Shure Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 43 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

SHURE BROTHERS INCORPORATED 43
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 10, Metal Polishers, Buffers,
Platers & Helpers, International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organi-
zation, by discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals for engaging in con-
certed activities, nor interrogate them coercively about such activities, nor offer
them inducements to refrain from such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Local 10, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers, International Union,
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 any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, to the extent that we have not
already done so, and we will make them and Leonard Archey whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them:
Robert L. Crowe Herbert R. Rottler
Martin Conners Kenneth C. Slipper
Jack Friday Leland Schoonover
Donald A. Fassell James R. Kauba
Richard Harenda Lloyd E. Starling
Richard Miller
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or.
remaining members of Local 10, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers, Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
BERGER POLISHING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
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.
Shure Brothers Incorporated and (I.U.E.) International Union
of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner I
Shure Brothers Incorporated and (I.U.E.) International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 13-RC-9622 and 13-RM-696. May 20, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed on August 19, 1963, an election by secret ballot was con-
i Herein called the I.U.E.
147 NLRB No. 10.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted in these cases on September 10, 1963, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region,
among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the
balloting, the Regional Director furnished the parties with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 314 eligible voters, 292•
cast valid ballots, of which 106 were for, and 186 were against, the
I.U.E., 2 cast void ballots, and 8 cast challenged ballots. The chal-
lenges were insufficient in number to affect the results. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and on Decem-
ber 4, 1963, issued his report on objections, in which he found that
objection No. 7 raised substantial and material issues affecting the
election results and recommended that the election be set aside and
that a new election be held. He further recommended that all other
objections be overruled. The Employer and the I.U.E. filed timely
exceptions to the report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including instructors,
leadmen and leadladies, employed at the Employer's plant, located at
222 Hartrey Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, but excluding office clerical
employees, technical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, and
the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the findings and recom-
mendations of the Regional Director except as to objection No. 7.
Objection No. 7 relates to letters which the Employer mailed or dis-
tributed to employees on August 23, and on September 4, 5, and 10,
1963, the last date being the election day, and it speech on September 9,
delivered by the Employer's president to an assembly of employees in
the plant, more than 24 hours before the commencement of the ballot-
ing. The Regional Director, noting particularly certain portions
thereof, which he excerpted,2 found that the letters and the speech
2 These excerpts are set forth in the attached appendix.
SHURE BROTHERS INCORPORATED 45
were calculated to instill in the minds of employees fear that the
I.U.E.'s winning of the election would result in strikes and violence.
The Employer , in its exceptions , contends that t'he case of ,S'torkline
Corporation , 142 NLRB 875, cited by the Regional Director, is in-
apposite . It argues that here , unlike the situation in that case, the
letters and speech urged the employees to reject the I .U.E. because of
the latter 's record of strikes and violence and did not convey the in-
evitability of a strike if the LUX. were selected as bargaining repre-
sentative . The I .U.E., in its exceptions , contends that the Regional
Director erred in not finding to be a substantial misrepresentation,
and a further basis for setting aside the election , the inaccurate inclu-
sion of 10 plants in the Employer's listing of 46 "I.U.E. strikes" in
its letter of September 5. We agree with the Regional Director that,
in the circumstances , the I .U.E. had ample opportunity to present its
case to the employees on the subject of its strike record and that the
alleged misrepresentation produced no substantial impairment of em-
ployee freedom of choice.. The I.U.E.'s exceptions to the report in
this regard are therefore rejected. However , we find merit in the
Employer 's exceptions , and we find , contrary to the Regional Director,
that the Employer 's remarks concerning the I.U.E.'s strike record
were not accompanied by any statements which reasonably could have
led the employees to believe that the Employer would not bargain in
good faith and that it would be futile to select the LUX. as their bar-
gaining representative .' We therefore overrule objection No. 7.4
Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and the tally of
ballots shows that the I .U.E. has not received a majority of the valid
ballots cast , we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots has not been
cast for the ( I.U.E.) International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor
organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in
the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting :
I would adopt the Regional Director's finding that the Employer's
preelection campaign letters and speech, considered in their entirety,
3 See American Greetings Corporation, 146 NLRB 1440.
6 The I.U.E. also excepted to the Regional Director's recommendation to overrule por-
tions of objection No. 1 as it relates to alleged misstatements of existing benefits and
alleged misrepresentation in a last minute refutation of the I.U.E.'s wage comparison leaflet,
objection No. 2 as it relates to alleged interrogations, objection No. 5 as it relates to alleged
restrictions on the wearing of IUE buttons, and objection No. 9 as it relates to the circula-
tion. of a list of names of. union supporters (approximately 10 names) having its origin on
a foreman's desk. In our opinion, the undisputed facts .clearly. support the Regional
Director's recommendation to overrule these objections and the exceptions raise no issues
which would warrant a different disposition. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional
Director's recommendations to overrule the objections in all other respects, such recom-
mendations are adopted pro forma.
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were reasonably calculated to instill in the minds of employees the
fear that Petitioner's winning the election would result in strikes and
violence, and that the Employer thereby interfered with the em-
ployees' free choice in the election.
The Employer's theme, emphasizing and reiterating the dire con-
sequences of unionization, could only create an unreasoning expecta-
tion of economic loss should the Union be selected Under these
circumstances, it is immaterial that the Union may have had an oppor-
tunity to present its arguments to the employees.-' In my opinion, my
colleagues have erred in treating these objections as allegations of
misrepresentation. I am fully in accord with the principle that a
misrepresentation can be excused where the other party has made or
had adequate opportunity to make a reply. Misrepresentations are
appeals to reason based on erroneous facts and possibly can be met by
the supplying of correct information. However, the type of cam-
paign material with which we are concerned in the instant case has its
impact by generating fear, and such an emotional reaction is not
responsive to denials or explanations and cannot be dissipated or
counterbalanced by factual replies. Nor, in my view, is a different
result required because the Employer's comments were limited to the
strike record of the Petitioner rather than referring to nonparticipat-
ing unions. It is the nature of the Employer's comments, not the
union to which the statements refer, that disturbs the election atmos-
phere and interferes with the free choice of the voters.
Accordingly, I would set the election aside.
MEMBER FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
5 Oak Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323 , footnote 6.
APPENDIX
Examination of the Employer's letter of August 23, 1963, disclosea
the following excerpts :
If the Union should insist on, unreasonable demands and force
a strike, it is you and the Company that would end up paying the
bill. OW sales and your wages would be lost . . . [At the Gen-
eral Electric Company], in October 1960, after a disastrous three-
week strike, costly to the employees as well as to the Company,.
the Union signed a contract in which the I.U.E. agreed to drop,
a cost-of-living clause which had been in the General Electric
Contract for years. So the I.U.E. not only can lose but has lost
benefits for its members and wages, too.
SHURE BROTHERS INCORPORATED 47
Page 3 of the Employer 's letter of September 4,1963, states in part :
Protect yourself ... against loss of wages that may result from
strikes.
The Employer's letter of September 5,. 1963, "I.U.E. Strikes-
Strikes-Strikes ! ! !" reads in part as follows :
Strikes - violence - mass picketing - rioting - bitterness and
fustration [sic]. The record of the I.U.E. is full of it.
You may remember, before the last Labor Board election here,
I told you of the many strikes the LUTE. pulled, including the one
at the Westinghouse Electric Co. plants, which lasted 156 clays.
The Company estimated that the I.U.E. members lost about $74
million in wages-averaging about $1,700 for each and every one
of their I.U.E. members.
In that strike the newspapers reported stonings, dynamiting,
mass picketing, rioting, and a pitched battle between 0,000 strikers
and policemen.
I must tell you that since the last election the I.U.E. has con-
tinued to have strike after strike . The newspapers continue to
report assaults, clubbings, mass picketing, property damage, and
even death on the I.U.E. picket lines.
One of the most important strikes, which by the way the LU.E.
lost, was against the General Electric Company. In that strike
70,000 employees in 55 plants lost wages in a strike lasting 24
days....
Right here in Chicago, the I.U.E. recently called a strike at
the Miehle-Gross-Dexter Co. This strike lasted 111 days .. .
Imagine losing your wages for 111 days.
In nearby Zion, Illinois, the I.U.E. struck the Warwich [sic]
Mfg. Co. for 22 days . . . Most of the Warwick employees are
women, and because of this I cannot •help but think of you.
In Magnavox 's Jefferson City ( Tennessee ) Cabinet Co . plant,
the LU.E. called a strike . .. The strike started in February
1961, idling hundreds of employees . According to the news-
papers, cars were stoned and there was dynamiting and other
violence... .
It is now 31 months later. The I.U.E. has not settled its strike.
Magnavox reports that about 900 people have lost their jobs.
I can multiply these LU.E. horrible strike examples many
times over, but instead I have attached a list of 46 I.U.E. strikes
which you can examine at leisure . There have, no doubt, been
many more since our last election , but not all strikes are reported.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No one likes a strike, with its loss of wages, conflicts , possible
violence, enmity, and sorrow. Looking at the LU.E. strike record,
are we fairly entitled to ask : Can it happen to us?
You can make sure there is no chance of a strike by voting
NO.
Page 3 of this exhibit lists 46 strikes allegedly called by Petitioner.
The Employer's letter of September 10, 1963, states, in pertinent
part: ,
The I.U.E.'s strike record is well known. It grows larger each
year. If they called you out on strike for weeks or months, think
of the wages you would loose [sic] forever.
The 156 day LUX. 1956 strike at the Westinghouse plant
brought violence, beatings of men and women like you, dynamit-
ing, mass picketing, rioting, and fighting among women as well
as men. Since then, the I.U.E. violence record has grown and
grown with similar incidents. . . .
Your wages and benefits have increased since you overwhelm-
ingly defeated the I.U.E. in 1958. Since that time, you have con-
tinued to receive, as before, several substantial wage increases
and fringe benefit improvements. In the meantime, many
members have lost heavily as a result of strikes. Also, the I.U.E.
members have paid millions of dollars in dues and other union
charges to the I.U.E.X Why gamble?
Two employees state that S. N. Shure, president, in addressing the
employees in the plant on September 9, 1963, stated that if Petitioner
won the election, it would go on strike.
Examination of Shure's speech of September 9, 1963, reveals the
following pertinent excerpts :
The I.U.E. has a long history of strikes. This union believes
in a class struggle between employers and employees. The Presi-
dent of this union has declared that and I quote : "Every sub-
stantial gain, every meaningful advance must be wrested from
the employer, dragged out of management."
With an attitude such as this on the part of the I.IT.E., it does
not take much imagination to figure out what may happen if by
some fluke the union should get into this plant-and if then the
Company and the LUX. cannot agree. Obviously they may try
to "drag" it out of us by striking. This is where you would come
.in. It would be you they would use to do the "dragging." You
would be the ones who would be losing wages during such . a strike.
MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 49
You may remember the I.U.E. strike against Westinghouse
Electric that lasted 156 days. It was estimated that each em-
ployee lost about $1,700 in wages. The newspapers reported
stonings, dynamiting, mass picketing, rioting, and a pitched battle
between policemen and 2,000 strikers.
In September 1960, as I wrote you, the I.U.E. struck the Gen-
eral Electric Company. Employees in 55 plants lost wages for
24 days.
In my letter dated September 5 I gave you the names of 46 com-
panies where the I.U.E. had called employees out on strike-and
since then I found more. I won't repeat them here, but it is pain-
fully clear that the I.U.E. strike record is something to worry
about-including their strike history of violence, rioting and
beatings.
Ask yourself if you want to face the loss of wages and the risk
of possible violence on the decision of just a few dissatisfied em-
ployees. I am not saying that you will have a strike. But there
is only one way to make sure that you can't possibly have a
strike-that is by voting "NO."
Monsanto Chemical Company 1 and Ernest L. Plymale, Peti-
tioner and Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United
States and Canada , AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 229. Case No.
13-UD-67. May 20, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, ahearing was held before Hearing Officer Hymen
Bear. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. In October 1963, the Union and the Employer entered into a
3-year collective-bargaining agreement which is effective until Octo-
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. The Employer is a successor
to Plax Company, in which name certification issued in Case No. 13-RC-931.6.
147 NLRB No. 5.
756-236-65-vol. 147-5