Raytheon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1603 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

RAYTHEON COMPANY 1603
a deviation from our usual eligibility requirements, and as the
Employer states it employs approximately the same number of
laborers throughout the year,13 eligibility will be determined by the
usual payroll period.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 24
23 See Lewis ( L'owmanc, Inc, supra, footnote 18, aheie the Board held that "because
the Employer's construction period is none at peak, eligibility will be determined by the
usual payroll period "
24 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible
voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 23 within
7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file
this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwceas Inc, 156 NLRB 1236
Raytheon Company and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
Raytheon Company and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases 20-CA-3554
and 2O-RC-6201.1 October 5, 1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On June 13, 1966, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. In addition, he rec-
ommended sustaining certain objections to the election held on Feb-
ruary 4, 1965, in Case 20-RC-6201, and setting aside the election.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a statement of exceptions, a "Brief
in Support of Exceptions to Intermediate Report; and in Support of
Portions of Intermediate Report," and an "Answering Brief to Brief
of IUE in Support of Cross-exceptions." The General Counsel filed a
brief in support of certain portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision,
cross-exceptions, and a brief in support of its cross-exceptions. Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
' International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, intervened in Case
20-RC-6201.
160 NLRB No. 122.
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called the Charging Party, filed an answering brief to
Respondent's brief, cross-exceptions, and a brief in support of its
cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The-
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, briefs, and the
entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
below.2
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Add the following at the end of paragraph 1(a) : "and promis-
ing new benefits as an inducement to employees not to engage in
union activity."
[2. Delete paragraph 1(b) and substitute the following: "In any
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modi-
fied by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959."
[3. In the notice attached to Trial Examiner's Decision, add the
following at the end of the first indented paragraph : "nor will we-
promise new benefits as an inducement to employees not to engage in
union activity."
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act and interfered with the election by Supervisor Brest's coercive interrogation of
employee Alvarado, and Vice President Tlennemuth's coercive speeches to the employees.
We also find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the announcement of new grievance
procedures, in such speeches, constituted further violation of Section 8(a) (1) and further-
interference with the election. However, we find it unnecessary to, and therefore do not,
rely on the Trial Examiner's finding of additional grounds for setting aside the election
There is no merit in the Charging Party's exception to the Trial Examiner's denial of its
motion, made at the hearing, to amend the complaint to allege additional threats and
promises of benefit. See Local 1474-1, Pipe Coverers, International Longshoremen's Asso-
otiation (J.Q.H. Insulating Co., Inc.), 147 NLRB 90, 93, footnote 4. Cf. Local 283, Auto-
mobile Workers v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205, 219, footnote 14.
RAYTHEON COMPANY 1605
[4. Delete from the notice the second indented paragraph, and
substitute the following:
["WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959."
[5. Delete from the notice the last paragraph.]
[The Board dismissed the complaint insofar as it alleges unfair
labor practices not found herein.]
[The Board set aside the election in Case 20-RC-6201.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint proceeding in this case , brought under Section 10 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act as amended (61 Stat . 136; 73 Stat . 519), hereinafter
the Act , consolidated for hearing with objections to an election filed by the Charg-
ing Party and Petitioner herein in Case 20-RC-6201 , was heard before Trial Exam-
iner William E. Spencer in San Francisco , California, on January 19, 20, 1966,
,pursuant to due notice.
The complaint , issued October 19, 1965 , upon a charge filed April 6, 1965, and
an amended charge filed October 15, 1965, alleged various conduct engaged in by
the Respondent as violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, conduct incorporated in
the objections to the election with some additional matters.
The Respondent in its duly filed answer denied the said allegations . Upon the
-entire record in the case , consideration of briefs filed with me by each of the par-
ties, and from my observation of witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND EMPLOYER
Raytheon Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged , among other things, in
the design, development , and manufacture of semiconductor products and solid
state devices. It has facilities located in several States , including Massachusetts and
California. Its Mountain View, California, plant is the locale of matters giving
rise to this proceeding.
During the past year Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
from it California operations directly to customers outside the State.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter the Union or IUE , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The factual situation; issues
Pursuant to a representation petition filed by IUE on January 4, 1965, an elec-
tion among the production and maintenance employees of Respondent's Mountain
View, California, plant, was conducted by the Board on February 4 The results
were that 161 votes were cast for the IUE, 54 for IBEW, an intervenor, and 301
for no union. On February 11, IUE filed a petition to set aside the election and on
April 6, the charge of unfair labor practices which initiated the present complaint
proceeding. The issue, broadly stated, is whether Respondent by a series of speeches
addressed to its employees on February 2 in a' captive audience atmosphere, and by
various other statements and conduct, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and by
these alleged statements and conduct, and other matters alleged in the objections
to the election, interfered with the free choice of its employees to a degree requir-
ing that the election be set aside.
B. The Krest-Alvarado incident
In the week or so preceding the February 4 election, employee Carol Alvarado
was twice called to the desk of Nicola Krest, supervisor of the department in which
she worked, and questioned concerning her union activities. Alvarado on these
occasions was wearing an IUE badge indicating her support of that union, the only
person in her department of some 20 employees that she observed wearing an
IUE badge. Krest asked Alvarado why she wanted a union, and when the latter
replied that she thought a union could provide employees with a better vacation
and sick leave plan and higher wages, Krest replied that it would be impossible for
the employees to achieve such additional benefits; that he had not complained to the
employees on their work standards, but with a union certain work standards would
be set and any employee not meeting them could be discharged; that if the Union
was voted in, any employee who was late to work on more than three occasions
would be discharged. On the second occasion Krest asked Alvarado if she had
attended an IBEW meeting and if so, why. The foregoing is Alvarado's version of
the two conversations.
Krest admitted that the conversations occurred; testified in substance that on the
occasion of the first conversation he called Alvarado to his desk with respect to
her requested transfer out of his department, and that Alvarado initiated the topic
of unions by saying that if the employees had a union "things like this [the refusal
of a transfer] wouldn't happen." Krest testified, "From that point on, we discussed
several things about the union," and, in amplification, mentioned the topics of
seniority and work standards. On the latter he testified, "I said that I am quite sure
that if a union did come into the plant that the union, if they weren't satisfied with
the standards which we had on the jobs, would bring in their own industrial
engineers . I felt that if they found that our standard was extremely low, they
would raise it, you know, if they thought it was completely out of the picture."
Krest did not recall if the Union was discussed in his second conversation with
Alvarado which was concerned primarily, as was the first, with her request for a
transfer.
I find, in sum, that Foreman Krest questioned Alvarado concerning her union
activities, interrogated her concerning her desire for union representation, and
stated, in substance and effect, that she stood to lose rather than gain through
union representation in the matter of work standards, and would be unable to
obtain the benefits she sought. His remarks took on added emphasis and significance
when Robert G. Hennemuth, a company official, later addressed the employees
on the same general topic of what union representation would mean to them.
C. The February 2 Hennemuth speeches
In its captive audience speeches, delivered successively to seven groups of its
employees on February 2, the Respondent, through its industrial relations vice
president, Robert G. Hennemuth, counseled its employees to reject union repre-
sentation. As urged in Respondent's brief, Hennemuth, though unequivocally
partisan in his language, made his "pitch" without rancor and in an atmosphere
which was undoubtedly calculated to, and did in fact convey the appearance of
friendly counsel. At the close of his speech, there would be a period of questions
from the floor responded to in good humor by Hennemuth, and other instances
RAYTHEON COMPANY 1607
of good-humored give-and-take. Nevertheless, Hennemuth made it clear in the
introduction to his remarks that he was a top figure in Respondent's hierarchy of
officers and therefore spoke with authority, and frequently referred to the "legal"
posture of his remarks. The body of his speeches was tape-recorded and tran-
scriptions from the tapes were received in evidence. There were portions of his
speech, however, which were not recorded, and. therefore the transcriptions were
not necessarily a refutation of the testimony of employees who heard the speeches.
The latter, except for variations in emphasis, were not markedly at variance with
the recorded portions of the speeches.
Hennemuth's speeches were organized and delivered under four major points
or topics, and these will be alluded to seriatum.
First, Hennemuth stressed the importance of all employees voting and the
secrecy of the ballot which would protect employees in voting against union repre-
sentation even though they had signed one or more union authorization cards.
"Regardless of whether you signed for one or both, that is not binding on you .. .
When you engage in this voting process on Thursday you are a free person."
Hennemuth's second point, and one that received the greatest emphasis and
undoubtedly took precedence over others in the minds of the employees, was that
if the employees chose union representation, negotiations on a contract would
follow; that such negotiations would start from scratch and the employees could
end up losing some of their present benefits;' that a union could not guarantee
them anything but could gain for them only such benefits as the Company would
grant; 2 that a union's only weapon for enforcing bargaining demands was the
strike and that a strike would impose hardships on the employees who engaged in
it.3 Hennemuth told the employees, "My suggestion to you is that working for this
company under the circumstances as I know them at least, I feel you don't need
that kind of representation because I really feel that compared to other American
citizens across the country working for a number of different companies, you don't
look too bad at all, really, as far as your benefits are concerned," that in the light
"Excerpts from Hennemuth 's speeches : ". . . in a negotiation they [the employees]
had to understand that legally the Company and the Union start from scratch . . what
happens in negotiation is that two parties sit down to negotiate and they start fresh-lust
as though nothing 's on the table . . in negotiations they have to get up to where you
are-where the company is, first-before you even get any more " [This point was given
added emphasis by a leaflet passed out by Respondent to its employees on Tanuaiy 14,
1965 , which stated in part : "When a union comes into a plant , collective bargaining be-
gins not at the present wage level, but at zero . "] In negotiations an emploier might
say, "Look, we are sick and teed of paying nine holidays and now we are only going to
agree to five"
Further on the combined credited and undisputed testimony of General 'Counsel's wit-
nesses Alvarado, Hudson , Lott, and Carpenter , Hennemutli said that while employee in-
surance was now "free, " if the Union won this benefit would have to be negotiated from
scratch and the employees might end up having to pay for what they presently «eie
getting free ; gave a specific example of a company which took away busfare formerly
given its employees as a fringe benefit, when a union came into the plant , and said that
they should not be misled by thinking that the benefits they presently had would neces-
sarily continue if the Union cane into the plant
2Exceipt from Hennemuth 's speeches ". . . you should bear in mind that a union can-
not guarantee you anything Now I'm telling you, legally if I may in this sense , because
it a union wins the right with any company to represent the einployees involved , a period
of negotiation must follow after that point and there comes into being bet'aeen the union
and the company after that only what the company wants to agree to . . . [Emphasis
supplied.]
3 Excerpts from Hennemutli ' s speeches : " So let's suppose that the company doesn ' t want,
to agree-what recouiso does the union have9 The only recourse is to strike . I'm
sure you all have had some exposure to what a strike can mean It's a harsh thin,, it is
a weapon that in my opinion personally is not a terribly useful thing to the unions be-
cause it imposes such a hardship on the people iiho ate members of the unions They go
without pay during the entire period of the strike Now sometimes there is a `strike fund'
a union may have but this is usually inadequate and then it usually often doesn t last
except for a couple of (seeks and it requites you to go out and do picket line duty, and so
forth. Now , this might be all right in its place, understand . Sly suggestion to you is, that
working for this company under the circumstances as I know them at lea s t, I feel you
don't need that kind of representation, etc."
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of all these circumstances the employees should carefully evaluate the Union's
claims put forth in its election propaganda because "you will not get anything more
from this company with a union than you would get without a union and in the
meantime you are going to be paying out $40 to $50 a year and perhaps more."
Hennemuth's third point consisted largely of a review of Respondent's wage
structure and fringe benefits and comparisons with other plants operating under
union contracts; a statement of Respondent's grievance procedure characterized
as a "dam firm open door policy" on the part of its local manager, Fred Wills, and
a promise that in the future this procedure would be further liberalized by per-
mitting any aggrieved employee who was not satisfied with the response of the
local office to appeal directly to Hennemuth in Respondent's main office; and an
elaborate defense of Respondent's existing sick leave policy: "So bear in mind, that
even if a union does come on these premises as a result of Thursday, that does
not mean any such union will get paid sick leave. And I'm saying to you right
now, it won't. This is not because we don't think it's a desirable benefit. . . We are
just not ready to put in that kind of an expense in our fringe benefit package at this
time, especially where we are now convinced that we already have a package that
is as good as any you will find in industry generally." In this connection, Henne-
muth told the employees that "no unionized plant in Raytheon has paid sick leave
either." In summing up, Hennemuth told the employees, "So again, repeating the
third thought I want to leave with you, without paying any of these costs that are
union-involved, you already have a whole good series of kinds of compensation
which once again I am satisfied would not have been any better even if you had
had a union here and in the future it won't be any better just because a union
is on the premises."
Hennemuth's "fourth and final" point was in substance an appeal to the loyalty
of the employees. Coupled with this was the statement that in the 3 years that
Respondent had operated its Mountain View plant, with an outlay of millions, it
had "never taken one lick of profit out of here." Followed a discussion of the
Company's "continuing determination to make a go of this place," and a final
appeal, "So this is why I say to you that Raytheon in these three years has never
given up on you. You know, we've had some rough sledding and we are asking you,
please, to continue to work with us as a team. Give Mr. Wills the opportunity to
make a profitable venture out of this and do it, please, without the intervention
of some unnecessary outsider who can cause trouble by harrassment [sic], who
can take money away from you, and who we are convinced is not going to bring
you anything in return that you wouldn't get otherwise."
D. Concluding findings
While the Act provides that an employer's failure or refusal to agree to a union's
proposals does not in and of itself constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith,
this by no means licenses any employer to enter into bargaining negotiations with
a mind closed against extending or varying existing employee benefits. An employer
who tells his employees that they can gain through union representation only
what he, the employer, unilaterally chooses to give them, and that they will gain
no additional benefits through bargaining but stand to lose benefits already enjoyed,
is not merely predicting what may be the ultimate results of collective bargaining,
or stating mere possibilities, but is making flat statements of a predetermined
position on bargainable issues and is therefore voicing a rejection of the bargaining
principle. What could be more illustrative of such a state of mind than Henne-
muth's statement to the employees with respect to sick leave, an issue which
obviously was a campaign issue: "So bear in mind, that even if a union does come
on these premises as a result of Thursday [the election], that does not mean any
such union will get paid sick leave. And I'm saying to you right now, it won't,"
(emphasis supplied) and his further statement, "So again, repeating the third
thought I want to leave with you, without paying any of these costs that are union-
involved, you already have a whole good series of kinds of compensation which
once again I am satisfied would not have been any better even if you had had a
union here and in the future it won't be any better just because a union is on the
premises." (Emphasis supplied.) The impact of these and kindred statements on
the employees' minds is neither negatived nor neutralized by an occasional reference
to the employees' freedom of choice and Respondent's intention to deal with them
in good faith, regardless of the outcome of the election. As a matter of fact, in all
the Hennemuth speeches there is not a single unequivocal statement that if the
RAYTHEON COMPANY 1609
employees choose union representation the Respondent will enter into negotiations.
with an open mind on bargaining issues and will attempt, in good faith, to reach
an agreement satisfactory to both the employer and the employees-essential
elements of good-faith bargaining. In the same category is Hennemuth's state-
ment that in talking to the employees he was walking a tightrope since he could
neither offer benefits nor threaten reprisals in the matter of their choice of union
representation, in a context in which he was instilling fear into their minds that
union representation though costly would be futile, and that a union's only recourse
in obtaining for the employees anything that Respondent did not choose to give,
was the strike with the attendant hardships that would be visited on the employees
in such event. In sum, for all their carefully contrived appearance of amiability,
the Hennemuth speeches were larded with statements which amount to an antici-
patory refusal to bargain and as such were poorly concealed threats to deprive
Respondent's employees of any and all benefits to be derived from the exercise
of the right to collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing.
Supervisor Krest's interrogations of Alvarado about her union activities and state-
ments that she could not gain but would lose through union representation, though
minor in comparison, are not properly considered as isolated statements of a
minor supervisor, but as a part of Respondent's general plan of coercion as fully
demonstrated in the Hennemuth speeches.
I find that the Respondent through Krest's antiunion statements and interroga-
tion of Alvarado and, in major part, through the Hennemuth speeches, interfered'
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act .4
IV. OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon a consent election executed by the-
parties on January 14, 1965, an election was conducted among Respondent's employ-
ees on February 4. On February 11, the Petitioner herein filed timely objections to
the conduct of the election. On June 2, the Board's Regional Director issued and
served on the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended to the
Board that the objections be consolidated for hearing with the complaint herein. On
June 23, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report and to the Regional
s Hennemuth 's statement , that employees might address him directly in Respondent's
eastern office with respect to grievances, is alleged to constitute an unlawful inducement,
and while undoubtedly it was made to court favor with the employees, I am unable to
view it as substantial enough to constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Employees
would have to be naive indeed to believe that Henneinuth in Respondent's eastern office
would seriously entertain an individual grievance arising in the Mountain view plant
already weighed and rejected by the local plant manager, and in any event a disgruntled
employee could always avail himself of the freedom of the mails to address officials in
the eastern office I am also unable to view increased wages and benefits extended em-
ployees in September 1965, some 6 months after the election, as a reward for the employees'
rejection of union representation. In extending these benefits Respondent did compliment
the employees on their "loyalty" but reference was also made to increased production.
The matter is not entirely free from doubt due to the rather gloomy profit-and-loss pic-
ture given the employees by Hennemuth in February prior to the election, but I do not
find a preponderance of evidence supporting an unlawful motive Respondent's interroga-
tion of employees Shirley Ball and Katherine Lott through its counsel, Robert L Mlolinar-
and Selig A Saltzman, alleged to constitute unlawful interference with General Counsel's
witnesses, has flimsy support in the testimony of Ball and Lott except that It does appear
that they were asked if they had been interviewed by Board agents, and the latter was
questioned about future appointments, if any, with such agents. The interviews appear to,
have been centered on the employees' recollection of Hennemuth's speech , the employees
do not appear to have been questioned concerning the substance of their interviews with
Board agents ; Ball testified that Molinar told her not to worry about being subpenaed to
testify, "Just to come in and tell the truth" as best she could, and if questioned by Board
agents to tell them that she had been interviewed by the company lawyers , Lott admitted
that at the start of the interview Molinar told her she was free to answer questions or
not as she saw fit. While I believe it was improper for Respondent's counsel to question
these employees concerning their meetings with Board agents preparatory to testifying,
and it is clear that such interrogations were in no way necessary or material to the prepa-
ration of a defense, the coercive element appears to have been slight if not altogether
nonexistent.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director's recommendation on the consolidation of cases. The matter was referred
to the Board and on August 10, the Board found the exceptions without merit and
ordered the hearing herein.
On all the evidence before me I find the objections to the conduct of the election
well taken and shall recommend that the election of February 4 be set aside.
As set forth in detail in the preceding section of this report, the employer in seven
speeches addressed to groups of employees sought to convince them that they should
reject union representation. Only 1 day intervened between these speeches and the
election. The Petitioner requested permission to address the employees in similar
fashion and the request was ignored. The employer's rule against "selling, soliciting,
canvassing or distributing without prior management approval," effectively fore-
closed the Petitioner from presenting its claims and arguments to employees while
they were on company premises. It issued numerous pamphlets but for their distri-
bution had to rely on passing them out to employees on their entering or leaving
company premises, mailing them to the employees' homes, or passing them out at
union meetings. With respect to the first, many of the employees lived in geographi-
cal areas removed by miles from the plant, and therefore substantial numbers drove
to and from work, about 95 percent according to estimates. The Petitioner being
barred from the Company's parking lot, had to rely on reaching these employees as
they were driving in and out of the lot. As to mailing, the Petitioner had to ascer-
tain the mailing address of the employees "by word of mouth" and as a result could
reach only a small percentage of the total employment. Its meetings, according to
,its representatives, were attended largely by those who were highly partisan on behalf
of the Union or who vigorously opposed it, and therefore the Union was unable to
reach those who were neutral or not yet convinced one way or the other. Also, inas-
much as the plant was operating on three shifts, and meetings during the workweek
normally would follow at the end of a shift, obviously the hours were not propitious
for drawing large numbers to the meetings.5
In short, on the facts of this case it is clear that through Respondent's restrictive
rule on solicitations and because of other circumstances noted above, the employ-
ees were effectively barred from anything approaching an equal or comparable
opportunity for hearing arguments favoring union representation, or contesting and
refuting the propaganda literature and the captive audience speeches of the Employer.
For this reason alone I would hold that the employees were denied the freedom of
choice such as would have been theirs-and to which I think they were entitled-
had they been afforded at least a reasonable approximation of equal access to the
copious representations made by both proponents and opponents of union representa-
tion. It is on the basis of these findings, and interference violative of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act as found in section III, above, that I recommend that the election of
February 4, 1965, be set aside.6
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent's conduct as found in sections III and IV, supra, improperly affected
the results of the election of February 4, 1965.
For instance open meetings for employees on the swing shift would start at 1 a in
6I agree with Petitioner that coercive conduct engaged in by General Foreman Burke
and Foreman Blackburn with respect to employees wearing IUE badges, not alleged as
constituting unfair labor practices and occurring puoi to a representation petition being
filed, may nevertheless be considered as backgiound to conduct in issue, such as Krest's
interrogation of Alvarado and the 1-lennemuth speeches, and when so considered tends to
place the remarks of Kiost, but more particularly IIennemuth, in their true perspective,
since the few intervening months would not have sufficed to erase from the minds of
affected employee, fears of reprisal stemming from the Burke-Blackburn interrogations and
threats. However, the exclusion from consideration of such background matters would
leave, unaltered, the conclusions expressed in the text above
RAYTHEON COMPANY 1611
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent 's conduct improperly affected the results of
the election I shall recommend that the election be set aside.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it
is recommended that the Respondent , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees in an unlawful manner concerning their union
activities ; threatening or implying a loss of existing benefits in the event they choose
union representation; threatening or implying an anticipatory refusal to bargain on
bargainable issues, such as sick leave , in such event.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post in its Mountain View, California , plant, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being signed by Respondent's representative, 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 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.8
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election which was conducted on Febru-
ary 4, 1965, be set aside.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the «ords "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enfoicing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this prosision
shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Diiector tot Region 20, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in an unlawful manner concerning
their union affiliation and activities; interfere with their freedom of choice with
respect to union representation by stating or implying a loss of existing benefits
in the event they choose union representation ; stating or implying an anticipa-
tory refusal to bargain in good faith on bargainable issues in such event.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, on request , bargain in good faith on bargainable issues, including
sick leave, in the event our employees designate the above -named Union or any
other labor organization , their bargaining representative.
RAYTHEON COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue , Box 36047 , San Francisco , California 94102 , Telephone 556-0335.
Carpenters Local Union No. 701, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Haas & Haynie
Corporation ) and John D . Collins . Case 20-CB-1431. Octo-
ber 5, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was'committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the excep-
tions and briefs and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Reletter the present paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) of the Trial
Examiner 's Recommended Order to read 2(c) and 2(d), respectively,
and insert the following as paragraph 2 (b) :
[" (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all records and reports and
all other documents necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order."
160 NLRB No. 121.