Electra Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 494 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

494 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dominantly engaged in nonlumber operations. The Petitioner further
relies on the fact that the drivers sought also haul nonlumber cargoes.
We find no merit in these contentions.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the Employer, as an entity,
is engaged in the basic lumber industry, since, in our view, the truck-
drivers sought herein functionally and administratively are in the basic
lumber industry.13 In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the facts,
that virtually all of the work of these drivers involves the Employer's
basic lumber operations; these drivers are organizationally a "seg-
ment" of the lumber and sawmill division, which-is concededly in the
primary lumber industry, and they are under the ultimate supervision
of the manager of that division; and. these drivers are and have been
represented in a unit comprising employees engaged in the basic lum-
ber industry. In view of the foregoing, we do not believe that the facts
that the Employer, in its other divisions, is engaged in nonlumber op-
erations and that a small percentage of the cargoes hauled by the
drivers involved consists of nonlumber products are sufficient to
destroy the otherwise integrated nature of the Employer's basic lumber
operations or to negate the prevailing industrywide bargaining pat-
tern. Nor do we find persuasive the Petitioner's contention that the
Board should abandon the Weyerhaeuser principle. We therefore find
that the only appropriate unit in the Emmett region of the Employer's
lumber and sawmill division is a production and maintenance unit
and that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not appropriate. We shall
accordingly dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'8 See Inyo Lumber Company of California , 129 NLRB 79 , holding that a separate unit
of over-the-road drivers whose duties, like a majority of the drivers in this case , involved
the hauling of finished lumber products from the Employer's sawmill to points designated
by customers , was inappropriate.
Electra Manufacturing Company, Employer and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 17-RC-4357. August 26, 1964 -
DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING REGIONAL DIREC-
TOR TO ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT' ON OBJEC-
TIONS
Pursuant to a stipulation,for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on January 22, 1964, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 17,
among the employees in the unit described below. Subsequent to the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which estab-
148 NLRB No. 57. -
ELECTRA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 495
lished that 146 employees cast ballots for, and 476, against, the Peti-
tioner. One ballot wwas held to be void,; and seventy-three,ballots, an
insufficient number to affect the results of, the election, were challenged.
On January 29, 1964, the Petitioner filed seven timely objections to
the conduct of the election and to the conduct affecting the results of
the election. In accordance with- the Board's Rules and Regulations,
the Regional Director investigated the objections and, on April 24,
1964, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections and
recommendations in which he recommended that objections Nos. 1
and 2 be sustained and, without ruling upon the remaining objections,
recommended that the election be set aside and a new election con-
ducted. The Employer. filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
Report on objections and recommendations.
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 jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization as defined in the Act and
claims 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 all production and
maintenance employees of the Company's plants at Independence,
Kansas, including plant clerical employees, but excluding office cleri-
cal employees and guards, professional,employees, and supervisory
employees as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
5. Objection No. 1 relates to alleged coercive letters from the Em-
ployer; and objection No. 2 encompasses conduct by certain parties in
the community, including Independence Industries, Inc., hereinafter
called Industries.' Without deciding whether the Employer's letters-
standing alone were objectionable, the Regional Director concluded
that the totality of the effect,of said letters and the statements by third
parties was such as to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion ,war-
ranting a new election. We do not agree..
It appears that, beginning in the early part of -the summer of 1963,
the Petitioner commenced its organizing campaign at the Employer's
plant and filed the instant petition on December 5, 1963. During this
period and continuing to the election conducted on January 22, 1964,
both, the Petitioner and the Employer issued numerous communica-
1 Industries is a community development ' enterprise organized for the purpose of draw-
ing business into Independence , Kansas. One of the companies brought into Independence
by Industries Is the Employer which rents its buildings from Industries and which is the
latter's largest source of rental income.
496 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions. We have considered all of this material and-find, as the Regional
Director has apparently concluded, that the Employer's communica=
tions in themselves do not constitute grounds for setting aside the elec-
tion herein. - -
,In concluding that the election occurred in an atmosphere of fear and
confusion, the Regional Director relied primarily upon the following
activity of Industries and the Independence Daily Reporter, a local
newspaper.
On January 7, 1964, Industries, at a meeting of its board of direc-
tors, decided not to issue its annual $5 dividend to its stockholders,
many of whom were townspeople. The minutes of the meeting show
that at a previous meeting the stock dividend was declared but that
this action was rescinded because of "later developments." Soon after
the January 7 meeting, a letter was sent to stockholders explaining
the action of the board of directors. The letter noted that Electra's
leases on buildings owned by Industries expired in 1965 and that, in
discussing "future plans" with Electra officials, the board of direc-
tors had become "aware of the fact that their [Electra's] business
is highly competitive and is becoming increasingly so with the pas-
sage of time." The letter reported that the Employer had told the
board of directors that "they [Electra] are not in a position at the
moment to determine how much space they will need . . . ." Accord-
ingly, the board of directors "thought it best to postpone the ' 1963
dividend for the time being."
On January 12, the Independence Daily Reporter carried a news
story, "Electra Concern Stops Dividend," which was essentially a•
report on the above-described, letter. The next day the -paper pub-
lished an editorial, "A Pity It Would- Be," speculating that, "It is
highly possible some of the Electra employees currently being ardently
wooed to let some outsiders represent them are not fully, aware of what
is behind, all this . . ." and warning, "What a pity it would be should
Electra employees wake up some gloomy morning to find the outsiders
had chased'their source of livelihood away." In another editorial;
"Time For Good- Sense," printed on the front page of the Independ-
ence Daily Reporter 2 days before the election, the writer -noted that'
"even some Electra personnel may question just what can be gained
over what they already have : . . . The answer obviously is less-
not more." Continuing, the editorial' emphasized that the Employer
was paying wages comparable to its competitors and examined the
Petitioner's "rather unsavory past record," *of strikes. An 'advertise-
ment signed by 211 townspeople appeared in the same edition of the
newspaper. It was addressed "To Our Friends and Neighbors Who
Work At Electra Mfg. Co.",and asked that employees "Try to-remem=
ber' that the lives of thousands of your friends, and neighbors can 'be
gravely changed by your lone vote." ' ' ' ' , - , .
,
, .
ELECTRA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 497
However, the investigation further revealed that on August 15,
1963, during the Petitioner's campaign, the president of the Em-
ployer made an informal speech to two community organizations in
which he said that long-range plans for Electra Manufacturing Co.
of Independence call for continued growth to many times the present
size and there is no thought of moving from Independence. The
speech was reported in the Independence Daily Reporter the next
clay. Again, on January 6, 1964, an article in the same newspaper
reported that employer officials announced that the Employer was
establishing a research facility in Southern California but that
"All other engineering functions of -the company will remain in
Independence ...."
On or about January 14, the Petitioner issued a leaflet which
stated at the top :
RUMOR
DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER
TO KEEP IT ALIVE, ELECTRA'S BIGGEST RUMOR
WAS FINALLY AND COMPLETELY LAID TO REST
BY THE BOSS HIMSELF.
This leaflet contained reprints of the aforementioned articles from
the Independence Daily Reporter of August 16, 1963, and January 6,
1964; and, pointed out that the Employer had twice stated that it had
no intention of leaving Independence.
In these circumstances , we are satisfied that the Employer's spe-
cific public disavowals of any intention to relocate, coupled with the
Petitioner 's republication and distribution to employees on Jan-
uary 14 of such disavowals , tended to neutralize any atmosphere of
fear and confusion that otherwise might have been engendered by the
above-described third party conduct, considered either alone or in
conjunction with the Employer 's letters.
Accordingly, we find no merit in objections Nos. 1 and 2 and they
are hereby overruled . As the Regional Director has not ruled on the
remaining objections, we shall remand the case to him for further
action.
[The Board remanded this proceeding to the Regional Director for
Region 17 for investigation of objections Nos. •3 through 7 and for
the issuance of a Supplemental Report and Recommendations with
respect to the said objections.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order Directing Regional Director To Issue Supplemental
-Report on Objections.
760-57T-65-vol. 148-33