Lehigh Valley Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 218 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Riverside Manufacturing Industries , Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lehigh Valley Industries, Inc.
and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 18-RC-8005
August 27, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
Pursuant to the provisions of a Decision and
Direction of Election issued by the Regional Director
on October 31, 1969, an election by secret ballot
was conducted among . certain employees of the
Employer on December 5, 1969, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for Region
18. On December 5, 1969, the parties were furnished
a tally of ballots, of which 68 were cast for the
Intervenor, Local 147, Over the Road, City Transfer
Drivers, Dockmen, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America; 48 were cast for the Petitioner, United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO; and 2 were cast
against the participating labor organizations. There
were no challenged ballots.
On December 10, 1969, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation,
and, on January 30, 1970, issued his Report and
Recommendation on Objections to Conduct Affecting
the Results of the Election, in which he recommended
that the objections be overruled and that the results
of the election be certified. The Petitioner filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The
Employer filed a brief in opposition to the Petitioner's
exceptions.
The Board' has considered the entire record in
this case, including the Regional Director's Report,
the Petitioner's exceptions, and the Employer's brief
in opposition thereto, and hereby adopts the findings
and recommendations of the Regional Director only
to the extent that they are consistent herewith.'
' Pursuant to the provisions of Sec 3(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Regional
Director's recommendation that Objections 3 and 4 be overruled
We find, in agreement with the Petitioner, that
the Petitioner's Objections 1 and 2 must be sustained
and the election set aside.
In his Decision and Direction of Election dated
October 31, 1969, the Regional Director found that
a 3-year contract entered into by the Employer and
the Intervenor was not a bar to the petition since
at the time of the signing of the contract, there
was not a substantial and representative employee
complement. General Extrusion Company, Inc., 112
NLRB 1165.
These objections are based on speeches made to
assembled groups of employees by the Employer's
president, its labor relations attorney, Breskin, and
the president of an area development corporation
2 days before the election; and statements allegedly
made by Foreman Williams to individual employees
on the day before the election. We do not agree
with the Regional Director's conclusions that the
Employer's representatives did not threaten the
employees or indicate a preference between the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor. On the contrary, we find
that the Employer not only expressed a preference
for the Intervenor, but virtually threatened not to
bargain with the Petitioner, and to move the plant
work elsewhere if the Petitioner won.
Thus, although the speakers reiterated their lack
of concern over which Union won the election, they
also made repeated reference to the contract recently
negotiated with the Intervenor; and stated that the
work in the plant had been bid on the basis of
the wages and benefits in that contract, and that
the employees would not get more. Breskin stated
the Employer's position to be that the contract was
a "bar . . . from negotiating again," and added,
"from our point of view it is over with. We have
negotiated . . . ." He also stated, "we think it's
about time to get to work and these petty gripes
either brought up through your present union
machinery or forgotten." These remarks conveyed
the impression that the Employer would stand on the
contract it had negotiated with the Intervenor at a
time when there was not a substantial and
representative complement of employees; and it
would be futile for the employees to vote for the
Petitioner because if they did so, they would not be
accorded the right to full representation by that
Union to which they were entitled.
The statements were reinforced with remarks to
the effect that although the Employer wished to
remain in the community, it had the privilege of
breaking its lease at any time "during the first three
years." Breskin also stated, "if what is in your mind
is that we can bring in another union, renegotiate
the contract and get more," then a strike is "a real
possibility." Pointing out that the Petitioner had been
185 NLRB No. 44
RIVERSIDE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, INC
involved in more strikes than the Intervenor , Breskin
added that in the event of a strike "we will have
no choice but to get the work done somewhere else
and that is in our other plant ." He drove home
the message by stating , "if we aren 't wanted, we
ought to get the hell out, and we're prepared to
do that too ," and that "we have a legal right to
move out of here and I hope we don 't have to
prove it." Moreover, Foreman Williams admittedly
stated to two individual employees that the Employer
could leave in view of the lease agreement.
We construe the above remarks as implied threats
that a victory by the Petitioner, as contrasted with
the Intervenor, would result in a strike caused by
the Employer's refusal to bargain, followed by the
closing of the plant and moving the work elsewhere.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer coerced
the employees into voting for the Intervenor and
against the Petitioner , and thereby interfered with
their free choice in the election. We shall therefore
set this election aside and order a second election.
ORDER
219
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
December 5, 1969, among employees in the
appropriate unit be , and it hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election' omitted from publi-
cation.]
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues and the exercise of their statutory right
to vote , all parties to the election shall have access to a list of voters
and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them
Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NL R B v Wyman-Gordon
Company, 394 U S 759
Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list , contain-
ing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 18 within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by
the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list
shall be granted by the Regional Director excep t in extraordinary circum-
stances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed