Superior Wood Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 782 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of Lodge 681 to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the bargaining unit as the exclusive representative.
D. J. CALVERT & J. R . CALVERT D/B/A
MONARCH HARDWARE & MFG. COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em-
ployer is complying with its provisions , they may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office , Transit Building , Fourth and Vine Streets, Cincinnati , Ohio, Tele-
phone No. 381-1420.
Superior Wood Products , Inc. and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 18-RC-5536. January 2, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
June 14, 1963, among the employees in the unit described below. After
the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 40 eligible voters, 40 cast votes, of
which 22 were for the Petitioner and 18 against. The Employer filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
After investigation, the Regional Director, on July 10, 1963, issued
and served upon the parties his report and recommendation on ob-
jections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and
that a certification of representative be issued. The Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recommenda-
tion on objections.
On August 9, 1963, it appearing to the Board that the Employer's
objections raised issues that could best be resolved by a hearing, it was
ordered that a hearing be held before a Hearing Officer designated by
the Regional Director, with directions to "prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credi-
bility of witnesses , findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board
as to the disposition of the said issues." A duly scheduled hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Edwin H. Bennett on September 17, 1963.
The Employer and the Petitioner appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine
witnesses, land to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rul-
ings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
145 NLRB No. 80.
SUPERIOR WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. 783
On September 27, 1963, the Hearing Officer issued his report on
objection to election, finding that the Petitioner's representative had
made a statement to the employees 3 days prior to the election which
"constituted a threat of loss of business and resulting loss of jobs,
conditioned on the failure to vote for the Petitioner." The Hearing
Officer further found, however, that subsequent statements by the Em-
ployer's president and supervisors had neutralized the coercive effect
of the Petitioner's remark and that the Petitioner's conduct did not
affect the outcome of the election. He recommended that the Em-
ployer's objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's
report and a supporting brief.
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 Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer at its Hayward, Wisconsin,
plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The substance of the Employer's objections is that the Petitioner
threatened the employees with economic reprisal if they did not vote
for the union. The Hearing Officer found and the Petitioner con-
cedes that on June 11, 1963, Raymond A. Zimick, general representa-
tive of the Petitioner, told a meeting attended by approximately 25
to 30 of the employees in the unit that the Petitioner might cause em-
ployees of the I-XL Company, who were also represented by the Peti-
tioner, to refuse to handle the Employer's products if they "did not
join the union."
We agree with the Hearing Officer that, in the context in which this
statement was made, it was coercive. Thus, the individual making the
remarks was a responsible official of the Petitioner, which already
represented the employees at the I-XL Company and which was seek-
ing to represent the employees to whom he was speaking.' I-XL
1 Although Zimick's union responsibilities did not include jurisdiction over the local at
the I-XL Company , the record shows that in his capacity as general representative of the
International , he had discussed with Walter Said , the general representative of the Inter-
national who did have such jurisdiction , the extent of unionization at the Employer's
plant. Zimick also informed employees of Said's interest in the organizational efforts at
the Employer.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company was the Employer's largest customer, purchasing 96 percent
of its production. All these facts were known to the employees. Since
these employees could reasonably believe that the Petitioner was in a
position to carry out its threat of a boycott, and since such a boycott
would adversely affect their employment opportunities, we find that
Zimick's statement constituted a threat of loss of jobs if employees did
not vote for the Union.
We reject, however, the Hearing Officer's further finding that the
coercive effect of Zimick's statement was dissipated before the elec-
tion by the Employer's assurances that no harm would befall the
employees if they voted against the Petitioner. In this connection,
the Hearing Officer found that a general meeting of the employees
was held by the Employer on the day before the election, at which
the Employer's president (who was also I-XL's president) sought
to allay the employees' fears that I-XL Company employees would
refuse to handle the Employer's products if the Petitioner lost the
election. In addition, on several occasions between June 12 and 14,
the date of the election, supervisors of the Employer, speaking pri-
vately to individual employees, attempted to convince them that de-
feat of the Petitioner would not affect their jobs. But the substance
of the Petitioner's threat was that it would use its influence on its
members who worked for the I-XL Company to persuade them to
cease handling the Employer's products if it lost the election. Only
the Petitioner could guarantee to employees that no such action would
be taken. This it did not do. Although the Employer attempted
to assure employees that no harm would come to them if they voted
against the Petitioner, it was not in a position to control the actions
of the Petitioner or its members at the I-XL Company and, there-
fore, it could not neutralize the effects of the threat .2 In this respect,
the instant case is distinguishable from those cases relied on by the
Hearing Officer,' where a union threatened employees with loss of
employment or other economic reprisal related to their jobs if they
did not support the union. There, since the threats could not be
effective without the Employer's acquiescence, the Employer could,
of course, dissipate the effects of such threats by declaring that he
would refuse to take the necessary action. Here, however, the Peti-
tioner threatened action not by the Employer but by its members
employed by another employer, a circumstance over which neither
employer had any control.
2 The facts that the same Individual was president of both the Employer and the I-XL
Company, that I-XL's plant engineer was also acting plant manager of the Employer on
loan from I-XL, and that these facts may have been known to some of the employees in
the unit, do not require a contrary finding. In any event, officials of the Employer and of
I-XL were in no position to assure employees of the Employer that there would be no
boycott by the employees of I-XL.
8Shoreisne Enterprises of America and Shoreline Packing Corporation, 114 NLRB
716; Bender Playground Equipment, Inc., 97 NLRB 1561.
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF BECKLEY, INC. 785
We find, therefore, that the statement made by the Petitioner's
general representative to the employees at the meeting of June 11,
1963, was threatening and coercive and that it interfered with the
employees' free choice of a bargaining representative. Accordingly,
we shall set aside the election of June 14, 1963, and order a new
election.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Beckley , Inc. and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No . 175, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 9-CA-2716 and 9-RC-4997.
January 3, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Intermediate Report. He also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint as to such allegations. Thereafter, the Union and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs. The
Respondent filed no exceptions or 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's findings that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, and inter-
fered with the election held on August 31, 1962. Accordingly, we
145 NLRB No. 82.
734-070-64-vol. 145-51