Ravenswood Electronics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 609 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
Ravenswood Electronics Corporation and Warehouse,
Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional
Employees Union Local No. 743, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Industrial and Agricultural Workers, Party in
Interest. Case 13-CA- 15499
September 29, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
On June 24, 1977, Administrative Law Judge John
F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy, 3 and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein. 4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Ravenswood Electronics Corporation, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(f):
"(f) Creating the impression of surveillance, seizing
employees' union authorization cards, taking an
unlawful poll in respect to its employees' desires for
union representation, or in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
232 NLRB No. 87
2 In his concluding findings regarding the collective-bargaining agree-
ments, the Administrative Law Judge stated that "On August 6 ...
Respondent executed a detailed collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent ... ." The agreement, ofcourse, was between Respondent and
the Industrial and Agricultural Workers, as set forth earlier by the
Administrative Law Judge.
3 In his recommended remedy for Respondent's unfair labor practices,
the Administrative Law Judge, implicitly relying on Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), set at 6 percent per annum the interest to be
assessed on withheld initiation fees, dues, and other moneys owed to
Respondent's employees. In our recent Decision in Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), we concluded that a flat interest rate of 6
percent no longer would effectuate the policies of the Act and we decided to
adopt the sliding interest scale charged or paid by the Internal Revenue
Service on the underpayment or overpayment of Federal taxes. Currently,
that rate is 7 percent. With respect to monetary awards accruing in periods
prior to the issuance of that Decision on August 25, 1977, however, we shall
apply the current 7-percent rate wherein the "adjusted prime interest rate"
as used by the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax
payments was at least 7 percent.
I4 n his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge uses the
narrow cease-and-desist language, "in any like or related manner."
Respondent here has committed violations which go to the very heart of the
Act. We shall therefore require Respondent to cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees by Section
7 of the Act. N.LR... v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4,
1941); Electrical Fittings Corporation, a Subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial
Corporatton, 216 NLRB 1076 (1975).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, certain rights including the right:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such rights.
WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with
any of your rights set forth above. WE WILL NOT
create the impression of surveillance of your
union activities. WE WILL NOT take union authori-
zation cards away from you. WE WILL NOT
conduct an unlawful poll in respect to your
desires for union representation.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to
Industrial and Agricultural Workers.
WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with
Industrial and Agricultural Workers as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees unless and until such labor organization is
certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our
collective-bargaining agreements with Industrial
and Agricultural Workers dated May 20, 1976,
609
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and August 6, 1976, or any extension, renewal, or
modification thereof or any superseding agree-
ment; provided, that WE WILL NOT alter any wage
increases or other benefits put into effect as the
result of those agreements.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Indus-
trial and Agricultural Workers by requiring
employees to join that organization as a condition
of obtaining or retaining employment with us,
pursuant to the provisions of any past agreements
with that union.
WE WILL NOT recognize, negotiate, or enter into
any new agreement with Industrial and Agricul-
tural Workers unless and until that union has
been certified as the representative of our employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of
your rights protected by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff
authorization in favor of Industrial and Agricul-
tural Workers executed pursuant to these prior
agreements.
WE WILL reimburse all employees, former and
present, for dues and other moneys unlawfully
exacted from them under our contracts with
Industrial and Agricultural Workers, plus interest.
RAVENSWOOD
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
was held in this case on March 7, 8, and 9 at Chicago,
Illinois, pursuant to a charge filed by Warehouse, Mail
Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees
Union, Local No. 743, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Team-
sters, on June 1, 1976, and thereafter served by registered
mail on Respondent on June 3, 1976; on an amended
charge filed by the Teamsters on August 11, 1976, which
was served on Respondent by registered mail on August
13, 1976; and on a complaint and notice of hearing issued
by the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National
Labor Relations Board on August 24, 1976, which was also
duly served on Respondent. The complaint, which was
amended at the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, during 1976, variously, by creating the impres-
sion of surveillance, conducting an unlawful poll of its
employees and forcefully taking union authorization cards
away from its employees; that Respondent violated Section
8(aX1) and (2) of the Act during 1976 by unlawfully
assisting Industrial and Agricultural Workers, hereinafter
referred to as IAW, to organize its employees and then
recognizing IAW and entering into a collective-bargaining
agreement with IAW containing union-security provisions
although IAW did not represent an uncoerced majority of
its employees in the bargaining unit covered by the
agreement; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by entering into and enforcing the
aforementioned union-security agreement, despite the fact
that IAW did not represent the uncoerced majority of its
employees. In its answer to the complaint, which was also
duly served and amended on the record at the hearing,
Respondent has denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
For reasons which appear hereinafter, I find and
conclude that Respondent has violated the Act essentially
as alleged in the complaint.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel.
All parties were given full opportunity to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file
briefs. Counsel for the Teamsters and counsel for Respon-
dent presented oral arguments at the conclusion of the
hearing and the General Counsel and counsel for the IAW
waived this right. Briefs subsequently received from the
General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent
have been considered.
Upon the entire record ' in this case, including the briefs,
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an Illinois corporation.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
a place of business at 2735 North Ashland Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois (herein called the plant), where it is
engaged in the manufacture of transformers.
During the calendar year preceding the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent in the
course and conduct of the above-mentioned business
operations received gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
Also during the calendar year preceding the issuance of
the complaint, which was, as noted above, a representative
period, Respondent in the course and conduct of the
above-mentioned business operations sold and shipped
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Chicago,
Illinois, plant to points located outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
610
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Teamsters and IAW are now, and have been at all times
material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent's Relevant Hierarchy
At all times material herein, the following named persons
occupied the positions set forth opposite their respective
names, and have been, and are now, agents of the
Respondent, acting on its behalf, within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act and/or supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act:
Paul Ziegler, chairman of the board; James Roberts, Sr.,
president; James Roberts, Jr., vice president and general
manager; Stephen Roberts, director of personnel; Andy
Monoran, 2 superintendent; Mary M. Krauser, supervisor
- testing department; and John Crawford, supervisor.
B. Background and Sequence of Events
As of January 1976, Respondent's plant here involved
had not been organized by any labor union. The Teamsters
had, however, attempted to organize the plant at times
since at least 1972. These efforts were resumed by Robert
T. Simpson, the Teamsters business agent, on or about
January 10 or 12, 1976.3 Simpson spoke to employees
outside the plant door on that occasion and passed out
Teamsters authorization cards.
On or about February 6, Simpson and some four other
organizers also came to the plant and passed out leaflets
which had authorization cards attached to them.
On the latter date Gladys Hemphill, a plant employee,
signed a Teamsters authorization card on which Hemphill
also indicated that she would serve as a committeeperson.
Thereafter, Hemphill became a contact maintained by
Simpson inside the plant and the two spoke telephonically
on several occasions during the ensuing months in an effort
to coordinate the Teamsters organizational efforts.
In mid-February, Teamsters organizers again went out to
Respondent's plant in an attempt to solicit more authoriza-
tions. The same occurred on or about March 10 and on or
about April 2. Simpson himself went out again on or about
April 20 or 21. On this last occasion he spoke with two
employees including Hemphill.
By the middle of May, the Teamsters had some 35
authorization cards from Respondent's production and
maintenance employees who totaled about 85 during that
period.4
The Teamsters organizational efforts did not go unno-
ticed by Respondent. Acknowledged Supervisors Steve
2 The complaint alleges that this individual's name is spelled as it appears
above. The answer avers that this name is spelled "Martorano." The record
indicates his name is as spelled in the complaint and there has been no
motion for a correction. In any event, James Roberts, Jr., testified that there
is only one "Andy" who is a supervisor.
I All dates appearing hereinafter occurred in 1976 unless otherwise
noted.
4 The foregoing findings in respect to the Teamsters organizational
efforts are based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Simpson in
this regard as not essentially disputed but at least in part corroborated by
Roberts (Respondent's personnel director), Mary Krauser,
and John Crawford credibly testified that they had seen
Teamsters organizers pass out authorization cards to
employees in January and February. In late January, Steve
Roberts informed his brother, James Roberts, Jr., that
Teamsters authorization cards were being passed out in
front of the plant.5 When so informed, James Roberts
responded by noting that "they are here again."
About February, Mary Krauser, supervisor of Respon-
dent's first floor test department, came to work and was
given an authorization card by Teamsters organizers. She
then went into the plant and looked out the window for
about 15 minutes watching the Teamsters organizers pass
out authorization cards to employees coming to work.
Hemphill walked into the plant, noticed Krauser watching,
and asked Krauser why Krauser was so engaged. Krauser
stated that "they" told her to do this. Shortly thereafter
Krauser saw a Teamsters organizer standing just inside the
plant door warming himself and further observed a
different Teamsters organizer coming out of the plant
basement. Krauser reported these matters to Krauser's
supervisor, Lila Gatliff, to the foreman, Andy Monoran,
and to Steve Roberts. She specifically told Steve Roberts
about employees taking authorization cards from the
Teamsters on this occasion. Steve Roberts advised Krauser
to report to him again if the Teamsters returned to the
plant the next day.6
About April 1976, while the weather was still cold,
Supervisor John Crawford, who is in charge of employees
working in the basement of Respondent's plant, was
standing near the timeclock just down a flight of stairs
from the entrance to the plant, immediately before punch-
in time, which is at 7:16 a.m. When about three or four
employees who worked in the basement (one of whom was
Crawford's brother) passed by Crawford, Teamsters autho-
rization cards in the possession of the employees passed
from their hands into the hands of Crawford. I will say
more of this incident in my "Concluding Findings."
At the same time the Teamsters was attempting to
organize the plant in the winter and spring of 1976, the fact
that the plant was unorganized had come to the attention
of Arnold Lasky, an attorney from Miami Florida, who is
also president of the IAW.
Lasky and Alan Gottlieb (who, in 1976, was a sales and
labor relations consultant to Respondent) have been
acquaintances since the 1960's when both had represented
the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions.
Since that time, in 1972, Lasky has become president of the
IAW. He has also become administrator of lAW's
insurance trust fund.
Sometime in late 1975 or early 1976, Lasky had
contacted Gottlieb in an effort to identify employers or
groups of employees who might be interested in banding
Respondent's witness, James Roberts, Jr., and by Hemphill and Steve
Roberts. The number of employees in the unit is based on the credible and
undisputed testimony of Steve Roberts in this regard.
5 Steve Roberts so admitted in his affidavit to a Board agent, which
affidavit was received in evidence.
6 These findings are based on a composite of the credible testimony of
Krauser and Hemphill, which does not clash as to these events except as to
the date. My findings as to the date is based on the testimony of Krauser
who appeared more certain on this point than Hemphill.
611
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
together with employees covered by lAW's trust fund and
then take advantage of lower insurance rates. Gottlieb
identified certain employers, one of which was Respon-
dent. Gottlieb also told Lasky that Respondent was
nonunion. Gottlieb agreed to speak with some of these
employers about Lasky's proposal and to get back to
Lasky.
About 2 months before May 1976, Lasky went into
negotiations with his insurance carrier, U.S. Life, and was
informed that there would be an increase of about 70
percent in the premiums for his trust fund, apparently
because of the small size of it.
Faced with this crisis and not having heard from
Gottlieb, Lasky decided to organize Respondent's employ-
ees and, hopefully, to have them insured through his trust
fund. To accomplish this purpose, Lasky sent an IAW
professional employee, Aurelio Rodriguez, to Chicago to
obtain employment, if possible, with Respondent and to
evaluate the organizational possibilities.
Rodriguez was, indeed, hired by Respondent on or about
May I1. A few days later, Lasky telephoned Rodriguez and
the latter told Lasky that he thought he knew who the
employee leaders were. Lasky told Rodriguez to do nothing
else because he, Lasky, was coming to Chicago and would
direct the organizational campaign once he got there.
Lasky came to Chicago later that week and, dressed in
work clothes, applied for a job with Respondent on May
14.7 He was hired as a stockboy that morning by Steve
Roberts, his duties were explained to him, and he began
work. While working in the plant, Lasky spoke with
Rodriguez, who identified the employees' leaders to him.
Lasky then approached several of these individuals. After
speaking with a number of them, Lasky felt that he was
being watched by Respondent's supervisors. He thereupon
began passing out IAW authorization cards openly inside
the plant. This was reported to James Roberts, Jr., who
came into the plant area, observed what Lasky was doing,
and directed Monoran to throw Lasky out of the plant.
Monoran told Lasky to go "out" and pointed to the door.
Lasky left the building but camped outside until lunch.
During the lunch break, Lasky spoke to employees as
they walked down the street to get their checks cashed. He
signed up one of these employees, Debbie Mcllvaine, and
gave her authorization cards8 to hand out to other
employees.
Before Lasky had left the plant that morning, he had
directed Rodriguez to begin passing out cards inside the
plant. Rodriguez was also fired by Respondent later that
day and joined Lasky on the street about 3 or 3:30 that
afternoon. Lasky and Rodriguez passed out more cards
after work that day. No employee signed a card at the time
but some said they would mail them in.9
Meanwhile, being concerned that two union organizers
had been in the plant, James Roberts, Jr., telephoned
Gottlieb that afternoon and told Gottlieb what had
7 He did not indicate on his application his legal education or experience.
8 The lAW card by its terms is-both an application for membership and a
b-; -. the employee to lAW.
·.' ' .ad ',.. w, o Lasky's organizational efforts are based on
h .' "e , ,: i· , ,, testimony as partially corroborated by Steve
Roberts and James Roberts, Jr.
'0 Lasky had left his telephone number with his wife and with his office
in Miami.
happened. Gottlieb asked Roberts the names of the
organizers and Roberts told him. Gottlieb then advised
Roberts that Gottlieb knew Lasky and would try to contact
him. Gottlieb also promised Roberts that Gottlieb would
get back to him.
Gottlieb telephoned Lasky that evening at Lasky's
motel.'0 Gottlieb told Lasky that Gottlieb was angered
over what Lasky had done. Lasky rejoined that he, Lasky,
was considering filing an unfair labor practice charge
against Respondent because of Rodriguez' discharge and
also told Gottlieb, untruthfully, that Lasky had enough
support to file a petition for an NLRB-conducted election
(Lasky, in truth, had only one card at that time, McIl-
vaine's). Gottlieb said that Rodriguez was fired for passing
out authorization cards on company time. Lasky respond-
ed that Rodriguez did so on breaktime. u1 In any event,
Gottlieb told Lasky that Gottlieb would call him back.
James Roberts, Jr., met with Gottlieb at the latter's office
that evening. Gottlieb told Roberts that Gottlieb had
talked to Lasky. Gottlieb advised Roberts that Lasky was
going to file unfair labor practice charges and had enough
support for a strike. Roberts asked Gottlieb what should be
done. Gottlieb responded by inquiring of Roberts whether
Roberts thought the employees would vote a union in if an
election were held. Roberts thought not. Gottlieb then said
he would see if Lasky would agree to an election.
Gottlieb thereupon called Lasky back. Gottlie~ told
Lasky that Respondent would agree to hold a private
election - not an NLRB election - to see if the
employees wanted a union. Lasky asked to be present at
such election but Gottlieb refused. Gottlieb said that he did
not want the employees to see Lasky but that Respondent
wanted to find out if the employees had any feeling for a
union. Gottlieb also asked that Lasky agree to stay away
and not propagandize the employees. Lasky acquiesced
and further agreed not to file unfair labor practice charges
immediately.
Gottlieb reported the results of this conversation to
James Roberts, Jr., and Gottlieb and Roberts made the
final decision to hold a private election for Respondent's
employees. 12
Nothing occurred on May 15 and 16, a weekend.
On the morning of Monday, May 17, James Roberts, Jr.,
called a meeting of Respondent's employees on company
time and on company property. The employees who could
not speak English were separated into groups and provided
with a translator who was a fellow employee. Roberts
stopped his speech several times to permit translation of
what he said (into Spanish, Italian, and Greek). There is
some conflict in the testimony as to what Roberts said to
the employees at this meeting. However, based on my
resolution of the credibility, I conclude that Roberts made
the remarks which follow.
Roberts began by noting that a union had been
organizing out in front of the plant in the past few days. He
" No such charge was ever filed.
L2 The findings as to the events of the afternoon and evening of May 14
are based on a composite of the credible and undisputed testimony of Lasky
(part of which was his adoption of his prehearing affidavit) and James
Roberts, Jr. Gottlieb did not testify.
612
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
went on that a number of unions had tried to organize the
plant during previous years but that he and his father were
opposed to them and had fought their efforts to organize
the plant. He stated that his attorney had checked on the
Union which was then organizing the employees; namely,
the Industrial and Agricultural Workers, and that this
Union was an honest one. He continued that if the
employees wanted a union they could vote on it. He said
that if the employees voted in favor of IAW he would
recognize it and a union organizer would be around to see
them. He also said he would not hold such a prounion vote
against them. On the other hand, he said that, if the
employees voted against a union, he would fight further
organizational attempts.
Employees were permitted to ask questions at the
conclusion of the speech and Gladys Hemphill exercised
this opportunity. She asked Roberts about the Teamsters.
Roberts responded that she should not ask him but should
ask Jimmy Hoffa.'3
After Roberts' speech, the employees went to the
cafeteria, where each was given a sheet of paper on which
was printed a box next to the words "For union" and
another box next to the words "Against union."14 It does
not appear that any supervisor actually observed any
employee in the process of voting. After the vote the
employees, pursuant to previous instructions, placed their
completed ballots in the suggestion box near the cafeteria.
Later that day the ballots were counted by James
Roberts, Jr., James Roberts, Sr., Monoran, and Steve
Roberts.
After the count, James Roberts, Jr., announced to the
employees over the loudspeaker the results of the election.
He told them that the Union was voted in 15 and that the
vote in favor was approximately 42 or 44 and the vote
against the Union was about 37 or 39.
Roberts also telephoned the results to Gottlieb who
called Lasky at Lasky's motel late in the same morning or
early that afternoon. Gottlieb told Lasky that a vote had
been conducted, that the result was close, but that the
employees favored a union. Gottlieb also advised Lasky
that the vote was secret and no supervisors were present.
Gottlieb then offered to recognize lAW, but Lasky refused
this offer. Lasky told Gottlieb that Lasky was not satisfied
that the employees wanted his Union. Lasky asked to see
the ballots but Gottlieb told Lasky that the ballots had
13 Most of my findings as to the speech and Hemphill's question are
consistent with the general testimony of all of the witnesses who testified as
to what occurred - Roberts, Hemphill, and Hemphill's fellow employees,
Giza, Czengileni, and Mcllvaine. Roberts' testimony that he identified the
IAW by name is corroborated by Mcllvaine. Also, in logic, it would seem
appropriate that he would identify it, having told the employees, as all
witnesses said, that it was a good union. I do not credit Mcllvaine's
statement that Roberts said the employees could vote for any union they
wanted. No provision was made, as will appear, for such a possibility in the
balloting later that day and this testimony is inconsistent with Roberts'
admission that he made the above-noted implicitly derogatory remark about
Jimmy Hoffa, a former Teamsters leader, now believed dead, who had
already disappeared at the time. Mcllvaine said she had never heard the
name "Jimmy Hoffa" before the heanng herein. I do not credit Roberts'
testimony that, if the employees simply voted "no," he said he would fight
further organizational efforts by the IAW. This testimony is contrary to that
of Giza and to Roberts' preheanng affidavit which says merely, as I have
found, that a "no" vote would cause him to fight all further organizational
efforts. I do not credit Hemphill's testimony that Roberts said the Teamsters
been destroyed. Lasky again asked Gottlieb to agree on an
NLRB-conducted election, but Gottlieb refused. Lasky
and Gottlieb then agreed that Lasky could come to the
plant and speak privately to the employees.
Lasky went out to Respondent's plant on the afternoon
of May 17, where he was admitted by Steve Roberts.
Roberts sent Lasky to Respondent's cafeteria where
Laskey met with English-speaking employees individually.
Lasky was also permitted to talk to the employees who
could not speak English in groups limited to people
speaking that language. Respondent furnished an employ-
ee translator for these group meetings.
The meetings with the individual employees and non-
English-speaking groups began on company time about
1:30 p.m. and lasted past quitting time at 4 or 4:30 p.m. At
least one employee, Gladys Hemphill, was told by Steve
Roberts and Supervisor Mary Krauser to go into the
lunchroom where Lasky was speaking with employees. No
supervisors were present in the lunchroom while Lasky met
with the employees there.' 6
During these interviews Lasky identified himself, told the
employees a little bit about his Union, and told some that if
they joined he thought he could get them a raise. He also
learned from some of them what other benefits they hoped
he would obtain. Several employees mentioned during
these interviews that they were interested in joining the
Teamsters and Lasky told them to contact that union. In
any event, during the course of that afternoon, some 49
employees signed cards applying for membership in IAW
and authorizing IAW to represent them in collective
bargaining.
This group of cards, along with the card of Mcllvaine
which Lasky obtained on May 14, gave the IAW 50
authorization cards as of the evening of May 17. This was a
clear majority of the approximately 85 employees in the
production and maintenance unit in mid-May.
Early in the evening of May 17, after obtaining these
cards, Lasky took the cards into the office of James
Roberts, Jr., and demanded recognition. Roberts examined
the cards and on that same date granted IAW recognition
in writing as the exclusive bargaining representative of his
employees.
During the ensuing 3 days, Lasky - alone representing
IAW - engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with
was no good and that he would fight them to the highest court. I found
Hemphill vague in some portions of her testimony and questions by counsel
had to be greatly simplified on occasion in order for her to understand them.
I conclude that her statement that Roberts said the Teamsters was no good
is an inference she drew from Roberts' "ask Jimmy Hoffa" response to her
question and her testimony about fighting the Teamsters to the highest court
was her understanding of Roberts' statement that, if the employees voted
against a union, at that time Respondent would fight any further
organizational attempts.
I find it unnecessary to resolve other conflicts in the testimony, which,
however resolved, would not affect my ultimate findings herein.
i4 No ballot was presented in evidence. There was some confusion in the
testimony as to what the ballot said. However, all witnesses testified that
they could vote for or agaiiist a union and that no union was named on the
ballots. The above description of the ballot is based on the credible
testimony of James Roberts, Jr., in this regard.
is Giza credibly so testified.
I6 Hemphill credibly so testified and Steve Roberts did not precisely
deny so stating. Krauser did not testify as to this incident.
613
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's representatives - Gottlieb, James Roberts,
Jr., Steve Roberts, James Roberts, Sr., and Monoran.
Agreement was reached on a number of matters and a
memorandum of agreement was signed on May 20 by
James Roberts 17 for Respondent and Lasky for IAW. This
agreement covered all production and maintenance em-
ployees at Respondent's 2735 North Ashland Avenue
plant, excluding office clericals, foremen, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors, as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.' 8 Lasky, thereupon, took this agreement to
the employees for ratification.
A meeting of the employees and Lasky was held on
Respondent's premises on or about May 20 on company
time with Respondent's permission. No supervisors were
present. Translators were present to assist those employees
who did not speak English.
At this meeting Lasky explained to the employees the
provisions of the memorandum agreement and some
employees asked questions. A number of employees
objected to the agreement because it did not include
insurance. Lasky replied that if the employees did not like
the contract they had the option of going on strike. And he
thereupon held a strike vote by having those people who
were for a strike move to the opposite side of the room
from those who were against it. At least two-thirds of the
employees voted against a strike. Lasky then told the
employees that the contract was not final1 9 and that he
would continue to seek insurance benefits from Respon-
dent. Before the meeting concluded, however, some 63
employees signed the memorandum agreement placing
their signatures after a sentence thereon reading, "I hereby
agree, approve and ratify the above agreement." 20
At or about this time, Hemphill called Simpson, the
Teamsters representative, and inquired whether Respon-
dent could "give the employees a union" in the fashion this
had occurred. Simpson told Hemphill that Respondent was
not supposed to have acted in that manner.
As previously noted, the initial charge herein was filed on
June I by the Teamsters. The Teamsters in May, and
thereafter, continued its efforts to organize Respondent's
employees despite Respondent's recognition of IAW.
In June representatives of IAW solicited checkoff
authorizations from the employees. The authorization form
also included an insurance application. Gladys Hemphill
signed both these portions of this form on June 24 and was
told that she was the last employee to do so.
In the meantime, further negotiations took place between
Lasky for IAW and Gottlieb for Respondent. These
discussions resulted in an agreement on insurance. During
the early summer of 1976, IAW also processed a number of
grievances for employees and maintained an office in
Chicago.
On August 6, Respondent and IAW executed a formal
collective-bargaining agreement effective for 3 years from
June 7, 1976, to June 6, 1979. James Roberts, Jr., signed for
Respondent and Lasky signed for the IAW. This contract
17 Apparently James Roberts, Jr.
'i Respondent so admitted in its answer to the complaint.
"9 Some items such as insurance (to remain the same as Respondent's
preexisting benefit), management rights, and union security were written in
summary fashion. The union-security provision read, simply, "Union shop."
20 I do not credit Hemphill's testimony that most of the employees voted
provided individual insurance benefits to employees which
after the second year of the contract would not require any
employee contribution. The contract contained a number
of other items, e.g., union visitation, seniority, grievance
procedure, etc., not reflected in the memorandum agree-
ment of May 20.
On August 10, Lasky held a meeting of the employees on
Respondent's property to inquire of the employees whether
or not they still desired him to continue as their collective-
bargaining representative. Most affirmed that they did and
some 68 of them signed a document which stated that they
agreed: "to renegotiate the present contract with the
company"; to authorize IAW to continue as their bargain-
ing representative; and to appoint Lasky and six named
employees as the IAW negotiating committee. On the
strength of this document, James Roberts, Jr., signed a new
agreement on August 10, recognizing IAW as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees.
On August 10, Simpson, the Teamsters representative,
sent a letter to Respondent, received by the latter on or
about August 12, in which Teamsters demanded recogni-
tion in a unit of Respondent's production, maintenance,
and warehouse employees.
On August 11, as previously mentioned, the first
amended charge was filed by Teamsters herein.
Also on August 12, Lasky provided Respondent with a
document requesting Respondent to cease withholding
dues in IAW's favor, to return all dues previously withheld
plus interest to the employees, and absolving and releasing
Respondent from any future claims of IAW against
Respondent as the result of Lasky's action in executing this
document.
lAW has never actually received any dues from Respon-
dent at any time.21
In mid-August, IAW closed its office in Chicago and laid
off its resident representative, Rasmussen.
On August 24, Teamsters filed a petition in Case 13-RC-
14156 for a Board-conducted election among Respondent's
employees.
On August 26, the Board notified Respondent and the
Teamsters that the foregoing election petition would be
held in abeyance pending the outcome of the present unfair
labor practice case.
C. Concluding Findings
1. The alleged impression of surveillance
In or about February, as I have found, Mary Krauser, an
admitted supervisor, stood near the door of Respondent's
plant for about 15 minutes before morning startup time,
watching the Teamsters representatives passing out union
authorization cards to employees. Krauser was seen so
engaged by Hemphill who asked why Krauser was
standing there observing the organizers. Krauser respond-
ed that she did this because "they" told her to do so.
in favor of a strike. Her testimony on the point is contrary to that of Lasky,
Czengileni, McIlvaine, and Giza. I believe she could not see how many
employees were on each side from where she stood. Even she testified that
Lasky noted at this time that a majority of the employees opposed a strike.
21 Lasky credibly so testified without dispute.
614
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
It is clear from the foregoing that Krauser was engaged
in surveillance. It is also clear in view of the nature of the
incident and the context in which it occurred - i.e., a
supervisor watching employees being contacted by union
organizers - that the "they," who told her to do this, could
only be Respondent's higher management officials and
that Hemphill would so understand Krauser's response.
I, accordingly, conclude that by actually engaging in
surveillance and telling Hemphill, in effect, that Respon-
dent's management directed such action, Krauser created
the impression of surveillance of employees' organizational
activities, as alleged in the complaint, and that Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
2. John Crawford and the authorization cards
As I have found, sometime in April, while the weather
was still cold, admitted Supervisor John Crawford stood by
the timeclock. While Crawford stood there blank Team-
sters authorization cards in the possession of some four
employees passed from their hands to Crawford's. Hemp-
hill stated that Crawford seized these cards from the
employees. Crawford said they handed the cards to him
voluntarily. Given the circumstances, as Crawford admit-
ted, that Crawford on that same morning had already
observed the Teamsters passing out cards to at least one
employee (Crawford's own brother) and then went and
stood by the clock as the employees including his brother
passed by, I conclude that his later actions in respect to the
cards were founded on intention rather than chance and
that, consistent with such intention, he did seize the cards
of the employees, as Hemphill testified. Even if I am in
error in reaching this conclusion, I would still find that
Crawford - constructively - seized these cards based on
his own version of the incident. For the employees, caught
redhanded, as it were, with the cards in their possession,
were constrained out of obvious embarrassment to surren-
der these cards to Crawford when they had to pass by him
as he stood by the timeclock. I, accordingly, conclude that
by Crawford's actions Respondent has interfered with and
coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights
to engage in union activities and that Respondent has
thereby violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
3. The "Poll" on May 17
As I have found, James Roberts, Jr., addressed Respon-
dent's assembled employees on May 17 and told them he
was opposed to unions. He added, however, that he would
give them the opportunity to vote for or against a union
and that the Union was the IAW, which he had been told
was an honest union.
The vote took place later that day with employees
completing ballots stating their preference of "For union"
or "Against union." After the balloting the employees were
notified that the results of the count were slightly in favor
of a union.
The General Counsel and Charging Party argue that the
poll was unlawful because it did not comport with the
22 Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967).
23 Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., supra, The Lorben Corporation, 146
NLRB 1507 (1964), enforcement denied 345 F.2d 346 (C.A. 2, 1965): cf.
Board's Struksnes22 standards. Respondent argues that a
poll is not per se unlawful and attempts to distinguish
Struksnes on factual grounds.
I agree with the General Counsel and the Charging
Party. In Struksnes at 1063 the Board held:
Absent unusual circumstances, the polling of em-
ployees by an employer will be violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act unless the following safeguards are
observed: (I) the purpose of the poll is to determine the
truth of a union's claim of majority, (2) this purpose is
communicated to the employees, (3) assurances against
reprisal are given, (4) the employees are polled by secret
ballot, and (5) the employer has not engaged in unfair
labor practices or otherwise created a coercive atmo-
sphere.
Here, significantly, the IAW did not - prior to the poll
- claim to represent a majority of Respondent's employ-
ees. Lasky was questioned at length about this at the
hearing and stated no such claim had been advanced prior
to the poll (IAW had at the time only one authorization
card). Nor did Lasky recall any demand for recognition by
IAW prior to the poll. Roberts did not, in his speech on
May 17, assert that the IAW had demanded recognition or
claimed majority support from Respondent's employees.
After the speech and after the poll which followed it,
Lasky declined recognition when such was offered by
Gottlieb.
Consequently, the poll could not have the purpose of
testing a majority claim by any union (its purpose, as I will
find, was to assist - unlawfully - the organizational
campaign of the IAW). Further, Respondent had already
committed other unfair labor practices, as I have held, in
the acts of Krauser and Crawford.
I conclude that, in these circumstances, Respondent did
not satisfy the Struksnes requirements in conducting the
poll of its employees on May 17; hence I find that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.23
4. Respondent's recognition of the IAW
Prior to determining the legality of such recognition, I
must first conclude when it in fact first occurred.
As just mentioned, IAW presented Respondent with no
claim of majority nor demand for recognition prior to the
poll. Shortly after the poll, when Gottlieb offered to
recognize IAW, Lasky declined such recognition. I there-
fore conclude that recognition was first accorded to, and
accepted by, the IAW when, on the evening of May 17,
James Roberts, Jr., recognized IAW, in writing, following
Lasky's presentation of authorization cards from a majori-
ty of the employees at that time.
The question then becomes whether IAW enjoyed
support at the time of recognition from an uncoerced
majority of the employees. I conclude that it did not.
There were two possible bases for establishing lAW's
majority - the poll and Lasky's later authorization card
showing.
Security Services, Incorporated 201 NLRB 1010 (1973), enfd. 487 F.2d 517
(C.A. 6, 1973).
615
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The poll could not provide a valid basis for establishing
uncoerced majority support because, as I have found, it
was unlawful.
Further, its illegality was based, at least in part, on the
fact that it could not have sought to test any prior majority
claim by IAW - because no such claim had been made.
Since the purpose of the poll was not to test any majority
claim, the question arises as to what its purpose was.
I conclude that the purpose of the poll - in the full
context of the events which surrounded it - was to assist
the IAW to gather support from Respondent's employees
and to thwart the efforts of the Teamsters. The Teamsters,
as I have found, had been attempting to organize
Respondent's plant for several years and, during 1976,
were actively engaged in this effort in the months of
January, February, March, and April. Respondent, by
James Roberts, Jr., and Steve Roberts, knew of these
efforts in February. Through its supervisor, John Craw-
ford, Respondent also knew of these efforts in April. When
James Roberts, Jr., spoke to employees on May 17, he
acknowledged to them that he was aware of other efforts to
organize the plant (besides that of lAW). Despite his
knowledge of these recent efforts of the Teamsters to
organize, James Roberts, in his speech to his employees,
did not take a neutral stance - between Teamsters and
IAW, which, he told the employees, was then also
organizing - but rather commented favorably on the
IAW. When the Teamsters Union was mentioned by
Hemphill in the course of Roberts' speech, Roberts
downgraded that Union by referring Hemphill to Jimmy
Hoffa, a famous Teamsters official who had disappeared
under mysterious circumstances some months before
Roberts' speech. Roberts also told the employees that
Respondent had resisted attempts by other unions to
organize its employees yet he advised them that, if they
voted in favor of a union at this time, he would recognize
the IAW. He added that, if they voted against a union, he
would again resist all other organizational attempts
thereafter.
In sum, then, the following is what Roberts accomplished
by his speech. With knowledge that both the Teamsters
and IAW were organizing Roberts' employees, he made
favorable remarks about IAW, denigrated Teamsters, and
said that if the employees voted for a union he would
recognize IAW. By negative implication this meant he
would not recognize the Teamsters. He also said he would
fight future organizational efforts if the employees voted
against a union. By affirmative implication this meant he
would fight the Teamsters if they continued their attempts
to organize after the vote. The poll followed on the heels of
this speech.
Since Roberts showed preference to the IAW in his
speech and effectively excluded Teamsters from participa-
tion in, or benefit from, the poll, the poll could not
establish the employees, free choice in the matter. It could
24 Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation t/a Steak and Brew, 213
NLRB 450. 452 (1974). This poll is further suspect because no nonmanage-
ment person participated in the counting of the ballots and the ballots were
destroyed on the same day.
25 See, e.g.. the admission of Steve Roberts in the transcnript of these
proceedings.
26 Cf. Steak and Brew, supra; Tuschak/Jacobson, Inc. t/a Franklin
only coerce the employees into voting, in effect, for IAW
because this is the only union Respondent said it would
recognize following a prounion result in the poll. By the
same token such a vote could only assist IAW to organize
Respondent's employees in that - if they desired represen-
tation at all - the only union it would do them any good
to join after the poll (because it was the only one
Respondent would voluntarily recognize) was IAW. In
these circumstances of explicit preferential treatment to
IAW and effective exclusion of the Teamsters from
participation, the poll could not provide a fair or reliable
basis upon which to recognize IAW.2 4
Having disposed of the poll as a possible basis to show
an IAW majority on May 17, this brings us to the
authorization cards obtained by Lasky later on that same
day. I likewise reject these cards as proof of IAW's
uncoerced majority on essentially the same grounds as I
have rejected the poll - namely, the assistance and
preferential treatment accorded to IAW prior to, and
during, the time Lasky obtained these authorizations.
Thus, it may be recalled that Lasky gathered his card
showing after the poll which I have found not only to have
been coercive but also an assist to him in his organizational
efforts. When Lasky entered the plant on May 17, he found
himself seeking employee support after James Roberts, Jr.,
had already made favorable comments about Lasky's
Union to all the employees and had, in effect, downgraded
the Teamsters which was JAW's rival. Lasky was, thus, in a
position to garner a card showing after Roberts had left the
employees with the impression that Respondent would
only recognize IAW if the employees wanted a union.
Indeed, after the loudspeaker announcement in which
Roberts told the employees that the Union had been voted
in, employees were given the additional notion that they
already had a union. Thereafter, Lasky was permitted to
solicit authorization cards on company property, on
worktime (in substantial part), and with the assistance of
an employee interpreter (when he dealt with the employees
who did not speak English). Not only was Lasky given the
foregoing assistance but, in providing it to him, Respon-
dent created an exception to its prior policy of keeping
union organizers off company property at all times. 2 5 This
policy had been so rigidly adhered to in the past, for
example, that Supervisor Krauser, in February, promptly
reported to Lila Gatliff (Krauser's supervisor), Steve
Roberts, and Andy Monoran the presence of a Teamsters
organizer in the basement of the plant on that occasion.
In all these circumstances, the gathering of Lasky's card
showing, like the poll, occurred in an atmosphere of
coercion and employer assistance, and hence was no more
reliable than the poll. I, accordingly, reject the card
showing as a valid basis upon which to assess IAW's
support among the employees at the time IAW was
recognized on May 17.26
Convalescent Center, 223 NLRB 1298 (1976). In view of all the above-
described circumstances, the Board's decision in Longchanmps, Inc. and its
Wholly Owned Subsidiary, S & B Restaurant of Huntington, d/b/a/ Steak and
Brew of Huntington, 205 NLRB 1025 (1973), is distinguishable on its facts. In
the latter case - where the Board found not unlawful an employer's grant
to a union of access to company property for the purposes of organization
on company time - no other union had attempted to organize the
616
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
Having rejected the poll as well as the authorizations
gathered on and before May 17, I conclude that IAW did
not enjoy the support of an uncoerced majority of the
Respondent's employees when Roberts recognized IAW as
their exclusive bargaining representative on May 17. By
according recognition to a labor organization which did
not have the uncoerced support of a majority of its
employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.27
Further, by showing preference to the IAW at the
expense of the Teamsters and by permitting an IAW
organizer to organize its employees on company property
and, in substantial part, on company time (while refusing
like privileges to other unions) and thereafter by recogniz-
ing lAW, Respondent has given unlawful aid, assistance,
and support to lAW in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
of the Act.28
Even if the Teamsters had not been in the picture in the
spring of 1976, as I have found, I would reach the same
result. For again the poll was taken and the authorization
cards were signed on company time and property after
James Roberts, Jr., had told Respondent's employees that
Respondent had fought the efforts of other unions to
organize in the past and would continue that fight in the
future if employees voted against a union in the poll. On
the other hand, if the employees voted for a union, Roberts
told them, he would recognize the IAW. This meant that, if
the employees wanted a union, they could have the IAW
without any resistance from Respondent, but that, if they
voted against a union, Respondent would oppose, as it had
in the past, the efforts of any other union to organize. Thus,
Respondent not only assisted the IAW to organize, it
implanted in the minds of its employees that, if they ever
wanted a labor organization to represent them, IAW would
be the only union, for all practical purposes, that they
could ever get; that is, it was the only union Respondent
would not resist. And, as Roberts noted in his speech,
Respondent's resistance had successfully kept out all other
unions in the past.
Hence, even without the competition of the Teamsters
for employee support during and before May 1976, I would
find, in all the other circumstances, that Respondent's
recognition of IAW on May 17 violated Section 8(a)( ) and
(2) of the Act.29
5. Additional violations of Section 8(aXl) and (2)
of the Act
The General Counsel also urges that the recognition of
IAW by Respondent on May 17 was violative of Section
8(aXI) and (2) of the Act on the additional ground that
such recognition was granted at a time when there was a
question concerning representation. I reject this contention
for the reason that, as of May 17, the Teamsters had not
employees, the employer had stated no preference for the union organizing
the employees, there were no other unfair labor practices found and, further,
unlike here, the employer and union were both willing to, and did, have the
union's majority independently examined by governmental authority.
ZT International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard-
Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 731 (1961). Such unlawful
recognition would taint any subsequent majonty obtained under the
umbrella of such recognition. Id at 736.
IZ Steak and Brew, supra.
made a present claim for recognition,3 0 nor had Teamsters
filed an election petition with the Board at that time.
Accordingly, the Midwest Piping31 doctrine, on which the
General Counsel relies, does not apply and I shall
recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent unlawful-
ly assisted IAW by telling employees to report to the union
representative (when Lasky met with them after the poll on
May 17). And, as I have found, Gladys Hemphill was at
least one of those so told by Steve Roberts. However, this
single act is insufficient to establish a separate violation of
Section 8(aX2)3 2 and, in any event, the direction was given
in such a way, according to the credible and undisputed
testimony of Steve Roberts, that some other employees
knew they had the choice - which they exercised - not to
speak to the lAW representative.
Therefore, I shall also recommend that this allegation of
the complaint be dismissed.
6. The collective-bargaining agreements and the
checkoff of union dues
As I have found, Respondent and IAW consummated a
memorandum agreement on May 20, 1976. This agreement
contained a provision for a "union shop" (without
describing what type of union-security arrangement was
thereby established). In June, employees signed checkoff
authorizations. According to the affidavit of James Rob-
erts, Jr., Roberts admitted, and I find, that union dues were
deducted from paychecks distributed on July 2, 1976, and
Respondent intended to make a further deduction later in
July.
On August 6, as I have found, Respondent executed a
detailed collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
which contained both an explicit 30-day union-security
provision, an agreement by Respondent to withhold dues
and initiation fees from the wages of all employees
executing a legal authorization therefor, and a promise to
remit these dues and fees monthly to the Union. Lasky, on
the other hand, testified that no dues have actually been
remitted to IAW.
I find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with IAW
on May 20, 1976, containing a "union shop" provision in
which both parties contemplated that employees would
have to be dues-paying members of IAW in order to
maintain their employment with Respondent. I further
conclude, in the light of IAW's efforts in June to have
employees sign checkoff authorizations and by Respon-
dent's efforts in July to withhold moneys (obviously
pursuant to such checkoff authorizations), that the May 20
memorandum agreement contemplated such a procedure
in the minds of the parties to it.
29 See Howard Creations, Inc., 212 NLRB 179 (1974); The Bassick
Conpany, Spring Valley Division, a Division of Stewart. Warner Corporation.
127 NLRB 1552 (1960); Franklin Convalescent Center, supra.
30 Its apparent and only prior claim. which had been proffered in 1972
when Simpson discussed recognition with Gottlieb, had subsequently
"died," according to Simpson, before January 1976, when Teamsters
renewed its efforts to organize Respondent's employees.
3i Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, 1069-70 (1945).
32 Steak and Brew of Huntington. supra.
617
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inasmuch as IAW did not represent an uncoerced
majority of Respondent's employees in the bargaining unit
when the agreement of May 20 was entered into, I find
that, by executing said agreement containing what the
parties understood to be union-security and checkoff
arrangements and, separately, by honoring said arrange-
ments, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act.33
I further conclude that by entering into a formal
collective-bargaining agreement containing an explicit 30-
day union-security provision and a provision for withhold-
ing dues from employees upon their voluntary authoriza-
tions - said contract being entered into at a time when
IAW still did not represent an uncoerced majority of
Respondent's employees - Respondent has further violat-
ed Section 8(aX )), (2), and (3) of the Act.34
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with its operations described in section i,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters and IAW are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By creating the impression of surveillance of the
union activities of its employees in February 1976, by
taking away employees' union authorization cards in April
1976, and by conducting a poll of its employees on May 17,
1976, in respect to their support for a union, Respondent
has violated Section 8(aX )) of the Act.
4. By recognizing lAW as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees on May 17, 1976, at a time
when IAW did not represent an uncoerced majority of
such employees, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act.
5. By showing preference to IAW, to the detriment of a
competing labor organization, by permitting IAW's repre-
sentative to organize its employees on company property
and, in substantial part, on company time, and by
thereafter recognizing IAW on May 17, 1976, Respondent
has violated Section 8(aX I) and (2) of the Act.
6. By entering into contracts with IAW on May 20, and
August 6, 1976, where said contracts contained union-
security arrangements and provisions for withholding of
union dues and, further, where said contracts were entered
into at times when IAW did not represent the uncoerced
majority of Respondent's employees, and, finally, by
enforcing said union-security and checkoff arrangements,
33 Prospect Gardens of Norwalk, Inc., 177 NLRB 136, 139-140 (1969).
34 Ibid.
35 Except, of course, the agreements' union-security and dues-checkoff
provisions as to which effect may no longer be given.
Respondent has violated Section 8(aX 1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
7. Respondent has not been shown to have violated the
Act except as found herein.
8. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend an order
directing it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
More particularly, having found that Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their right freely to select their own bargaining
representative in that Respondent unlawfully supported,
assisted, and recognized IAW, the Order I shall recom-
mend will require Respondent to cease providing such
unlawful support and assistance, and to withdraw and
withhold all recognition from IAW unless and until IAW
shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in question. The Order shall further
direct Respondent to cease giving effect to the memoran-
dum agreement with IAW dated May 20, 1976, and the
later formal collective-bargaining contract with that Union
dated August 6, 1976, or to any renewal, modification, or
extension of either such agreement. However, nothing in
this Order shall authorize or require the withdrawal or
elimination of any wage increase or other benefits, terms,
and conditions of employment which may have been
established pursuant to either such agreement. 35 The Order
shall also require Respondent to reimburse all present and
former employees for all initiation fees, dues, and other
moneys which may have been exacted from them by, or on
behalf of, IAW pursuant to the union-security and dues-
checkoff provisions, express or implied, of the aforemen-
tioned collective-bargaining agreements, together with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. Finally, the
recommended Order will require Respondent to cease and
desist from creating the impression of surveillance, seizing
employees' union authorization cards, taking an unlawful
poll of its employees' wishes in respect to union representa-
tion, or in any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
618
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS CORP.
ORDER 36
The Respondent, Ravenswood Electronics Corporation,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to Industrial and
Agricultural Workers.
(b) Recognizing and negotiating with Industrial and
Agricultural Workers as the exclusive representative of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless
and until such labor organization is certified by the Board
as the exclusive representative of said employees pursuant
to Section 9(c) of the Act.
(c) Enforcing or giving effect to its collective-bargaining
agreements with Industrial and Agricultural Workers dated
May 20, 1976, and August 6, 1976, or any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof or any superseding
agreement, provided, however, that nothing in this Order
shall authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of
any wage increase or other benefits or terms and conditions
of employment which may have been established pursuant
to such contracts.
(d) Encouraging membership in Industrial and Agricul-
tural Workers by conditioning employment on member-
ship in such organization except to the extent permitted by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(e) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations executed
by any of Respondent's employees in favor of Industrial
and Agricultural Workers.
(f) Creating the impression of surveillance, seizing
employees' union authorization cards, taking an unlawful
poll in respect to its employees' desires for union represen-
tation, or in any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed employees pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Industri-
al and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, unless and until
said labor organization has been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive represen-
tative of such employees.
(b) Reimburse all present and former employees for all
initiation fees, dues, assessments, or any other moneys
checked off in favor of Industrial and Agricultural Workers
in the manner set forth in the Decision herein.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of dues and any other
moneys to be repaid under the terms of this recommended
Order.
(d) Post at its 2735 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois, plant copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly
signed by a representative of Respondent, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found herein.
3e In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
37 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence it has been decided that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, certain rights including the rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such things.
WE WILL NOT do anything which interferes with any
of your rights set forth above, NOR WILL WE create the
impression of surveillance of your union activities, NOR
WILL WE take union authorization cards away from
you, NOR WILL WE conduct an unlawful poll in respect
to your desires for union representation.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to
Industrial and Agricultural Workers.
WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with Industri-
al and Agricultural Workers as the exclusive bargaining
representative of our employees unless and until such
labor organization is certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such
employees.
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our collective-
bargaining agreements with Industrial and Agricultural
Workers dated May 20, 1976, and August 6, 1976, or
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof or any
superseding agreement; provided that WE WILL NOT
619
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alter any wage increases or other benefits put into effect
as the result of those agreements.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Industrial
and Agricultural Workers by requiring employees to
join that organization as a condition of obtaining or
retaining employment with us, pursuant to the provi-
sions of any past agreements with that Union.
WE WILL NOT recognize, negotiate, or enter into any
new agreement with Industrial and Agricultural Work-
ers unless and until that Union has been certified as the
representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff authoriza-
tion in favor of Industrial and Agricultural Workers
executed pursuant to these prior agreements.
WE WILL reimburse all employees, former and
present, for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted
from them under our contracts with Industrial and
Agricultural Workers, plus 6-percent interest.
RAVENSWOOD ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
620