M. A. Norden Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 1730 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
think you have to admit that-most of you-we have always tried to be fair
with everyone and we will continue to do so in the future. This rule, which
some of you do not like, was put in effect to make sure that everyone was
treated the same. If you think this is bad, if you think the rules that are
coming in the plant-there are rules coming in the plant, this is only the
beginning . I hope you will never have occasion to find out how rough it can be.
If you're tired of fooling with these people, as we are, I urge you to take it
upon yourself individually, to convince these people that they have the best
deal around; decent work; tell them to do what they are paid to do and let's
make a better profit in the coming year.
Now, we have no animosity in our hearts for anyone, because we believe
people can be mislead . They can be misinformed and mislead, so I want you
to know that we hold no grudge against you. Those who work for me-we
want everybody to be happy. We want them to be happy in the Neuhoff
organization.
My analysis of the speech is that there is at most a single technical violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is obvious that Neuhoff is endeavoring to heal
wounds and to smooth over any friction between employees that may have
developed during the Union's organizing campaign. He talks to the discord among
the employees and the fact that some wanted someone else to represent them and
be their representative in promoting their rights with the Company, but in that
respect the Respondent acknowledged "this they have a right to do and we respect
this right." This is an acknowledgement of safety to employees of the Respondent
with no threat that anything would happen to them if they exercise this right of
theirs or with no promise of benefit if they ignored or if they refused to engage in this
type of activity. The point that I believe is a technical violation of Section 8(a) (1)
is when Neuhoff stated that the new requirement to sign a slip when an employee
came in late was the direct result of "union activity." But then he went on to say
that in the Respondent's effort to be fair with everyone and the fact that they were
going to continue to be fair in the future "this rule, which some of you do not
like, was put in effect to make sure that everyone was treated the same." His
remarks thereafter that there would be rules coming into the plant, would relate
as well to the result of bargaining between the collective-bargaining representative
as it would to the thought that the rules would be unilaterally established by
Respondent. There is no "retaliation" implied by Respondent to union activities
of its employees. His closing remarks are a simple appeal to the employees not
to be misinformed or mislead plus a statement that the Respondent has no grudge
against anyone because of his union activity. Keeping this in mind, as well as
the fact that this speech was given at a Christmas party where good will is the
theme, I do not believe the record warrants a finding that Respondent was inter-
fering with, coercing, or restraining employees with respect to their rights under
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent discharged or otherwise discriminated against employee Lewis in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, or that it has violated Section 8(a)(1).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
M. A. Norden Company, Inc. and International Hod Carriers'
Building and Common Laborers ' Union of America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 15-AC-4. June 28,1966
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On October 14, 1965, in Case 15-RC-3142, the Regional Director
for Region 15 certified International Hod Carriers' Building and
159 NLRB No. 143.
M. A. NORDEN COMPANY, INC. 1731
Common Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Petitioner,
as the representative of the production and maintenance employees
of the Employer. On or about January 20, 1966, Petitioner filed
with the Regional Director a petition to amend the certification so
as to : (1) change its name to conform to its present official title
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and
(2) to substitute Laborers' Local Union 70, its affiliate, as the certi-
fied representative. On January 26, 1966, the Regional Director
issued an Order to Show Cause why the amendment should not be
made, to which the Employer responded on January 28, 1966, oppos-
ing the amendment.
On February 28, 1966, the Regional Director issued a Decision and
Amendment of Certification, granting the Petitioner's motion in full.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed a timely request for review alleging, inter alia, that
the Regional Director erred in substituting Laborers' Local Union 70
for the certified International.' By telegraphic order dated May 5,
1966, the National Labor Relations Board granted the Employer's
request for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCul-
loch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and finds, for
the reasons set forth below, that the Petitioner's request to amend the
certification so as to substitute Laborers' Local Union 70 as the certi-
fied representative should be denied.2
It is undisputed that the Regional Director certified the Petitioner
as the exclusive representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees following the conduct of an election in which
the Petitioner was the sole Union appearing on the ballot. In request-
ing that its Local 70 be now substituted as the certified representative,
Petitioner avers that it does not, as an International union, normally
engage in local, collective bargaining and has historically followed
the practice of filing petitions with the Board in the name of the
affiliated local union or district council; that Laborer's Local Union
IIn view of our action herein denying the request for substitution , we consider it un-
necescary to rule on the other ( procedural ) grounds urged by the Employer for reversing
the Regional Director.
2 The Employer apparently does not object to changing the name of the International to
conform to its present official title The thrust of the Employer's position is that it
opposes the substitution of a local union for the International with which it has been
negotiating.
1732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
70 was in existence at the time the petition was filed and that its repre-
sentative signed and filed the representation petition and participated
in the hearing. Petitioner implied that, although it had intended
to name the local affiliate as the Petitioner, it inadvertently failed
to do so.
In opposing the requested amendment, the Employer stated, among
other things, that it had no knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the above averments. The Employer
further claimed that it was engaged in negotiating with the Inter-
national for a bargaining agreement at the time the petition to
amend the certification was filed,' and that there was no warrant for
the requested substitution of the Local as the certified representative.
The Regional Director found that, inasmuch as the Employer did
not expressly deny the allegations made by the Petitioner, nor allege
any facts inconsistent therewith, there was no reason why, in the cir-
cumstances , the requested amendment should not be made. We do
not agree.
Contrary to the Petitioner's position, we find nothing in the objec-
tive facts which indicates that the employees' choice of the certified
International as their representative was intended to encompass its
local affiliate, Laborers' Local Union 70. Moreover, there is no evi-
dence that the employees had knowledge of, or have consented to,
the proposed change. Under these circumstances, we find no warrant
for the substitution of the Local as the certified representative., We
shall therefore deny the petition to substitute the Local as the certi-
fied representative, but without prejudice to further consideration
upon a showing of consent by the employees in the unit.
[The Board ordered that the petition to amend certification filed
by Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and
its affiliate, Laborers' Local Union 70, be denied to the extent that it
seeks to substitute the said Local as the certified representative.] 5
3 The Board takes administrative notice of withdrawal , on December 28, 1965, by Local
Union 70, Laborers' International Union of North America , AFL-CIO, of its charge, filed
November 22, 1965 , that the Employer had refused to bargain collectively with Interna-
tional Hod Carriers ' Building and Common Laborers ' Union, AFL-CIO. The Employer
alleges that thereafter , on or about December 29, 1965 , International Hod Carriers'
requested the Employer to bargain with it and that since January 5 , 1966 , the Employer
and the said International Hod Carriers ' have been engaged in collective bargaining with
respect to the employees covered by the certified unit
d Cf. Yale Manufacturing Company, Inc , 157 NLRB 597; Gulf Oil Corporation, 135
NLRB 184.
e The Board takes administrative notice of approval by the AFL-CIO of the Petitioner's
request to change its official name from International Hod Carriers ' Building and Common
Laborers ' Union of America , AFL-CIO ( its name at the time of the representation elec-
tion), to Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Accordingly, that
part of the Regional Director ' s Decision which solely reflects the change in name of the
International is hereby affirmed.