Reliance Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 44 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reliance Electric Company, Madison Plant Mechani-
cal Drives Division and Office & Professional Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local
Number 1
Reliance Electrical Company Madison Plant Mechani-
cal Drives Division and Office & Professional Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO,' Local
Number 1, Petitioner. Cases 25-CA-3794 and 25-
RC-4340
June 11, 1971
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On January 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled con-
solidated proceeding, finding that Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. In addition, the Trial Ex-
aminer found no merit in the Office Employees Union's
Objections 1 and 3 to the election held on May 20,
1970, recommended that they be overruled, and that
the results of the election, which neither union won, be
certified. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
afffirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer'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 only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that a series of
meetings of salaried and clerical employees conducted
by Respondent at its Madison, Indiana, plant prior to
the election did not constitute improper interference
therewith or violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We
disagree for reasons which are set forth below:
Robert M. Lewis, Respondent's production control
manager, testified as follows:
' Herein called Office Employees Union
191 NLRB No. 1
Near the end of February 1970, Lewis who "under-
stood" that the Chemical Workers Union was seeking
recognition for the salaried or clerical employees, held
separate meetings in his office with 5 dispatchers and
5 expediters, and a third meeting in the conference
room with 10 to 15 clerical employees.
The purpose of these meetings was "to hear sugges-
tions from the employees as to their jobs, what we
might do to help them, and ... to voice any complaints
so we might adjust [them] where possible." Prior to this
time, there were no meetings with small groups of em-
ployess for "this specific purpose."2
James Bell, Respondent's plant personnel manager,
who attended these meetings, testified that the manage-
ment staff was apprised before the meetings of a letter
from the Chemical Workers "claiming representa-
tion."' Bell also stated that the meetings were "to some
degree ... complaint sessions" at which employees
talked about their jobs and made some suggestions as
to how they could be improved.
The record further shows that in the first part of
March 1970' the Office Employees Union began a cam-
paign among Respondent's employees, and on March
31 filed a representation petition which was followed on
April 28 by a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election for a unit of office and plant clerical em-
ployees at the Madison plant.'
On May 12, Respondent held a meeting of the unit
employees6 in the second floor conference room. Ed-
ward F. Lannigan, Respondent's vice president of em-
ployee and community relations, who presided, tes-
tified as follows:
We obviously had [what] amounted to a break-
down in communication which is something we
work hard on, because we had gone through two
organizational attempts [by unions] within a short
time ... I explained the Company's philosophy as
far as communications were concerned. [I] out-
lined our policies and practices and benefits .. .
commented on the forthcoming union election.
Three questions were asked by employee Roger
Kuntz: Two dealt with delays or cutbacks in rate re-
views as a penalty for excessive leaves of absence or
absenteeism of employees including Kuntz or "some-
one connected with him." Kuntz also asked why Re-
spondent, which had just agreed to a wage increase for
its mechanics, did not consider doing likewise for cer-
2 However, Lewis had in the past held "orientation" meetings from time
to time.
' As indicated by the Trial Examiner, this union did not subsequently file
a representation petition and apparently abandoned its efforts to organize
the employees
° Unless otherwise indicated, all dates below are for 1970
The participating unions were the Petitioner and the Intervenor, Dis-
trict 90, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO.
6 Virtually all of the 60 employees in the unit were present.
RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY
tain salaried employees. Lannigan did not give specific
answers to Kuntz' questions but did point out that the
wage increase for the machinists had been negotiated
with the IAM.
A fourth question asked by an expediter about a
program with which Lannigan was not familiar was
"fielded" by another Respondent official, Charlton
Campbell, manager of industrial relations for the me-
chanical drives division.
Campbell testified as follows concerning the May 12
meeting: Basically it was "a communications type of
meeting." Lannigan talked about the benefits available
to employees. There were six or seven questions, in-
cluding three from Kuntz. Campbell did not specify
their subject matter or the nature of the reply thereto.
Bell testified concerning further meetings:
During the 3 days from May 13 to 15, Bell called a
series of eight meetings which took place in the second
floor conference room. Each was attended by Bell, Ed-
win R. Harrison, a division manager, and three to six
salaried and office employees.
The purpose of these sessions was a "communica-
tions type thing. We felt that since we had not long
before that an interest in [a labor] organization ... we
were doing a poor job in communicating to our people
what benefits they had, we needed to explain that to
[the employees]." No threats or promises were made.
Bell and Harrison did not announce to the employees
that "this is a complaint meeting" or "you can air your
complaints."
The meetings were for the most part concerned with
answers to questions about the Company's benefits,
practices, and procedures. A number of individual
complaints were raised by the employees.
There were complaints from Kuntz who expressed
his "unhappiness" with the Company's evaluation of
his job and said it should equal the,wage rate for a
comparable job in the Company's Columbus plant. Bell
responded by explaining the system and procedure but
"made no inference of any adjustment." However, on
cross-examination, Bell conceded that he did not
"know," i.e., remember, whether he or Harrison said
they would "look into" the matter.
Kuntz also asked about a "bumping procedure" and
Bell "probably" answered by quoting from the written
company police as to reductions in force for salaried
employees.
Another matter brought up by Kuntz concerned the
written warnings in connection with his work. Bell and
Harrison said they "would review them so [they] would
know what [Kuntz] was talking about."
Finally, Kuntz said that the toolcrib attendant was
getting more money than Kuntz. Bell could not recall
whether he or Harrison said they would try to find out
about this complaint.
45
Employee Delores Hulgarth complained that she
had no calculator or auditing machine with which to do
her work. On cross-examination, Bell stated he did not
"know" who answered the questions and that he did
not "know" whether "somebody said they'd look into
it."
Employee Boyer cited a problem that the expediters
were having and asserted that he felt that the expediters
needed to be reevaluated. Bell or Harrison explained
the procedure for seeking reevaluation but Bell did not
say that he would "look into it." Boyer also complained
about the change of hours for expediters. While neither
Bell nor Harrison said they would "look into it," Bell
stated on cross-examination that he "thought," but
"was not sure," that Harrison confined himself to say-
ing that changes of hours are "part of all our jobs."
Harrison testified as follows:
During May 12 to 15, Harrison and Bell met with
groups of three to six employees for 2- to 3-hour peri-
ods on 11 occasions.
The purpose was communicating with the employees
and answering questions in regard to company policy.
Management officials did not tell the employees that
the purpose was to provide an opportunity to "air their
complaints." However, there "were individual com-
plaints raised about ... job situations."
Bell and Harrison "essentially left any of the com-
plaint[s] ... and criticisms as unanswered question[s]"
as management did not wish to make "promises or
threats during this union activity."
When Kuntz complained about his job as compared
to one in Columbus, Harrison and Bell merely "heard"
his complaint. However, Harrison stated on cross-
examination that he "was not sure" what Bell said in
reply.
It is clear from the foregoing that the meetings held
by Respondent at its plant in February and May 1970
took place because of the organizational campaigns of
the two unions. Thus, when Respondent received a
letter from the Chemical Workers "claiming represen-
tation," Respondent's production control manager,
Lewis, conducted a number of separate meetings with
small groups of salaried and clerical employees for the
purpose of soliciting "complaints" from, these em-
ployees and making "adjustments." Significantly,
meetings "for this specific purpose" had not been held
prior to this time.
With the fading of the organizational efforts of the
Chemical Workers, no further meetings were held in
ensuing months until the Office Employees Union came
upon the scene. In the' 4-day period of May 12, to 15,
about a week before the election, Respondent em-
barked upon a series of at least nine meetings of pro-
longed duration. As the Trial Examiner found, Re-
spondent officials "solicited questions from [unit
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees] regarding their jobs, their benefits, and
their working conditions."
While Bell and Harrison testified that they did not
announce to the employees that the group meetings of
February 13 to 15 were for the purpose of "airing their
complaints," their testimony nevertheless shows, and
the Trial Examiner found, that the employees did in
fact proceed to "air their complaints." Although Harri-
son testified that employee complaints made at the May
meetings remained unanswered, Harrison conceded on
cross-examination that he "was not sure" what Bell
said in his reply to a complaint from Kuntz with re-
spect to the latter's job as compared to a similar one in
Respondent's Columbus plant. Bell also conceded that
he did not remember whether he or Harrison had
promised to "look into" that particular complaint. Bell
further conceded that he could not recall whether he or
Harrison had promised to find about or "look into" a
complaint of Kuntz as to his receiving less pay than the
toolcrib attendant. Similarly, Bell admitted, with re-
spect to Hulgarth's complaint about her need for an
auditing machine, that he did not "know" who re-
sponded thereto or whether "somebody" promised this
would be "looked into." Finally, Bell did recall that he
and Harrison promised Kuntz they would "review" the
latter's complaint regarding the written warnings about
his work.
Where, as here, an employer, who has not previously
had a practice of soliciting employee grievances or
complaints, adopts such a course when unions engage
in organizational campaigns seeking to represent em-
ployees, we think there is a compelling inference that
he is implicitly promising to correct those inequities he
discovers as a result of his inquiries and likewise urging
on his employees that the combined program of inquiry
and correction will make union representation un-
necessary.'
As noted above, there is no doubt that a management
official solicited complaints at the February meetings
and explicitly promised employees that Respondent
would strive to adjust them. While the management
officials, who conducted the May meetings, phrased
their replies to some of the complaints in such circum-
spect terms as undertaking to "look into" or "review"
them, or could not recall whether they made a similar
response to other complaints, such cautious language,
or even a refusal to commit Respondent to specific
corrective action, does not cancel the employees' antici-
pation of improved conditions if the employees oppose
or vote against the unions.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, particularly
the timing of the February and the May meetings
which coincided with the organizational campaigns of
the unions, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
7 See Raytheon Company, 188 NLRB No. 42.
that all of these meetings violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act and that the May meetings interfered with the
freedom of choice of the employees in the election.' We
shall therefore order appropriate remedial action and
direct a second election.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Reliance Electric Company, Madison Plant, Me-
chanical Drives Division, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Office & Professional Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, Local Number 1, and District 90,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties,
we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All office clerical and plant clerical employees at
the Employer's Madison, Indiana, plant, but ex-
cluding all confidential secretaries, nurses, profes-
sional employees, production and maintenance
employees, all other employees, and guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. By interfering with its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as set
forth above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. By its conduct, as set forth above, Respondent has
interfered with its employees' freedom of choice in se-
lecting a bargaining representative, and such conduct
warrants setting aside the election conducted on May
20, 1970, in Case 25-RC-4340.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Reliance
Electric Company, Madison Plant, Mechanical Drives
Division, Madison, Indiana, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
' As the February meetings occurred before the critical period in Case
25-RC-4340, we rely thereon for background purposes only in sustaining
Objections 1 and 3 in said representation case.,
RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Conducting meetings with groups of its em-
ployees for the purpose of hearing and adjusting em-
ployee grievances or complaints and explicitly or im-
pliedly promising them economic benefits or improved
working conditions in order to interfere with their
choice of a bargaining representative, or as an induce-
ment to reject and refrain from activities in support of
Office & Professional Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Local Number 1; District 90, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO; or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Office
& Professional Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, Local Number 1 or District 90, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Madison, Indiana, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately 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 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.'
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those found in this Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in
Case 25-RC-4340 on May 20, 1970, be, and hereby is,
set aside, and that the case be remanded to the aforesaid
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a new
election in the appropriate unit at such time as he
deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
' In the event that this 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board "
47
[Direction of Second Election1tomitted from publica-
tion.]
10 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S 759.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that 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 25 within 7 days after the
date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director.
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.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT conduct meetings with groups of
our employees for the purpose of hearing and ad-
justing their grievances or complaints, and directly
or impliedly promising them benefits or improved
working conditions , in order to discourage our
employees from voting, joining , or supporting
Office & Professional Employees International
Union , AFL-CIO, Local Number 1 or District 90,
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers , AFL-CIO , or by any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with our employees in the exercise of
their organizational rights guaranteed under the
National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any
labor organization , as guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
RELIANCE ELECTRIC
COMPANY, MADISON
PLANT, MECHANICAL
DRIVES DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, In-
dianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge, filed
by Office & Professional Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Local Number 1' (hereinafter called the Union),
on May 22, 1970,2 a complaint and notice of hearing'was
issued on July 23 by the Regional Director for Region 25. The
complaint alleged that Reliance Electric Company, Madison
Plant, Mechanical Drives Division (hereinafter called the Re-
spondent), engaged in certain unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent filed an
answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the com-
plaint, but denied committing any unfair labor practices. The
complaint case was consolidated with a representation case
involving the same parties (Case 25-RC-4340) for a ruling on
objections filed by the Union concerning conduct alleged to
have affected the results of the Board-conducted election held
on May 20.
The consolidated cases were tried before me on October 20
and 21, in Madison, Indiana . All parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and
to introduce relevant evidence on the issues. Briefs were sub-
mitted by all counsel and were fully considered by me in
arriving at my decision in this case.
Upon,the entire record herein, including my evaluation of
the testimony of the witnesses, based on my observation of
their demeanor and upon consideration of the relevant evi-
dence, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISIDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation and maintains
its principal office in Cleveland, Ohio. As part of its business
operations the Respondent maintains and operates a facility
located in Madison, Indiana, wherein it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of electric motors and
related products. This is the only facility of the Respondent
involved in these proceedings. During the past calendar year,
in the course of its business operations, the Respondent
manufactured, sold, and distributed products from its Madi-
son, Indiana, facility valued in excess of $50,000. The
products were shipped from Madison, Indiana, directly to
points located in States other than the State of Indiana. On
the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Office & Professional Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Local Number 1, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' The name of the Union appears as indicated on the petition filed in the
representation case . The AFL-CIO designation was not contained on the
charge or the complaint.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to the year 1970.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union's campaign to organize the Respondent's em-
ployees began the first week in March, Harriet Craft, business
representative for the Union, received information which
caused her to contact Roger Kuntz, an employee of the Re-
spondent. As a result of this initial contact, Craft supplied
Kuntz with authorization cards for signature by the Re-
spondent's employees. Kuntz began soliciting signatures
shortly thereafter. His solicitations for the most part were
confined to the Respondent's premises during his lunch hours
and after work. He stated that he continued soliciting on
behalf of the Union until the beginning of May. Kuntz tes-
tified that Foreman Hartman came into his office during the
early part of May and stated that he wished Kuntz would
conduct his "activities" outside the plant. There was no men-
tion of the Union or what kind of activities Hartman had in
mind. However, Kuntz stated that Hartman was irritated at
him "anyway," for some reason which Kuntz did not dis-
close. Upon further questioning, Kuntz placed the conversa-
tion in late March or early April. He then testified that he
solicited signatures from the employees throughout March
and part of April, and he thought the conversation with
Hartman "probably" took place during the latter part of
March. Kuntz subsequently testified that the incident with
Hartman occurred after he ceased solciting signatures from
the employees
Kuntz testified to another conversation he had with Hart-
man in the plant. Kuntz stated'this conversation occurred
several weeks before the election. According to Kuntz, Hart-
man stopped him in the hallway and stated that he would like
to see Kuntz "keep his nose clean" because eventually the
Madison and Columbus plants' were going to split and he
would have a good job for Kuntz. There was no mention of
the Union or the employees' union activities during this con-
versation, nor was there any indication what Hartman meant
by cautioning Kuntz to keep his nose clean.
On March 30, the Union held a meeting with the Respond-
ent's employees at a local hall owned by the Carpenters
Union. A number of the Respondent's employees attended
the meeting, including Kuntz and Wilhelm; the latter was a
dispatcher in the production control department. Wilhelm
testified that several days after the meeting, Hearne, super-
visor of timekeeping and payroll, spoke to him at the coffee
machines and asked if he had attended the union meeting and
who was the spokesman for the employees. Wilhelm stated
that he replied it was just a question-and-answer session.4
Because the Union's organizing campaign was the second
attempt within a year by a union to organize the Respond-
ent's salaried employees,' top management officials met with
' The Madison and Columbus, Indiana, plants comprised the mechanical
drives division of the Respondent's company.
Hearne was not Wilhelm's supervisor at the time of the conversation,
however, he was a personal friend of the employee Wilhelm testified that
Hearne made his inquiry in a friendly manner and he did not recall who
initiated the conversation.
' Although the time period is not completely clear in this record, the
Chemical Workers Union attempted to organize the Respondent' s salaried
employees during the latter months of 1969. This campaign apparently
continued through January and the first part of February of the following
year. Other than sending the Respondent a letter claiming representation,
the Chemical Workers Union did not file a petition and apparently aban-
doned their efforts to organize the employees
During the Chemical Workers campaign Wilhelm had a conversation with
Hearne similar to the conversation described after the union meeting on
March 30. Wilhelm asked Hearne questions concerning that union and
Hearne suggested that he attend a scheduled union meeting to find out the
answers for himself. Wilhelm testified that after the meeting he was ap-'
proached by Hearne in the plant and asked who was the main employee
spokesman.
RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY
the employees in a series of meetings in May in order to
inform them of the benefits available through the Respond-
ent's employment program. Edward Lannigan , vice president
in charge of employee and community relations , testified that
he was concerned about an apparent "breakdown in com-
munications" between the officials of the Company and the
employees. He attributed the two successive organizing cam-
paigns to the fact that the employees had not been made
aware of the Respondent 's policies and practices and the
benefits to which they were entitled.
Because of this concern, Lannigan held a meeting with all
of the salaried employees on May 12 in the plant conference
room . Lannigan was the main spokesman for management
and he was accompanied by Campbell , manager of industrial
relations for the Mechanical Drives Division . They were the
only management officials at the meeting . According to Lan-
nigan , he explained the Respondent 's philosophy (presuma-
bly with respect to treatment of its employees ) and informed
the employees of the Company 's policies and practices and of
the benefits which were available to them . He also explained
the mechanics of the pending Board election , and told the
employees that if the Union were voted in a contract would
have to be negotiated . Campbell recalled that Lannigan also
explained that the Respondent had contracts with other
unions and that, if the Union won the pending election, all
matters would be subject to negotiation . Questions were en-
couraged from the employees , and both Lannigan and Camp-
bell recalled that Kuntz asked certain specific questions
which they attempted to answer . Lannigan testified that
Kuntz asked about management 's practice of penalizing em-
ployees for taking excessive leave by holding up or cutting
back on the employees' rate review . He also asked , according
to Lannigan, about the rate reviews as they applied specifi-
cally, to, him . Kuntz suggested that the Respondent give a
wage differential for the differences in skills of the salaried
employees since the union (IAM) representing the
production employees had negotiated such differentials for
the skilled workers in the plant. In each instance Lannigan
and Campbell recalled that general answers regarding the
Company's practices and policies were given in response to
the specific questions . They denied making statements about
taking away any of the benefits presently enjoyed by the
employees if the Union were successful in the election.
Kuntz was the only employee who testified concerning the
May 12 meeting , and his recollection of what transpired diff-
ered materially from that of Lannigan and Campbell. In his
affidavit given the Regional Office during the invesigation of
the charges in this case, Kuntz indicated that Harrison was
the management official who conducted the meeting-on May
12. When he testified however , he stated that he now recalled
that Campbell and Bell were the management representatives
at the meeting. He made no mention of Lannigan being
present at the meeting at- all. Kuntz testified that Campbell
told the employees that if they were represented by a union
they would lose all existing benefits. He further testified that
Campbell stated the Respondent would set the employees'
stock purchase plan aside and would not even discuss the
matter . Kuntz stated that he attempted to ask questions of
Campbell but that he was ignored . Although he could not
recall the specific questions he sought to ask , his affidavit
indicated that he asked Campbell if the employees' benefits
would not be negotiable in the event that the Union became
their representative and Campbell ignored him.
49
Because they were of the opinion that the large group
meeting with the employees was ineffective since only a few
questions were asked, Harrison, division manager, and Bell,
plant personnel manager, jointly met with small groups of the
salaried employees in the plant conference room during the
following 3 days. Each of these individuals acknowledged
that they were concerned about "communicating" with the
employees regarding the benefits given and the policies and
practices followed by the Respondent . The meetings were
held with small groups ranging between four and six em-
ployees. The management officials solicited questions from
them regarding their jobs , their benefits, and their working
conditions . Both Bell and Harrison testified that they did not
tell the employees that the meeting was a "complaint ses-
sion," but rather that the purpose was to answer all questions
employees had concerning the company policies regarding
them and their working conditions.
Wilhelm testified that he and three or four other clerical
employees were called into the conference room to meet with
Harrison and Bell. According to Wilhelm , the employees
were told that the purpose of the meeting was to get them into
small groups to express their complaints and management
would try to work out a solution . Wilhelm testified that he
asked Harrison and Bell a question concerning the rates of
pay if the Union got in , and he was told that it would be a
subject of negotiation . Wilhelm complained about receiving
two written reprimands from his immediate supervisor re-
garding his "negative attitude " and job performance. He
stated that Bell said he would look into the reason for the
reprimands and that Bell explained the policy followed by the
Respondent on employees ' rate reviews.
Kuntz was called into the conference room along with four
or five other employees on May 15 . Kuntz testified that Har-
rison told the employees they could voice their complaints
and management would attempt to resolve them before they
got out of hand. Kuntz recalled Bell telling the employees
that the management officials were there for "them to chew
on." Kuntz testified that he asked about his job reevaluation
and why the Respondent 's officials had not acted upon it. He
stated that he was told this could not be done until the elec-
tion was over. He complained about the fact that an employee
at the Columbus plant was doing similar work and receiving
a higher salary . He testified -that he was told management
would look into the matter and get back to him . Complaints
were also expressed about holes in the parking lot, and Kuntz
claimed that Bell and Harrison said the matter would be
taken care of. Various other complaints were expressed by
other employees such as changes in-hours and lack of proper
equipment , among other things. Kuntz was not certain, how-
ever, what management 's response was as he claimed only to
be concerned about his own particular situation . The em-
ployees were also instructed at these meetings on the mechan-
ics of voting in the coming election. However; both Kuntz
and Wilhelm stated that the management `officials did not tell
or suggest how they should vote, they simply reviewed the
procedures to be followed in the election.
Bell and Harrison acknowledged that they encouraged
questions from the employees , but both stated that they did
not indicate to the employees that their complaints would be
resolved . They stated that they explained to Kuntz the Re-
spondent's policy on job reevaluation , but made no promise
to look into his particular case. And they denied that they
told the employees that they would lose any current benefits,
but did tell them that if the Union won the election all things
would have to be negotiated. Each of the meetings with the
small groups of employees lasted from 2 to 3 hours.
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The election was held on May 20. Twenty-four votes were
cast for the Union, 1 for the Intervenor,' and 32 votes were
cast against representation by any union. Objections were
filed by the Union concerning conduct affecting the election
and the instant charge was filed concerning the matters de-
tailed above.
Concluding Findings
The General Counsel takes the position that the Respond-
ent made promises to the employees to correct the matters
about which they complained at the meetings and threatened
to deprive the employees of existing benefits if the Union were
elected their bargaining representative. The General Counsel
also contends that an employee was unlawfully interrogated
by one of the Respondent's supervisors in order to get him to
reveal the identity of the main employee spokesman at the
union meetings. It is urged that this conduct restrained and
interfered with the employees' organizational rights within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that it also
constituted grounds for setting aside the election held on May
20. In support of this argument the General Counsel relies
heavily on Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corporation 169
NLRB No. 11. In that case the employer conducted a number
of meetings with groups of employees and invited them to air
their grievances'. It was found that as a result of these meet-
ings the employer took certain action on complaints voiced
by the employees and made veiled promises to grant them
certain benefits in response to their complaints. It was held
that the employer engaged in this conduct out of a desire to
bring about the defeat of the union in a pending election and
that such activity interfered with the organizational rights of
the employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act under, N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts, 375 U.S. 405.
In my judgment, however, the evidence in the instant case
fails to preponderate in favor of a finding similar to that of
Fairchild Camera. The Respondent's officials candidly ad-
mitted they were concerned about being confronted with two
successive union organizing campaigns and felt that they had
failed in "communicating" with the employees. It is clear
from the evidence that this euphemistic expression meant
that the officials felt they had failed in selling the Respond-
ent's employment program and practices to the employees.
The Act does not require an employer to adopt a passive or
neutral role during a union organizing campaign. But in ac-
tively meeting the challenge of unionization it is mandatory
that the employer not interfere with the protected right of the
employees to organize by making threats of reprisal or force
against them or promise benefits in order to infringe upon
their freedom of choice for or against unionization. N.L. R.B.
v. Exchange Parts,Cd., 375 US. 405; see. also Section 8(c) of
the Act. I
My-examination of the evidence'; in this-caseand my, review
of the testimony leads ,me-to conclude:that.the Respondent
didinot interfere with, the protected, rights -of the, employees
during the meeting on May 12 or during the small group.
meetings which followed thereafter. The management ofli--
cials credibly testified that they were concerned over the fact
that the employees did not know or were not well informed
about the existing benefits- they were receiving or about the
policies followed by the management regarding salaried em-
ployees.
' District 90, International Association of Machinists , and Aerospace
Workers, AEL-QIO, was the collective-bargaining representative of the
producsion ,anddnaintenanee employees and intervened in the representa-
tionrcase '
Kuntz was the witness who gave the most incriminating
testimony contradicting the Respondent's version of what
was said at these meetings . I find , however , that his testimony
was generally unreliable in many critical areas . For example,
Kuntz stated that Campbell and Bell conducted the meeting
on May 12, but indicated in his affidavit that Harrison and
Bell were the management spokesmen . However it is clear
that Lannigan , a vice president from the Cleveland office, was
the main management representative and he was accom-
panied by Campbell . It seems highly improbable that Kuntz
would have forgotten that this particular meeting was con-
ducted by a high management official from the Respondent's
main office, and it casts doubt on his entire version of what
occurred at the meeting . Each of the management officials
testified regarding specific questions asked by Kuntz and the
response given to him . However, he testified that his ques-
tions were ignored. Further evidence of Kuntz' unreliability
as a witness is indicated in his recital of a conversation with
Foreman Hartman wherein the latter told Kuntz he wished
he would conduct his activities outside the plant . Kuntz first
testified that the conversation took place in May , then he
subsequently placed it in April and finally during the latter
part of March . In addition, my own observation of this wit-
ness gave me the distinct impression that he was more inter-
ested in tailoring his testimony to construct a violation than
in giving an accurate account of the facts as he knew them.
For these reasons I find that Kuntz' testimony was generally
unreliable and I discredit him in areas where there is a con-
flict.
Accordingly, I find that Campbell did not tell the em-
ployees of May 12 that they would lose all of their existing
benefits and that the Respondent would set aside the em-
ployees ' stock purchase plan if the Union became their repre-
sentative . I also find that when Kuntz complained about the
reevaluation of 'his job and the fact that he felt an employee
at the Columbus plant was performing the same work but
receiving a higher wage , the Respondent 's officials explained
the Company's evaluation procedure and told him they
would look into his complaint but made no promise to correct
or to adjust his particular problem . I further find that the
management officials gave no indication, expressed or im-
plied, that they would adjust or change the conditions about
which the employees complained during the course of the
meeting.
Similarly , in the small group meetings - with the salaried
employees, Harrison and Bell did not promise , the-employees
that they would change any, conditions,ov that they would
adjust . any complaints. [also find it, highly significant that, at'
no time'during thee course-,of `these. meetings did any of the.
management, officials attempt, to persuade- the employees to
vote against the Union, or in any way seep , to impinge upon.,
their freedom = of, choice in the pending election.
Although it is, not specifically , raised, there is a strong
inference in, this,,,. case that; by holdingt the meetings in the
conference roorwin the4plant, thegrouptalks were objection-
able under the' Generai^S'hoe doctrine.' The, facts, however,
indicate . otherwise. The- conference . room , according to the
testimony, waszused for training classes, rtmeetingsby°various
departments, andialso^as,anaarea, -where some.niglit classes
wereeheld: Ih.these circumstances ;-, L fmdAhatitherusecofi1th
conference room for theegrouptetizigswith the employees
did- not violate the General Shbei doctrine . Three Oaks, Inc.,
178 NLRB , Noy 87; MArshall Durbin and Companypof'9dspen.
Inc., 179 NLRB- No. 170.
''lenerabShoeCorporat:on,nMdmattr&ag Plant 97 NLRB' 499.
RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY
The testimony relating to the two conversations between
Kuntz and Foreman Hartman does not, in my judgment, rise
above the level of mere speculation . Kuntz testified that on
one occasion Hartman came into his office and that he was
angry at Kuntz over other matters . According to Kuntz,
Hartman stated that he wished Kuntz would conduct his
activities outside of the plant. There was no reference to the
Union or to Kuntz' activities on behalf of the Union during
this brief encounter . Likewise , when Hartman told him that
the Madison and Columbus plants were going to split and
that there would be a job for Kuntz if he kept his nose clean
there was no mention of the Union or union activities. Hart-
man's statements could just as easily be construed as referring
to matters unrelated to the employee 's union activities as they
could to his involvement with the Union . Therefore, it is
necessary to indulge in speculation in order to conclude that
Hartman was referring to Kuntz' union activities in each
instance. This I am not prepared to do. In these circum-
stances, I find that the General Counsel has raised the spectre
of a red flag but has failed to provide the substantive material
necessary to attract the bull.
The last incident which warrants consideration here is the
conversation between Wilhelm and Hearne . By Wilhelm's
own testimony , he and Hearne had a close personal relation-
ship . Hearne was not his foreman at the time that he asked
Wilhelm who was the employee spokesman at the union
meeting in March . There is no indication in the record who
initiated the conversation and there is every evidence that this
was a discussion between friends rather than a discussion
between an employee and a supervisor. But even if it were not,
this was an isolated incident and there is no evidence that
Hearne had any such conversations with any other em-
ployees, or that other employees were aware of his discussion
with Wilhelm . In these circumstances , I find that the conver-
sation between Wilhelm and Hearne did not constitute a
violation of the Act.'
51
In sum , I find that the evidence contained in the record as
a whole is not sufficient to support a conclusion that the
Respondent interfered with , restrained , or coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
The conduct alleged to constitute a violation of Section
8(a)(1) was also conduct which was alleged to have affected
the results of the election on May 20. On the basis of the
above, I find that the Respondent did not interfere with the
free and untrammeled choice of the employees in the election.
Accordingly, I recommend that the objections be overruled
and the results of the election be certified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Reliance Electric Company , Madison Plant , Mechanical
Drives Division, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office & Professional Employees International Union,
Local Number 1, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not interfere with , restrain, or co-
erce its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the entire record in this case , I recom-
mend that the allegations of the complaint herein be dis-
missed in their entirety.
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that Objections 1 and 3 filed by
the Union on May 22 and cited as conduct affecting the
results of the election be overruled and the results of the
election be certified.
8 Cf Home Comfort Products Co., 180 NLRB No 89.