Public Service Co. Of New Hampshire

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 1073 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 1073
Public Service Company o f New Hampshire, New
Hampshire Yankee Division and Utility Work-
ers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 1-RC-19291
June 29, 1990
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held on September 15, 1989,1 and the
hearing officer's report recommending disposition
of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots
shows 99 for and 113 against the Petitioner, with 1
challenged ballot, an insufficient number to affect
the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs and adopts the hearing of-
ficer's findings and recommendations only to the
extent consistent with this decision. Contrary to the
hearing officer's recommendation to sustain a por-
tion of the Petitioner's Objection 2, we find Super-
visor Timmins' statement to five or six employees
mentioning a "pot of gold" remark that he attrib-
uted to Executive Director Drawbridge not to be
objectionable conduct.2
The Employer operates the Seabrook Nuclear
Power Station located in Seabrook, New Hamp-
shire. Bruce L. Drawbridge, the recently appointed
interim executive director of nuclear production at
the Station, held preelection meetings with employ-
ees during the approximately 2 weeks prior to the
election. The hearing officer found that Draw-
bridge's comments at these meetings did not rise to
the level of objectionable conduct.3 In particular,
the hearing officer considered permissible Draw-
bridge's asking employees to give him a chance
and his statements that he had new ideas that he
thought employees would like and that he could
not explain what his new ideas were because the
Petitioner had filed a representation petition. The
hearing officer also found that, during these meet-
ings, the Employer's counsel informed the employ-
ees that the Employer could not and would not
make promises of new benefits or changes in work-
ing conditions prior to the election. Similarly,
Drawbridge's September 13 memorandum to em-
r All dates are in 1989 unless otherwise indicated
2 The hearing officer also recommended that the Petitioner 's Objec-
tions 3 and 5 and the remaining portion of Objection 2 be overruled. No
exceptions were filed to this recommendation.
3 There was no exception to this finding.
ployees informed employees that it would be un-
lawful for the Employer to offer changes in wages,
benefits, and working conditions in an effort to in-
fluence their vote.
Sometime during the first week of September,
Foreman Paul Timmins, a statutory supervisor,
joined five or six employees who were discussing
Drawbridge's preelection meetings. According to
the credited testimony of employee Kevin Vizvary,
who had not attended any of Drawbridge's pree-
lection meetings, Timmins said that at a meeting at
which he had been present (Timmins did not iden-
tify the meeting any further) Drawbridge had
talked about a "pot of gold" and the big plans he
had for the Station. Timmins also stated that
Drawbridge said that he could not elaborate on it
any further-because of the union vote it would be
unlawful for him to continue. Timmins also report-
ed that Drawbridge had asked for those present to
give him a chance. The employees present then re-
ferred to the various rumors circulating around the
Station at that time and speculated that the "pot of
gold" might be a 3-percent raise, improved vaca-
tion benefits, and increased employer contributions
to the employee health insurance premiums. In re-
sponse, Timmins stated that he did not know what
"pot of gold" could mean. Vizvary later asked
Timmins if Drawbridge really had said there was a
"pot of gold" and Timmins said "yes." Subsequent
to this discussion, the employees continued to dis-
cuss the issue of the "pot of gold" as referred to by
T1mmmS.4
The hearing officer found that Timmins' state-
ments, specifically his reference to a pot of gold,
constituted a promise of benefit that, with Draw-
bridge's permissible preelection meeting comments,
would reasonably lead employees to conclude that
if given a chance (i.e., without unionization) and
despite the Employer's representations that it could
make no promises, improvements in wages, and/or
benefits would be forthcoming. We disagree.
In determining whether an employer has im-
pliedly promised benefits to dissuade employees
from supporting the, union, the Board has consid-
ered, inter alia, the following relevant factors: (1)
whether the employer's statement was so vague as
to "not promise anything in particular will
happen";'5 (2) whether the statement was made in
4 The hearing officer found that the record did not show whether Tim-
mins had attended any of the Employer's preelection meetings with the
unit employees . None of the witnesses who testified indicated that Draw-
bridge had mentioned the term "pot of gold" at any of those meetings.
5 See National Micronetics, 277 NLRB 993 (1985), where the Board
found that asking employees to give the employer another chance to see
if things could be better or to give the employer more time because the
vice president was new in his position and was a decent individual was
permissible campaign propaganda. See also Allied/Egry Business Systems,
169 NLRB 514, 517 (1968).
298 NLRB No. 159
1074 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
response to complaints about specific working con-
ditions; and (3) whether the context in which the
statement was made was free of other objectionable
or unlawful comments.6 Applying these factors
here, we observe that there is no evidence that
Timmins made the "pot of gold" comment in re-
sponse to any particular employee complaint, or
that he reported that Drawbridge had made the
"pot of gold" comment in response to any particu-
lar employee complaint. Moreover, Drawbridge's
statements were not reported by Timmins as prom-
ising that anything in particular would happen. In
addition, Timmins did not make any other purport-
ed objectionable or unlawful comments. Indeed, he
echoed Drawbridge's careful statements to employ-
ees that the Employer, because of the election cam-
6 Cf. Middletown Hospital Assn., 282 NLRB 541, 542-543 (1986), where
the Board found that the new director of nursmg 's statement that she
would make changes if given a chance and she needed time to make
these changes was not an unlawful promise of benefits
paign, could not go into any detail about what
plans he had for the future. Timmins even refused
to be drawn into the employees' speculations about
the alleged rumors of a pay increase and improved
benefits. Under these circumstances, we find that
the "pot of gold" comment is too vague to support
a finding that the Employer had tied a conferral of
benefits to the Petitioner's defeat in the election.
We therefore overrule the portion of Objection 2
based on this comment and we shall certify the re-
sults of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for Utility Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO and that it is not the exclu-
sive representative of these bargaining unit employ-
ees.