AMF Beaird, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

AMF BEAIRD, INC.
AMF Beaird , Inc. and International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases
15-CA-3323 and 15-RC-3891
June 30, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On February 26, 1969, Trial Examiner John P.
Von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged 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 further
found that certain conduct by the Respondent
interfered with and affected the results of the
election of July 2, 1968, in Case 15-RC-3891 and
recommended that the election be set aside and that
a second election be directed. Thereafter, the
Respondent, Charging Party, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
'The Trial Examiner found that the inauguration by the Employer of
employees group meetings , wherein employees were encouraged to express
their grievances and pursuant to which adjustments of them were made,
was but another form of granting employee benefits during the Union's
organizational and preelection campaign violative of Section 8(a)(1) Both
the General Counsel and the Charging Party have urged in their exceptions
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from holding these
group meetings with the employees We do not agree The Trial
Examiner ' s conclusion is based upon the content and subject matter of
these meetings and not upon the right of the Respondent to conduct such
voluntary meetings with its employees See Eagle-Picher Industries, 171
NLRB No 44 Paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order prohibiting the granting of benefits covers this violation
The Trial Examiner further concluded that Union's Objection 3
involving the Respondent ' s managerial and supervisory personnel visiting
the homes of employees prior to the election to discuss the Respondent's
benefits and position regarding the pending election should be overruled
We find it unnecessary to consider or pass upon the validity of the Trial
Examiner ' s ruling in this regard since the remedy we have ordered would
remain the same
599
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, AMF Beaird, Inc., Shreveport, La., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified.'
1. Delete the words "distribution of union
literature" from paragraph 1(b) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and substitute the
words "solicitation and distribution of materials on
behalf of the union."
2. Substitute the attached notice hereto for the
notice set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on July 2, 1968, in Case 15-RC-3891, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that Case 15-RC-3891 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
fot Region 15 for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining
representative.
[Direction of Second Election' omitted from
publication.]
'In accord with the request of the Charging Party, we shall substitute for
the Notice recommended by the Trial Examiner, a Notice expressed in
simple and readily understandable language J P Stevens & Co , Inc, 167
NLRB No 37
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 L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company,
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 15 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
No-HCE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered
us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we
say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant you any wage raises,
better insurance plans, longer vacations, better working
conditions , or any other money favors , which are
designed to interfere with your choice of a union.
WE WILL NOT do any of these things in an attempt
to get you to reject or refuse to support International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW).
177 NLRB No. 32
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT question you about your union
activities or sympathies , or those of your fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to get back at you or
retaliate against you because of your activity fortheUAW.
WE SHALL NOT publish or keep in force any rule
which would prevent you from soliciting or distributing
materials on behalf of the union on your own time in
nonworking areas of the plant.
You and all our employees are free to become
members of the UAW, or to refrain from doing so.
AMF BEAIRD, INC.
(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 employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6391
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR , Trial Examiner: This proceeding
with all parties represented was heard before me in
Shreveport, Louisiana, on December 3 and 4, 1968, upon
a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board,
for Region 15 (New Orleans , Louisiana), and on answer
of AMF Beaird , Inc., herein called the Respondent or the
Company , which denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices . The complaint proceeding was
consolidated for purposes of hearing with a representation
proceeding with respect to issues raised by objections to
an election .' The issues litigated are whether Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and whether or
not certain objections filed by the Charging Party in the
representation proceeding are meritorious . Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and the
Respondent and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal
office and place of business located at Shreveport,
Louisiana , where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of vessels and machinery for the oil and gas industry.
During the year 1967, Respondent purchased and received
materials valued in excess of $50,000 , which were
The complaint issued on July 17, 1968, and is based upon a charge filed
on May 31 , 1968. Objections to conduct affecting results of the election
were filed on July 8, 1968. On September 10, 1968 , the Board issued an
order directing a hearing on petitioner 's objections 2, 3, 5, and 7. On
September 25, 1968, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating
the complaint proceeding with the objections filed in the representation
proceeding.
transported directly to its plant from points located
outside the State of Louisiana . During the same period,
Respondent sold products, valued in excess of $50,000,
which were shipped from its plant to points and places
located outside the State of Louisiana.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
(UAW), herein called the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
Relevant to the issues in this case , it is preliminarily
noted that an earlier election to the one involved herein
was held on September 29, 1966.1 The results of this
election were not finalized until April 19, 1968, at which
time certain challenged ballots were counted and it was
determined that the Union had lost the election.'
It is undisputed that the Union undertook a new
organizing campaign among Respondent's employees on
April 19, 1968, and that a number of new authorization
cards were signed on this , the same day, on which the
challenged ballots were counted.' The petition involved in
the instant proceeding (Case 15-RC-3891) was filed on
April 29, 1968. Pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, the election was held on July 2,
1968. The tally of ballots reflected that there were
approximately 997 eligible voters and that 930 ballots
were cast, of which 421 were for the Union, 501 against
the Union, 7 were challenged and 1 was void.
B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. Interrogation of employees
In accordance with the undenied and credited testimony
of the respective employees who testified, I find that the
following instances of interrogation and one incident of a
threat occurred during the period relevant hereto:
1. On April 21 or 22, 1968,1 G. W. McKaskle, the
general foreman on the night shift, asked employee
William Wyatt, chairman of the union election committee,
how many cards "they" had signed for the Union. When
Wyatt replied that the Union had plenty of cards signed,
McKaskle asked if the Union intended to come back for
another election. Wyatt replied in the affirmative.
As noted hereinafter, it is undisputed that during the
organizational campaign and prior to the election
Respondent' s managerial and supervisory personnel made
personal visitations to the homes of employees for the
purpose of discussing various Company benefits and the
'Case 15-RC-3323. The petition in this proceeding was filed by the
Charging Union on June 29, 1966.
'The certification of results of the election issued on April 25, 1968.
'Curly Tillery, and International Representative of the Union, testified
that the 1966 campaign "never ended" inasmuch as the Union solicited
employees to sign membership cards (as contrasted to authorization cards)
during the period following the 1966 election and the counting of
challenged ballots in 1968.
'Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter refer to the year 1968
AMF BEAIRD, INC.
Company ' s position with respect to the pending election.
In this connection , in the latter part of April, Foreman
McKaskle broached Wyatt and asked if the "house calls"
were doing any good . Wyatt, who was aware of the nature
of the calls, responded that "they were doing some good
but not enough to hurt us."
2. In latter April, Earl Hebert , a foreman , approached
employee Kenneth Barnhill and asked him why the men
wanted a union.
3. About May 20, Foreman McKaskle asked employee
Gerald Barron why he was for the Union. When Barron
gave his reasons , McKaskle stated that there must be a lot
of people who worked on the same job that he (Barron)
worked on who were for the Union . Then asking Barron if
he had experience in the main part of the plant, McKaskle
added that perhaps it would be better if Barron worked in
the main plant rather than stay on his present job. During
the conversation McKaskle also asked Barron how he
thought the election would go.
4. About May 23, Foreman K. D. Morris stated to
employee Curtis Allen that as a friend he would like to
ask hits why he, an excellent worker, was for the Union.
When Allen stated that this was his privilege , Morris said
that he could see that Allen was for the Union because he
wore a union badge . Morris then added that he respected
Allen for wearing his badge in the open rather than giving
support to the Union behind his back. Morris also stated
that because of his position as foreman he could not say
anything about the Union one way or the other , but that
he (Allen ) could speak to anybody he wished.
5. In the first week of May, Foreman Harvey Reynolds
called employee George Stanley into his office. First
advising Stanley that he did not have to talk if he did not
wish , Reynolds stated that Stanley had "changed his
mind" because he wore a union sticker on his hat. He
then asked what he (Stanley) had "against the Company."
Stanley responded by mentioning several complaints,
whereupon Reynolds stated that there were two sides to
every story.
6. About May 10, Foreman Hebert came up to
employee Bobbie Bryant, also an official of the Union,
and asked how many men had signed up with the Union.
Bryant replied that he did not know.
7. As detailed hereinafter , commencing on April 24,
Respondent ' s president , Joseph LaBarbera, conducted a
series of meetings with various groups of employees
during working hours . In one of these meetings employee
Bobbie Bryant challenged certain statements made by
LaBarbera and said that he did not trust his word. A few
days following the meeting Foreman Hayes told Bryant
that he could count the days he had left with the
Company on his fingers . Stating that he had been with the
Company for 6 years, Bryant thereupon asked if he
(Hayes) would help him out. Hayes replied , "Yes, I will
help you out" . . . but at the same time motioned with his
thumb toward the gate . Bryant was also interrogated by
Foreman Hayes on two other occasions in the April-May
period . On one occasion Hayes asked how many men had
signed up for the Union . On the second occasion Hayes
asked how the Union was coming along . When on the
latter occasion Bryant replied that "it didn't look too
good" because of LaBarbera ' s meetings with employees
and because of the visits being made by supervisory
personnel to the homes of employees, Bryant responded
with the statement that "that was what the meetings were
meant for."
8. About April 23, Billy Wallsworth , the manager of
quality control , came up to employee Bobbie Bryant and
601
asked why he was for the Union . Bryant gave his reasons.
Wallsworth then asked how many men in the X-ray and
inspection department had signed up for the Union and
whether these employees had any gripes . When Bryant
stated that the X-ray employees had certain gripes,
Wallsworth said he would check into them and see what
he could do. During the conversation Wallsworth also
asked when the Union would be able to file a petition for
an election.
In addition to the above incidents, which are
uncontroverted, employee Bobby Bryant testified that in
about the second week in May Foreman Marlin LaGrone
came up with Foreman Herbert and asked how many men
had signed up for the Union . Bryant said he told the
foreman that he thought that they had all the men in Bay
12 signed up. Bryant testified that he was broached by
Foreman LaGrone again in about the first part of June.
Bryant testified that during the conversation which ensued
LaGrone finally asked "Bryant, why are you for the
Union?" Bryant said that he replied that the employees
needed a union contract and that he then asked LaGrone
why he had not been visited at his home by Company
supervisory employees, as had most of the other
employees. According to Bryant, LaGrone replied,
"Bryant, we know when a fellow is deadset for the Union.
It is no use coming by and seeing you." LaGrone testified
that he spoke to Bryant about the Union on several
occasions, but said that except for one occasion, the
discussions were initiated by Bryant.' Bryant impressed
me as an honest witness and I credit his testimony as
aforesaid.
Turning to my conclusions as to the foregoing conduct,
it might reasonably be contended that standing alone
certain of the incidents described above in themselves
appear innocuous . However , these incidents-were not of an
isolated nature and a substantial number of Respondent's
supervisory employees were involved. When this is
considered against the background of the other unfair
labor practices found herein, I conclude and find that by
interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities, sympathies, and desires, Respondent interfered
with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Further, I find that
Foreman Hayes unlawfully threatened employee Bobbie
Bryant in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when, in
the context of the conversation above set forth, he told
Bryant that he could count the days he had left with the
Company and motioned with his thumb toward the gate in
response to the question asked by Bryant.'
2. The conferring of increased Benefits
It is undisputed that on April 30, 1968, the day
following the filing of the petition by the Union in Case
15-RC-3891, President LaBarbera held a meeting with all
the employees in which he announced that they were being
'LaGrone testified that in the middle or latter part of July he asked
Bryant "how things were going." LaGrone said that when Bryant
responded by saying that they had everybody in Bay 12 signed up, he
(LaGrone) commented , "Well, I don't doubt that."
'There is nothing to reflect that Bryant acted in an insubordinate manner
toward LaBarbera nor does the Respondent so contend . Further, although
Billy Arnold , a bay leaderman called by the Respondent, testified that this
conversation occurred in a jocular vein, this was not the impression
conveyed to me by the testimony of Byrant . Insofar as Arnold ' s testimony
concerning this conversation differs from that of Bryant 's, I credit Bryant.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given an increase in wages and other benefits, the details
of which are more fully set forth below. It is also
undisputed that LaBarbera prefaced his detailed
explanation of the benefits by telling the employees that
his hands had been tied for 2 years due to the union issue,
but that he was going to make these changes now "come
hell or high water ." In this connection Respondent
witnesses conceded LaBarbera also stated "that the Union
would probably try to take credit for these changes, but
that this was not the case at all."'
A bulletin setting forth the benefits announced by
LaBarbera at the April 30 meeting was mailed to the
employees within a day or so following the meeting. It
was also posted on the company bulletin board on May 1
and stated in its entirety as follows:
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
The following broad improvements will be made in the
AMF Beaird wage structure, hospitalization insurance,
vacation, holiday pay and shop practices.
The Company will also absorb the $26,292 increase in
premiums due to high experience rating.
3. INCREASED VACATIONS
PRESENTLY NEW CHANGE
1 Week after I Year No Change
2 Weeks after 5 Years 2 Weeks after 3 Years
3 Weeks after 15 Years 3 Weeks after 12 Years
4 Weeks after 20 Years
(The only change in exempt employees vacation policy
will be 4 weeks after 20 years)
The effective date for the new vacation policy will be
April 29, 1967. Employees whose anniversary date is
prior to the above date will be on the old vacation policy-
all anniversaries occurring after this date will observe the
new policy.
4. HOLIDAY INCREASE-The Company will
recognize Christmas Eve as one-half paid holiday for all
1. WAGE INCREASE-6% General Increase inplaceof eligible employees.
Profit Sharing effective April 29 for hourly and May I for
exempt. Profit Sharing checks for the first 4 months
(estimated 4%) will be paid in January 1969 to all
eligible employees. 5. SHOP PRACTICE CHANGES-The following
shop practices will be put into effect as soon as possible:
2. HOSPITALIZATION INSURANCE-Improved
benefits and reduction in cost. A. Establish a uniform program whereby employees
may make application for promotions when job
vacancies occur anywhere in the plant.
TYPE OF
BENEFIT NOW NEW CHANGE
B. Establish a uniform program whereby the
employee's length of service will be considered as one
Room & Board $16.00 per day $20.00 per day factor for promotions and lay-offs with the idea of
Stay in Hospital 70 days 180 days
,
promotion the best qualified or in the case of lay-off-
Maternity $100 $200 laying off the least qualified.
C. Establish a uniform procedure for the equalization
Company will absorb one-half the cost of dependent of overtime within each bay according to job
hospitalization coverage. qualifications.
OLD RATE (INCL. NEW RATE (INCL.
MAJOR MEDICAL) MAJOR MEDICAL)
One Dependent
More than two
$11.73 $8.36
Dependents $15.20 10.10
'Quoted testimony is that of Don Williford , manager of labor relations
As I deem it immaterial to a resolution of the issues herein , I need not
decide a conflict in the testimony as to whether LaBarbera also told the
employees that he might be violating the law by granting the wage increase
and other benefits
D. Re-establish the company's policy that, except for
emergencies, proper notification for week-end overtime
will be given to all employees.
E. Institute a job evaluation program to study job
classifications and the advisability of adjusting existing
rates or adding new classifications or deleting obsolete
classifications.
F. Establish a uniform procedure for shift rotation
with each bay-designed to eliminate the appearance of
favoritism.
AMF BEAIRD, INC.
G. Re-establish the Industrial Relations Council in
such a way as to allow all employees an opportunity to
se#ve,withthe objective being an effective and meaningful
tool for communications between management and the
employees.
I-I. Establish a uniform set of qualifications for
promotion to a special rate.
1. Study additional programs for the improvement of
communications between management and all of our
employees.
[/s/ Joe LaBarbera]
Aside from Respondent's asserted reasons for granting the
above increases in wages and benefits, Respondent
preliminarily points out in its brief that on April 30, the
date of the announcement of the benefits, the Company
had not received a copy of the petition which the Union
filed on April 29. However, the Respondent does not
deny, and I find, that as of April 29 it had ample
information to know or suspect that a petition was filed or
was about to be filed. Thus, it is undisputed that on April
29 a union handbill announcing that a petition had been
filed "today" was distributed at the plant gates to the
afternoon and evening shifts. Without belaboring this
matter further, suffice it to note that several employees
testified without contradiction that during the April 30
meeting LaBarbera mentioned that he had heard that the
Union had distributed handbills stating that it had filed a
petition for an election, but that he had not as yet
received official word.'
Don Williford was hired by Respondent in September
1967 as its manager of labor relations. Williford testified
that shortly thereafter George Dillard, Respondent's
manager of personnel, directed him to evaluate the
Company's labor relations and to make whatever
suggestions for changes he deemed appropriate. Williford
said that pursuant to these instructions he conducted a
survey which reflected that Respondent was not
competitive in wages and fringe benefits, that there was a
high rate of turnover among the employees, and that
certain shop practices needed modernization. This survey,
he said, was completed in December 1967. Williford
testified that although he felt at that time that "necessary
changes" should be made, no action was taken then
because Company counsel advised that it would be risky
to increase wages or grant other benefits while the union
issue was still pending.
Williford testified further that upon learning the results
of the challenged ballot count on April 19, the personnel
department submitted to President LaBarbera on April 21
a complete proposal pertaining to changes in shop
practices and increases in wages and other benefits.
According to Williford and Dillard, LaBarbera had a
telephone conversation with the headquarters of its parent
company in New York on April 29, at which time the
New York office gave its approval to the proposed
increases. However, LaBarbera was not called as a witness
'Credited and unrefuted testimony of employees L. S. McClure and T
R Nelson
603
and did not testify concerning this conversation.
Upon the entire record, I am pursuaded and find that
Respondent's granting of the wage increase and the
substantially improved fringe benefits on April 30, 1968,
was in large part designed to undermine the Union and to
combat the Union's organizing efforts. In the first place,
the record reflects that the granting of the April 30
increases was a substantial departure from Respondent's
long standing practice of previous years. Thus, it is
undisputed that in at least the last 8 years Respondent had
given its employees a general wage increase in around
February of each year. This was true also in 1968, for in
February 1968, Respondent gave its employees a 5-percent
wage increase, this approximately only 2 months prior to
the increases which are at issue here." Such a departure
from previous practice in itself renders Respondent's
motives suspect. Secondly, there is a significant
inconsistency between the testimony of Williford and what
LaBarbera told the employees. Thus, it will be recalled
that in announcing the new benefits on April 30,
LaBarbera stated that the benefits were not given
previously because his hands had been tied due to the
union situation for 2 or 3 years. Williford, on the other
hand, testified that it was not until the completion of a
study in December 1967 that he ascertained that new
benefits were necessary in order to make the company
competitive. Moreover, Williford's testimony concerning
the alleged necessity of making Respondent more
competitive was entirely of a conclusionary nature.
Respondent made no attempt to offer documentary
evidence or concrete evidence in support of such
testimony. In fact, Respondent did not so much as offer,
by oral testimony or otherwise, any summary of the study
which Williford claimed to have made between
September-December 1967." Finally, not to be
disregarded and rendering Respondent's motives further
suspect is the fact that the granting of the increase in
wages and other benefits on April 30 occurred in the
context of the other unfair labor practices found herein,
these including coercive interrogation of employees, an
unlawful no-solicitation rule, and periodic meetings with
employees where additional benefits were unlawfully
granted.
In view of all the foregoing, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting the wage
increase and the other economic benefits noted above.
3. Meetings with groups of employees
On April 24 , 1968, Respondent posted the following
notice on its bulletin board:
NOTICE
In order to improve our communications throughout
the plant we will conduct a series of meetings in groups
of 15 to 20 people. You will be notified by your
supervisor when to attend.
This is strictly on a voluntary basis, and it is to be a
general discussion with management personnel.
"An employer may grant wage increases during an organizational
campaign provided he is not motivated in so doing by antiunion
considerations As a general rule, evidence that wage increases were given
pursuant to a pattern , policy, or program of periodic or regular increases is
strongly indicative of legitimate economic motivation . Aircraft Engineering
Corporation, 172 NLRB No. 218
"The only specific testimony by Williford was that Respondent
experienced a separation rate of 463 employees in 1967.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These meetings are intended for discussion of mutual
problems affecting our company - and for discussion
of individual problems.
We hope that through these meetings we can come
up with new ideas and suggestions for improvements.
We also hope that these meetings can be continued
so that everyone will get their chance to speak out. I
personally am looking forward to them, and hope that
you are too.
Joseph LaBarbera
It is undisputed that pursuant to the above notice,
President LaBarbera , with other employees present, began
holding meetings in the conference room with groups of
employees . The meetings were held on company time,
lasted for approximately 1 hour, and were attended by
approximately 16 employees, one from each bay. For the
first month or so these meetings were held on a daily
basis . Thereafter they were held usually once a week and
have continued on this basis as of the time of the hearing
herein.
LaBarbera opened the meetings with the explanation
that "the purpose of the meeting was to improve
communications" in the plant ." After giving an example
of lack of proper communication between management
and employees , LaBarbera thereupon opened the meeting
for discussion , advising the employees that "he would
discuss any matters that were of interest to them."" As
the General Counsel points out in his brief, the credited
and uncontroverted testimony of employee witnesses
reflects that during these meetings the employees voiced
all manner of complaints and suggestions, examples of
which include the following : installing fans in the building
to draw out heat and smoke; instituting shift seniority;
moving the tool room to the machine shop ; installing a
fan in the cab of the switch engine; the safety advantage
of using chain slings as opposed to using cables to move
heavy welds; eligibility for overtime work ; covering a
machine to prevent water from spraying on employees;
correcting unsanitary conditions around the coffee
machine; instituting a practice of receiving paychecks
before vacation ; using uniform airhose connections for all
bays; placing experienced first class welders on union melt
rather than using newly hired employees for this job;
explaining to employees the purpose of any layoffs;
changing graveyard shift so as to begin on Sunday night;
using unqualified crane operators to operate cranes;
assignment of overtime work to regular operators instead
of to other employees; alleged job pay discrimination
between races; job evaluation program; shorter period for
promotions of X-ray employees.
From the above it can be seen that many of the
subjects or grievances raised by the employees clearly
related to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment . Although Respondent perhaps did not
respond favorable to every such employee complaint, it is
undisputed , as Williford conceded , that Respondent
"made a number of adjustments" pursuant to such
complaints."
Absent an unlawful purpose, an employer normally has
every right to communicate with his employees with a
purpose to improving plant efficiency and working
conditions . However , under all the circumstances of this
"Testimony of Respondent witness Williford.
"Testimony of Williford.
"In view of this concession by Williford , I need not detail here the
various corrective actions taken by the Respondent as testified to by
employee witnesses.
case , I find that Respondent' s inauguration of employee
meetings on April 24, 1968, wherein employees were
encouraged to express their grievances and pursuant to
which adjustments of them were made , was but another
form of granting employee benefits during the Union's
organizational and preelection campaign ." Significantly,
the inauguration of the employee meetings occurred only 5
days after the counting of the challenged ballots . Although
the new petition was not filed until April 29, the record
reflects, as previously noted , that Respondent began
interrogating employees as early as April 21 or 22.
Accordingly , I find that Respondent was aware, or at
least suspected , that a new organizing campaign had
begun at the time it instituted the employee meetings."
Moreover , the employee group meetings continued after
the filing of the petition and in fact were held on a daily
basis for several weeks thereafter.
In sum, and for the reasons stated above , I find that
Respondent ' s inauguration of the employee group
meetings during the critical period herein was part of a
design reasonably calculated to influence employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.'7 Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby'
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The no-solicitation rule
It is undisputed that on January 1 , 1968, Respondent
promulgated a handbook of written rules and regulations
governing the conduct of its employees. Pertinent hereto
are the following rules contained therein:
9. Selling , soliciting , or collecting contributions for any
purpose on Company premises unless authorized to do
so by the Personnel Department.
10. Posting or removing any material on official
Company bulletin boards or distributing written or
printed matter of any description at any time unless
specifically authorized to do so by the Personnel
Department.
It is well settled that a rule which preclude employees
from (1) distributing union literature while on nonworking
time and in nonworking areas of the plant, and (2)
engaging in solicitation while on nonworking time on
company property are presumptively invalid." Respondent
has not overcome the presumption by showing that any
circumstances justified the need for the rules set forth
above. Accordingly, I find that by the promulgation and
enforcement of these rules the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
Apparently conceding the invalidity of the above
no-solicitation , no-distribution rules, Respondent defends
on the ground that these rules were changed on May 11,
"Northwest Engineering Company, 148 NLRB 1136, 1140.
"It will be recalled that the Union ' s solicitation for new cards began on
April 19.
"Northwest Engineering Company, supra
"Walton Manufacturing Company . 126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F.2d 117
(C.A. 5); SNC Manufacturing Company , 174 NLRB No. 31
'91n finding that Respondent unlawfully enforced the rules, I rely on the
following (I) On June 10, 1968, employee C R Holley asked Foreman
E C Green if he could distribute handbills at the gate before working
hours Green refused permission , stating he (Holly) would have to obtain
permission from the personnel manager (2) Also on June 10, employee
Bobbie Bryant asked Supervisor LaGrone if he could distribute union
literature during his own time LaGrone refused permission and referred
him to the company rules which were posted on the company bulletin
board As noted in Campbell Soup Company, 159 NLRB 74, 82, the right
AMF BEAIRD, INC.
1968. Assuming that the rules promulgated on May 11
corrected the invalidity of the rules previously in effect,
this defense is of no avail since the unlawful rules were in
effect for a substantial period during the Union's
preelection campaign . Levi Strauss & Co., 172 NLRB
No. 57. And as the Board held in Allen-Morrison Sign
Co., Inc„ 79 NLRB 904, 906, subsequent modification of
an unlawful no-solicitation rule does not have the
retroactive effect of validating its initial promulgation and
does not preclude the issuance of an appropriate cease and
desist order.
C. Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of
Election
The Union's Objection 5 alleges that Respondent
interfered with the election "by disseminating to its
employees sample ballots containing a marking ("X") in
the "NO" box contrary to Board policy." I find no merit
to this objection.
In Allied Electric Products, 109 NLRB 1270, the Board
established a rule, since followed, that it would not permit
the reporduction of any document purporting to be a copy
of the Board's official ballot, other than one completely
unaltered in form and content and clearly marked sample
on its face. On June 28, 1968, the Respondent sent a letter
to its employees, attached to which was a page containing
a form of a ballot. The head of the ballot states: "Do you
wish to be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by," the name of the Union thereafter
appearing immediately below. A YES or NO box is
contained on the ballot, with an X marked in the NO box.
Significantly, the Board' s name does not appear anywhere
on the ballot (as it does on an official ballot). Further, the
ballot in question is substantially smaller than the Board's
official ballot. Considering the ballot as a whole, I am
amply persuaded that it does not give the appearance of
an official ballot and that it quite obviously would not
have the effect of creating the impression among the
employees that this Agency urges a vote for the
Respondent. See Rett Electronics, Inc., 169 NLRB No.
168. Accordingly, I recommend that Union's Objection 5
be overruled.
The Union's Objection 3 alleges that Respondent
interfered with the election "by engaging in a systematic
housecalling of all of its eligible employees after work
hours." At the hearing , the parties entered into the
following stipulation: "Visitations to the homes of
employees were made prior to the election by managerial
and supervisory personnel, during which the Company's
benefits and the Company' s position with regard to the
pending election were discussed ." No further evidence was
introduced concerning Objection 3. Accordingly, there
being no evidence that during these visits Respondent
engaged in any conduct which tended to interfere with,
restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, I recommend that Union's Objection 3
be overruled.20
of employees to distribute literature and solicit membership for a union
in nonwork areas not on company time is not dependent on permission
from their employer Moreover, it is significant that in the instant case
the Company promulgated and enforced an unlawful no-solicitation rule,
while at the same time itself took steps to unlawfully combat the Union
on company time and property (i.e., the group meetings with employees,
heretofore discussed).
"It has never been held that visitations at homes of employees by
supervisory personnel is per se unlawful . The Union has not filed a brief in
support of its objections.
605
However , the Union ' s Objections 2 and 7 are based
upon the Section 8(a)(1) violations heretofore found, a
substantial part of which occurred after the filing of the
representation petition and before the holding of the
election . I find that this conduct interfered with a free and
untrammeled choice in the election, and I shall therefore
recommend that the election of July 2, 1968, be set aside.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
I also recommend that the election, held on July 28,
1968, in Case 15-RC-3891, be set aside and that said case
be severed and remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 15, with instructions to conduct a new election at
such time as he deems circumstances permit a free choice
of a bargaining representative.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section
entitled "Interference, Restraint and Coercion," to the
extent therein found, the Respondent has engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that Respondent AMF Beaird, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Granting or promising wage increases, improved
insurance plans, increased vacations, better working
conditions, or other economic favors to its employees in
order to interfere with their choice of a bargaining
representative, or as an inducement to reject and refrain
from activities in support of the International Union,
United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other
labor organization.
(b) Promulgating , publishing , or enforcing any rule
proscribing or prohibiting the distribution of union
literature in the plant or on company property, to the
extent that such rule is applied to the nonwork time of the
employees, or nonwork areas of the plant.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and sympathies or those of other
employees ; and threatening employees with reprisals
because of their union activities or sympathies.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the above-named union or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
any other concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following. affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Shreveport, Louisiana , copies of
the notice attached marked "Appendix." [Board's
Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner's]"" Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 15, shall, after being signed by Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including each of Respondent's bulletin boards.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the results of the
election conducted on July 2, 1968, in Case 15-RC-3891,
be set aside, and that a second election be directed to be
conducted by the Regional Director for Region 15 when
deemed appropriate after compliance with this
Recommended Order or any Order the Board may enter
herein.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that any violaltions
alleged in the complaint not specifically found herein be
dismissed.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 15, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "