Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1982

263 N.L.R.B. 420 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

ROSEWOOD MFG. CO., INC.
Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers, Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 26-RC-6469
August 16, 1982
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMAN
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered the objections to an
election held on December 18, 1981, and the Re-
gional Director's report recommending disposition
of same.' The Board has reviewed the record in
light of the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts
the Regional Director's findings and recommenda-
tions.
Our dissenting colleague finds that the Employ-
er's campaign in the instant case was fully protect-
ed by Section 8(c) of the Act. However, he ne-
glects to note that for over three decades the
Board has maintained that Section 8(c) was intend-
ed by Congress to apply only to unfair labor prac-
tice cases and not representation proceedings. Gen-
eral Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124 (1948). See
also Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB
1782 (1962). In light of this longstanding precedent,
we see no reason why it should be changed at this
time. See also Blue Cross of Kansas City, Inc. and
Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc., 259 NLRB 483, fn.
2 (1981).
In evaluating preelection conduct in a represen-
tation proceeding, it must be determined whether,
under all the circumstances, the conduct in ques-
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was 39 for, and 53 against, the
Petitioner; there was I challenged ballot, which was insufficient to affect
the results.
tion "destroyed the laboratory conditions in which
the Board must hold its elections and prevented the
employees' expression of a free choice in the elec-
tion." Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., supra at 1787.
See also Liquid Transporters, Inc., 257 NLRB 345
(1981), and Turner Shoe Company, Inc. and Carmen
Athletic Industries, Inc., 249 NLRB 144 (1980). In
the instant case, we agree with the Regional Direc-
tor's determination that the Employer's emphasis
on linking the selection of the union with unprofi-
tability, low productivity, subsequent plant closure,
and loss of jobs was coercive, thereby destroying
the laboratory conditions and preventing the em-
ployees from expressing a free choice in the elec-
tion. Under these circumstances, we agree with the
Regional Director's recommendation that the elec-
tion be set aside and a second election be held.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.] 2
CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER, dissenting:
I have carefully examined the leaflets and letters
distributed by the Employer during the critical
period, as well as the text of the speech delivered
to employees by Charles Blauer, the Employer's
president. I do not find that his material constitutes
threats to close the plant if it was unionized, nor
threats to employees that it would be futile to vote
for unionization. Rather, in my view, the Employ-
er's campaign was fully protected by Section 8(c)
of the Act, and simply provided the employees
with a different perspective regarding the merits of
unionization.3 Accordingly, I would overrule Ob-
jections 1 and 3, contrary to the recommendation
of the Regional Director, and would remand the
case for hearing on Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
2 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]
3 Contrary to my colleagues, I do not decide that certain statements
protected by Sec. 8(c) of the Act may not nonetheless be objectionable.
What I find here is that the material in question does not constitute
threats and, as such, happens to be protected by Sec. 8(c) as well as being
unobjectionable.
263 NL,RB No. 55
420