Valley Die Cast Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1881 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

VALLEY DIE CAST CORPORATION
2. Have you talked it over with the "little wife"2
Can she face up to such a strife?
The family doing without; for maybe months,
Surely you aren't that big of a "chump!"
(or, are you2)
3. Look at the union rates, sent out in that letter
You guys top 'em; even go 'em better
Compare your pay with factories around town;
Really, how can you do otherwise, but turn it "thumbs down"?
(Ever play Siemon says "Thumbs down?")
4. If the union calls a strike-a long drawn out affair
Mani you all gonna be kicked down stairs.
Gonna lose that new car and new home,
Everything you've worked for, simply blown!
5. So, July 8 when it comes to a vote,
Don't let the union make you the scape goat.
You're the ones that'll have to pay
If you vote for them, Election Day.
1881
Valley Die Cast Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Ind., Intervenor . Case 7-RC-7J50. Octo-
(.ee' 12, 1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
approved on March 24, 1966, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on April 21, 1966, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 7 among the employees in the stipu-
lated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
314 eligible voters, 29S cast ballots, of which 121 were for the Peti-
tioner, 1 was for the Intervenor, 170 were against the participating
labor organizations, 4 ballots were challenged, and 2 ballots were
void. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and,
on June 9, 1966, issued and duly served upon the parties his report
and recommendations on objections to election attached hereto, in
which he recommended that the objections be overruled in their
160 NLRB No. 142.
1882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entirety and that the Board issue a certification of results to the effect
that a majority of the valid ballots had not been cast for Petitioner
or Intervenor and that neither of said labor organizations was the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report and a supporting
brief.,, The Employer filed a reply and supporting brief.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations
claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9(c) (1) and 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 employed by the
Employer at its four plants located at 1791 Bellevue, Detroit (plant
1, main plant) ; 1157 Beaufait, Detroit (plant 2) ; 1213 Bellevue,
Detroit (plant 3) ; and 1219 Beaufait (plant 4) including shipping
and receiving employees, inspection employees, and truckdrivers,
but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with re-
spect to the Regional Director's report, the exceptions thereto, and the
briefs of the parties, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's find-
ings and recommendations.2
As we have overruled the exceptions, and the tally of ballots shows
that the participating labor organizations failed to receive a majority
of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
i Petitioner 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , the exceptions,
and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 The exceptions , in our opinion, raise no issues which would warrant reversal of the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations
VINYLEX CORPORATION 1883
men and Helpers of America, Ind., and that neither of said labor orga-
nizations is the exclusive representative of the employees of Valley
Die Cast Corporation in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
Vinylex Corporation and Everwarm Corporation and United
Glass' & Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO. Case
10-CA-6333. October 13, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 2, 1966, Trial Examiner Herman Tocker issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 excep-
tions and brief and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
for the following reasons :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by statements to employees that were
intended, and reasonably would tend, to interfere with the employ-
ees' right to self-organization. The credited testimony clearly estab-
lishes that after the Union demanded recognition as bargaining repre-
sentative, the Respondent's President Empey and Secretary-Treasurer
Gulley engaged in a widespread, antiunion campaign during which
they made various unlawful threats of economic loss inevitably result-
ing from the selection of the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.'L
I We find on the basis of Empey 's and Gulley's admission that they spoke to a great
majority of the employees and that their speech followed a set pattern, that the threat
of loss of work was made to a substantial majority of the employees and not merely to those
employees who testified at the hearing. We, therefore, cannot agree with the Trial Exam-
iner that the making of these threats , standing alone , would be a de minimis violation.
160 NLRB No. 148.