The Timken Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 853 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

THE TIMKEN COMPANY
The Timken Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW, Petitioner.
Case 8-RC-8283
January 6, 1971
DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 8 on August 4, 1971,
among the employees in the unit described below. At
the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 1,055 eligible voters, 1,021 cast ballots,
of which 488 were for, and 532 against, the Petitioner,
and I was challenged. The challenged ballot is not
sufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereaft-
er, the Union filed timely objections to the conduct
affecting the results of the election and to the conduct
of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on October 20, 1971,
issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on
Objections, in which he recommended the Petitioner's
numbered objections be overruled,' one unnumbered
objection be sustained, and that the election be set
aside and a new election ordered. Thereafter, the
Employer, filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report with supporting 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
authority in this proceeding 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
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Union is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing 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 employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees em-
- ployed at Employer's Bucyrus, Ohio Plant and
853
Shipping Center, excluding foremen, assistant
foremen, or supervisors in charge of any class of
labor, watchmen, guards, office clerical employ-
ees, factory clerks or other clerical workers,
professional employees, salaried employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Direc-
tor's report and the exceptions thereto, and hereby
adopts the Regional Director's findings and recom-
mendations. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in
that portion of the Regional Director's report atta-
ched hereto, we sustain the unnumbered objections,
and we shall set aside the election and direct a new
election be held.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election previously
conducted herein on August 4, 1971, be, and it hereby
is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election2 omitted from
publication.]
i Although the Regional Director found a credibility issue with respect
to one of the objections , he concluded that it was unnecessary to pass on
that allegation in view of his recommendation that the election be set aside
on other grounds
2 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.LR.B v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S
759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that 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 8 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 extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed
APPENDIX
EXCERPT FROM REGIONAL
DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Allegation in Addition to Numbered Objections
During the investigation of its objections the
Petitioner attacked segments of O'Connor's speeches
on the basis that his remarks contained the
"implication that layoffs would have resulted in the
Bucyrus plants had the employees been organized
)f
Specifically, the Petitioner refers to the following
passages from O 'Connor' s speeches . . . and two
graphs comparing the hourly work force at the
Employer's Bucyrus plant with that of its other
unionized bearing operations... .
DURING RECENT MONTHS, WHILE OUT-
SIDE UNION ORGANIZERS HAVE BEEN
ATTEMPTING TO DISPUTE OUR OPERA-
194 NLRB No. 121
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TIONS HERE AT BUCYRUS, THERE HAS
BEEN CONSIDERABLE LOOSE TALK
ABOUT EVENTS AT BUCYRUS, DURING
THE CURRENT ECONOMIC RECESSION
AND ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAP-
PENED IF BUCYRUS EMPLOYEES HAD
BEEN MEMBERS OF A UNION.
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ACTUALLY
WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU HAD
BEEN MEMBERS OF A UNION; BUT WE
CAN GET A GOOD IDEA BY LOOKING AT
SOME COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT WHAT
ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN AT OTHER
TIMKEN COMPANY PLANTS WHERE EM-
PLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED BY A UN-
ION.
THESE GRAPHS SHOW THE WORK AT THE
BUCYRUS PLANT AND DISTRIBUTION
CENTER FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,
1970, THROUGH MAY 1, 1971, AND ALSO
THE WORK FORCE AT OTHER TIMKEN
COMPANY PLANTS DURING THE SAME
PERIOD. THE FACT IS THAT SINCE THE
END OF THE PERIOD OF GOOD BUSINESS
IN 1969, THE WORK FORCE AT TIMKEN
COMPANY UNION PLANTS HAS BEEN
REDUCED BY 1,576 EMPLOYEES. THESE
ARE NOT NUMBERS, THESE ARE HUMAN
BEINGS DEPENDING UPON THE TIMKEN
COMPANY FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
NEARLY 700 OF THESE EMPLOYEES WERE
LAID OFF BECAUSE JOBS WERE NO LONG-
'ER AVAILABLE TO THEM. THE REMAIN-
DER OF APPROXIMATELY 800 WERE SIM-
PLY NOT REPLACED WHEN THEY LEFT
DUE TO NORMAL ATTRITION. IN ADDI-
TION, HUNDREDS OF EMPLOYEES WERE
RETROGRESSED TO LOWER PAYING JOBS
TO FILL VACANCIES LEFT BY EMPLOYEES
LEAVING THE COMPANY. MANY OF THE
LAID OFF EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT YET
BEEN RECALLED; AND, TO THE BEST OF
OUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE STILL WITHOUT
JOBS.
DURING THIS SAME PERIOD, THE GRAPH
SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE LEVEL OF
EMPLOYMENT AT BUCYRUS HAS RE-
MAINED VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED. THIS
DID NOT HAPPEN ACCIDENTLY- IT WAS
THE RESULT OF SPECIFIC PLANS TO
MAINTAIN THE WORK FORCE AT BUCY-
RUS WITH AS LITTLE DISTURBANCE AS
POSSIBLE. THESE PLANS WERE MADE TO
PROVIDE JOB SECURITY FOR YOU BY THE
TIMKEN COMPANY.
The Employer defends its conduct upon the ground
that O'Connor was doing nothing more than refuting
and contradicting "the false and misleading claims
and charges which had been made by the Union
consistently and regularly over a period of about six
weeks." Further, the Employer argues that the
Petitioner had the time and means to reply had it so
desired, that the Petitioner had explained to the
employees their rights, and finally, that O'Connor's
comments in question constituted nothing more than
a privileged expression of his opinion that the Union
would not provide job security.
Inasmuch as the Petitioner is not alleging any
misrepresentation in this regard the ultimate issue
upon which this objection must hinge is whether or
not O'Connor's remarks were inherently coercive.
Examination of O'Connor's above-quoted state-
ments reveals that when initiating the employment
stability comparison between the Bucyrus plant and
the Employer's organized plants, O'Connor empha-
sized what he referred to as "cold, hard facts about
what actually did happen at other Timken Company
plants where employees are represented by a Union."
In the subsequent paragraph O'Connor related that of
the 1,576 employees who lost jobs at the Employer's
unionized plants, nearly 700 were laid off because
their jobs were no longer available to them. However,
"the remainder of approximately 800 were simply not
replaced when they left due to normal attrition."
Utilizing the graphs, which were blown up in size
and exposed to the view of the employees throughout
the meetings with them, O'Connor observed that the
level of employment at the Bucyrus plant has
remained virtually unchanged. O'Connor's final
comment which assumes considerable significance in
view of his earlier remarks about the unionized plants,
clearly reveals to the employees as O'Connor stated,
"This did not happen accidently- it was the result of
specific plans to maintain the work force at Bucyrus
with as little disturbance as possible. These plans were
made to provide job security for you by the Timken
Company."
Contrary to the Employer's argument, I find that
O'Connor's statements were more than merely privi-
leged expressions of opinion. Together with the
graphs they dramatically conveyed to the employees
that because the Bucyrus plant had been unorganized
the Employer undertook various measures to main-
tain a stable level of employment, whereas for its
organized plants it did not; and conversely, should the
Bucyrus employees become unionized they could
expect similar treatment.
In my opinion, the foregoing portion of O'Connor's
speech was reasonably calculated to instill in the
minds of the voters that although the Employer had
maintained a stationary level of employment at
Bucyrus in the past, by referring to the employee
THE TIMKEN COMPANY 855
reduction at its unionized plants, the Employer would
not continue such practice in the future should the
Bucyrus employees also become unionized. In these
circumstances the conclusion is inescapable that by
implanting the fear of loss of employment in the
minds of the voters should they select the Petitioner as
their bargaining agent, the Employer interfered with
the employees' freedom of choice in the election so as
to warrant setting the election aside.