Universal Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1101
In view of the foregoing, and all the facts as disclosed by our review
of the record, especially the close proximity of the shipping and receiv-
ing sections to the production area and the degree of integration of
the shipping and receiving functions with other functions performed
in the production areas, we are unable to conclude that the requested
group possesses that degree of functional distinctness and autonomy
which would warrant a finding that they have a separate community
of interest.' We find, therefore, contrary to the Regional Director,
that the unit sought is too narrow in scope to be appropriate.2 Accord-
ingly, as the Petitioner does not seek an election in a broader appro-
priate unit, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1See The Wm. H. Block Company, 152 NLRB 594; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc,
113 NLRB 375.
2 The cases of Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc., 111 NLRB 237, and H. P. Wasson & Company,
153 NLRB 1449, relied upon by the Regional Director as support for his contrary con-
clusion, are factually inapposite.
Universal Electric Company and International Union , District 50,
United Mine Workers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-
6878. January 01, 1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 10, 1965, under
the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for
Region 7 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the con-
clusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
showing that of approximately 756 eligible voters, 692 cast valid
ballots, of which 307 were for, and 380 were against, the Petitioner,
and 5 were challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in
number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely objections to the conduct of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Regional Director con-
ducted an investigation, and on August 19, 1965, issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on objections to election and recommenda-
tion, in which he recommended sustaining that portion of objection
No. 3 pertaining to an Employer speech delivered on June 9, 1965, and
overruling all other objections.' Accordingly, the Acting Regional
In the absence of exceptions thereto, we shall adopt the recommended dismissal of the
remaining objections pro forma.
156 NLRB No. 98.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director further recommended that the election be set aside and that
a second election be directed. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to so much of the Regional Director's report as found merit
in objection No. 3.
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 this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 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 the 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 including truckdrivers,
plant clerical employees, and shipping department employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, technical
employees, guards, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Acting Regional Director found, in accord with Petitioner's
Objection No. 3, that a speech made by the Employer's president,
Hoddy, at the plant slightly more than 24 hours before the election,
was coercive in character and hence warranted setting aside the elec-
tion. More specifically, he found that the thrust of the speech was to
emphasize and to capitalize on the past experiences of other local
employers who had moved allegedly to escape the consequences of
unionization at their plants, thus inferring that the same results might
well follow if the Petitioner were successful in its attempt to represent
the employees.
Our disagreement with the Acting Regional Director stems, basi-
cally, from his interpretation of the speech. As a matter of relevant
background, it appears that the speech in issue had been preceded by
an aggressive campaign in which both the Employer and the Union
had engaged in extensive distribution of campaign propaganda. That
of the Employer was largely directed to showing that unions had
selfish financial interests in organizing and did not always serve the
best interest of their members, while that of the Union was directed
to show that benefits it had obtained in union plants were greater
than those the Employer was providing voluntarily and that the
UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1103
employees' future "security" was dependent upon unionization. In
a letter sent by the Union to the Employer a few days before the elec-
tion, the Union asked that the Employer hold an open meeting of its
employees at which its representative and the Employer could both
debate their points of view. The Employer did not grant this request.
Although the Acting Regional Director regarded the Employer's
failure to do so as relevant to the Petitioner's objections to the speech
thereafter made by Hoddy, he noted that the union objections did not
specifically assert a right of "equal access" and that he would not
recommend setting aside the election solely because of the Employer's
failure to provide the Union with equal time or access 2
Turning now to the subject matter of the speech: Hoddy began
with the remark that he was there to answer the question put to him
by a named prounion employee as to why the Employer did not want
a union. In responding, Hoddy restated the Union's claims that the
employees' future job security depended upon their unionization.
Hoddy then set out to demonstrate that unions "could not create jobs" ;
that a number of named local employers, who had been unionized in
the past, had suffered financial losses thereafter due to uneconomic
demands and/or strike action; that some of those employers had either
moved their plants thereafter or had shut down their operations; and
that the unions involved had not thereafter created jobs for the 1,800
to 2,000 "unfortunate workers" of the communtiy who lost work
opportunities, but that the Employer had done so for 300 to 400 of
them, "many of whom were now in our midst." Describing the union
campaign as an "invasion" which had already produced ill will, dis-
content, division, and confusion, he then went on to detail the benefits
and the "security" already provided by the Employer; and asked the
employees to give "serious thought" to the "facts" he had laid out and
to ask other employees who had "suffered through" the experiences to
talk to them about the matters he had related.
We perceive nothing in the foregoing remarks which warrants find-
ings that the employees would reasonably construe Hoddy's narra-
tion of the experiences of other local employers who had moved from
the community as a threat that the Employer would likewise move
his plant in the event of unionization or as a prediction that such a
move inevitably follow as a result. Assuming that his narration of
these events was partisan in nature and represented an exaggeration of
the circumstances involved, the employees could, we believe, evaluate
the same as campaign rhetoric. Moreover, as is pointed out by the
Employer, the occurrences about which he spoke were matters which
had been generally known and openly discussed in the small com-
munity of 25, 000 people living in the city of Owosso.
2 No exception was filed -to this aspect of the Acting Regional Director's recommendation.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Considering all the facts, we are persuaded that Hoddy's remarks
created an unreasoned atmosphere of fear or that they otherwise
impaired the employees' free exercise of choice in the election. We
therefore dismiss Petitioner's objection No. 3.3
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has not received
a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, and as the challenged
ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election,
we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for International Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.]
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting:
I would adopt the Acting Regional Director's finding that the
Employer's preelection speech instilled in the employees the fear of
inevitable job loss, and that the Employer thereby interfered with the
employees' free choice in the election.
My colleagues' description of the Employer's repeated efforts to link
unionism with loss of work as being merely "campaign rhetoric" does
not accurately reflect the coercive impact inherent in the June 9
speech. Thus, the Employer referred to 1,800 jobs lost by employees
of the Redmond Company when that firm moved allegedly because of
high costs generated by "union pressures." A further relocation by
Redmond, again allegedly due to the "invasion" of a union and the
existence of union "pressure," was stated by the Employer to be the
cause of an additional loss of work for 2,000 employees. The
Employer also indicated that unionism forced job losses on employees
of the Woodard Company, another local employer, and clearly implied
that because of union activity Woodard "built another plant in North
Carolina." The theme of job loss again was emphasized by reference
to earlier campaign literature displayed by the Employer which, it
stated, indicated how "union pressure" caused "vast numbers of coal
miners" to become unemployed and "so destitute" that certain Federal
programs purportedly were needed "to provide them the necessities
of life." The Employer then related the adversities of the above
employees to its own work force by noting that its employees now were
involved in a union "invasion" which already had brought "disrespect,
ill will, discontent, division, and confusion" to the plant.
8 See Decorated Products , Inc., 140 NLRB 1383, 1385 , where we found nonobjectionable
certain statements by an employer and asserted : "In such statements the Employer was
merely answering prior propaganda of the Petitioner as to the benefits to be gained from
unionization and pointing out certain disadvantages which could result. This an em-
ployer has a right to do where, . . . It is done in a noncoercive manner."
LOCAL 2346, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS 1105
In light of all the foregoing statements, and the speech viewed in
its entirety, I cannot agree with my colleagues' conclusion that the
employees would not reasonably construe such remarks .as pointing
to a loss of employment which necessarily would follow the advent of
the Union. Nor, in my opinion, is the speech made lawful because
the relocation of the companies may have been generally known in
Owosso. If this has any significance, it is only to heighten the employ-
ees' fear of unemployment which the Employer sought to impress
upon them. The nature of such comments manifestly create and
intensified a fear that job security could not be maintained if the
Union won the election. Thus, by repeatedly emphasizing this theme,
the Employer did not simply answer prior propaganda but created an
atmosphere in which an uncoerced vote could not be cast. Accord-
ingly, I would direct the Regional Director to hold another election.
Local 2346, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO [ Erectors, Inc.] and Lathers' Local No. 39
a/w Wood , Wire and Metal Lathers' International Union, AFL-
CIO and Foster Engineering Company, Ltd., Party of Interest
and J. C. Penney Company , Party of Interest
Indiana and Kentucky District Council , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Erectors, Inc.]
and Lathers' Local No. 39, a/w Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers'
International Union , AFL-CIO and Foster Engineering Com-
pany, Ltd., Party of Interest and J. C. Penney Company, Party
of Interest. Cases Nos. 25-CC-134 and 925-CC-137. January 24,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 22, 1965, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
District Council had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent Local 2346
had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged and recommended
that the complaint against it in Case No. 25-CC-134 be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent District Council filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
156 NLRB No. 102.