Peoria Plastic Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 545 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

- PEORIA PLASTIC COMPANY 545
by the Employer as research technician are not significantly, if at
all, more demanding than they had been for the operators who had
formerly performed the work. Indeed, it is evident that, but for
the disagreement between the Employer and the Chemical Workers
as to the unit exclusion of the building T-4 operators, all of those very
operators would have continued in their jobs upon a mere change of,
their job title and formalization of their job analysis.
Inasmuch as the jobs of the building T= 4 operators and the research
technicians are, for all practical purposes, the same except for their
titles, we find that the research technicians (building T-4 operators)
are included in the unit certified by the Board and covered by the
parties' collective-bargaining contract.6 Accordingly, we shall deny-
the Employer's petition.'
[The Board denied the petition.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Order Denying Petition for Clarification of Certification.
B Sangamzo Electric Company, 112 NLRB 1310 , 1311-12. The Employer's reliance upon
Bermite Powder Company, 116 NLRB 65 , is misplaced because the Board specifically held
therein ". .. nor does the record disclose the parties' intentions , in reference to '[the
employees in issue]. . .
7 Sangamo Electric Company, supra In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to deter-
mine whether the research technicians are technical employees.
Peoria Plastic Company and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5141. Ma'c& 5,,
1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND SECOND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On November 1, 1956, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election dated October 11, 1956, an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate. At the conclusion of the election, a
tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of ap-
proximately 27 eligible voters, 26 cast ballots, of which 9 were for, and
16 against, the Petitioner. There was one challenged ballot.
On November 2, 1956, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the-
conduct of the election, a copy of which was served on the Employer.
In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Re-
gional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on
December 4, 1956, issued and served on the parties his report on ob-
117 NLRB No. 77
423784-57-vol 117-36
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jections, in which he found merit in objection No. 1, and recommended
that the election be set aside and a new election directed. The Regional
Director felt it unnecessary, in view of this recommendation, to pass
upon the separate objections involving the conflicting statements of
employees and management representatives. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report on
objections.
In its objections, the Union alleged that the Employer had made a
free election impossible because on October 30 and 31, 1956, officials of
the Company visited the homes of its employees for the purpose of
campaigning against the Union, at which times threats were made to
close the plant if the Union were successful in winning the election.
The Union further alleged that company officials informed employees
that they would never sign a union contract if the Union were success-
ful in winning the election, and that if they wanted union representa-
tion they should quit their jobs and seek employment where there was
union representation. Having investigated the objections, the Re-
gional Director issued his report on objections in which he found that
the president of the Company, Russell Wendland, and William
Chinuge, vice president, called on the employees at their homes after
work, some each day, from October 27 to and including October 31,
and that the calls were divided between them. Employees questioned
during the investigation stated that during these interviews they were
told by the company officials that the plant would probably have to
close if the Union won the election because of having to pay higher
wages in competition with bigger companies; the Company would
probably be bankrupt; the Union was the cause of another company
in Peoria going broke; the Company would not negotiate a union con-
tract; and Chinuge told one employee that he should quit and go to
some shop that had a union, such as the Caterpillar Tractor Company.
The company officials in their sworn affidavits, while admitting calling
on the employees at their homes, denied that they made any of the
alleged threats attributed to them. They allege that they advised
the employees of the position of the Company in regard to the Union
and told them why they thought the employees did not need a union
at this time, that they wanted to give the employees the facts so that
they could weigh them against the Union's propaganda, and that they
told employees that it was very important that everyone vote in the
election. On the basis of the foregoing, the Regional Director con-
cluded that regardless of whether or not the company officials' re-
marks during their interviews with the employees were coercive, the
very fact that they called upon empolyees at their homes for the pur-
pose of electioneering a few days before the election furnishes a basis
for setting aside the election, and that for this reason it was unneces-
sary to make recommendations concerning the other objections.
PEORIA PLASTIC COMPANY 547
In its exceptions the Employer contends that as the Regional Di-
rector makes no finding as to whether or not the alleged threats to
' '
employees were actually made during the interviews, and bases his
recommendations to set aside the election solely on the ground that
the company officials visited the homes of its employees immediately
before the election, the recommendation is erroneous as a matter of
law.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention. Under the cir-
cumstances of this oases we find it unnecessary to determine whether
or not, during the course of the private interviews with employees in
the unit at their homes, the president and vice president of the Com-
pany threatened to close the plant or stated that they would never
sign a contract with the Union. We find that the cumulative effect
-of the interviews, which admittedly established Employer's disap-
proval of Petitioner, held with a majority, if not all, employees in
the unit i immediately before the election, was to interfere with a free
choice of bargaining representative regardless of the noncoercive tenor
of the Employer's actual remarks. While we have made it clear that,
.absent unusual circumstances, both employers and unions are free to
use any legitimate methods of electioneering,2 we have, at the same
time, consistently 'condemned the technique of calling all or a majority
of the employees in the unit into the employer's office individually 8
or calling upon them at their homes 4 to urge them to reject a union
-as their bargaining representatives as conduct calculated to interfere
with the free choice of a bargaining representative regardless of
1 The Regional Director 's report is not explicit as to whether the president or vice presi-
-dent of the Company interviewed all employees in the unit . Considering, however, that
there were 27 employees in the unit , that the interviews at the homes of employees were
-conducted by 2 officers, who, divided the calls between them, and that it took 5 days to
complete the interviews, we find that such interviews were held either with all or a ma-
jority of the employees in the unit.
iMall Tool Company , 112 NLRB 1313; National Furniture Manufacturing Company,
Inc, 106 NLRB 1300; A. S Abell (WMAR-TV ), 107 NLRB 362.
s Economic Machinery Company, 111 NLRB 947, where the Board held that such con-
duct interfered with freedom of choice of the bargaining representative regardless of the
noncoercive manner of an employer 's actual remarks, and found it unnecessary to de-
termine whether, during , the, course of the private interviews with each employee in the
votihg unit,' the company officials made coercive statements. Oregon Frozen Foods Com-
pany, 113 NLRB 881, where the Board , reiterating the doctiine of the Economic Ma-
chinery case , denied the employer 's request for a hearing in order that evidence might
he submitted that the statements made by its personnel manager in the course of his
interviews with employees were noncoercive on the ground that this was "an insufficient
basis for conducting a hearing "
4Mt8 Baird's Bakeries , Inc, 114 NLRB 444, where the employer in its exceptions did
-not challenge the findings concerning individual interviews, but only challenged the em-
ployees' statements as to what the supervisors told them during the interviews See also
General Shoe Corporation , 77 NLRB 124.
5 Radiant Lamp Corporation , 116 NLRB 40, where the employer excepted to the Regional
Director's recommendation that the election be set aside on the ground that the state-
ments made during individual conferences with the employees "were not coercive and
therefore privileged ." The Board found no merit in the exceptions , and again condemned
the technique of individual interviews with employees regardless of the noncoercive tenor
- of the employer 's remarks.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
Whether or not the employer's actual remarks were .coercive in
character.
Accordingly, we find that the individual interviews -conducted by
the Employer's president and vice president at ;the_homes rof employ-
ees interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the :selection
of a bargaining representative and we shall, therefore,., set, aside the
election and direct that a new election be held 6
[The Board set aside the election held on November 1, 1956.]
[Text of, Second Direction of 'Election omitted from pub'lication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
6 As we are setting aside the election for the reason set forth above, we, like the Regional
Director , find it - unnecessary to make any findings in regard to the conflicting statements
of the employees and management officials referred to above as to what -was said during
these -interviews.
Dixie Wax Paper Company and United Paperworkers •of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case-No. 32-RC-965. March 6,.1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon •a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of 'the National
Labor -Relations Act, a hearing was held before Vivan E. Burks,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board fords :
1. The Employer 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the -Tepresenta-
tion-of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a production.and maintenance
unit at the Employer's Memphis plant. The Employer urges'that
the composition of the unit be determined by the Board's findings in
Case No. 32-RC-646, decided in 1953,2 involving-a, similar unit request
by the Petitioner, on the ground that no substantial changes in plant
operations have occurred Since that time. In that case, the unit was
1'The Employer, which is engaged in the wrapper and bag industries, has plants in Dallas,
Texas ; Memphis, Tennessee, and 'Washington, New Jersey The Memphis plant is alone
involved' herein
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Boaid Decisions and Oiders .
117 NLRB No. 81).