La-Z-Boy Midwest

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LA-Z-BOY MIDWEST
La-Z-Boy Midwest, A Subsidiary of La-Z-Boy Chair
Company and United Furniture Workers of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 17-RC-8427
January 28, 1980
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an election
held on April 20, 1979,' and the Hearing Officer's
report recommending disposition of same. The Board
has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's find-
ings and recommendations.2
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of all
employees, in the unit herein involved, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I would find merit in the
Petitioner's Objection 7. The Hearing Officer credited
the testimony of employee Clark and found that Night
Shift Superintendent Williamson during a conversa-
tion with Clark asked him why he was for the Union
and concluded by saying, "I just can't understand why
a bright, intelligent young man like you majoring in
business can support an outfit like the United Furni-
ture Workers." This conversation was a continuation
of a conversation relating to the Union which had
occurred the previous night. The Hearing Officer
found this conduct objectionable but characterized it
as "casual interrogation" and recommended that
Objection 7 be overruled.
In my dissent in Caron International Inc., 246
NLRB No. 179 (1979), and my concurrence in Super
Thrift Markets, Inc., 233 NLRB 409 (1977), I have
expressed my views with respect to preelection con-
duct that is violative of Section 8(a)(1), albeit conduct
which allegedly occurred in a "casual" or so-called
"friendly manner." Applying the principles enunciat-
ed in those cases to the instant case, I would set the
election aside and order a second election.
' The second election was conducted pursuant to a Board Decision and
Direction of Second Election dated March 20, 1979. Of approximately 696
eligible voters, 309 cast valid ballots for, and 345 against, the Petitioner; there
was I void ballot and 4 challenged ballots. The first election was conducted
pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election on
February 9. 1978.
: In agreeing with the Hearing Officer that the Employer's conduct dealt
with in the Petitioner's Objection 7 did not interfere with the election.
Chairman Fanning does not rely on Essex International. Inc. 216 NLRB 831
(1951), in which he dissented. Rather, he agrees for the reasons stated in
Caron International Inc.. 246 NLRB No. 179 (1979).
Attached as an Appendix a is the Hearing Officer's findings and
recommendation with respect to Objection 7.
APPENDIX
. . . Objection No. 7
On or about March 26, 1979, Supervisor Alan William-
son interrogated an employee concerning his pro-Union
sympathies in a coercive and intimidating manner.
Unit employee Mark Clark testifies that, on or about
March 26, 1979, he had a conversation with night shift
superintendent Alan Williamson relating to the Florence
United Furniture Workers contract and the current wages,
hours and working conditions at the Employer's Neosho
facility. This conversation represented a continuation of
their discussion of the subject which initially occurred
during the evening of March 25, 1979. Clark testifies that
Williamson asked him why he was for the Union, at which
time Clark responded he felt the employees were not treated
fairly, and that no one from management would listen to the
problems presented by employees. Clark also testifies that
Williamson stated "I just can't understand why a bright,
intelligent young man like you majoring in business can
support an outfit like the United Furniture Workers." That
concluded the conversation. Williamson denies making such
statements. I credit Clark and find that Williamson interro-
gated Clark concerning his reasons for supporting the
Petitioner. While I have found Williamson's remark to be
objectionable, I do not conclude that this remark interfered
with the results of the election. The practical effect of this
incident-standing alone-is limited. As Clark's testimony
amply supports, he was a willing participant in this
conversation with Williamson, and describes this conversa-
tion as "a friendly argument." Indeed, Clark states that he
bet, and won, a coke on an issue relating to the number of
paid holidays reflected in the Florence contract. The subject
conversation was initiated by Clark, in his work area, with
Clark's insistence that he had won the bet. Williamson
admits that he did concede Clark's point relating to paid
holidays. The offensive remark took place, by Clark's
testimony, at the conclusion of this conversation. Clark
described the conversation as "bantering," a "friendly
argument," and noted that there was a lot of "teasing going
on . . . about the Unions and the contract pro or against,
and stuff."
247 NLRB No. 83
621
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based on the foregoing, I consider this objectionable
conduct to be isolated, and its impact to be de minimis.
Clearly this casual interrogation of a single employee does
not warrant a direction of third election in a unit involving
700 production employees. Essex International, Inc., 216
NLRB 831. I recommend that Objection No. 7 be overruled.
622