Sunbeam ElectronicsDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 27, 1967167 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1967) Copy Citation 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sunbeam Electronics and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 12-RC-2814 October 27, 1967 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 16, 1967, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Re- gion 12 among the employees in the stipulated unit described below. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 632 eligible voters, 572 ballots were cast, of which 252 were for, and 316 against, the Petitioner, 3 ballots were challenged, and I ballot was void. The challenged ballots are not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on July 26, 1967, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objections be overruled in their entirety and that the results of the election be cer- tified. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely excep- tions to the Regional Director's report and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following unit constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Fort Lauderdale, Florida, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional emplyees, technical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the recommendations, and the entire record in this case, including the Petitioner's exceptions and supporting brief, and hereby makes the following findings: The Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the elec- tion in the instant case should be set aside upon the basis of a speech given by Employer President Wal- lace. Wallace addressed the night shift employees on June 13, 1967, and the day employees on June 14 (2 days prior to the election). The Regional Director concluded that "the speech was moderate in tone and content and noncoercive in nature." We cannot agree with his conclusion. Although we view the major portion of the speech as within the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda, in our opinion, one aspect of the speech clearly involved an implicit threat to close the plant if the employees selected the Petitioner as their collective-bargaining representative. President Wallace referred to a plant the Em- ployer had operated in Racine, Wisconsin. He stated, inter alia, "There was a strong union at the plant in Racine. The plant is no longer in existence in Racine." Wallace then stated that the plant did not cease operations because of the union's ex- istence, but neither did it remain operative because of the union. The statements concerning the Racine plant may not be objectionable when viewed in isolation. However, Wallace then continued with the following anecdote: As most of you know, I've had quite a bit of experience myself in locating sites for new plants, in establishing new plants ... I can't help but be reminded of the town I looked at where there was a beautiful plant available. It made the plant manager's mouth water.... The plant was offered to us at a very favorable price - practically nothing. We refused the offer. The company that had been in the area before and had occupied the plant was unionized. The union could not provide job security for those people who were living in that town any more than the Steelworkers or any other union could provide job security. Under the circumstances the company could not provide job security for those people. We did not want to go into that town with the at- titude that existed in the particular area.... In citing the aforementioned portions of Wal- lace's speech as objectionable, we do not question the right of an employer to locate its plant wherever it desires. However, the above anecdote was re- lated in the context of an election campaign at an existing unorganized plant. These remarks must be taken in conjunction with reference to a prior com- pany plant which contained a strong union and was forced to close. When coupled with the fact that the Company is constantly seeking new plant sites, 167 NLRB No. 139 SUNBEAM ELECTRONICS 1073 only one logical inference can be drawn, i.e., the clear implication that if the employees vote for the Petitioner the Employer might be forced to close the plant and move to another location. This con- stituted a thinly veiled but unmistakable threat of possible reprisal to the employees and tended to in- terfere with their free choice in the election. There- fore, we view the aforementioned portions of Em- ployer President Wallace's speech as coercive in nature and a sufficient basis for setting aside the election in the instant case. In the circumstances of this case, we hereby sustain Petitioner's Objection 4. Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a second election be held. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election con- ducted herein on June 16, 1967, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election' omitted from publication.] I An election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 12 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No ex- tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex- cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require- ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob- jections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 N LRB 1236 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation