Marion Bottling Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All clerical and technical employees of the underseas division at the
Parker Road , Baltimore , plant, excluding all employees of the engineering
and service department , all hourly paid employees , all confidential employ-
ees, all industrial relations assistants , interviewers , buyers , guards, pro-
fessional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 707 North
Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460 , Extension 2100.
Marion Bottling Company , Inc. and International Union of Dis-
trict 50, United Mine Workers of America. Case No. 5-CA-
3197. January 21, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by International
Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein
referred to as the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 5, issued a com-
plaint dated September 17, 1965, against the Respondent, Marion
Bottling Company, Inc., alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing were served upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that the Respondent, in a letter distributed to its employ-
ees on or about June 15, 1965, threatened the employees with economic
reprisals because of their membership in, activity on behalf of, and
adherence to the Union.
The Respondent's answer, filed on September 24, 1965, admitted
certain jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint but
denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
On October 15, 1965, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation which contains a statement of facts; expressly waives a
hearing before a Trial Examiner, the making of findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the issuance of a Trial Examiner's decision, and the
filing of exceptions and oral argument before the Board; agrees to
transmit the case directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and order based upon a record consisting of the charges, com-
plaint, answers, affidavits of service, the stipulation, and the letter of
June 15, 1965; but provides that the parties may file briefs with the
Board.
156 NLRB No. 100.
MARION BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. 1095
On October 20,1965, the Board approved the stipulation and ordered
the proceeding transferred to the Board. On November 10, the Board
approved an amendment to stipulation, signed by all the parties, which
stated that at the time of the Respondent's June 15 letter, the Union
had made no demand for recognition, and no petition for representa-
tion had been filed with the Board. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed a memorandum and the Respondent filed a brief with the Board.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the amendment to stipulation, the
General Counsel's memorandum and the Respondent's brief, and the
entire record in the case, the Board I makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Virginia corporation, maintains its principal
place of business in Marion, Virginia, where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of manufacturing and distributing carbonated soft drinks. Dur-
ing the past year, the Respondent sold and shipped products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Virginia.
During the same period, the Respondent purchased goods valued in
excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to its plant from points
outside the State of Virginia.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In June 1965, the Union began a campaign to organize the Respond-
ent's employees. As set forth in the stipulation, before the Union had
made a demand for recognition or filed a petition with the Board, the
Respondent sent each of its employees the following letter, dated
June 15, signed by the president of the Respondent :
NOTICE
TO ALL OUR LOYAL EMPLOYEES :
Since the union has been putting on a campaign to get in our
Company, a good many questions have been asked. We have
'Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman 'cCulloch and Members Fanning and
Brown].
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decided to state the Company's position on these subjects as clearly
as we can for everybody :
1. This matter is, of course , one of concern to our Com-
pany. It is also, however, a matter of serious concern to you
and your family. Our sincere belief is that if this union
were to get in here, it would not work to your benefit, but
could work to your serious harm !
2. It is our positive intention to oppose this union and to
prevent it from coming in here by every proper means.
3. We would like to make it clear that it is not now neces-
sary for anybody to belong to any union in order to work for
this company.
4. Those who might join or belong to a union are not going
to get any advantages or any preferred treatment of any
sort over those who do not join or belong to a union.
5. If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts
you under any sort of pressure to join the union, you should
let the Company know and we will undertake to see that this
is stopped immediately.
6. We do not want a union and we do not need a union in
our Company.
7. Remember all these things when sombody asks you to
sign a union card. You may be signing away your freedom
to do any act for yourself. Your name on a union card is
like signing a blank check-you don't know what it's going
to cost you. And it can be very hard to get a card back once
it has your name on it. Don't let anyone tell you these
signed cards will remain a secret matter ! These signed cards
may be made public at any time.
We have always respected the rights , the privacy, and the
individual dignity of our employees. We shall continue to do so
regardless of the activities of a union.
Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is
not telling you the truth.
Should further developments make it necessary for me to dis-
cuss this matter with you again , I will do so. I hope and trust,
however , that it will not be necessary.
The only issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, by the
statements in this letter, interfered with the statutory rights of its
employees to join a labor organization and thereby violated the Act.
We are convinced that this conduct was violative of the Act for the
reasons set forth below.
MARION BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. 1097
Reference is made particularly to the statement in the first numbered
paragraph of the letter emphasizing the "serious harm" which could
befall employees if the Union's campaign were successful, and to the
statement in the seventh numbered paragraph warning employees that
if they signed cards it would not "remain a secret matter." We need
not pass on whether each such statement would offend the Act if con-
sidered separately and alone. Taken together, and read in the context
of the Respondent's openly declared opposition to the Union as evi-
denced by the letter as a whole, we think it clear that the statements
were deliberately calculated to generate in the employees the fear that
the Respondent was bound to learn the identity of employees who
signed union cards, and was likely to utilize that knowledge to the
prejudice of those who had so exposed their support of the Union. The
letter thus contained, we find, implied threats of reprisal which in
their tendency as well as their design operated to restrain and coerce
employees from exercising their right to designate the Union as their
bargaining agent. On the basis, therefore, of the two specific state-
ments adverted to above, and of our appraisal of the letter in its total-
ity, we conclude that the Respondent's distribution of this letter to its
employees constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the
scope of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations as described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Marion Bottling Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Respondent, by threatening its employees with reprisals for
engaging in union activity, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are -unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Marion Bottling Company, Inc., Marion, Virginia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from threatening employees with reprisals for
engaging in union activity, or in any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing any employees in the exercise of their
right. to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Marion, Virginia, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly signed
by the Company's representative, be posted by the Company imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive clays thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals for engaging in
Union activity, nor will we in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right
RIKER LABORATORIES 1099
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
MARION BOTTLING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland,
Telephone No. 752-2159, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Riker Laboratories, a Division of Rexall Drug and Chemical Co.
and Food , Drug & Beverage Warehousemen & Clerical Em-
ployees, Local 595, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 31-EC-51 (formerly 21-IBC-9752). January 21, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On August 26, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 31 issued a
Decision and Direction of Election, finding appropriate a unit of all
warehousing-receiving and shipping section employees at the Employ-
er's Northridge, California, establishment, excluding all other employ-
ees. Thereafter, in accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed
a timely request for review of the unit determination. By telegraphic
order dated September 21, 1965, the Board granted the Employer's
request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
156 NLRB No. 99.