Ranco Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

RANCO INCORPORATED
Ranco Incorporated and Dean E. Chapman, Petitioner
and International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, and its Local Union No. 1923. Case 8-
RD-804.
April 2, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered an objection to an elec-
tion held February 21, 1978,1 and the Hearing Offi-
cer's report recommending disposition of same. The
Board has reviewed the record in light of the excep-
tions and briefs and hereby adopts the hearing offi-
cer's findings 2 and recommendations.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 383 for. and 388 against, the Union;
there were no challenged ballots.
2 The Employer excepts to various findings of the Hearing Officer on the
ground that he erred in crediting certain testimony. It is the established
policy of the Board not to overrule a heanng officer's credibility resolutions
unless the clear preponderence of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
the resolutions were incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
132 NLRB 481. 483 (1961); Streich-Tex Co.. 118 NLRB 1359. 1361 (1957).
We find insufficient basis for disturbing the credibility resolutions in this
case.
In adopting the Hearing Officer's report on objections, we note that this
case. though similar in some respects, is factually distinguishable from Fel-
senihal Plastics Inc. now known as Grede Plastics, A Division of Grede Found-
ries, Inc., 219 NLRB 592 (1975). There. the only evidence of objectionable
conduct consisted of a letter which the employer sent to its union employees,
just prior to a decertification election, which stressed that all the employer's
nonunion employees received better wages and benefits than they earned at
the union facility. The Board malority found that the employer's letter was
objectionable in that instance because it invited the union employees to join
a "team" effort by decertifying the union and to enjoy benefits for doing so.
In this case, an even stronger set of facts is present. The Employer, as part of
its election campaign, constantly emphasized to the Delaware employees in
letters, speeches. and bulletins that their benefits were less than those re-
ceived by employees at the nonunion Plain City. Ohio, facility. Thereafter,
statements by various supervisors dunng the critical preelection period
stated clearly the implied message in the Employer's wntten communica-
tions that the Delaware employees would receive increased benefits if they
rejected the Union. According to the credited testimony of one employee.
General Foreman Gene Chandler told her. "If the Union was voted out, we
would be getting the same thing that they [the Plain City employees] were
getting." Another employee credibly testified that Plant Manager Larry Da-
vis said, referring to the Plain City benefits. "You know we can give you
benefits but with the Union here our hands are tied and we cannot give you
these things." Thus, we conclude that the Employer herein has engaged in
objectionable conduct by promising the Delaware employees the benefits
enjoyed at the nonunion plant if the Delaware employees voted to decertify
the Union.
Member Murphy, who dissented in Felsenthal Plastics and would have
found the letter there unobjectionable, agrees that here the Employer's con-
duct was objectionable in that the Employer. through its supervisors, made
express promises of benefits.
241 NLRB No. 104
685