S. N. C. Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 809
Information regarding the provisions of this notice or compliance with its terms
may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board,
Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles , California, Telephone
No. 688-5204.
S.N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc. and International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 30-CA-15 (formerly 13-CA-5561) and 30-RC-4 (formerly
13-RC-9218). June 26, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached 'Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that
Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter,' the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging
Party each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and sup-
porting briefs. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) requested permission to file
and filed an amicue brief.
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 and briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.
As fully set forth in his Decision, the Trial Examiner found, and
we agree, that the Respondent violated Section -8 (a) (1) of the Act
by the following conduct: urging and encouraging employees to form,
and deal with the Respondent through, a shop committee rather than
through the Union; promising, granting, and announcing wage in-
creases, paid holidays, a vacation plan, insurance benefits, and other
changes in conditions of employment for the purpose of dissuading
employees from pursuing their quest for union representation; grant-
ing wage increases and promising further benefits after consultation
with the Liaison Committee established and dominated by it for the
purpose of interfering with the free exercise by the employees of their
Section 7 rights; interrogating employees concerning their member-
ship in, sympathies for, or concerted activities on behalf of the
Union; giving employees the impression that their union activities
147 NLRB No. 92.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were under surveillance; and threatening employees with curtailment
or loss of employment, loss of favorable conditions of employment, or
other economic reprisal, and impairment of economic security, if they
selected union representation.' The Trial Examiner also found, and
we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) by its
conduct in dominating, assisting, and supporting the Liaison Com-
mittee, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that on February 26, 1963, a clear
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit had designated the
Union as bargaining agent by the execution of valid authorization
cards; 2 that the Union was the majority representative of the em-
ployees in said unit for collective-bargaining puposes when, by tele-
gram dispatched March 1, it demanded that Respondent recognize and
bargain with it, as such representative; and that, in view of the ex-
tensive and flagrant violations of Section 8(a) (1) engaged in by Re-
spondent which followed the Union's demand, Respondent's refusal on
March 5 to recognize and bargain with the Union without a Board
certification was not based on a good-faith doubt of the Union's
majority, but was for the purpose of undermining that majority
status. Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid conduct Respond-
ent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.'
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that during the critical
preelection period Respondent engaged in a course of conduct which
interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the selection of a
bargaining representative, and his recommendation based thereon that
1In affirming the Trial Examiner 's conclusion in this respect , the Board agrees that a
number of the statements made to employees by Plant Manager Esslinger in the course of
employee interrogation support this latter finding . Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown also agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's _lattec of
March 29, distributing the letters written by Respondent 's paid sales representatives, vio-
at-edSedtion '8(a) (1). Member Leedom would not rely upon any of the letters directed to
employees by Respondent during the election campaign , while Member Brown would affirm
the Trial Examiner's finding , that Respondent ' s March 14, 22 , 26, and 28 letters are also
independently violative of the Act . Chairman McCulloch and Member Fanning, while not
holding the four letters last mentioned to be independently violative of 8(a ) ( 1), neverthe-
less view these letters, when considered in context with Respondent ' s other activities, as
providing substantial additional support for the Trial Examiner's findings ( 1) that Re-
spondent 's refusal to recognize the Union was not motivated by a good -faith doubt of the
Union's majority , and (2 ) that Respondent engaged in a course of conduct that was
calculated to and did interfere with the results of the election. Cf. The Little Rock
Downtowner, Inc., 143 NLRB 887 (TXD).
2 See Peterson Brothers , Inc., 144 NLRB 699.
a As the Board , in Bernet Foam Products Co., Inc. , 1461 NLRB 1277 , reversed the
rule of waiver established in Louis Aiello , et at., d/b/a Aiello Dairy Farms, 110 NLRB
1365 , and applied by the Trial Examiner in his Decision , the effect of that rule in the
circumstances of this case is no longer material.
For the reasons stated in his separate opinion in the Bernet case, Member Leedom
would retain the Aiello rule of waiver , and would, in agreement with the Trial Examiner
herein , find that Respondent had not violated Section 8 ( a)(5) of the Act . Consequently
he would , also in agreement with the Trial Examiner, set aside the election of April 1,
and direct that a new election be held to determine the employees ' desires as to a bargain-
ing representative.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING Co., INC. 811
the election of April 1 be set aside. However, in view of our holding
that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and our order requiring
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union, we do not adopt
the Trial Examiner's further recommendation that a new election be
directed. Instead, and as no current question concerning representa-
tion exists, we now dismiss the petition in Case No. 30-RC-4 (formerly,
13-RC-9218) and vacate all proceedings held in connection therewith.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the Respondent, S.N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following modifications
and additions :
(1) Insert as paragraph 1(a) the following and renumber the re-
maining paragraphs accordingly :
Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The
appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's
coil and assembly plants in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(2) Insert as paragraph 2(a) the following and renumber the re-
maining paragraphs accordingly :
Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of employees at Respondent's plants in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in the unit found appropriate above, and
embody any understanding reached in a signed contract.
(3) Insert the following paragraph as the first indented paragraph
of the notice :
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively, upon request, with
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
IUE, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
our employees in the appropriate unit described below with re-
spect to wages; hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed contract. The appropriate unit is :
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees in the Em-
ployer's coil and assembly plants in Oshkosh, Wisconsin,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These cases which were by Order of the Regional Director consolidated for hear-
ing and decision , were heard before Trial Examiner Joseph I . Nachman at Oshkosh,
Wisconsin , on August 27, 28, and 29 , 1963. The CA case involves allegations by
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter called the Union ), that S .N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc.' ( hereafter
called Respondent or Company ), violated Section 8(a)(1), (2 ), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter called the Act ) .2 The issue
in the RC case is whether Respondent engaged in conduct affecting the results of the
election held in that case on April 1.3 All parties were represented at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses, and to argue orally on the record . At the conclusion of the evidence,
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof. This motion was
taken under advisement and is disposed of in accordance with the findings and con-
clusions hereafter set forth . Oral argument was waived . The parties , including the
Charging Party, have filed comprehensive and helpful briefs, which have been duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
including their demeanor while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTO
1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background generally
Respondent operates two plants in Oshkosh , which are about one-half mile apart;
one known as the coil plant and the other as the assembly plant. John L. Vette, Jr.,
1 The name of Respondent , as set forth above , is In accordance with an amendment to
all pleadings pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
2 The charge was filed April 18, amended April 29 , and further amended May 7. The
complaint issued July 17. All dates mentioned in this Decision are 1963, unless other-
wise noted.
a The chronology in the RC case is as follows: March 5, petition filed ; March 15, stipula-
tion for certification upon consent election executed by the parties, which on March 19
was approved by the Regional Director ; April 1 , election held , in which 75 of the 76 eligible
voters cast ballots, 32 being for the Union , 42 against , with 1 challenged ballot ; April 5,
Union filed objections alleging that prior to the election the Company ( 1) threatened em-
ployees with loss of jobs and other reprisal, and ( 2) interrogated employees concerning
their union activities and beliefs , granted wage Increases and other benefits to influence
the vote, and attempted to assist in the formation of an independent union ; July 19,
Regional Director 's report on objections issued, recommending that because the issues in
the complaint case were closely related , and in some instances identical with those in the
representation case, that they be consolidated for purposes of hearing; August 6, Board
adopted Regional Director ' s recommendation , directed hearing, and permitted consolida-
tion; August 12, order consolidating cases and notice of consolidated hearing issued.
4 No Issue of commerce or that the Union is a labor organization is involved . The com-
plaint alleges and the answer admits the facts necessary to support both conclusions. I so
find. I further find, as alleged in the complaint and admitted by the answer , that all
production and maintenance employees in the Company 's coil and assembly plants in Osh-
kosh, Wisconsin , excluding office employees , office clerical employees , professional em-
ployees, guards , and supervisors , as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 813
is president of the Company; W. R. Daseke is executive vice president and in com-
plete charge in Vette's absence; and Dan I. Esslinger is plant superintendent .5 Late
in 1962 the Union began a campaign to organize the employees in the aforementioned
plants. President Vette admitted that he became aware of the Union's activity in
late January or early February. Plant Superintendent Esslinger testified that while
he became aware of union activity generally in the latter part of 1962, he did not
know what union it was until sometime later. He admitted, however, that he was
aware of the identity of the Union involved when he addressed the employees on
February 26, as hereafter set forth.
B. Chronology of specific events
1. Conduct prior to recognition demand
On February 20, a small group of employees met at the home of one of their
number with Ellis Holland, a field representative of the Union, to discuss organizing
the Company's employees. Holland explained that the employer could, without the
necessity of an election, grant recognition upon the showing of majority status, and
that if an employer did not do so, the Union could petition for an election to estab-
lish its majority status. Holland also explained the Board's rule with respect to a
30-percent showing of interest as a condition precedent to the processing of a peti-
tion, but explained that the Union, as a matter of policy, would not petition unless
it had 60 to 65 percent showing of interest. The employees were given cards to sign,
together with an additional supply to obtain signatures from other employees. Within
5 days 51 cards had been signed by Respondent's employees 6 Because of their
format and language, and for other reasons, Respondent contends the cards were not
executed with the intent of designating the Union as bargaining agent, hence the
pertinent portion of the card is set forth. It is as follows:
Petition and Authorization to Show That
I WANT AN N.L.R.B. ELECTION NOW
I, the undersigned, an employee of hereby
authorize the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
IUE-AFL-CIO, to petition the National Labor Relations Board for an election
as soon as possible.
I authorize the IUE-AFL-CIO to act as my bargaining agent with the Com-
pany in, regard to wages, hours, and working conditions?
During the morning of February 26, Plant Superintendent Esslinger spoke first to
the assembled employees in the coil plant, and later that morning to the assembled
employees in the assembly plant. There is very little, if any, dispute as to the sub-
stance of the discussion during Esslinger's meetings with the employees., Esslinger
admits that he told the employees that he could not understand why they had to
bring in an outsider, and that it would be better if the employees could bargain
directly, perhaps through a shop committee. He asked the employees to tell him
what their "gripes" were, and what they really wanted. Some employees mentioned
higher wages, others mentioned paid holidays and hospitalization insurance. To these
suggestions Esslinger admittedly replied, "When these things are feasible, we will
have them," and "You can't get blood out of a stone." Esslinger admits that in both
meetings he asked "the employees to, among themselves, elect or appoint-I didn't
care how they did it but we wanted a representative group to meet with manage-
ment and iron out their differences." When this suggestion was made at the meet-
ing in the assembly plant, one of the foremen attending the meeting suggested that
the assembly plant employees proceed forthwith to the coil plant to discuss the matter
with the employees there. Esslinger approved, saying, "I don't care how long it takes
as long as we accomplish something." The employees left for the coil plant at
5 Respondent admits the supervisory status of the aforementioned persons, as well as
that of Foremen James Crahen, Joseph Metko,_ and Charles Ziebill and Assistant Foreman
Audrey Hammon, who will be hereinafter referred to.
6 Six cards were signed February 20; 22 cards on February 21 ; 18 cards on February 22
(which was a Friday) ; 4 cards on February 25; and 1 card on February 26; or a total
of 51. As hereafter found total employment in the unit was 76.
7 The second line is in heavy black type which is larger than that on the remainder of
the card. The efficiency of the cards as designations of the Union as bargaining agent is
hereinafter discussed.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11:45 a.m., returning to the assembly plant something after 1 p.m. They were paid
for all the elapsed time, after deducting one-half hour for the lunch period. At this
joint meeting (which Esslinger did not attend), the employees discussed the pros and
cons of a shop committee as against the Union . This issue was put to a vote, and,
while no actual count was made, a substantial majority indicated a preference for
the Union $;
2. The demand for recognition
On March 1 , the Union sent the Company a telegram stating that a majority of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees had designated the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative , and that recognition and bargaining was
requested . Respondent admittedly received this telegram during the morning of
March 2.9 On March 5, Superintendent Esslinger and Vice President Daseke, on
behalf of the Company, consulted counsel, and on the same day advised the Union
by letter that it had no knowledge whether or not the Union represented a majority
of the employees ; that the employees should have the right to determine union
recognition by a secret ballot ; and that recognition would not be granted unless
a majority of the employees designated the Union as bargaining agent in a Board-
conducted election . Also on March 5, the Union filed its petition in the representa-
tive case , and Esslinger became aware of this fact on March 6 or 7.10
3. Respondent's preelection campaign
The General Counsel contends that between March 7 and April 1 Respondent
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and which affected the
results of the election . This conduct is, so far as possible , set forth chronologically.
1. By letter dated March 7, Respondent advised its employees that their benefits
were being changed by granting them (a ) six paid holidays after 8 weeks' probation-
ary employment ; ( b) an additional week of vacation after 5 or more years of con-
tinuous employment ; ( c) Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans for employees and
dependents, cost to be borne equally by the employee and the Company; and (d) an
adjustment in the pay rate of certain employees , which would be reflected in their
paychecks of March 15 . 11 It was stipulated that 45 of the 76 employees in the
unit received wage adjustments ranging from 5 to 15 cents per hour . Esslinger
admitted that a wage increase of this extent was unusual , and that the last one of
such nature that he could recall was given in 1962 in anticipation of the increase
in the minimum wage made necessary by amendments to the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act.
2. Between March 14 and 29 , Respondent sent its employees a series of six letters,
designed to dissuade them from selecting union representation . In the first letter
dated March 14,12 signed by Plant Superintendent Esslinger , reference is made that
about April 1 , the Board will hold an election so that the employees may "decide
if they want the IUE Union to control their job affairs ." After commenting on
a pamphlet distributed by the Union , and that the Federal Government "is over $300
billion in debt, without any prospect of paying this money back," the letter continues:
Maybe the Government can constantly go deeper in debt , but when a
business spends more than it takes in for too long, bankruptcy results, and then
the jobs the business provided aregone.
8 The findings in this paragraph are based on the admissions by Esslinger , and the
testimony of Grace Shafer , Judith Hebert, Theresa Lewis , Marie Beyer , and Evelyn
Sheppard , which to the extent above referred to, is not controverted.
9 It was stipulated that an eligibility list compiled on March 2 would have been the same
as the list prepared by Esslinger and which was in fact used at the Board election held
April 1. The eligibility list prepared for the election , and which is in evidence, shows
76 persons employed in the 2 plants as of the payroll period ending March 9.
11 The findings in this paragraph are based on uncontroverted documentary evidence,
and on the admissions of Esslinger.
11 Prior to this announcement the employees received no paid holidays , 1 week's vaca-
tion after 5 years , and while Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans were available , the entire
cost was borne by the employee . The announcement provided that the changes would be
effective immediately with respect to the paid holidays and vacation , and the hospital and
surgical , benefits would .be' effective April ' 1. 'The wage adjustments were retroactive as.
the paycheck issued on March 15 covered the 2-week period ending March 9.
u The other letters are dated March 19, 22, 26, 28 , and 29.
S.N.C. 1VIANUFACTURING CO., INC. 815
This Union would have you believe that all you have to do to be on easy
street is to vote for the Union, which claims to be a "bargain basement" union.
It would be nice if it were that easy, but even if the Company decided to go
along, our customers would have something to say about what wages and benefits
you as an employee of this Company will receive.
What the Union does not tell you is that as a result of unions pricing their
members' work too high, over 6 percent of Americans willing to work are
unemployed. When the price of something you want or need is too high, you
go without it or find a substitute. The substitute for a Company under these
conditions often is automation, which you have heard so much about. Ma-
chines are used to do the work previously done by employees. Another thing
that can be done if labor costs get too high is to eliminate unprofitable product
lines which also mean less jobs. Unless a company can make a profit, there
is no point being in business.
Another thing the Union does not mention is the money you would lose if
you were called out on strike to enforce excessive demands. Strikes are rarely
considered "bargain basement" affairs, but you have seen that strikes and
Unions go hand in hand together.
The fact remains that there is not such a thing as something for nothing.
Our customers, Who provide us with jobs, buy from us because we give them a
quality product at a competitive price. If our product is poor or our price
is too high, there are others who will gladly take over the work we are now doing.
So look over these "bargain basement" claims carefully. Remember, a fancy
union contract is worth nothing unless you have a job to go with it. No
Government Labor Board can force a company to employ you if there is no
work to perform.
On March 15, Respondent and the Union entered into a "Stipulation for Cer-
tification upon Consent Election," the election to be held April 1.13 Esslinger ad-
mitted that he became aware of the execution of the aforesaid stipulation within
a day or two after its execution.14
On March 22, Esslinger addressed another letter to the employees, commenting
further on the theme that the employees may be without jobs if they select union
representation. In part this letter states:
The Union.has tried to get you to believe that giving the Union the power
that it seeks is the best way of assuring job security. A fancy union contract
does not guarantee job security; in fact, it often results in excessive costs and
inefficiency, which causes losses of both customers and jobs. Job security is
a company which provides a job year in and year out. Seniority does not
create new jobs but simply is an arbitrary system to decide who gets the jobs
that are left. The employees and management at SNC have not been con-
cerned with dividing up a decreasing amount of work, but have cooperated
to create a situation' which has resulted in greater job opportunities each year.
The Company's letter of March 26 told the employees, in part:
You may be told that the Union will force the Company to grant higher
wages and greater benefits. As to that, we assure you that a union will make
no difference. We will continue to do those things which, in our judgment,
good business practice requires. Even a strike will not force this management
to abandon its responsibility for the success of this business.
However, just because such demands are made does not mean that they will
be granted. If the Union should get in, you may be called out on strike to
enforce them. Strikes are rarely pleasant or profitable experience. But, if
you read the newspapers,, you know that they are part and parcel of a
union setup.
In the letter of March 28, the Company told the employees inter alia, "it is our
honest belief that a union cannot do anything for our employees," and that "a union
can create a situation where not only benefits are eliminated but whole jobs go out
of existence."
13 This agreement was approved by the Regional Director on March 19.
14 The date of April 1 for election could have been no surprise to Esslinger, in view of
the opening sentence of his letter of March 14 to the employees that "Around April 1"
the Board would hold an election.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The final letter to the employees, dated March 29, is signed by Company Presi-
dent Vette.15 Attached to this letter were-two letters from Simberkoff Sales Com-
pany, Orange, New Jersey, and Scott Electronic Sales, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
paid sales representatives of Respondent, which Vetbe "thought might be of interest"
to the employees."s Simberkoff's letter, after expressing concern over the possible
unionization of Respondent's plant, and pointing out that the "consistent volume of
business" from the larger customers is based on Respondent's "present labor setup,"
reads as follows:
These large customers have come to depend upon us as they do because
they know we will not put them in a bind for transformers due to labor diffi-
culties. Even though they may have unions in their own plants, they questioned
us when they first started doing business with us whether we had a union or
not, and I know that it was the fact that we have had no labor difficulties which
prompted them to give us the good long run items that have continued for some
years, and are still running. It was because we were able to jump in and take it
over after some other supplier had not been able to deliver, because of labor
difficulties, and had to tell our customers to cancel and try to help themselves
elsewhere.
The Scott letter, in pertinent part, read thus:
... In the past we have been able to secure many orders due to the fact that
you have a non-union shop. Many of our customers have placed orders with us
rather than our competitors due to this one factor.
We were very concerned when we learned there was a possibility of a union
going in at SNC. We feel we may be handicapped in future sales if the Union
is established.
Please advise at your earliest convenience what develops on the Union. This
will be most important to us as it will certainly affect our transformer sales in
the Minneapolis area. [Emphasis supplied.]
3. On March 30, employees Shafer, Beyer, and Hebert, as part of their campaign
to solicit votes for the Union, went to see Audrey Hammon at the latter's home.
Hammon had previously signed a card for the Union. Hammon told the three
employees that she would not be voting in the election because she was a supervisor
(a status which Respondent concedes), and that Company Vice President Daseke had
the union cards signed by the employees, or a list of those who had signed cards for
the Union.17
4. Between March 18 and 28, Esslinger interviewed the Company's employees."'
While a number of employees testified they had no recollection as to what Esslinger
said, others testified in some detail with respect to such 'conversations. Esslinger
asked Grace Shafer "Why we went to this outsider," referring to the Union, and
stated "we could work something out." Carol Caird' was told that he (Esslinger)
could not "see why we wanted to have the Union represent us because he thought
we coule, do our own figuring ....' Sylvia Haase was told that he ( Esslinger)
15 All of the prior letters, were signed by Plant Superintendent Esslinger.
19 The General Counsel apparently urges that Respondent solicited the letters from the
paid sales representatives, and hence is responsible for their content. In this connection
the General Counsel points to the stipulated fact that Vette was in Arizona from Janu-
ary 5 to April 12; that the letter of -march 29 was drafted by Vette and mailed to Re-
spondenE's plant where it had to be reproduced and mailed ; that the Simberkoff and Scott
letters referred to by Vette dated march 22 and 28, respectively, were both received at
Respondent's plant on March 28, as shown by the date stamp thereon ; and that Vette
could not have had those letters before him when he drafted his letter of March 29. I find
it unnecessary to decide whether the letters from the sales representatives were solicited
or not. The fact remains that Respondent mailed them to its employees, and is respon-
sible for their content to the same extent as though it had drafted them.
17 The foregoing finding is based on the credited testimony of Shafer, Hebert, and Beyer.
Hammon, testifying as a witness for Respondent, admitted that Shafer, Hebert, and Beyer
came to see her on or about March 30 about the Union. She did not deny the specific
statement which the aforementioned witness attributed to her, saying only that she
"doubt[ed]" that she made any reference to Daseke during the conversation. Hammon
denied having any conversation with Daseke regarding the signing of union cards. Dasekey
however, admitted that he had such discussions with Hammon, although he claims that it
was in jest. I do not credit Hammon.
is Esslinger stated that he intended toy and believes that he did speak with every em-
ployee ; that if he missed any it was inadvertent and contrary to his purpose.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 817
did not see why Grace Shafer, Judy Hebert , and Sue Simpson were trying to get a
union in . Esslinger began the discussion with Lucille Schessler by saying , "I see you
are. wearing a union button , but I am not going to ask you how you are going to
vote." Esslinger then commented on the fact that Schessler was a widow and the sole
support of two children , that she had had "a tough time of things ," and said Allen-
Bradley (one of Respondent 's customers ), was a union shop , that "if the Union was
in SNC, he didn't think they would buy the products any more. [and ] I am sure we
need that account to keep going." Elaine Martin was asked , "What I thought I would
benefit by having a Union." In talking with Theresa Lewis, Esslinger asked, "Why
must there be a third party, why can't those people come to me," and then commented
that Respondent 's customers "like our work here and they like it the way it is."
Sue Simpson was told that the Union was not -good for "our company ," and that "a
couple of girls should have gotten together and got one of their own going."
Lucille Steinert was told that before the employees went to the extreme of getting
the Union "we should have gotten together and had our own little shop group .
discussing our problems with the management ." Leverne Zemke was told that the
girls had not been there long enough to start a union , and that he (Esslinger) could
work out "some kind of an agreement without a Union ." Karon Ratajczak was
told that if the Union came in and a strike occurred , that customers would not buy
Respondent 's products , "and then we [the employees ] would lose out of a job."
Nelda Reinke was told that while some unions were good , he (Esslinger ) "didn't
think this one in particular was the best," and that "things could be ironed out and
they [Respondent ] could do things for us just as much as the union could do."
Clarence Werner, Charlene Augsberger , Brenda Buduhn , and Myrtle Schumacker
were asked what they thought about the Union . Laura Ezentner was told that if
the Union got in "the girls probably wouldn't get along as well as they did before"
and that Allen-Bradley "perhaps wouldn't buy our coils ..... Evelyn Sheppard
was told that he (Esslinger ) "was wondering why [the employees ] wanted a
union . . . , why we didn 't come to him first .. . Esslinger also told Sheppard
"that some company had gone out of business because of a union ... and they
[Respondent ] figured that the Union couldn 't give them [the employees ] anything
either." Judith Essmann was asked if she got "a 5% [wage ] increase and better
working conditions would [she] still want the Union." 19
On April 1, the election was held, which the Union lost by a vote of 32 to 42.
The following day Esslinger called employee Evelyn Sheppard 20 into his office and
asked her "if we were going to have any more activities by the Union." Sheppard
replied that she did not know 21
'9 The findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on the credited testimony of the
respective employees above referred to. For the most part Esslinger ' s testimony is not in
conflict; in fact he corroborates those employees in large part . Although Esslinger claimed
that he never raised the subject of the Union with the employees during the interviews, he
admitted that the subject was raised by some employees , and when it was, "I talked openly
about it"; and that he "may have," but "didn't recall ," whether he discussed with them
the effect unionization of the plant would have on "orders from other companies."
Esslinger admitted discussing the Union with Schessler , and that he told her that unions
bring dissension , which was then current in the plant , and if a strike occurred , she, the
sole support of her two children , could be out of a job. Esslinger further admitted that in
his discussions with Schessler the name of Allen-Bradley was specifically mentioned, and
that he pointed out to her that the units she worked on were for Allen -Bradley, and that
if a strike occurred that customers would certainly seek another source of supply because
Respondent was its sole supplier , and a strike would cripple Allen-Bradley ' s production.
Esslinger also admitted that he told some employees that he did not like this Union ; that
they would be better off dealing directly with the Company , rather than through an out-
sider ; and that he discussed with them the formation of a shop committee to deal directly
with the Company . Esslinger did deny discussing the 5-percent increase with any em-
ployees , and specifically that he discussed that subject with Essmann, as the latter testi-
fied. He also denied asking Augsberger what she thought about the Union , saying that
lie had "no recollection" of discussing that subject with her. He was not asked, and
accordingly did not deny he asked Clarence Werner, Brenda Beduhn , and Myrtle Schu-
macker what they thought about the Union. To the extent that Esslinger 's testimony is
in conflict with that of the employees referred to in the foregoing paragraph , I credit the
employees because in view of what Esslinger admitted he told the employees , I regard the
testimony of the latter as the more probable.
20 Sheppard had served as an observer for the Union at the election.
n This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Evelyn Sheppard.
756-236-65-vol. 147-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Formation of and dealing with the Liaison Committee
The formation of a Liaison Committee was admittedly the idea of President Vette.
About mid-April he discussed the idea with Esslinger, selected the six employees to
serve on the Committee, and told Esslinger to talk with the employees so selected
and procure their consent to serve on the Committee.22 Esslinger did as Vette
directed. Formal announcement of the formation of the Liaison Committee, and
the names of the employees who would serve on the Committee, was by a letter
from Vette to the employees dated April 25. That letter stated the purpose of the
Liaison Committee was to "act as a go-between for handling any shop problems such
as inequities, gripes, etc. which might arise." 23 _ The Committee functioned, Vette
testified, just as he conceived it.
The first meeting of the Liaison Committee was held in Vette's office on April 30.24
The chief subject discussed at this meeting was Vette's plan for a 5-percent wage
increase for all employees, and a further 5-percent wage increase after 4 months if,
in the interval, production increased 5 .percent. Also discussed at this meeting were
suggestions by members of the committee that work hours be changed during the
summer months, and that the time fixed for breaks be changed. Vette agreed to
both suggestions and they became effective immediately. The wage increase plan
was explained in greater detail in Vette's letter to the employees, dated May 1, and
they were urged to present any "beef" or constructive criticism through the Liaison
Committee, or directly to management.
A second meeting of the Liaison Committee was held June It, again in Vette's
office and on company time. Vette and Esslinger were again present for manage-
ment, and the six employees who had been named to the committee 25 At this meet-
ing, as at the preceding one on April 30, the chief topic of discussion was the
5-percent wage increase that had been granted in April, and the contemplated addi-
tional 5-percent increa'se' to be granted in 4 months if production increased.26
The third and final meeting of the Liaison Committee disclosed by this record, was
held on or shortly before August-13. The same people attended this meeting as
attended the June 11 meeting, and again the chief subject discussed was the 5-percent
wage increase to become effective in September if production increased sufficiently.
Also at this meeting, a member of the Liaison Committee complained to Vette about
a ventilation problem in the plant. Vette agreed to remedy the situation and at the
time of the hearing the necessary changes were underway.
C. Conclusionary findings
1. With respect to the Section 8(a)(1) allegations
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I find and conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by the following:
(a) By Esslinger's admitted encouragement of the employees on February 26 to
form their own shop committee and deal with the Employer through such committee
rather than through the Union, and permitting employees to meet on company time
and premises for that purpose." These statements were made to the entire comple-
ment of employees, those who supported as well as those who opposed the Union,
and was an attempt to interfere with and improperly influence their decision as to
whether they desired union representation. Ballas Egg Products Inc., 121 NLRB
873, enfd. 283 F. 2d 871 (C.A. 6); Alberto Culver Company, 136 NLRB 1432;
22 Vette testified that in selecting the employee members of the committee he picked some
who were for the Union, and some who were against it, and that "it wasn't difficult to
pick them out . . ..' As Vette put it, "It was a guess, but I think a fairly accurate one."
28 Vette testified that he formed the Liaison Committee because he felt he had not done
a particularly good job in management, so far as personnel relations were concerned ;
that the reason for this was lack of communication between himself and the employees ;
and that through the committee he could be kept better informed.
24 Present at the meeting were Vette and Esslinger from management, and the six em-
ployees whom Vette had named to serve on the committee. The meeting was held during
working hours and the employees were paid their regular wages for time spent in the
meeting.
25 Two employees originally named to the committee by Vette resigned early in May,
and he named two replacements.
2e The day after this meeting Vette circulated another letter among the employees, re-
porting that production had increased sufficiently during the month of May-tbe first of
the 4-month trial period-to warrant the additional -5-percent wage increase. This letter
concluded with the statement "if this letter is confusing to any of you, I or any member
of the Liaison Committee . . . will be happy to explain further."
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 819
Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, 700. While the employees .did
not in fact create the shop committee as Esslinger'requested, Respondent subse-
quently created and dealt with a committee, although it was then called Liaison
Committee rather than Shop Committee.
(b) The letter of March 7 announcing the-wage increases and improvements in
fringe benefits, which, I find and conclude, were granted and intended to dissuade
employees from pursuing their quest for union representation. Esslinger's state-
ments to the assembled employees on February 26, and subsequent admitted state-.
ments during some of the individual- employee interviews, that he did not like this
Union, clearly demonstrates his hostility to the idea of union representation which
the employees indicated to him they were seeking. There is the additional fact that
when, at the meetings of February 26, the employees voiced 27 their desires for in-
creased wages and improved fringe benefits, Esslinger admittedly stated, "When
these things are feasible, we will have them" and "You can't get blood out of a
stone." Yet within 4 business days after receipt of the Union's demand for recogni-
tion on March 2, and within 2 days after the representation petition was filed on
March 5, the employees were informed that virtually every demand they had made
was being granted. Respondent's defense that the wage increases and improvements
in fringe benefits were granted only in the due course of business and fortuitously at
a time when the employees were attempting to organize,. does not stand up under
scrutiny, and I reject it. Company President Vette testified that he became aware of
the Union's organizational activity in late January or early February; that between
February 5 and April 12 he was away from the plant, spending the intervening time
in Scottsdale, Arizona, for health reasons, but was in virtually daily contact with, the
plant by telephone. Vette claims that on February 22 he discussed with two friends
who operated comparable businesses (one operating under a union contract and the
other nonunion) the personnel conditions existing at Respondent's plant and was
told that Respondent's plant "was about ten years behind time on this benefit situa-
tion"; that this made him "quite unhappy," and that on. February 25 or 26 he tele-
phoned Daseke, who was in charge in Vette's absence, nd directed Daseke to insti-
tute a program of paid holidays, the extra week's vacation after 5 years, and to check
for and adjust any wage inequities that might exist.28 Vette further testified that
the costs of the increased benefits were not discussed with him; that he was con-
cerned only with the employee dissatisfaction which he knew existed, and in remedy-
ing what he regarded as a substandard situation. If, as Respondent contends, the
decision to put these benefits into effect was made, and Daseke was directed to carry
that decision into execution on February 25 or 26, I find it difficult to understand
why Daseke waited some 9 or 10 days, and 5 days after the Union's request for
recognition, to announce the changes to the employees, or to even tell them that such
changes were in contemplation. I am also-unable to reconcile Vette's claim that he
decided upon and directed that the increased benefits be put into effect on Febru-
ary 25 or 26, with his admission that he learned of Esslinger's February 26 meeting
with the employees about the day it took place; that he "undoubtedly" talked with
Esslinger about it; that he knew in substance the demands which the employees had
made upon Esslinger, and of the position which Esslinger took with the employees
regarding such demands; and that in a general way he then agreed with the position
which Esslinger took.
(c) By the letters written to the employees between March 14 and 29, and par-
ticularly by' those dated March 14, 22, and 28 and Vette's lette of_March 29,_,
substantial portions of which have been set forth above Cò -dered in their
totality these letters were reasonably susceptible of the interpretation, and were
written with the intent and purpose of conveying the impression, that the economic
security of the "employees' would be materially impaired if the latter selected union
representation. One would have to be- naive indeed not to: understand that the
Simberkoff and Scott, letters, which accompanied Vette's_letter_of, March_29,were
intended to convey the thought that at least some of Respondent's customers would
withhold orders for the Company's products if the employees selected union repre-
sentation, and that this in turn would reduce the number of jobs available in the
plant. Considered in their totality, the aforesaid letters plainly sought to implant that
theme into, the minds of the employees. Haynes Stellite Company, a Division of
27 That Respondent was well aware of the substantial, if not majority employee interest
in the Union is virtually conceded. As Company President Vette put it when commenting
on the selection of the Liaison Committee, "it wasn't very difficult to pick them out," and
while it would be "a guess . ..,it was fairly accurate one.".
21 Vette testified that he did not discuss the hospitalization and medical program with
Daseke ; that Daseke did that' on his own.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Carbide Corporation, 136 NLRB 95. In short, the letters were no different
in their effect than a threat to close the plant, which the Board has consistently held
to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of. the Act. See, e.g., Byrds Manufacturing
Corp., 140 NLRB 147. That Vette's letter of March 29, told the employees that
however the election might turn out, the decision of the employees would be ac-
cepted by management, did not neutralize the restraint and coercion which I have
found inherent in them. In the minds of the employees the threat of economic
retaliation contained in the letters would necessarily have been uppermost. Cf.
The Pulaski Rubber Company, 131 NLRB 347, 351-352. This would seem par-
ticularly true in view of the oral statements being made by Esslinger to the employees
in the course of interviews with them, about the same time the letters were written.
(d) The statements made by Esslinger in the course of oral interviews with the
employees. Such statements by an employer, particularly in the course of an orga-
nizational campaign, clearly constitute interference, restraint, and coercion, proscribed
by Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The interrogation was obviously not for the purpose
of ascertaining, in good faith, the employees' desires regarding union representa-
tion, and which the Employer had previously refused, but rather to demonstrate
Respondent's hostility to the Union, and to discourage activities on behalf of the
Union P-M Garages, Inc., et al., d/b/a P-M Parking System, 139 NLRB 987.
(e) The statement by Audrey Hammon that Vice President Daseke knew who
had signed union cards. The Board has consistently ,held that such statements tend
to create the impression among employees that their union activities are und.r
surveillance by the Employer, and hence are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Byrds Manufacturing Corp., 140 NLRB 147; Roskam Baking Co., 142 NLRB
1173; The Bin-Dioator Company, 143 NLRB 964.
(f) The wage increase granted April 30, after consultation with the Liaison Com-
mittee, and the promise to grant a further wage increase 4 months thereafter if pro-
duction increased. The extensive and serious nature of Respondent's violations of
Section 8(a)(1), as heretofore found, leaves no room for doubt of Respondent's
hostility to the Union and its determination that unionization of the employees be
thwarted. True, on April 30, when the instant wage increase was granted, and the
future increase promised, the Union had lost the election held April 1. But the
election was not final; timely objections had been filed and a new election was at
least a possibility. Notwithstanding this possiblity, Respondent, as hereafter set
forth, created, assisted, and completely dominated a labor organization, and through
it granted and promised the wage increases referred to. Upon the entire record I
find and conclude that this was intended to and had the natural and probable effect
of demonstrating to the employees that they would fare better by relying on their
employer rather than select union representation and thus to dissuade the employees
from voting for the Union in any rerun election that the Board might order, and
hence was violative of Section 8(a) (1) 29
2. With respect to the 8 (a) (2) and (1) allegations
As set forth above, the Liaison Committee was the idea of Company President
Vette. Not only did he bring it into existence, but he selected the employees who
were to serve on it, presided at all meetings with the Liaison Committee where
such subjects as wage increases, changes in hours of work, and proper ventilation in
a specific department of the plant, were discussed. These -meetings were held during
working hours and the employee members of the Committee were paid by Respondent
for the time so spent. Respondent's chief defense to this aspect of the case is that
the Liaison Committee was not established for the purpose of bargaining, but was
created solely for the purpose of serving as a line of communication between man-
agement and the employees, and hence was not a "labor organization" within the
meaning of the Act.30 The argument is without merit. The Liaison Committee
es The General Counsel contends that Respondent engaged"in^ other conduct violative of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, but I find that the evidence fails to establish that Respondent
in fact engaged in such conduct. I find such lack of evidence with respect to (1) the
allegation that Respondent's transfer of Judy Hebert from testing to laminating was dis-
criminatorily motivated, or was connected with her activities on behalf of the Union ;
(2) that the reprimand of employee Lewis on March 18, by Foreman Ziebell and Super-
intendent Esslinger for being absent from work on March 15, was because of any union
activity on her part; and (3) that Respondent in fact attempted to have Shafer and
Hebert retract statements they had theretofore given to Board agents.
30 Section 2(5) of the Act, defines a labor organization as "any organization of any
kind . . . in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or
in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work."
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 821
was an "organization of'[some] kind"; employees admittedly participated in it; and
Respondent admittedly discussed with that organization matters relating to wages,
hours of employment , and conditions of work . Accordingly , I find and conclude
that the Liaison Committee is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act . I also find and conclude , upon all the facts heretofore detailed,
that Respondent dominated , assisted , and supported that labor organization in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act .. N.L.R.B . v. Cabot Carbon Company,
et al., 360 U .S. 303; Pacemaker Corporation v. N.L.R .B., 260 F . 2d 880 (C.A. 7);
Thompson Ramo Wooldridge , Inc (Daye Television Division ), 132 NLRB 993;
N.L.R.B . v. The Chardon Telephone Company, 323 F. 2d 563 (C.A. 6), enfg. 139
NLRB 529. :
3. With respect to the . 8 (a) (5) allegations
On this . aspect of the case, the only question that need be considered is Respond-
ent's defense that the Union , admittedly with full knowledge of the alleged viola-
tions of Section 8(a) (1) occurring prior to the election , and which have hereinbefore
been found, elected to establish its majority status by the election procedures provided
in the Act, and under the Board 's decision in Louis Aiello, et al ., dl-b/a Aiello Dairy
Farms, 110 NLRB 1365 , a finding of a refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(a) (5) of the Act , may be predicated only on "events which occurred after the
election" ( 110 NLRB 1365 , 1370 ). Respondent argues, and on the basis of Aiello
correctly so, that the Union has made no demand for bargaining since the election,
and is not entitled to "the presumption of continued . majority" ( id.), hence the nec-
essary predicate for a violation of 8(a ) ( 5) does not exist.
The General Counsel and the Union argue ( 1). that the facts in the instant case
are distinguishable from Aiello, and ( 2) in any event that case was improperly
decided and should not be followed . With respect to ( 1) they point out (a) Re-
spondent 's unfair labor practices did not cease with the election , as was the case in
Aiello, but that after the election it established , dominated , and assisted the Liaison
Committee so that a free and uncoerced election is even now impossible ; and (b)
that Vette's letter of March 29, with its attachments , which threatened loss of
employment , were circulated so close to the election on April 1 that it was not
possible for the Union to make an intelligent decision whether to proceed with
the election or withdraw its petition . The short answer to this argument is that under
Aiello, Respondent's postelection unfair labor practices may be relied upon to sup-
port an 8 (a) (5) violation provided that the Union can establish that it made a post-
election bargaining demand and that at the time of such demand it enjoyed a majority
status. All that Aiello prohibits is reliance on preelection conduct which is waived
if the Union proceeds to the election with knowledge of such conduct. The Aiello
rule is not rendered inapplicable by reason of the fact , if it be a fact, that Vette's
letter of March 29 did not give the Union adequate time to make its election
whether to proceed with the petition or not. There were ample unfair labor practices
by Respondent , which I have found , - and which Holland, the Union 's organizer in
charge of its campaign here involved, admitted he was fully informed of, for the
application of the Aiello rule. The argument that Aiello was wrongly decided and
should not be followed , is not appropriately addressed to me. Until such time as
the Board overrules Aiello, or the Supreme Court holds to the contrary , I have no
alternative but to follow that decision , irrespective of my personal views regarding
its correctness . Insurance Agents' International Union ' ( The Prudential Insurance
Company of America ), 119 NLRB 768, 773; Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., 144 NLRB
615.31
11 The General Counsel and the Charging Party also argue that the Board has sub
silentio overruled Aiello. They point to the fact that in Sam the Window Man , 136 NLRB
663, and Traders Oil Company of Houston , 119 NLRB 746, cases which from the factual
statements contained in the discussion , appear to fall within the Aiello principle, the
Board did not apply that rule . In both of the last-mentioned cases, neither the Trial
Examiner nor the Board decision cited Aiello, but in Traders Oil the dissenting Board
Members argued that notwithstanding the applicability of Aiello the majority decision
was ignoring that case . However, in subsequent decisions the Board cited Aiello in a
manner indicating that it regarded that case as existing law. See Rea Construction
Company, 137 NLRB 1769, 1770; Barker's East Main Corporation, 142 NLRB 1194. In
the last -mentioned case a majority of the Board pointed out that their decision did not
rest upon the Aiello principle , upon which the Trial Examiner had, in part, relied upon.
For these reasons I do not regard Aiello as having been sub silentio overruled.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-Accordingly, upon the basis of the Board's decision in Aiello, -I find and conclude
that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) the Act, and that such allegation
should be dismissed 32
82 In view of my conclusions with respect to the Section 8(a) (5) allegations it would
ordinarily be unnecessary for me to make findings regarding the Union's majority status
at.the itme of its demand for, recognition,, based on the cards signed by the 51 employees
in the unit. However, should the Board disagree with my conclusion that Aiello has not
been sub silentio overruled (see footnote 31, supra), it will need findings whether the
Union enjoyed majority status when it made its demand for recognition, and whether
Respondent's rejection of such recognition demand was based on a good-faith doubt that
the Union represented a majority of the employees, in order to make appropriate disposi-
tion of the case on its merits.
- Respondent contends that the cards signed by the 51 employees were not valid authoriza-
tion cards, notwithstanding the clear language on the card "I authorize the [Union] to
act as my bargaining agent . . . In regard to wages, hours and working conditions," be-
cause of the legend in bold type at the top of the card, "I WANT AN NLRB ELECTION
NOW." From the format of the cards and the fact that some employees testified that
they signed the cards because they wanted an election, Respondent argues that the Union
was only authorized to petition for an election, and not to represent the employees. I find
and conclude that at least 39 cards, if not more, validly designated the Union as bargain-
ing representative. The Board's rule is "that an employee's thoughts [or afterthoughts]
as to why he signed a union card and what he thought that card meant, cannot negative
the overt action of having signed a card designating the Union as bargaining agent."
Joy Silk Hills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732 ('C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914, see
also Dan River Mills, Incorporated, Alabama Division, 121 NLRB 645, 648; Gorbea,
Perez d Morell, 133 NLRB 362,'enfd. 300 F. 2d 886, 887 (C.A. 1). However, where the
evidence shows that the Union led the employees to believe that the only purpose of the
cards was to authorize the Union'to petition for a Board-conducted election, they are not
valid authorization cards for the purpose of establishing the Union's majority status.
Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394.
Of the 51 cards received in evidence, as to 13 of them there is no testimony as'to what,
if anything, they were told about the purpose of the cards, or that they 'even had or
heard any discussion on that subject. Six testified that no statements were made to
them about the purpose of the cards: One employee testified credibly that she was told
-the purpose of the card was to have the Union represent her. Two others testified credibly
that they were merely asked if they wanted to join the Union. Eight employees testified
that the Union's agent, or the members of the organizing committee from whom they got
their card told them there would be an election, but there is no evidence that this was all
they were told about the purpose of the cards. Twenty-one employees testified without
contradiction that when they signed their card nothing was said to them about its pur-
pose (in fact many of these testified that they obtained their card from a supply of them
left in the restroom), but that they had heard a lot of general discussion among un-
identified employees in the plant. Some of these stated that such discussion was to the
effect that there would be a Board election, or that if sufficient cards were signed there
would be such election. About half of this group did testify that based on the discussion
they heard in the plant they understood that the purpose of the cards were to obtain an
election, or that 'they signed the card because of the bold faced print "I WANT AN
NLRB ELECTION NOW."
On the foregoing facts, I would find and conclude that the General Counsel has estab-
lished that when the Union made its demand on Respondent for recognition and bargain-
ing, it had more than the necessary number of valid authorization cards from the 76 em-
ployees' in the unit found appropriate, to constitute it the majority collective-bargaining
representative in that unit. Dan River Mills, Incorporated, eupra; Gary Steel Products
Corporation, 144 NLRB 1160; Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268; Peterson
Brothers, Inc., 144 NLRB 679.
I would further find and conclude on the facts hereinabove set forth, that Respondent's
refusal on March 5, to recognize and bargain with the Union was not based on a good-faith
doubt of the Union's majority, but was for the purpose of undermining that majority
status. The extensive and flagrant violations of Section 8(a) (1), which I have found,
timed as they were immediately after the Union's demand, makes that clear. Joy Silk
Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732 ('C.A.D.C.) ; Laabs, Inc., 128 NLRB 374. Thus,
were it not for the Aiello principle, I would find that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5)
of the Act.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 823
4. Report on objections to the election
It has been found, as set forth above, that between March 5, when the representa-
tion petition was filed, "and April 1, the date of *the .election,33 Respondent engaged
in conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. This conduct was resorted to by
Respondent, I find and conclude, to wean employees from-their-union membership,
sympathies, and affiliation, and to frustrate the Union's preelection campaign. It
created an atmosphere of fear of reprisal which interfered with the employee's
freedom of choice in. the' selection of a bargaining representative. Accordingly, I
shall recommend that the election of April 1 be set aside, and a new election directed.
II. THE REMEDY
Having -found, as set forth above, that Respondent has engaged and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be-recommended that it be required to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. One of the more basic rights conferred upon
employees by Section 7 of the Act, is the right to..freely, and without coercion,
restraint, or interference from an employer, express a choice in a Board-conducted
election designed to determine the wishes of the employees with respect to a
collective-bargaining representative. Respondent's unlawful-activities found herein, go
to the very heart of the Act and indicate a, purpose to defeat the attempt of its,em-
ployees at self-organization. The danger of further unfair labor practices may rea-
sonably be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventative
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedy is, coextensive with the
threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, an order requiring Respondent
to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of its employees
guaranteed in the Act is deemed necessary. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 108
NLRB 60, 61.
It having been found that Respondent not only assisted and supported the Liaison
Committee, but in fact dominated the same, it will be recommended that it be ordered
to disestablish the Liaison Committee.
CONCLUSIONS 'OF LAW
1. S.N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc., is an employer within. the meaning" of Section
2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. -
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section I, C, 1, (a) through (f), above, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. By the conduct set forth in section I, C, 2, above, Respondent dominated, inter-
fered with the formation of, and contributed support to the Liaison Committee, a
-labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and thereby has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not refused to bargain with the Union within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and the allegations of the complaint in that respect
should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing finding of fact and conclusions of laws, and the entire record
in this case . and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
In considering objections to conduct affecting the results of an election, the Board
will consider only that conduct which occurred between the filing of the petition and the
date of the election, whether it be a directed election; or one held pursuant to consent of
the parties. See The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275; and
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453. Accordingly, I do not find that
any statements made by Esslinger on February 26, or the establishment of the Liaison
Committee, affected the results of the election.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amended, I recommend that Respondent, S.N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating any of its employees with respect to their membership in,
sympathies for, or other concerted activities on behalf of International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Threatening any of its employees with the curtailment or loss of employment,
or with less favorable conditions of employment, or other economic reprisal, if they
select a labor organization as their bargaining representative, or engage in other
concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
(c).Granting wage increases, or other improvements in conditions of employment
for the purpose of influencing its employees to accept or reject any labor organiza-
tion as their collective-bargaining representative: Provided, however, that nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring said employer to withdraw, change, or abandon
any of the wages or terms and conditions of employment currently enjoyed by its
employees.
(d) Urging or otherwise attempting to influence its employees to select any labor
organization,- or one labor organization rather than another, as their collective-
bargaining representative.
(e) Making statements reasonably calculated to give its employees the impression
that their activities on behalf of a labor organization are under surveillance.
(f) Dominating, interfering with, contributing any assistance or support to, or
recognizing or meeting with the Liaison Committee, or any successor thereof, by
whatever name known.
(g) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist International Union
of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain 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, or to refrain from engaging in any such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by. an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which-it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from, and completely and unconditionally
disestablish, the Liaison Committee as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with, said employer regarding rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Post immediately in its plants in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 34 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, 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.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.35
It is further. recommended that the election held April 1, 1963, in Case No. 13-
RC-9218, be set aside, and that said case be remanded to the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board with directions
that said Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as he deems that
141n the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
151n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
THE BLACK AND DECKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 825
the circumstances permit the employees to express their free choice regarding the
selection of a collective-bargaining representative.36
36 In the event Respondent fails or refuses to comply with the terms of the order In Case
No. 13-CA-5561, I recommend that the Regional Director also be authorized to conduct
the new election recommended herein, upon the written request of the Union. Ideal
Baking Company of Tennessee, Inc., 143 NLRB 546, footnote 9.
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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question you concerning your membership in or activities on
behalf of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, IUE,
AFL-CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your jobs, curtailment in the amount
of work available, with less favorable working conditions, or other reprisal, if
you elect to have a union represent you, or engage in other union activities.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or other improvements in your working
conditions, for the purpose of influencing you to accept or reject any union; and
we understand that nothing in the order of the National Labor Relations Board
requires us to modify or change the wages or any other condition of employment
which you now enjoy.
WE WILL NOT urge or attempt to influence you to select any union, or to
select one union rather than another, as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT make statements reasonably calculated to give the impression
that we are watching the union activities in which you might engage.
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, contribute assistance or support to,
nor will we recognize or meet with the Liaison Committee which we created,
or any successor thereof. The Liaison Committe has been completely and un-
conditionally disestablished.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in your
choice of bargaining representatives, or in any other manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, or to join or asisst any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of your own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
You are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, a mem-
ber of any union.
S.N.C. MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Black and Decker Manufacturing Company and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-4381.
June 06, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relation Act, a hearing vas held before Hearing Officer Anthony P.
147 NLRB No. 101.