the plant.
Miller then heard Taylor say to an unidentified individu-
al, "Give me my gun, I'll just shoot all of the picketers."
With or without the provocation described by Taylor
in his testimony, I find the threats made by Taylor and
his damaging of Carrender's car violative of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. Since Taylor is admittedly a supervi-
sor under the Act, his actions are attributable to Re-
spondent even though he was not specifically directed to
engage in the violative activity. 7
The complaint alleges that on or about July 18, 1979, 8
through M.A. Harrison its president, Respondent interro-
gated an employee regarding the whereabouts and activi-
ties of other striking employees; informed an employee
on more than one occasion that it would be futile for
employees to select the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative by stating that no one was going to tell him
what to do, threatened striking employees with unspeci-
fied reprisals upon their return to work, unlawfully co-
erced an employee by accusing said employee of partici-
pating in various alleged acts of violence which occurred
at Respondent's facility during the strike, and unlawfully
threatened to close the plant because the employees se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative.
With regard to these allegations, Carrie Neely, a strik-
ing employee 9 of Respondent, testified that on or about
July 18 she was working as a part-time bartender and
short order cook at the Park Inn in Birmingham, Ohio.
That night M. A. Harrison came into the bar and said,
"Where is my damn strikers?" Neely replied that she did
not know. Harrison then asked, "What do you mean you
don't know?" Neely repeated that she did not know.
Harrison then stated, "I can tell you . . . Your union
can't win, you may as well give up." A conversation
then ensued concerning Harrison's failure to pay his em-
ployees better wages and to provide insurance for them.
The subject then turned to certain damage which had
been done at Respondent's foundry. In particular, Harri-
son alluded to 168 tires which had been slashed. Neely
stated that she did not know anything about the tires but
Harrison, becoming somewhat angry, stated, "Oh, hell,
yes you do." When Neely again denied causing any of
the damage, Harrison insisted, "Oh yes, you was one of
them." He added: "When you people come back to
work, you're going to get the same damn treatment."
Neely asked, "You mean, Mr. Harrison, I'm going to get
the same thing done to me?" Harrison replied, "Oh, hell
7 Edwards Brothers, Inc., 95 NLRB 1451 (1951). Respondent moved for
dismissal of the allegation involving Taylor on grounds that the Regional
Director for Region 8 had no authority to issue a complaint concerning
this allegation because the General Counsel had refused to issue com-
plaint thereon. It would appear, however, that the allegations upon
which the General Counsel refused to issue a complaint involved similar
but different activities. I therefore deny Respondent's motion.
R At the time of this incident, the strike had already concluded.
9 Though by July 18 the strike was over, Neely had not yet been rc-
called.
yes. Why not? You did it to me." An unidentified man
sitting at the bar said, "Mr. Harrison, that sounds like a
threat." Harrison replied, "Hell yes, by God it is!"
After another striking employee, Joe Hambley entered
the bar, Harrison engaged him in conversation also.
Either to Neely, to Hambley, or to both Harrison made
the statement that no union was coming in there and tell
him what to do. He stated that he would "shut the damn
place down." In all, Harrison remained in the bar about
2 hours talking to Neely and Hambley about the above
matters and others.
Concerning the events of July 18 which gave rise to
the 8(a)(l) allegations in the complaint, I find Harrison's
single, apparently rhetorical question, as he entered the
bar, "Where is my damn strikers?" more like an off-
handed salutation than serious interrogation designed to
obtain information concerning "the whereabouts and ac-
tivities of other striking employees" as alleged in the
complaint. I find this to be the case not only because the
subject matter was not pursued by Harrison to any great
depth but because at the time, the strike was already
over, there were no strikers and both Neely and Harri-
son knew this. I find no violation here.
I find, however, that in the total context of the con-
versation Respondent, through M. A. Harrison, violated
Section 8(a)(l) by stating, "I can tell you . . . your union
can't win, you may as well give up"; by telling Neely,
after discussing damage at the plant, "When you people
come back to work, you're going to get the same damn
treatment," then more or less repeating the same state-
ment a second time, and finally explicitly stating that he
meant his statement to be taken as a threat; and by stat-
ing that no union was going to come in and tell him
what to do, that he would "shut the damn place down."
These statements were clearly coercive in nature, and by
making them Harrison and therefore Respondent inter-
fered with the employees' Section 7 rights as set forth in
the Act. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).
IV. THE EFF:ECT OF HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent M. A. Harrison Manufacturing Compa-
ny, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at Re-
spondent's Birmingham, Ohio, plant, excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
M. A. HARRISON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 431
4. On or about May 18, 1978, a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit described above designated or select-
ed the Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining with Respondent.
5. Since on or about May 18, 1978, and at all times
material herein, the Union has been, and is now, the ex-
clusive representative for purposes of collective bargain-
ing of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
described above, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of
all the employees in said bargaining unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with Respondent with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
6. Since on or about October 17, 1979, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent did refuse, and continues to
refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employees in
the unit described above in that on or about October 17,
1979, and at all times since said date, Respondent has re-
fused and continues to refuse to meet with the Union for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
7. By threatening to inflict bodily injury upon striking
employees, damaging the property of striking employees,
telling employees that the Union can not win and that
they might as well give up, threatening returning strikers
with reprisals, and threatening to close the plant, Re-
spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
8. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take appropriate affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 1
The Respondent, M. A. Harrison Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., Birmingham, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
io M. A. Harrison Manufacturing Company, Inc., 253 NLRB 675 (1980).
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided h) Sec. 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant in Birmingham, Ohio, excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Threatening to inflict bodily injury on striking em-
ployees, damaging the property of striking employees,
telling employees that the Union can not win and that
they might as well give up, threatening returning strikers
with reprisals, and threatening to close the plant.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and upon request bargain collectively
with the above-named Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all its employees in the appropriate unit described
above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Birmingham, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to assure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 he deemed waived for all purposes
2 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"