Tennessee Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 315 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC. 315
Tennessee Plastics, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association Local Union No. 464.
Case 10-CA-9854
December 5, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On March 19, 1973, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order' in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and
ordering that it cease and desist therefrom and, upon
request, bargain collectively with Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association Local Union No. 464' as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit. Enforcement of the Board's
order was denied on February 13, 1974, by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.' The
court found that Respondent had never been given the
opportunity to present evidence at a Board hearing and
therefore ordered that the Board's application for en-
forcement of its order be denied, its order and the order
approving and adopting the Regional Director's report
be vacated,' and the case be remanded to the Board
"with directions that the company[Respondent] be af-
forded a full adversary hearing upon its exceptions to
the Regional Director's Report." Thereafter, the Board
issued an order remanding the proceeding to the Re-
gional Director, and directing that a hearing be held
before an Administrative Law Judge, who should pre-
pare and serve on the parties at the conclusion of the
i 202 NLRB 462
2 Herein the Union
3 NL R B v Tennessee Plastics, Inc, 489 F 2d 734 (C A 6, 1974)
4 Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election issued
on May 16, 1972, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 26,
1972 There were 299 ballots cast for the Union and 212 ballots cast against
the Union, with 31 challenged ballots Thereafter, Respondent filed timely
objections to the election The Regional Director issued his report on July
12, 1972, overruling the objections in their entirety and recommending that
the Board certify the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the report On October 5, 1972, the Board
issued its Decision and Certification of Representative in Case
10-RC-9176 adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Regional Director and certifying the Union Pursuant to charges filed
by the Union on November 8, 1972, the General Counsel issued a complaint
on November 22, 1972, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act Respondent, in its answer, admitted that it refused to
bargain with the Union, but denied that the Union was the appropriate
representative because the results of the election were "not dispositive of the
wishes of the majority of the employees in the voting unit " The General
Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the proceeding was
transferred to the Board In its response thereto, Respondent contended that
General Counsel's motion would deprive it of an opportunity to present
evidence and be heard On March 19, 1973, the Board issued its Decision
and Order granting the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
and finding that Respondent had violated the Act
hearing a decision containing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and recommendations.
Following a hearing held on May 21 and 22, 1974,
at which all parties were represented, Administrative
Law Judge Almira A. Stevenson issued her attached
Decision on June 28, 1974, recommending that Re-
spondent's objections to the election be overruled, and
that the Board's certification of the Union, its conclu-
sion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act, and its order that Respondent bargain upon
request be affirmed. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge and a supporting brief, and the Union filed a
brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision in light of the excep-
tions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's rulings, findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations.
5 In the absence of specific exceptions , we adopt proforma the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's recommendation that Respondent ' s Objections 2 and 5
be overruled
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby overrules the objections to the election;
reaffirms the certification of Sheet Metal Workers' In-
ternational Association Local Union No. 464 as the
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
and the finding that P espondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) when it refused to bargain therewith;
and orders that Respondent take the action set forth in
the order previously issued herein on March 19, 1973.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge:
Pursuant to a remand by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit dated January 3, 1974,' and an imple-
menting order by the National Labor Relations Board dated
March 6, 1974, a full adversary hearing was held March 21
and 22, 1974, at Johnson City, Tennessee, upon the Respon-
dent's exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objec-
tions to the election which had been conducted in Case
10-RC-9176 on May 26, 1972. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to call witnesses and introduce evidence. Briefs
have been filed by the Respondent and the Union. The pre-
sent Administrative Law Judge has had no previous connec-
tion with the case.
i 489 F 2d 734
215 NLRB No. 52
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR KELATIONS BOARD
The Union filed the petition in Case 10-RC-9176 On May
1, 1972. On May 26, 1972, the election was held, and the
Union won 299 to 212, with 31 enallenged ballots and 2 void
ballots which were not determinative. The Respondent filed
objections to the election, which were overruled by the Re-
gional Director without a hearing. The Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report in which it con-
tended that its objections should not have been overruled by
the Regional Director and, alternatively, requested a hearing
on the issues raised therein On October 5, 1972, the Board
adopted the Regional Director ' s report and certified the
Union in the unit found appropriate . The Respondend re-
fused to bargain and, in Case 10-CA-9854, the Board
found that the Respondent had thereby violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and ordered the Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and to, inter alia, bargain , upon request, with
the Union
The court of appeals denied enforcement of the Board's
order, vacated said order and the Board's order approving
and adopting the Regional Director 's report, and remanded
the case to the Board with directions that the Company be
afforded a full adversary hearing upon its exceptions to the
Regional Director 's report either before the Board itself or a
hearing officer. The Board thereupon ordered that a hearing
be held before an Administrative Law Judge to be designated
for the purpose of taking evidence in accordance with the
court's remand , and that, upon the conclusion of such hear-
ing, the Administrative Law Judge prepare and serve upon
the parties a decision containing findings of fact based upon
the evidence received, conclusions of law, and recommenda-
tions.
Upon the basis of the court's opinion, which is the law of
the case, the briefs , the evidence received at the hearing, and
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , I make the
following:
Objection 1. Union observors talked with eligible voters
during the election in the polling area thereby influenc-
ing the employees and depriving them of their freedom
of choice.
In support of this objection, the Respondent presented the
testimony of Mamie Stanton, an employee who served as
company observer during the voting of first-shift employees
of plant 1 Stanton testified that observers were instructed not
to speak to the voters, but to watch them after they received
their ballots to see that there was only one voter in the voting
booth at a time and that they put their marked ballots in the
ballot box Stanton testified that during the election she heard
one of the union observers, Nora Hardin , laugh , and then
heard the Board agent say , "no laughing." As the laughing
continued , Stanton heard the Board agent say sternly,
"straight face." This "tickled" Stanton, but she covered her
mouth with her hand so no one could see that she herself was
laughing. Employees from two departments were lined up to
vote and Stanton was watching the voting booths and there-
fore was not looking at Hardin at this time . Stanton testified
that she did not hear Hardin say anything to any voter.
I credit this testimony rather than that of Nora Hardin,
who denied laughing during the voting . Although the memo-
ries of all witnesses have faded as to some of the things that
happened now so long ago, I believe Stanton stuck to the
truth about what she did remember , whereas Hardin 's confu-
sion and inconsistencies on cross-examination created the
impression she had reconstructed events to what she consid-
ered her own best advantage.
Objection 3. Threats of physical violence to persons
made by union representatives , its agents and/or em-
ployees within the voting unit directed to eligible voters
in the event that they did not vote for the union inter-
fered with the freedom of choice of employees within the
voting unit.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Respondent operates three plants in Johnson City,
Ter Lessee. Employees of all three plants are included in the
appropriate unit . No issue is presented regarding alleged in-
terference at plants 2 or 3, or to the knowledge of the eligible
voters employed at those plants. The issues are confined
solely to plant 1, which employs 60 percent of the total com-
plement . Seventy percent of them work on the first shift, and
they voted between 12:30 and 2 p.m.; 30 percent of the plant
1 employees work on the second shift, and they voted r -tween
5 and 5:30 p.m.
The Respondent 's exceptions placed in issue the following
objections, which were fully litigated before me:'
2 The Respondent 's exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objec-
tions did not take issue with the Regional Director 's finding that the follow-
ing objections were without merit
Objection 2 Threats of economic reprisals made by union representa-
tives , its agents and/or employees within the voting unit directed to
eligible voters in the event that they did not vote for the union inter-
fered with the freedom of choice of employees within the voting unit
The factual issues presented by the exception to this objec-
tion are (1) whether or not employee Evelyn Reece told em-
ployee Norma Dye, on the morning of election day, that
everyone who voted against the Union would have their hair
cut off, or words to that effect; (2) the extent to which knowl-
edge of such an incident and Reece's immediate discharge for
it became known to voters before the election ; and (3)
whether Reece was an agent of the Union or was clothed by
the Union with the appearance of agency in the eyes of the
employees.
(1) For 30 minutes or so before the 7 a.m. start of the first
shift on the day of the election , Evelyn Reece , along with two
other women employees , Nora Hardin and Fannie Nelson,
several men employees , and International Organizer Bill J.
Reinhard and other organizers, lined up along the road lead-
Objection 5 By these and other acts , the employees were deprived of
an opportunity to cast a free and untrammeled ballot in the election
In these circumstances , and as no evidence was presented at the hearing
in support of these objections , it is recommended that Objections 2 and 5
be overruled
TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC.
ing to plant 1 and passed out prounion literature to employees
driving to work.
Employee Norma Dye testified that as she drove along the
road leading to the plant that morning, a red-haired lady
whom she later learned was Reece said to her as Reece
handed her a pamphlet through the car window, "that if I or
anyone else didn't vote for the Union, that we would get our
hair cut off." Dye and Mamie Stanton testified that as soon
as Dye reached her work station she told Stanton about this
incident. Dye had been sick recently and shortly began to feel
bad again. Accompanied by the plant nurse, she went along
to the first aid room to lie down for a while. Meanwhile,
Stanton testified, she passed Dye's statement along to Person-
nel Manager Bob Carter. Leon Baker, manager of all three
plants, testified Carter told him at about 9 a.m. Picking up
Plant I Superintendent Bob Rose on the way, Baker pro-
ceeded to the first aid room. Dye and Baker testified similarly
that Baker asked her whether she had been threatened and
that, after first denying it, Dye repeated what she had told
Stanton. At Baker's request, Dye signed a written statement
to the following effect:
While coming to work on 5/26/72 Norma Jean Dye was
told by Evelyn Reece that if she and everyone else did
not vote for the union in the election they would get their
hair cut off.
The statement was witnessed by Baker and Rose who, along
with Dye, affirmed the fact on the stand, and by the nurse,
and was then notarized
I credit the above testimony by Dye that Reece made the
remark attributed to her. There is no probative evidence that
Dye had any reason to manufacture the incident; her story is
supported by her conduct immediately afterwards in relating
it to employee Stanton and putting it on paper in the presence
of plant officials and employees; and it was corroborated by
such officials and by Stanton whose account of Objection 1
conduct I have credited above. By contrast, Reece's denial is
supported only by the testimony of Hardin, whom I have
discredited as against Stanton above. Clayton Jackson's tes-
timony that he heard no one on the line say anything to Dye
is not significant, as he was by his own testimony some dis-
tance away from Reece at the time. Finally, it does not seem
in the least unlikely that Reece, who has a forceful, uninhib-
ited, colorful personality, would say what Dye says she said.
(2) Reece was discharged about 9:15, effective at 9.30 a in.,
3 hours before the polls opened.' Manager Baker had copies
of a notice typed up, as follows:
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This morning it was necessary for your company to
discharge Evelyn Reece because she threatened another
employee with physical harm if that employee did not
vote for the union. Your company cannot and will not
tolerate such behavior and we will take appropriate ac-
tion toward any employee who threatens his or her fel-
3 A complaint was issued alleging Reece's discharge to be a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act The Board found, however, that the
discharge was not discriminatorily motivated , and dismissed the complaint
203 NLRB 1, review denied 488 F 2d 535 (C.A 6, 1973)
317
low worker in connection with the day's election or any-
thing else relating to our company
Baker gave copies of the notices to the plant superintendents
for posting. In plant 1 the notice was posted about 11 a.m.
on the bulletin boards by the timeclock at the plant entrance
and in the cafeteria.
Baker testified that employee discussion of Reece's threat
"was going on all over the plant," and that that was the
reason he had the notices posted. Ten employees (Davis,
Hicks, Carter, Cole, Morrell, Deal, Gilliam, Laws, Bowers,
and Willard) testified that individually, or in a group of se-
veral employee's, they heard a rumor about Reece's threat to
Dye, or a variation of it, before the election.' Three more
employees (Mclnturff, Chandler, and Adams) testified they
heard the rumor but failed to say they heard it before the
election. Carter said it was all over the production line by 10
a in. Bowers and Willard heard it before starting work on the
second shift, and Bowers said everybody on the second shift
was talking about it. Stanton and Davis heard, in addition,
that Dye had not told the truth, and Davis that "the company
would take care of Dye; Hicks heard that the Company had
bribed Dye. Reynolds heard that Reece had said she would
see that those who voted against the Union got fired.
Seven of the above-named witnesses (Davis, Hicks, Cole,
Morrell, Deal, Gilliam, and Bowers) heard about Reece's
discharge before the polls opened.' Cole, Deal, Clayton
Jackson, and Nora Hardin read one of the posted notices
before the election.
There is also some testimony regarding the possible effect
of these events. Thus, Dye herself testified she was against the
Union and that she voted in the election, but that she was
afraid and a little concerned that Reece was going to cut her
hair off. Stanton, the company observer, who also voted,
seems not to have been affected by Reece's threat to Dye as
she testified that when Dye told her about it, she advised Dye
that Reece had no right to tell her how to vote as she had the
right to vote as she saw fit. However, because she heard
Hardin loudly shout from the production line that Dye had
lied and others say they did not believe Reece would say such
a thing,' Stanton claimed she became concerned for Dye's
safety and asked the supervisors to watch out for her. Mcln-
turff testified that the rumors did not bother her; she never
intended to vote in the election, and did not, as she "just
didn't want to be all messed up with it." Reynolds said the
rumors about Reece's threat did not affect her vote; she
volunteered that she voted against the Union because Person-
nel Manager Bob Carter had already told her when he hired
her that "they" did not want the Union. Deal testified she
voted the way she wanted to despite the rumors. Laws, a
first-shift voter, testified the rumors did not worry him even
though he did not hear about Reece's discharge until the day
after the election.
I credit the testimony set forth above, which is substan-
tially undisputed, to the effect that Reece's threat or a vana-
tion became widely known among employees in the voting
unit; and that most of those who heard about it, also heard,
4 Laws mistakenly placed the rumor 2 or 3 days before the election
5 Four other employees (Carter , Chandler, Adams, and Willard) also
heard about Reece's discharge or read the notice but were not sure it was
before the election
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or learned from the notice posted at the timeclock and in the
cafeteria where the election was held, that Reece was ter-
minated . I-also find that Dye was frightened by Reece's re-
mark but not too frightened to vote. I further find that there
is no evidence that Reece's threat to Dye affected the vote of
any employee, in the unit.
(3) The following testimony was received relevant to the
Respondent's agency contention:
(a) Maintenance Foreman Robert Shell testified that Reece
told him a few days before the election (which was held on
Friday, May 26) that "after Friday I will have accomplished
what I came here to accomplish."
(b) Employee Anna Hicks testified Reece said to her "that
she was there to get the Union in and that she was going to
stay until it came in and then she would leave."
(c) Employee Elizabeth Mclnturff testified that a few days
before the election Reece stated in her presence and the pre-
sence of several employees that "she had about accomplished
what she set out to do."
(d) A day or two before the election, Plant 1 Superintend-
ent Bob Rose testified he approached Reece in a group of
employees in the plant and said he had heard "you are leaving
us after Friday"; and Reece responded, "yes sir. After Friday
my job is finished. I've come here-I've done what I came
here to do. And I'm going on to greener pastures."
(e) President Robert Dennis and Marketing Manager
Frank Chandler testified that they encountered Reece away
from the plant on the evening of election day and she told
them she had been sent to TPI to organize the employees for
the Union.
Reece was hired by the Respondent in March 1971 and was
instrumental in making the initial contact with the Union in
November 1971 about organizing the plant . Her reason for
doing so, she said, was because of "the way I was treated."
On and after February 5, 1972, she said, she was involved in
union activity . She signed an authorization card and obtained
signatures on authorization cards from 75 to 90 of the over
100 employees she solicited . She wore three buttons, a tee-
shirt , and carried a handbag with prounion sentiment printed
on them. In addition, she personally bought "vote yeas" post-
ers and posted them in the plant bathrooms. Reece handbilled
outside the plant on four or five occasions, including three
times during the week of the election. At all of these occasions
organizers from the Union were present . As a member of the
in-plant organizing committee , she contacted employees in
the plant and at their homes urging them to attend meetings,
and she rented meeting places for Local 464 Business Agent
Gregg from various local organizations having such facilities.
She attended most of the meetings where she spoke and asked
questions, and was appointed by International Organizer
Reinhard to be an election observer for the Union but was
replaced after her discharge. She continued many of the
above-listed activities after her discharge.
Although there is evidence that other plant employees,
including Jackson , Hardin , and Nelson , also campaigned for
the Union, the testimony of several employees (Bowers, Dye,
David Carter, Stanton, and Willard) indicates that Reece
took such a leading part that she was the only employee union
advocate they were aware of.
Reece testified she told several people, including employee
Elizabeth Melnturff, President Dennis, and Plant 1 Superin-
tendent Rose, that she "was the one that got the Union in
here, or was getting the Union in here," and that she "could
swing that election any-either way." She said, however, that
during the time she was employed by TPI she was not em-
ployed by anyone else and received no compensation from
any other company or organization.
International Organizer Bill Reinhard headed the cam-
paign to organize the Respondent's employees, taking over in
early April from Tom Reed who had done some spade work
for the Union. He was assisted by Organizers Raglan and
Hines, and by Local 464 Business Manager Jack Gregg. Rein-
hard, Gregg, and the other organizers instructed employees,
including Reece, who were to engage in handbilhng, to be
polite and not to engage in discussions with employees which
might jeopardize the outcome of the election. They both de-
nied instructing Reece to threaten anybody. Although Gregg
concentrated on plants 2 and 3, Reinhard was present at the
plant 1 handbilling keeping a tight rein on those with him
because he considered such roadside activity dangerous.
Union Business Manager Gregg and International Organ-
izer Reinhard testified that Reece had no official status with
the International , was never a member of Local 464, and was
never paid for her work in the campaign or told she would
be asked to organize other plants.
I credit the testimony of Shell, Hicks, Mclnturff, Rose, and
Dennis and find that Reece told, or implied to, them that she
had been sent into the plant for the specific purpose of organ-
izing its employees. I also credit Reinhard and Gregg that
this was not true. In my opinion, Reece is such an ardent
believer in unionism, and worked so much harder than any
other employee to bring the Union into the plant that she
came to believe that, as she testified, she could determine the
outcome of the campaign. Because Reece felt her role to be
so important, she could not resist the exaggeration expressed
to some of the plant personnel, but not, of course, in the
presence of union officials.
Objection 4. Threats of physical violence to property
made by union representatives , its agents and/or em-
ployees within the voting unit directed to eligible voters
in the event that they did not vote for the union inter-
fered with the freedom of choice of employees within the
voting unit.
In support of this objection , the Respondent presented tes-
timony by former employee Betty Jo Campbell, who voted in
the election, to the effect that during a conversation with
employee Mark McKenny in the plant during the second
shift 2 or 3 weeks before the election,
... we were talking and something was mentioned
about the union coming in and maybe having a strike.
And I said well, if they did strike I would come on in
to work anyway. And he said no you wouldn't because
if you tried to cross the picket line your car would be
picked up and thrown up in the air with you in it. And
I said you are not big enough to do that. And he said me
and a few others, we could do it.
McKenny was laughing, Campbell testified, and she thought
he was joking. Campbell repeated the conversation to only
one employee , Jeanette Bowers . Bowers confirmed that
TENNESSEE PLASTICS, INC.
Campbell told her, a few days before the election, that
McKenny had said , "That if they had a strike, and if she tried
to come across the line, they would throw her car up in the
air." It was Bowers' testimony that Campbell said she did not
know whether or not it was a joke.
McKenny, also a former employee, testified he was an
observer for the Union during the second-shift voting. He had
two conversations with Campbell about the Union, he said,
but he flatly denied making the statement attributed to him.
He did not, he said, attempt to get employees to vote for the
Union and in his conversation with them, he did not speak
"directly for or against . Not necessarily promoting it, no."
I credit Campbell in Coto. Campbell impressed me as reluc-
tant to testify but sticking to the simple truth once she de-
cided to do so. No motive for her doing otherwise is sug-
gested . Although I accept Bowers' testimony as
corroboration of what McKenny said to Campbell, I must
accept Campbell's testimony that she thought McKenny was
joking. McKenny conveyed the strong impression of trying to
hide something. He seemed to become uncertain on cross-
examination and his claim to complete passivity during the
election campaign appears to be inconsistent with his selec-
tion by the Union as its observer of the polling.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Objection 1. I have found that Union Observer Hardin
laughed twice during the polling of first-shift employees, and
that she was remonstrated by the Board agent for doing so;
but that there is no evidence that she or any other union
observer talked with eligible voters during the election.
No case has been cited to me, and I have seen none, holding
laughter to constitute interference with a Board election. I
hope I never see one. I recommend that Objection 1 be over-
ruled.
Objections 3 and 4. I have found that 2 or 3 weeks before
the election Mark McKenny told employee Campbell, in ef-
fect, that if the Union came in and there was a strike, he and
a few others would throw Campbell's car up in the air with
her in it if she tried to cross the picket line; that Campbell
considered McKenny's remarks to be a joke; and that this
remark came to the attention of one other employee, Jeanette
Bowers.
I have also found that Evelyn Reece told Norma Dye a few
minutes before 7 a.m. on the day of the election that if Dye
or anyone else did not vote for the Union, they would,get
their hair cut off. The Respondent discharged Reece for that
about 3 hours before the polls opened and posted notices so
informing the employees about 1-1/2 hours before the first-
shift voting began. Knowledge of Reece's threat, and her
discharge, became widespread among plant 1 employees
before they voted. Dye was frightened by Reece's threat, but
there is no evidence that any other employee was frightened
by it or that Dye's, or any other employee's, vote was af-
fected.
There is no contention, and no evidence, that McKenny
was an agent of the Union, and I find he was not. I also find,
contrary to the Respondent's contention, that Evelyn Reece
was not an agent of the Union or clothed by the Union with
the appearance of agency in the eyes of the employees. It is
undisputed that Reece held no official position in either the
319
International or Local 464, was never paid for her campaign
work among the employees of the Respondent's plant, and
was not even a member of Local 464. Although the Union
received the support, of employee-members of the in-plant
organizing committee, and particularly Reece, it did not rely
on her as its principal contact with the eligible voters. On the
contrary, the Union was represented on the spot by a full staff
of agents under the leadership of International Organizer
Reinhard who personally directed the campaign. Designation
as a member of the in-plant organizing committee and as
union observer does not constitute an employee an agent, or
give her the apparent authority of an agent, of the
Union.6
Nor is the Union to be held accountable for an utterance
by its most ardent employee advocate where, as here, its
officers were not aware that she claimed, inaccurately, to
have a special organizing commission from it,' had cau-
tioned her and its other employee-supporters against utter-
ances of this kind and never knew about or ratified the threat
she made to Dye.'
As McKenny and Reece were merely rank-and-file em-
ployees, and not agents of the Union, the remaining issue is
whether their threatening statements created a general at-
mosphere among the employees of confusion and fear of re-
prisal if they voted for the Union.'
After careful consideration I have concluded that it is un-
likely that such an atmosphere was created in this plant.
Thus, although Reece's remark, or variations thereof, became
widely known among the voters, her immediate discharge for
making the remark also became widely known.10 Moreover,
there was no actual violence prior to this election, and the
Union's campaign was fully supervised by members of its
staff who made themselves highly visible to the eligible voters
and responsibly fulfilled their obligation to conduct their
campaign in a noncoercive atmosphere II Only one em-
ployee, Norma Dye, expressed any feeling of fear There is no
indication that any voters, including Dye, Campbell, and
Bowers, were intimidated into voting contrary to their own
convictions.12
6 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 179 NLRB 219, 223 (1969)
7 Bujkor-Plezner Division, Inc, 169 NLRB 998 (1968), remanded on
other grounds 77 LRRM 3155 (C A 9, 1971)
8 NLR B. v Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F 2d 26, 32 (C A 5,
1969), Bujkor-Pelzner Division, Inc, 197 NLRB 950 (1972), enfd 84
LRRM 2432 (C A. 9, 1973), Urban Telephone Corporation, 196 NLRB 23
(1972), Cross Baking Company, Inc., 186 NLRB 199, set aside on other
grounds, 453 F 2d 1346 (C A 1, 1971), Tunica Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 182 NLRB 729 (1970) 1 have read and considered at length the cases
cited in the Respondent 's brief i have concluded , however, that they are
different from this case which is controlled , in my opinion, by the precedent
cited above
9 See Sonoco of Puerto Rico, Inc, 210 NLRB 493 (1974)
10 Cross Baking Company, supra
It Bujkor-PelznerDivision, Inc, supra, fn 8, Owens-Corning Fiberglass
Corporation, supra.
12 Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation v NL.R B, 495 F 2d 671
(C A 6, 1974), NLR.B v Griffith Oldsmobile, Inc, 455 F 2d 867, 871
(C A 8, 1972), Central Photocolor Company, 195 NLRB 839 (1972) 1 find
no merit in the Respondent 's contention that Provincial House, Inc., 209
NLRB 215 (1974), requires that this election be set aside on the basis of
McKenny's threat to Campbell The statement in that case was made by a
union staff representative to a meeting of employees on the eve of the
election Here, it was made 2 or 3 weeks before the election by one rank-
and-file employee to another who considered the statement a joke. See
Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 234 (1953)
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , I recommend that Objections 3 and 4 be certification of the Union , its conclusion that the Respondent
overruled . violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
I conclude that the election reflected the true desires of the bargain , and its Order that the Respondent bargain upon
voters and should stand . request be affirmed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the objections of the Respondent
to the election of May 26, 1972, be overruled; that the Board's