Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1517 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

BENJAMIN ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1517
Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Company and Benjamin Elec-
tric Employees Independent Union , Petitioner and Marion
Parmley. Cases Nos. 13-RC-6034 and 13-RD-351. February 17,
1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election, dated August 22,
1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 19,
1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region. After the election the Regional Director
served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of ap-
proximately 387 eligible voters, 365 cast ballots, of which 132 were
for the Petitioner, Benjamin Electric Employees Independent Union;
230 were for the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1031, AFL-CIO; and 3 votes were cast for no labor
organization.
On September 25, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted
an investigation and on November 19, 1958, issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections, recommending that the objections
be sustained, that the election be set aside, and that a new election
be ordered. The Intervenor and the Employer filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
The. Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
report, the Employer's and the Intervenor's exceptions, the entire
record in the case, and hereby finds as follows :
The Petitioner's objections involve widely publicized preelection
campaign statements by the Employer. The central theme of those
statements, as found by the Regional Director and not disputed by
the Employer, was that the Employer needed the IBEW label on
its products to sell them and that therefore unless the IBEW won
the election, the Employer would be forced to move its plant to
another locality. For example, this position of the Employer was
expressed to employees in the following series of letters, signed by
its president :
The letter of September 5 stated in part:
... What we are concerned about, however, is that independent
representation will create insurmountable problems in marketing
our product [because of their inability to furnish an acceptable
label]. This would undoubtedly force the removal of our opera-
1 Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 174.
1518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARu
tions to another locality. We will explain these problems in
more detail in our following letter about the I.B.E.W. label.
In its letter of September 11, the Employer concluded:
If we are to continue operations in our present location, twos
things are absolutely necessary:
(1) Competitive wages and fringe benefits, and
(2) The I.B.E.W. Union label without which our customers,
will not buy our products.
Your wages, whatever they may be, must be paid from the
money we receive from the sale of our products. Unless these
products can be sold in volume we cannot offer you steady work
or operate our plant. We know from experience that these
products cannot be sold in volume unless we can produce and
sell them at competitive prices with an I.B.E.W. label.
We do not wish to move our operations from their present
location. It is expensive and it is inconvenient, but unless these
things can be achieved in Des Plaines, we will have no choice
since we intend to stay in business.
In its final preelection letter, September 17, the Employer stated :
To those of you who would be inclined to vote for no union at
all, we would like to say that we cannot operate without a
Union any better than we could with the Independent Union.
A vote for "no union" is in our opinion a wasted vote. For the
many reasons we have previously stated to you we believe you
should vote for the IBEW. We need the IBEW label to sell
our products and to continue operating in our present location.
This is the fundamental thing. Other questions involving wages
and working conditions will be matters of negotiations when
the time comes.
The Regional Director concluded from the above statements and
similar expressions made to employees both in and outside the bar-
gaining unit "that the Employer's preelection conduct when consid-
ered in its totality exceeded permissible bounds by creating or rea-
sonably tending to create an atmosphere which precluded a free and
uncoerced expression in the election."
In excepting to the Regional Director's conclusions, and in support
of their position that the statements in question were privileged, the
Employer and the Intervenor contend that the statements contain
no threat of reprisals or promise of benefit and were nothing more
than the Employer's predictions relating to the economic conse-
quences of being deprived of the IBEW label. We find no merit
in these contentions. While it is true that the appeal to the em-
ployees to vote for IBEW was in terms of the Employer's asserted
TENNESSEE -COAL & IRON DIVISION , U.S. STEEL CORP. 1519.1
economic situation, the Employer nevertheless made it clear with.
definite finality . that if a majority voted for the Independent, it
would move the plant to another locality. By conditioning the re-
moval of the plant upon the outcome of the election, we find that.
the Employet', in effect, threatened the employees with economic re-
prisal and thereby interfered with the free choice of the employees.
to select a bargaining representative? Accordingly, we adopt the-
Regional Director's recommendation and shall set aside the election.
and order a new ones
[The Board set aside the election held' on September 19, 1958.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.];
2 See, e.g., Lloyd A . Fry Roofing Company, Incorporated, 116 NLRB 1800 ; Norrts-
Thermador Corporation, 117 NLRB 1340; Stretoh-Ter Co., 118 I LBB 1359 ; New England'
Upholstery Co., Inc., 121 NLRB 234.
s In light of this disposition we find it unnecessary to answer the other issues raised.
by the parties.
Tennessee Coal & Iron Division, United States Steel Corpora-
tion and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Cade
No. 10-CA-37373. February 18, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24, 1958, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his.
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exception to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.-
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party
herein, filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error has been com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs and the entire.
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and.
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with modifications as indi-
cated below .2
As the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties herein , the Respondent's request 'for oral argument is hereby denied.
In affirming the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5)
of the Act, we do so only on the ground that the Respondent refused to furnish to the
Union data necessary to substantiate its claim that it was operating its zinc mine at a
loss. We interpret the Respondent's position as pleading an "inability to pay " within,
122 NLRB No. 177.