Skil Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 16, 1969175 N.L.R.B. 394 (N.L.R.B. 1969) Copy Citation 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Skil Corporation and Local 1693 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-8481 and 13-RC-1 1534 April 16, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On January 23, 1969, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's 'Decision. He further found that there was no merit in the Petitioner's (the participating labor organization and the Charging Party herein) objections to the election and recommended that they be overruled in their entirety and a certification of the results of the election held on May 23, 1968, be issued. He further ordered that Case 13-RC-1 1534 be severed and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 13 for further action. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel. 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 Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the Trial Examiner was incorrect in narrowly construing the complaint and contend that the other evidence in the record establishes that the Respondent was in effect telling the employees that it would be "futile" to select the Union because it would not bargain in any event Assuming arguendo , that the complaints should be broadly construed , we would find , after reviewing the record that the Respondent engaged in legitimate electioneering and that the conduct complained of was insufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERRY B STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) and Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice before Trial Examiner Jerry B Stone on October 31, 1968, at Chicago, Illinois. The original charge in Case 13-CA-8481 was filed on June 10, 1968, and a true copy thereof was served on Respondent- Empl9Yer on or about June 11, 1968. The first amended charge in Case 13.-CA-8481 was filed on June 27, 1968, and a true copy thereof was served on the Respondent-Employer on or about July 1, 1968. Pursuant to a petition filed on April 4, 1968, in Case 13-RC-11534 and an agreement for consent election executed and approved May 6, 1968, a secret-ballot election was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board on May 23, 1968, in the unit described in the said agreement. The numerical talley of ballots of said election revealed that of the valid ballots a majority of the votes had been cast against the participating labor organization. Thereafter timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were filed by the Petitioner (the participating labor organization) with a copy thereof being duly served on the Respondent-Employer. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the said Regional Director, after reasonable notice to all parties to present relevant evidence, completed an investigation of the objections, reviewed all statements made by witnesses, and carefully considered all other evidence submitted by the parties, and on August 28, 1968, issued a Report on Objections, an Order Consolidating Cases (13-CA-8481 and 13-RC-11534-consent), and a notice of consolidated hearing in Cases 13-CA-8481 and 13-RC-11534. In said report the said Regional Director overruled Objections 2 and 3, found Objection I to relate to conduct which was the subject of complaint allegations in Case 13-CA-8481 and that the issues thereto raised substantial and material facts and questions concerning the conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director further found that Objection 4 was overruled except to the extent that it encompassed Objection 1 The Regional Director ordered that a hearing be held to resolve Objection I and that such hearing be consolidated with any hearing in Case 13-CA-8481 and held before a Trial Examiner. ' Objection I (13-RC-11534) avers "That the Employer, immediately following the commencement of the Petitioner's organizing campaign, initiated so-called safety meetings during which it made threats and promises to its maintenance employees." The complaint allegation (13-CA-8481) avers "on or about May 21, 1968, Respondent-Employer, by its agent and supervisor, Leon Bassett, told its assembled employees that the Company would never recognize the Union." The General Counsel furnished pretrial clarification to reveal that the contended conduct occurred at the Elston Avenue plantsite. 'The Regional Director provided that if Case 13-CA-8481 were disposed of prior to hearing , a Hearing Officer would be designated to hear the representation matter (I 3-RC-11534) 175 NLRB No. 65 SKIL CORPORATION 395 The issue in this case is thus whether the Respondent-Employer engaged in the conduct alleged in the complaint as indicated, whether such conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and whether such conduct constituted objectionable conduct affecting the results of the election held on May 23, 1968. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in this proceeding and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by all parties and have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby find as follows:' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER' Skit Corporation, the Respondent-Employer, is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and authorized to do business by, the laws of the State of Delaware. Skit Corporation, at all times material herein, has engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of power drills, saws, and other related products. Respondent-Employer maintains a plant and general offices at 5033 North Elston Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and a second plant at 3500 West Oakton Street, Skokie, Illinois, which are the only two facilities involved in this proceeding. During the past calendar year, the Respondent-Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $500,000 and caused to be shipped across State lines, and in foreign commerce, goods valued in excess of $50,000. Based upon the foregoing and as conceded by the Respondent-Employer, it is concluded and found that the Respondent-Employer is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED4 Local 1693, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION A. Preliminary Issues' At all times material herein, the following named persons occupied the positions set forth opposite their respective names, and have been and are now agents of the Respondent-Employer, acting in its behalf within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act, and are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: John Sullivan - President James T. Ryan - Vice President - Personnel Leon Bassett - Vice President - Operations Leonard Kowalski - Plant Engineer B. The Events of May 21, 1968 It is clear and undisputed that the Respondent-Employer held a meeting at the Elston Avenue plantsite on May 21, 1968, for employees. This meeting was held in the product conference room. The meeting commenced around 3 p.m. and lasted until around 4 p.m. Present for management were President Sullivan, Vice President (personnel) Ryan, Vice President (operations) Bassett, and Plant Engineer Kowalski. After the meeting started, Alex Mackey, assistant treasurer, later appeared and participated in said meeting. All of the maintenance employees working that day, around 22, attended this meeting.' At this meeting Ryan, Bassett, Kowalski, and Sullivan made statements to the employees concerning Respondent-Employer's opposition to the Union and the reasons employees did not need a union. The only issue in this case is whether Bassett told the employees that the Respondent-Employer would never recognize the Union.' I credit the testimony of Bassett, Ryan, and Kowalski to the effect that Bassett did not, on May 21, 1968, tell the employees in the meeting that the Respondent-Employer would never recognize the Union. Credibility Comment Basset, Ryan, and Kowalski, in their demeanor and testimony, impressed me as frank, forthright, and truthful witnesses. Furthermore, their testimony appeared to be a full, complete, and objective recital of the facts as they knew them. Their testimony also was convincing that as witnesses they had a better facility at recalling in more accurate and precise terms the words actually said at the meeting involved. Witnesses Moore, Wilburn, and Polynice impressed me as witnesses who were attempting to tell the truth as they knew it. However, neither Moore, Wilburn, nor Polynice appeared to be witnesses who had the facility of being able to recall in precise and accurate fashion the words spoken on May 21, 1968. Moore impressed me as a witness confused in his recollection as to most details but convinced in his own mind of the conclusionary meaning thereof. Neither Moore, Wilburn, nor Polynice appeared as complete and objective in their testimony to the events as Ryan, Bassett, and Kowalski. Certain other witnesses, Ivor Davis, Stanley Novak, and Melvin Peterson, were adduced by the Respondent-Employer, and while their testimony to an extent corroborated the testimony of Ryan, Bassett, and Kowalski, in and of itself such testimony appeared unreliable. Thus the testimony of such witnesses was very fragmentary and negative in nature. Furthermore, Ivor Davis impressed me by his demeanor as a completely 'All credibility resolutions are based in whole or in part on my observation of the witnesses' demeanor and upon a composite evaluation thereof with the logical consistency of all the facts. Respondent -Employer's motion to correct the transcript , dated December 6, 1968 , is hereby granted and the transcript is hereby corrected . Said motion is hereby marked as TX. Exh. I and is hereby received into the record. 'The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. 'The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein. 'The facts are based upon the pleadings and the-admissions therein. 'The facts are based upon the composite of the credited aspects of the testimony of all witnesses . As indicated later, I found the testimony of Ryan, Bassett , and Kowalski to be more reliable and more credible than that of Moore , Wilburn , and Polynice as to the areas of conflict and thus credit the testimony of Ryan, Bassett, and Kowalski and discredit the testimony of Moore , Wilburn, and Polynice in conflict therewith. 'As indicated later herein , I do not agree with the contentions in the briefs of Charging Party and General Counsel to the effect that there are now other issues . The issue was clearly set forth by the pleadings and by statements at the hearing. 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unobjective witness. In sum, of all the witness, I found Ryan, Bassett, and Kowalski to appear more objective, complete, and reliable in their demeanor and testimony, and I credit their testimony to the effect that Bassett did not say to the employees, on May 21, 1968, that the Respondent-Employer would not recognize the Union. Certain Miscellaneous Contentions In their briefs the Charging Party and the General Counsel pointed out their contentions of inconsistencies and changes in the testimony of various Respondent-Employer's witnesses and their contention that the testimony as a whole raised issues as to implied threats of futility of selection of a union and revealed subtle but implied threats of refusal to recognize the Union. It must be noted that the complaint simply and clearly alleged that on May 21, 1968, Bassett told the assembled employees that the Company would never recognize the Union. The witnesses adduced by the General Counsel also testified to such direct effect. I construe the issues and the litigation herein to be to this simple point. I have carefully considered the briefs in this matter and the entire questions and answers relating to the various points involved My credibility resolutions are as previously indicated. Furthermore, however, considering the totality of the evidence, I do not find or conclude that the credited evidence reveals that the Respondent-Employer, by Bassett or others, by subtle threats, told the employees that the Company would never recognize the Union. Rather, I find that the Respondent-Employer, by Bassett and others, engaged in legitimate electioneering that did not constitute conduct of interference, restraint, or coercin within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act, or conduct that interfered improperly with the conduct of the election held on May 23, 1968. Conclusions Accordingly, it is concluded and found that the Respondent-Employer, on May 21, 1968, did not engage in conduct wherein Bassett told employees that the Respondent-Employer would never recognize the Union It follows therefore that the Respondent-Employer, as alleged, did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It also follows that the Respondent-Employer, as averred in Objections I and 4, did not engage in conduct which improperly affected the results of the election held on May 23, 1968, in Case 13-RC-11534. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent-Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 1693, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 The Respondent-Employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices, as alleged, in the complaint (13-CA-8481). 4 The Respondent-Employer has not engaged in conduct, as averred, improperly affecting the results of the election held on May 23, 1968 (13-RC-1 1534) RECOMMENDED ORDER AND ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby 1. Order that Cases 13-CA-8481 and 13-RC-11534 (consent) be severed and that Case 13-RC-11534 (consent) be remanded, and it hereby is remanded, to the Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board, with recommendation that Objections I and 4 be overruled and a certification of the results of the election held on May 23, 1968, be issued 2. Recommend that the complaint in Case 13-CA-8481 be dismissed in its entirety. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation