Perkins Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 697 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

PERKINS MACHINE COMPANY 697
in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
ROBERTO ALVARO MANUFACTURING, INC.,
ROBERTO ALVARO, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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, Fernandez-
Juncos Station , Post Office Box 11007 , Santurce , Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 723-
3200 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Perkins Machine Company and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers , Local 223, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 1-CA-3894. March 22, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed on August 14, 1962, by International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 223, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region, issued
a complaint dated September 28, 1962, against Perkins Machine
Company, Warren, Massachusetts, herein called the Respondent, alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charge,
the complaint, and the notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner
were duly served upon the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that the Respondent solicited its employees to resign
from the Union and to revoke their authorizations to the Union for
deduction of dues, and thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
On November 5, 1962, all parties to this proceeding executed a
stipulation of the record, and requested that the proceeding be trans-
ferred directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and a decision and order. The request states that the parties have
waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the
issuance of an Intermediate Report by a Trial Examiner. The parties
also agreed that their stipulation and certain specified documents
shall constitute the entire record in the case.
141 NLRB No. 65.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 13 the Board granted the parties' request to transfer
the case to the Board. Briefs were thereafter filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the briefs, and the entire
record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Respondent, a Maine corporation, with its principal office and
place of business in Warren, Massachusetts, is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of stamping presses and accessories.
It receives in Massachusetts directly from points outside Massachu-
setts materials having an annual value exceeding $50,000, and ships
from Massachusetts directly to points outside Massachusetts products
having an annual value exceeding $50,000. The Respondent admits,
and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
Local 223, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On April 24, 1961, the Board certified the Union as exclusive bar-
gaining representative in a unit of production and maintenance
employeees of the Respondent. On or about August 23, 1961, the Re-
spondent and the Union entered into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering employees in the above-described unit. The contract,
by its terms, was effective from August 23, 1961, to August 22, 1964.
Article II of the contract provides for maintenance of membership in
the Union and for the deduction of dues from wages of union mem-
bers. The contract further provides that there shall be a 15-day
annual "escape" period, allowing employees to withdraw from the
Union and to revoke their checkoff authorizations; that the "escape"
period "shall immediately precede the anniversary dates of this
Agreement"; and that "Notice of Revocation must be sent by reg-
istered mail to the Company and the Union."
On August 3, 1962, just prior to the commencement of the 15-day
"escape" period, the Respondent addressed to each employee who was
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Brown].
PERKINS MACHINE COMPANY 699
a member of the Union the following letter, signed by Bertram W.
Perkins, treasurer :
DEAR ----------------
As you may recall, the contract between the Company and the
union permits union members to resign from the union during
a short period each year. The period runs from August 8th to
August 23rd.
Accordingly, as a union member you have a short opportunity
in the next few days to resign from the union, if you choose to
do so.
If you wish to get out of the union, you can follow the pro-
cedure set forth below.
Keep in mind that the union contract expressly permits you
to resign from the union only from August 8 to August 23rd.
If you want to resign, you must resign between those dates-or
wait until August of next year.
The decision is yours to make. The Company simply wants
to be sure you know about, and understand, your rights and
privileges. Whether you resign from the union, or whether you
remain a member will not make any difference in your wages,
benefits, position or treatment by the Company.
If you want to resign from the union-
1. You should date and sign two copies of the enclosed letter
addressed to the Company and the union. (Keep the third copy
for yourself.)
2. Between August 8th and August 23rd, 1962, you should
mail the two signed copies-one to the Company and one to the
union-in the enclosed envelopes.
3. Be sure that the envelopes are both sent by registered mail.
The contract between the union and the Company requires reg-
istered mail for these notices to be effective.
We repeat-the Company is not urging you either to remain
a member of the union or to resign from the union. As far as
the Company is concerned, that is a matter for each man to
decide for himself without pressure from either the Company
or the union.
There were enclosed with the foregoing communication two enve-
lopes, addressed to the Respondent and the Union, marked "Regis-
tered Mail," and the following form, which was prepared by the
Respondent :
DEAR SIRS: Under Article II, Paragraph 3(b) of the contract
dated August 23, 1961, between the Company and the Union, I
am hereby notifying you that I revoke my authorization for
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deduction by the Company of union dues from my wages and
that I hereby resign my membership in the Union.
Very truly yours,
The General Counsel, relying on Hexton Furniture Company 2 and
The Red Rock Company," contends in substance that the Respondent,
in preparing and transmitting to its employees a notice of resignation
from the Union and a revocation of authorization for deduction of
dues, solicited employees to resign from the Union and to cancel their
checkoff authorizations, and thus interfered with restrained, or
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of .the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). We disagree.
In our view, the Respondent acted lawfully in bringing to the
attention of its employees their contractual right to resign from the
Union and to revoke their dues deduction authorizations. Signifi-
cantly, the Respondent's communication is free from any threat of
reprisal or promise of benefit in the event the employees decided not
to resign from the Union or to revoke their authorizations for deduc-
tion of Union dues. On the contrary, the Respondent's letter begins
with a recitation of the employees' rights under the contract; is replete
with such noncoercive statements as "The decision is yours to make"
and "Whether you resign from the union, or whether you remain a
member will not make any difference in your wages, benefits, position
or treatment by the Company"; and ends with a clear statement of
Respondent's neutral position. Under these circumstances, and in
the absence of any other evidence of coercion, we find that the Re-
spondent's communication of August 3, standing alone, did not inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the
complaint.4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Perkins Machine Company , Warren, Massachusetts, is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 111 NLRB 342.
$ 84 NLRB 521.
4 The cases relied on by the General Counsel are distinguishable In Hexton Furniture,
the employer not only posted a notice calling the attention of employees to their right to
revoke their checkoff authorizations but, in addition, called two meetings of employees
for the purpose of informing them of their rights to revoke their authorizations and dis-
tributed checkoff authorization revocation forms to foremen, who spoke individually to
employees asking them if they wished to withdraw from the union Further, in Hexton,
some of the foremen were "more insistent," returning frequently to employees who had
not yet signed the forms. In Red Rock, unlike the instant case, the employer called em-
ployees into its office individually and asked them to sign certain documents indicating
that they wished to withdraw from the union Moreover, in Red Rock the Board, in
finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1), expressly relied on the employer's hostility to the
union, as evidenced by its contemporaneous violations of Section 8(a) (3) and (5) of the
Act In the instant case, however, on the record before is, there is no evidence of any
union animus on the part of the Respondent.
DENVER-COLORADO SPRINGS-PUEBLO MOTOR WAY, INC. 701
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
Local 223, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo Motor Way, Inc., Petitioner
and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1468 , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 27-RM-122, 27-RM-123, and 27-RM-1f4. March 22,
1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a, hearing was held before F. T. Frisbey, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer-Petitioner is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The representation question :
The Employer, on August 1, 1962, filed three petitions requesting
three separate units of bus operators, terminal employees, and main-
tenance employees respectively in the Employer's northern division,
which was acquired by purchase in July 1959 from American Bus-
lines, Inc. These employees had been covered in a single overall unit
by a contract between the American Buslines and the incumbent
Union, the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1468, AFL-CIO, which
contract the Employer had assumed upon purchase of the line and
which expired on July 31, 1962. The Intervenors, the Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO, and the International Association of
Machinists, District No. 86, AFL-CIO, hold contracts covering em-
ployees in separate units of bus operators and maintenance employees
respectively in the Employer's southern division. The Brotherhood
contended that through its contract for bus operators in the southern
division it was entitled to represent all the employer's bus operators,
141 NLRB No. 60.