Prince Mfg., Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Prince Manufacturing Company and Laborers Local
Union No. 919 of the Laborers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 14-
RC-8737
January 29, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it under Section 3(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
three-member panel has considered determinative
challenges in and objections to an election held Au-
gust 18, 1978,' and the Regional Director's report
recommending disposition of same. The Board has
reviewed the record in light of the Employer's excep-
tions 2 and hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations.'
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that, as part of the investiga-
tion to ascertain a representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with the Employer, the Region-
al Director for Region 14 shall, pursuant to the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Direction, open and count the ballots of Mike Hultz,
Carlton Schlotterbeck, Tom Sheffield, and Charles
Webb. Thereafter, the Regional Director shall pre-
pare and cause to be served on the parties a revised
tally of ballots including therein the count of the
above-mentioned ballots and, based thereon, issue
the appropriate certification.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 9 for and 5 against the Petitioner:
there were 5 challenged ballots.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, proforma, the Regional Direc-
tor's recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Mike Ilultz.
Carlton Schlotterbeck, Tom Sheffield, and Charles Webb be overruled and
their ballots opened and counted, and his approval of the parties' stipulation
that the challenge to the ballot of Richard Goellner be sustained.
In adopting the Regional Director's recommendation that Objection 3
be overruled, we rely on te Board's recent decision in Hickorv Springs Man-
ufacturing Company. 239 NLRB No. 103 (1978). in which we held that
threats of possible violence in the event of a future strike are not objectiona-
ble where "they did not relate to a possible strike before the election but
were made wholly in reference to some unspecified time in the future afrer
Petitioner became the employees' bargaining representative and a strike was
called." Our dissenting colleague's contrary views were fully considered and
rejected by a Board majority in Hickory Springs, sura. and no useful pur-
pose is served by reiterating the Board's full rationale here. We note. how-
ever, that Provincial House, Inc., 209 NLRB 215 (1974), on which our col-
league relies, was expressly overruled in Hickory Springs. Accordingly, for
the reasons stated in that decision, we find that the Employer's exceptions to
the Regional Director's recommended disposition of the Employer's Objec-
tion 3 raise no material issues of fact r law warranting reversal of his
recommendation or requiring a hearing.
240 NLRB No. 48
MEMBER MURPHY. dissenting in part:
Contrary to my colleagues and the Regional Direc-
tor, I would direct a hearing as to the Employer's
Objection 3.
In this objection the Employer alleged, inter alia,
that the Petitioner told its observer that "employees
could do anything" if a strike occurred, "including
knocking windows out of cars and pushing people
around who tried to break the Union and go through
a picket line." In his sworn statement submitted to
the Regional Director during the course of the inves-
tigation of this objection, the observer stated that the
Petitioner's business representative said at a union
meeting that the Employer "could not hire replace-
ments if the employees went on strike," and that if it
did, "there were ways to keep replacements from
crossing" the picket line, "like sticks and bricks." The
business representative denied making the remarks
attributed to him.
Subsequently, the observer contacted the Board's
Regional Office and was advised that in the event of
a strike an employer has the right to hire replace-
ments, and that it would be unlawful for a union to
authorize violence on a picket line. The Employer, in
meetings with employees and in a letter to employees
prior to the election, made similar statements, as to
the law regarding strike replacements and picket re-
placements and picket line violence.
The Regional Director found that assuming the
business representaive made the statements in ques-
tion "the Employer, in its meetings and letter to em-
ployees effectively corrected such alleged misstate-
ments: they were capable of being evaluated, and
were in fact evaluated by employees, and could not
have any substantial effect on the election." The Re-
gional Director further concluded that "considering
such alleged statements as possible threats against
employees . . . such conduct is not so related to the
election as to have had a probable effect upon the
employees' actions at the polls, and does not, there-
fore, constitute a basis upon which the election may
be set aside," citing The Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, 177 NLRB 942 (1969).
The statement that a union will "use ways like
sticks and bricks" to prevent strike replacements
from crossing a picket line is not a mere misstate-
ment of law but is a clear threat to engage in violence
in the event of a strike. Consequently, evidence that
the employee to whom the threat was made was later
advised that such conduct would be unlawful is im-
material, for a threat made by an agent of the Union
cannot be effectively disavowed by either the Em-
ployer or a Board agent.
The question then becomes whether the threat, if
made, was sufficient to warrant setting aside the elec-
PRINCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 389
tion. I find that it was. As I stated in my partial
dissent in Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company.
239 NLRB No. 103 (1978), quoting Provincial House,
Inc., 209 NLRB 215 (1974). statements of this type
constitute
a clear threat of forcible union reprisals against
anyone who crossed a picket line established by
the Union, thus creating an impression that the
Union would resort to whatever means lawful
or unlawful- might be required effectively to
exercise its power over employees. We do not
believe that threats of this kind of raw exercise
of power are consistent with the atmosphere
necessary for the conduct of a fair election.
4 The majont, opoin n nIli:i:Ar Srin:X. s upra. :o'erruilcd Pr,n imfld
House erroneously I adhere It( mn partlcal dssent in Iti, A,,r, .pring,
Additionally, in this case, as in Hickorv Springs,
there is no indication that the Union's misconduct
would be restricted to any specific time or occur only
if the Union won the election. As I emphasized in my
opinion in that case, threats of picket line violence
have a spillover effect, inasmuch as
employees will assume that a union which is
willing to assault employees with respect to
crossing the picket line would also be willing to
engage in such assaults with respect to any con-
duct which the Union finds is contrary to its
interest, including opposing it in the election.
Accordingly, I would remand this proceeding for a
hearing to ascertain whether or not Petitioner's busi-
ness representative made statements indicating that
the Union would engage in violence to prevent strike
replacements from crossing the picket line in the
event of a strike.