Honeywell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

HONEYWELL, INC. 617
Honeywell, Inc., Photographic Products Division and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 1823 , Petitioner . Case 27-RC-5086
June 30, 1976
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on July 23, 1975, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 27,
among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon
the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished a tally of ballots which showed that of ap-
proximately 180 eligible voters 62 cast ballots for the
Petitioner, 4 cast ballots for the Intervenor,' and 88
cast ballots against the participating labor organiza-
tions. There were two challenged ballots, a number
insufficient to affect the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Acting Regional Director conducted
an investigation of the issues raised by the objections
and on December 2, 1975, issued his Report on Ob-
jections in which he recommended that the objec-
tions be overruled.2 The Petitioner filed exceptions to
the Acting Regional Director's report. No exceptions
were filed by the Intervenor.
Upon the entire record in this case, including
Petitioner's exceptions and brief, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees within the mean-
ing of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The parties stipulated and we find that the fol-
lowing employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding group leaders and photo technicians em-
1 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 86.
2 The report on objections was not timely served with respect to
Petitioner's representatives and, accordingly, on December 30, 1975, the
Acting Regional Director issued his amended report on objections which
perfected service on all parties
ployed by the Employer at its Photographic
Products Division plants located at 5501 South
Broadway, Littleton, Colorado, and 5200 East
Evans Avenue, Denver, Colorado; excluding of-
fice clerical, plant clerical, administrative, pro-
fessional, and sales employees, engineering and
quality technicians, service technicians, janitors,
cafeteria workers, senior production electronic
technician, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Acting Regional
Director's Report, the Petitioner's exceptions and ac-
companying brief, and the entire record in this case,
and makes the following findings:
The Acting Regional Director's investigation of
Petitioner's objections establishes, inter aka, that on
July 22, 1975, the day immediately preceding the
scheduled election, Vice President and General Man-
ager Pennock read a prepared statement to employ-
ees assembled at a meeting held by the Employer.3
After relating to the employees what the Employer
had attempted to achieve in the past and also what it
anticipated in the future with respect to sales and
new products, Pennock stated:
In order to meet customer demands from these
new marketing approaches, we expect to recall
10 or so employees in the next several weeks.
But all of this effort could be wasted if we can't
continue to work effectively as a team. I there-
fore feel the interference of a labor union would
only hinder our chances of further recovery.
The Acting Regional Director found that
Pennock's statement concerning the possibility of the
recall of laid-off employees was made in the context
of remarks explaining the Employer's economic and
competitive position in the industry and, as such, the
statement constituted nothing more than permissible
campaign propaganda. We disagree. In drawing the
distinction between a permissible prediction and an
unlawful threat, the test to be applied is the one fash-
ioned by the United States Supreme Court in Gissel
Packing Co.4 As the Court there stated, an employer's
prediction of dire economic effects which will stem
from union organization of the employees must not
contain "any implication that an employer may or
may not take action solely on his own initiative for
reasons unrelated to economic necessities," and; if
any such prediction is made, it must be supported
"on the basis of objective fact to convey an
employer's belief as to demonstrably probable conse-
quences beyond his control." 5
7 The meeting lasted for approximately 1-1/2 hours
4 N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575 (1969)
5Id at 618
225 NLRB No. 79
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In our view, the only logical interpretation to be
placed on Pennock's remarks is that the Employer
intended to and did convey to employees the mes-
sage that while favorable conditions had made it pos-
sible for the Employer to consider the recall of laid-
off employees, the selection of the Union as bargain-
ing representative would jeopardize the recall of
these employees and the economic recovery of the
Company. Pennock's statement makes no effort to
explain why the representation by the Union would
or could thwart the Employer's economic recovery.
Rather, it simply asks the employees to accept the
proposition that the two inevitably go hand in hand
together-as in fact it was within the Employer's
power to bring about. Under the test in Gissel, such a
statement must be construed as a threat rather than a
prediction because not only has the Employer failed
to demonstrate that its belief is based upon objective
considerations, it has also failed to affirmatively es-
tablish that any such adverse economic effects would
result from circumstances beyond the Employer's
control.
Though our dissenting colleagues quote the
Employer's statement correctly, as a flat statement of
what "would" happen, i.e., choice of the union
"would" hinder the speedy recall of 10 employees, in
their discussion of it they treat it as setting out what
"may" happen if the Union is chosen by the employ-
ees. The difference is substantial and, as noted
above, contributes to our view that the statement in-
terfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the
election. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Acting
Regional Director, that Pennock's remark to employ-
ees that their selection of the Union as bargaining
representative would or could hinder the Employer's
economic recovery and patently objectionable con-
duct which necessitates the holding of another elec-
tion.
ORDER
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publi-
cation.] 6
CHAIRMAN MURPHY and MEMBER WALTHER, dissent-
ing:
In agreement with the Regional Director, we con-
clude that the speech made by the Employer's vice
president and general manager, Pennock, to employ-
ees on July 22, 1975, contains nothing objectionable.
The speech was devoted, in part, to a discussion of
the Employer's expectation as to sales and new prod-
ucts. During the course of that discussion Pennock
stated:
In order to meet customer demands from these
new marketing approaches we expect to recall
10 or so employees in the next several weeks.
But all this effort could be wasted if we can't
continue to work effectively as a team. I there-
fore feel the interference of a labor union would
only hinder our chances of further recovery.
Our colleagues find that this statement constitutes
a threat. We see no basis for such a conclusion. Cer-
tainly, there is nothing objectionable in pointing with
pride to growth which will enable the recall of a
number of employees. Nor is it objectionable to re-
flect on the need for continued team work in order to
realize the fruits of the effort to achieve growth. We
fail to see how the expression of concern that the
Union may interfere with that team work can reason-
ably be viewed as a threat. The statement contains
no suggestion that Employer will not continue its ef-
forts to achieve growth should the Union be selected
or that any future failure to recall would be the result
of other than a failure of Employer's best efforts in
this regard.' Thus, Employer has in no way threat-
ened to take any adverse action towards the employ-
ees should they select the Union.'
We would affirm therefore the Regional Director's
conclusion that Pennock's July 22, 1975, speech was
not objectionable, and we would certify the results of
the election.
It is hereby ordered that the election held in Case
27-RC-5086 , on July 23, 1975, be, and it hereby is,
set aside.
6 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication ]
' See, e g, The Hiatt Shoe Company Blue Star Shoes, Inc, 195 NLRB 554
(1972)
8 See Warton Drilling Co, Inc, 164 NLRB 357 (1967)