Raytheon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 678 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Raytheon Company and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
31-CA-1366-3
November 24, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On September 15, 1969, Trial Examiner Martin
S. Bennett issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed an answering 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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The National Labor Relations 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 and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Briefs have been•,submitted by
the General Counsel and Respondent .
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Raytheon Company is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the design, development and manufacture of
semiconductor products and solid state devices with plants
in several states including a plant at Paso Robles,
California, the only facility directly involved herein It
annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of
California and receives products valued in excess of that
amount directly from suppliers located outside that State
I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction, the Issues
The Union commenced organizational activity among
the previously unorganized production and maintenance
employees of Respondent and an election, apparently
consent in nature, was conducted in that unit on January
8, 1969 The complaint alleges that independently owned
radio station KPRL in Paso Robles broadcast an
announcement on January 3 predicting that the plant
would close down if the Union won the election, that
Respondent learned of this broadcast on January 5, that
Respondent did not disavow the broadcast and that
Respondent thereby adopted the threat of plant closure
The complaint further alleges that supervisors threatened
employees that the plant would be closed if the Union
won the election, questioned employees about union
activities and threatened employees with demotion if they
supported the Union, all within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
B The Broadcast
'These exceptions relate only to the "radio broadcast" issue, In that
connection the record shows, in addition to the evidence recited by the
Trial Examiner, that the possibility of the plant's removal in case of a
Union victory was a matter discussed by the Union in its campaign
literature distributed to the employees prior to the election, and that when
Respondent's plant manager was queried by individual employees about
this he told them, according to his uncontroverted testimony, that he knew
of no plans to remove the plant Cf Tennessee Handbags, Inc , 175 NLRB
No 22
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S BENNETT This matter was heard at Paso
Robles, California, on July 31, 1969 The complaint,
issued May 26 and based upon a charge filed March 17,
1969, alleges that Respondent, Raytheon Company,` has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
For several weeks before the election, employees openly
wore small emblems indirectly indicating that the plant
would relocate in Mexico if the Union won the election;
this was known to management' Plant Manager Gordon
Taylor observed these and uncontrovertedly testified that
five or six employees asked him if the plant would move
in the event the Union won the election. He uniformly
replied that he had no knowledge of such a plan
Station KPRL is the only radio station in Paso Robles,
and its broadcasting range is essentially local; the
population of the city is slightly over 7000 On January 3,
the following statement was read once on a newscast,
shortly after 6 p.m
It's election time for the employees of Raytheon
semi-conductor plant in Paso Robles
'Respondent has a plant in Mexicali
179 NLRB No 116
RAYTHEON COMPANY 679
The 120 employees are voting next week on a
proposal to join the union of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers '
Informed sources in Paso Robles say that the union
may not be able to bang' too many benefits to the
people working in the local Raytheon plant, located at
2706 Spring Street.
The sources are saying that if the 'union gets into
Raytheon, the plant will probably close down The
employees would then have to look for work elsewhere
A rough newscopy of this, edited and revised on its face
prior to broadcast, was provided at the hearing by F Ray
Bryant, owner and manager of the station Thereon, the
word "unnamed" is crossed out before the word "sources"
in the last paragraph In an affidavit to the 'General
Counsel, with a copy of the same newscast attached, the
word "unnamed" may or may not have been crossed out.
Bryant attributed this to his allegedly less than perfect
duplicating machine Be that as it may, the conclusions
herein would be identical on either text
Bryant uncontrovertedly testified, and I find, that he
was' the source of the item, having gleaned this
information solely from noncompany -sources, viz, civic
leaders He discussed the story with his night newsman
and the latter wrote-it, based upon this information which
he had received from Bryant
As for company participation in the story, there is not
an iota of evidence to support this Respondent learned of
the broadcast in the following manner According to the
uncontroverted testimony of Plant Manager Gordon
Taylor, he knew nothing of the news item and received a
telephone call on or about Sunday morning, January 5,
from his then superior, Production Manager Flowers, at
Respondent's installation in Mountain View, California,
some distance to -the north A relative of Flowers had
passed through Paso Robles, heard this broadcast and
duly informed' Flowers who promptly telephoned Taylor
for an explanation
Taylor and Bryant in essence agree that the following
took place That same morning, Sunday, Taylor
telephoned Bryant at the station and asked him to read
the item Bryant either read it verbatim or summarized it.
According to Taylor, he inquired whether Bryant's sources
of information were anyone connected with Respondent
and Bryant assured him that they were not Taylor duly
relayed this information to Flowers and this was the end
of the incident Taylor testified that the first time he saw
a copy of the newscast was when he read the instant
complaint He did attempt to obtain a copy if it from
Bryant in June or July, but Bryant apparently could not
locate it Thus, the crux of the General Counsel's position
is that the broadcast was made, that Respondent, on this
record, was innocent of any participation therein, but that
Respondent, by remaining silent and not disavowing the
broadcast, perforce adopted the threat of plant closure
and thereby tainted the election of January 8 He argues
that the reference to "informed sources" could only be
construed as a reference to officials of Respondent
Initially, I distinguish this situation from one where a
statement of this nature is attributed to a company source.
Understandably, it could then follow that an employer
might by his silence, adopt the item as its own and thus
acquire the legal consequences thereof
And it is true that there is a line of cases where
employer responsibility has been found But they have
generally involved extensive employer participation or
cooperation with townspeople and local officials See
N L R B v General Metals Products Co , 410 F 2d 473
(C.A 6), N L R B v Hamburg Shirt Co, 371 F 2d 740
(C A D C ), and Henry I Siegel Inc, 172 NLRB No. 88
The instant case, however, is weaker There is no
involvement with local officials Silence alone, following
an event which does not create a duty to respond, leaves
an essential element missing for the creation of an agency
relationship Thus, in a similar case where an employer
was faulted for conduct by intertwined county authorities,
no responsibility was found for a newspaper editorial.
N L R B v Lake Butler Apparel Co , 392 F 2d 76 (C A
5) Also in point, and'finding no employer responsibility,
are Monroe Auto Equipment Co, 159 NLRB 615, and
Ottenheimer & Co , 144 NLRB 38, affd 334 F.2d 581
(CADC.) -
In sum, on this record, I discern' nothing to fault the
employer One may conceive of a broadcast whose content
is so outrageous in terms of meaningful labor relations
that a concerned employer would or should feel
constrained to respond in the same or a similar forum
While the instant conduct, in a representation case,•might
well be a basis for setting aside an election, the requisite
proof of agency has not been provided in this context I
shall, therefore, recommend that this allegation be
dismissed
C Alleged Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. The General Counsel attacks certain alleged
comments by supervisors Donald Tenney and Russell
Silva, respectively senior engineer and, swing shift
foreman Thus, former employee Ted Plume' had solicited
employees to join the Union in October or early
November He testified that I or 2 weeks before
Thanksgiving,' his supervisor, Donald Tenney, invited him
to his home The two had previously been friendly, shared
an interest in boating and hunting and proceeded to
discuss these topics. Tenney then asked Plume if he
supported the Union and commented that he disliked
union organizers,. Plume responded that he was not a
union organizer
Plume admitted that he introduced the topic by asking
whether the plant would move or close down if the Union
won the election ' Tenney replied that he did not know,
but that it would be no problem to transfer the work to
the plant operated by Respondent in Mexico. Tenney also
told Plume that if he persisted in his union support,
Tenney would have no alternative but to, demote him and
assign his leadman post to another. ,
Tenney in turn testified that he invited Plume to his
home because Plant Manager Taylor had advised him that
Plume, a first shift employee, was visiting the plant on the
second shift and talking with employees during working
hours Tenney explained to Plume that Respondent had
no objection to Plume picking up his wife, a second shift
employee, for dinner and returning her to the plant, but
that Respondent did object to his presence on the second
'Classified then as a maintenance leadman, no claim is made that he was
a supervisor
'A petition for an election was filed November 25 and this conduct
therefore would be considered remote and incapable of setting aside the
election This, it would appear, is not a factor in an unfair labor practice
proceeding
'Respondent stresses that Plume and two other witnesses on whose
testimony the General Counsel relies similarly introduced the topic of
employer reaction to unionization with a supervisor It further contends
that on the posture most favorable to the General Counsel, these incidents
were isolated and therefore unworthy of findings unfavorable to
Respondent
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shift at times outside the dinner hour He informed Plume
that he cared not whether Plume was for or against the
Union
Tenney admitted telling him that he was not familiar
with seniority clauses in union contracts and that he did
not know whether he could retain Tenney as leadman in
the event the Union came in and operated strictly on
seniority, because two other employees enjoyed greater
seniority The General Counsel does not attack this
seniority statistic
Later in his testimony, Plume corroborated Tenney in
some respects He admitted that Tenney did discuss his
presence on the second shift with him on this occasion.
Denying that Tenney told him not to appear on the
second shift to talk with the employees, he then admitted
that Tenney spoke to him about not appearing on the
second shift and directed him not to visit there except to
meet his wife for dinner. When asked if he spoke with
employees on the second shift, he admitted speaking with
the maintenanceman. He denied Tenney's version as to
seniority dictating the choice of a leadman I note, too,
that Plume continued to support the Union, undeterred by
the foregoing, and was not removed from his position of
leadman
In view of Plume's ultimate partial corroboration of
Tenney as to his second shift activity and, in essence, his
admission that Tenney had taken up with him precisely
what Tenney claimed to be the purpose of the meeting, I
credit the testimony of Tenney herein which falls within
the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act
2 Mary Klein, a former employee since discharged by
Foreman Russ Silva, testified that in early December 1968
she was undergoing training by employee Frances Silva;
not related to the foreman She heard Frances ask
Foreman Silva what would happen if the Union got in.
Silva responded that Respondent would not have a union,
that it would rather move the plant and that, although he
was not supposed to say this, Respondent could hire
employees in Mexico for 48 cents an hour Frances Silva,
still an employee, helped Klein very little. She had no
recollection of Klein being present and recalled only that
on one occasion, prior to Thanksgiving she asked
Foreman Silva about the Union He replied that he was
part of management and could not discuss it with her.
Foreman Silva recalled Klein being on the scene, but
testified that Frances Silva asked his opinion of the
Union He replied only that he believed Respondent did
not need one and denied that they then discussed a plant
move In view of the fact that the testimony of Klein is
supported by neither of the Silvas, I credit the testimony
of Foreman Silva herein.
3 Linda Plume, the wife of Ted Plume and an
employee, had been on maternity leave of absence at the
time of the hearing, Russell Silva was also her foreman
She testified that she had a lengthy talk with Silva 2 days
before the election inquiring of him when the plant would
be moving He asked what she meant and she replied that
the girls in the plant were convinced that the plant would
move if the Union won the election.
Silva responded that it was against the law to say the
plant would move in this event, but that there was nothing
to prevent such a move in the future for other reasons
after the union problems were settled Plume asked where
cheaper labor could be found and Silva responded that
Respondent was paying but 47 or 48 cents an hour in
Mexico Plume next inquired about existing laws to
protect organizing employees and Silva replied that laws
were made to be bent
Plume asked if it would be cheaper to give the girls a
raise than to move the plant Silva replied that
Respondent could grant a 5-cent raise in January, but that
it would be less costly to move the plant. She attempted a
second talk with him on the following night but he
refused, giving several reasons, including one that she was
attempting to lead him on
Silva testified only that on one occasion early in
January Plume asked him many technical questions about
matters as the wage rates in Mexico and tariff problems
and denied that he made any statement about laws being
bent. I note also that Plume testified that she had gone to
union representatives with these questions, that they had
not responded but had suggested she seek the answers
from the employer and she duly did so
The caliber of this testimony by Plume is not
impressive when considered in the framework of the talk.
Her persistent and extended questioning is directly
consistent with an attempt to trap a management
representative in an incriminating statement I therefore
credit the testimony of Silva herein and recommend the
dismissal of this allegation. In view of all the foregoing
considerations, I find that the evidence does not
preponderate in favor of the position of the General
Counsel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Raytheon Company is an employer whose operations
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO , is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety.