Clifton Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1982

262 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

CLIFTON PLASTICS, INC.
Clifton Plastics, Inc. and Allied Trade and Bulk
Plant Workers, Amusement Workers and Indus-
trial Workers, Local 158 affiliated with the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case 4-RC-14862
July 27, 1982
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to, and de-
terminative challenges in, an election' held on No-
vember 12, 1981, and the Regional Director's
report recommending disposition of same. The
Board has reviewed the record in light of the ex-
ceptions2 and brief, and hereby adopts the Region-
al Director's findings3 and recommendations.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director
for Region 4, pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days
of the date of this Decision and Direction, open
and count the ballots of William Ward, Gerald
Perry, Edwin Eilola, Joel Douthwaite, Joseph Ber-
tolini, and Antonio Alvarez, and, thereafter, pre-
pare and cause to be served on the parties a revised
tally of ballots, including therein the count of said
ballots. In the event that the revised tally of ballots
shows that Petitioner has received a majority of
' The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was 19 for, and 24 against, the
Petitioner; there were 9 challenged ballots.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we hereby adopt, proforma, the
Regional Director's recommendations regarding the disposition of the
challenged ballots.
3 In adopting the Regional Director's finding that the Employer en-
gaged in objectionable conduct, we do not find i, necessary to consider
the contents of a pamphlet entitled "Clifton Plastics, Inc., Our Employees
Want To Know," which the Employer alleges was distributed prior to
the filing of the petition herein.
We agree with our dissenting colleague that "an employer has every
right to maintain discipline and order among employees in the work-
place": however, we do not agree that an employer may do so by re-
questing employees to report subjectively offensive conduct since such
requests clearly are sufficiently broad to encompass the lawful conduct of
employees engaged in protected activities. See, e.g., Bil-Mar Foods of
Ohio. Inc., 255 NLRB 1254 (1981). Moreover, we note that the Employ-
er's requests herein went beyond the confines of the workplace and ex-
tended into the homes of its employees where the Employer has no legiti-
mate interests As to our dissenting colleague's suggestion that Board
policy on this issue ignores the sentiment of employees, the answer is
simple and twofold: (I) the fact that some employees might attempt to
restrain concerted efforts by others to organize a union cannot justify an
employer's restraint or coercion of the protected concerted activity; and
(2) by conducting a second election in an atmosphere free of such re-
quests, we are able to assure that we have correctly measured the senti-
ment of the employees-which, we might add, is our statutory responsi-
bility.
262 NLRB No. 165
the valid ballots cast, the Regional Director shall
issue a Certification of Representative. In the event
that the revised tally of ballots shows that Petition-
er has not received a majority of the valid ballots
cast, the following will be applicable.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]4
MEMBER HUNTER, dissenting:
Some 6 weeks before the election, the Employer
sent employees two letters asking to be notified of
any threats or harassment directed at them by
Teamsters organizers or by employees soliciting for
the Teamsters. These requests were motivated by
the Employer's past experience-employees had
complained about such incidents in connection
with a 1980 union campaign-as well as by the
Employer's experience with the initial stages of the
then current campaign. Indeed, several employees
approached the Employer during the initial stage
of the 1981 campaign with complaints that Team-
sters agents had threatened possible job loss if the
employees did not sign authorization cards. Based
on the decision in Bil-Mar Foods of Ohio, Inc., 255
NLRB 1254 (1981), 5 the Regional Director con-
cluded, and my colleagues agree, that the election
here should be set aside and a second election di-
rected because of the Employer's conduct in
making this request. I dissent.
In the first place, it is axiomatic that an employer
has every right to maintain discipline and order
among employees in the workplace. The Employer
here had good reason to believe that "a clear and
present danger" to its ability to maintain such an
environment was posed by conduct engaged in by
Petitioner agents and sympathizers, specifically by
threats directed against several employees. In my
view, nothing contained in the Employer's re-
sponse to this perceived threat to its legitimate in-
terest in maintaining discipline can be fairly con-
strued to be objectionable conduct. Indeed the Em-
ployer did no more than assure its employees that
it would take "appropriate action" to insure a non-
coercive environment; it did not solicit employees
to engage in surveillance concerning their fellow
employees or Petitioner organizers, nor did it inti-
mate in any way that there would be reprisals
against pro-Petitioner employees engaged in pro-
tected organizational activity. In short, the manner
in which the Employer responded to reports of
threats and misconduct in the context of this orga-
nizing campaign was plainly reasonable and intend-
4[Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]
5 As noted by the Regional Director, in Bi1-Mar Foods, the Board reit-
erated its view that such statements could cause employees to report on
the identity of union activists and also dic.ourage such activists in their
campaign.
1329
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAl IONS BOARD
ed to accommodate the legitimate interests of all
employees-those in favor of Petitioner as well as
those opposed.
Furthermore, the most salient fact which my col-
leagues ignore by adhering to Bil-Mar Foods and
setting aside this election is that, other than the
two letters which they find objectionable, there is
no basis for finding that this Employer engaged in
any objectionable conduct. Hence, there is no
showing that this election campaign was other than
a hard fought contest in which employees were
fairly exposed to the arguments of both sides and,
based on their assessment of the merits, made a free
and untrammeled election choice. In these circum-
stances, and particularly in light of this Employer's
apparently exemplary observance of employees'
Section 7 rights throughout the campaign, I am at
a loss to understand how this Board, based on the
attenuated and strained rationale of Bil-Mar Foods,
can ignore the sentiment of employees as expressed
in the election. I would overrule Bil-Mar Foods and
similar decisions. Accordingly, I dissent here.
1330