Marmon Group, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Marmon Group, Inc., a Division of Long Airdox
Company and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-
11800
28 February 1984
DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING
HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered ojections to an elec-
tion held on 22 July 1982 and the Regional Direc-
tor's report recommending disposition of them.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows
63 for and 48 against the Petitioner, with 4 chal-
lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the
results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief and hereby overrules the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations,
and remands the case to him for a hearing on the
Employer's objections.
In its objections, the Employer alleges, in sub-
stance, that the Petitioner's organizers made threats
of physical harm and property damage against vari-
ous employees. In support of these objections, the
Employer submitted copies of unsworn, but signed
statements of four employees. The first employee
stated that two of the individuals who were alleged
as the Petitioner's organizers in the objections
asked him, while he was sitting in his car with his
wife, whether he was "for the union." When the
employee responded, "you don't know," one of the
individuals stated, "you have some mighty nice
tires there you wouldn't [sic] want them cut," and
"you wouldn't like someone to come by and bomb
your house would you." A second employee assert-
ed in his statement that another named individual,
alleged in the objections as one of the Petitioner's
organizers, told him that "they were going to
stomp him and get his car if he vote [sic] no for
the union," and that "we know were [sic] you live
we don't have to get you here, we'll get you down
there." This employee further stated that while he
was standing in line to vote and this same individ-
ual was leaving the voting area, the latter
"slammed [sic] me into the wall on his way back."
A third employee asserted in his statement that
while at work one of the above individuals alleged
to be an organizer for the Petitioner and two other
unidentified men told him that "when the union
gets in and we go on strike anyone that went to
work they would stomp their ass and not at work
268 NLRB No. 205
they would go to their homes." The fourth em-
ployee asserted in his statement that, "We were sit-
ting around lunch room [sic] and some one [sic]
made the statement when the union gets in no one
will cross the picket lines. James said he was going
to work no matter what. Bob Frost said while your
car can burn too [sic]."'
The Regional Director found that the above-al-
leged threats were not shown to have been made
by agents of the Petitioner and noted that the
names of the three individuals who allegedly made
such threats were listed as eligible voters on the
Excelsior list. He further found no evidence that
the alleged threats were made with the knowledge
or condonation of the Petitioner. The Regional Di-
rector therefore assessed the various threats as
third-party conduct, and concluded that they were
insufficient to create a general atmosphere of fear
and reprisal. Accordingly, he recommended that
the Employer's objections be overruled.2
Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that
the evidence revealed during the investigation is
sufficient to warrant a hearing on the Employer's
objections. Thus, the Employer has presented wit-
nesses who have testified to various alleged threats
of serious violence, including threats of bodily
harm, of house bombing, and of property damage,
and to an incident in which an employee waiting in
line to vote was slammed into a wall by an em-
ployee who previously had threatened him with
bodily harm. This serious and aggravated conduct,
if proven, might indeed have created a general at-
mosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free
choice in the election impossible.
In our view, the evidence presented in this case
raises substantial and material issues warranting a
hearing on whether the alleged conduct occurred,
the context in which it occurred, and its possible
impact on the election. 3 Accordingly, we shall
order a hearing on the Employer's objections.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before
a duly designated hearing officer for the purpose of
receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised with
respect to the Employer's Objections 1 through 5.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing officer
designated for the purpose of conducting the hear-
' "James" was not further identified, and Frost was not alleged in the
objections as one of the Petitioner's organizers.
2 Member Hunter notes that the Regional Director relied, inter alia, on
Seville, 262 NLRB 1282 (1982), in which then Chairman Van de Water
and Member Hunter dissented from the Board majority's refusal to order
a hearing on the objections.
3 Member Hunter further notes that a hearing might reveal in greater
detail than did the investigation the relationship, if any, between the Peti-
tioner and the employees who allegedly engaged in the conduct here.
1252
MARMON GROUP, INC.
ing shall prepare, issue, and serve on the parties a
report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of the objections.
Within 10 days from the date of issuance of the
report, either party may file with the Board in
Washington, D.C., an original and seven copies of
exceptions to the report. Immediately upon the
filing of exceptions, the party filing them shall
serve a copy on the other party, and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions
are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recom-
mendations of the hearing officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled
matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional
Director for Region 5 for the purpose of arranging
a hearing and that the Regional Director be, and
he hereby is, authorized to issue notice of the hear-
ing.
1253