General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 1103 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
General Electric Company and Highway & Local Mo-
tor Freight Employees, Local No. 667, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Cases 26-CA-7420, 26-CA-7481, and 26-RC
5857
December 14, 1979
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On July 17, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
Order
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, General Electric Company,
Selmer, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record find no basis for reversing his findings
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro orma, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's recommendations to dismiss those allegations In the
complaint that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aIX) by creating the mpression
of surveillance, by soliciting grievances, by promising benefits, by interrogat-
ing an employee by asking him how the election was coming on, and assert-
ing that selection of the Union would be an act of futility by telling employ-
ees that they would not get any more money or job upgrade if the Union
won.
DECISION
STATEMENI OF THE CASE
MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard on March 28 and 29. 1979. in Selmer.
Tennessee, based on unfair labor practice charges filed on
September 20 and October 31, 1978,1 by Highway & Local
Motor Freight Employees. Local No. 667. affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union). and a
complaint issued on December I I by the Regional Director
for Region 26 of the National Labor Relations Board. The
consolidated complaint alleged that the General Electric
Company (Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. as amended, in various ways
during September and October. It further alleged the Re-
spondent's conduct violated the terms of a settlement agree-
ment entered into in Case 26 CA 7420. and that settlement
agreement was vacated. Consolidated for hearing with the
unfair labor practice allegations were certain objections
filed by the Union to conduct affecting the results of an
election conducted in Case 26-RC-5857 which track cer-
tain allegations of the complaint. Respondent's timely filed
answer and amended answer denied the substantive allega-
tions of the complaint.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally.
Respondent and the Union filed briefs. and the General
Counsel presented an oral argument. All arguments and
briefs have been carefully considered. Based upon the en-
tire record, including my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor. I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FA('r
I. RESPONtDN I'S BUSINESS AND TE UNION'S IABOR
ORGANIZATION STATUS-PREI.IMINARY (ONCI.USIONS 1
L.AW
Respondent is a corporation doing business in the State
of Tennessee with an office and place of business located in
Selmer, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of electrial distribution equipment. Jurisdiction is not in is-
sue. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
and conclude that Respondent satisfies the Board's stan-
dards for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enter-
prises and is an employer, engaged in commerce and in
operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges. the Respondent admits, and I find
and conclude that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. I HE AI.I.E(;EI) UNFAIR L.AB()R PRA( lit S
A. Background, The Union (Campaign
The Union engaged in an organizing campaign among
Respondent's approximately 350 production and mainte-
I All dates hereinafter are 1978
246 NLRB No. 175
1103
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nance employees in Selmer, Tennessee, in August, Septem-
ber, and October. It filed the representation petition in Case
26 RC 5857 on September 8, and the parties entered into a
Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election on Sep-
tember 29. Pursuant to that stipulation an election was con-
ducted on October 27, 1978. The Union failed to secure a
majority of the valid votes cast. On November 2 the Union
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
election.
B. The Specific Conduct Alleged
I. Creating the impression of surveillance
The Union held weekly organizational meetings at a pub-
lic hall in the Pickwick Electric Coop Building (the local
electric utility company) in Selmer, Tennessee. One such
meeting was conducted on or about September I, and some
of the employees present were observed by Supervisor Ver-
non Griggs at its conclusion. Shortly thereafter, according
to employee Wyley Hunt, Griggs remarked to him that
there had not been many employees at the meeting, and
that he had passed by and seen Hunt's car and the cars of
two or three other employees. Griggs testified that Hunt
had initiated this conversation, remarking that the Union
was not getting much support. To this Griggs admitted re-
sponding that he had seen Hunt and two or three other
employees at the meeting site. It is uncontradicted that the
Union made no secret that it was holding its meetings at the
Pickwick Electric Building; that many people, including
Griggs, regularly stopped at the utility building to pay their
electric bills; that Griggs was there for that reason on the
day in question; and that the employees attending meetings
at this location regularly parked their cars close to the main
highway through Selmer where anyone passing by would
observe them.
I find it unnecessary to resolve the credibility issue be-
tween the respective versions presented above. Noting par-
ticularly that Hunt publicly declared his union support by
distributing its literature outside the plant, the openness
with which the Union held and employees attended its
meetings, and that Griggs was in the vicinity of the meeting
for a legitimate purpose, I find the incident to have been too
trivial and innocent to rise to the level of interference or
coercion. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allega-
tion be dismissed. Cf. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorpo-
rated, 219 NLRB 1196 (1975), wherein a similar remark
made by a supervisor within the hearing of only 2 of 360
employees was found to be "an isolated remark too mini-
mal in substance and scope to have had an impact on the
election."
2. Solicitation of grievances and promises of benefit
Employee Roger McMahan related conversations with
Vernon Griggs and Personnel Manager Bob Freeman, oc-
curring sometime in late August or early September,
wherein these supervisors asked him why he thought the
employees needed representation by the Teamsters. McMa-
han, an open union supporter, related complaints to each of
them about the way the employees were treated and said
that only union representation would improve the condi-
tions. Griggs, McMahan testified, told him that he (Griggs)
did not know but would have to hear both sides before he
made a decision.2 When McMahan responded to Freeman's
question, Freeman asked him whether he (Freeman) had
not ever helped McMahan in the past. McMahan acknowl-
edged that he had, and that McMahan appreciated the help
that he had received. Freeman then said that "that was
what he was there for, to take care of problems ... that they
had."
The essence of an allegation that Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act has been violated by the solicitation of grievances lies
in the inference created by such solicitation that the em-
ployer is promising to correct those grievances. See, for ex-
ample, Campbell Soup Company. 225 NLRB 222 at 227
(1976), and Reliance Electric Company. Madison Plant Me-
chanical Drives Division, 191 NLRB 44. at 46 (1971). In the
instance case, even assuming that the above-described con-
duct amounted to the solicitation of grievances. I must con-
clude that there was no promise, either express or implied,
that Respondent would resolve any grievances in any way
differently from the way it had prior to the advent of the
Union. At best, the statements of Griggs and Freeman
amounted to reminders that Respondent has an established
grievance-resolution procedure, had resolved employee
grievances in the past, and would continue to do so in the
future. Such statements are not violative. Accordingly, I
shall recommend that these allegations be dismissed.
The General Counsel further contended that Respon-
dent's newsletter of October 24, the "BusWay News." im-
pliedly promised future benefits to the employees when it
compared the cost of union membership with Respondent's
benefits schedule. That schedule listed the wage and cost-
of-living increases the employees had received from June
1976 through June 1978 and further listed the following
under the column "add to pay."
Higher Skill Adjustment . . . Five To 50 Cents Per
Hour
More Vacation Time . . . $ plus
Expanded Sick Pay Coverage . . . $ plus
Expanded Insurance Plan ... $ plus
Plus Numerous Other Benefits . .. $ plus
TOTAL: The Best Community Wages, Job Security,
And A Company Striving For Employees' Satisfac-
tion.
Respondent argued that the BusWay News article de-
scribed above was mere campaign propaganda which nei-
ther explicitly nor implicitly promised anything. Its sole
purpose was to compare Respondent's employee benefits,
received without the expenses involved in union member-
ship, with the costs of membership. I agree that this was
legitimate propaganda. This leaflet in no way promised that
future benefits would be granted in order to discourage
2 Griggs recalled the conversation somewhat differently. He recalled walk-
ing into the toolroom crib where the employees on breaktime were discussing
the Union. He heard someone say that they needed help, inasmuch as thev
were not getting treatment equal to that of the day-shift employees, and he
referred the employees to the Company's existing grievance-resolution proce-
dure.
1104
GENERAL EL.F.CTRIC COMPANY
unionization. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this alle-
gation he dismissed.
3. Interrogation
The General Counsel's witnesses related various inci-
dents of allegedly coercive interrogation. Thus, employee
Joe Henry testified that Supervisor Griggs came up to him
and "asked [him] how the Union was looking .... " They
discussed the Union, and Griggs told him that the Union
would not get them any more money, their jobs upgraded.
or help in regard to the amount of overtime they were
working. This conversation, he recalled, occurred about
September 1. Griggs recalled a conversation about Septem-
ber 7 wherein Henry indicated dissatisfaction over the de-
nial of a promotion and said that he felt they needed a
union to help them. Griggs disputed this and told Henry
that he had worked for GE for 22 years and had never
known one plant to get more money than any other.'
Wyley Hunt similarly' related a conversation with Griggs.
about October I, wherein Griggs came up to Hunt and
"just told me that he didn't know I was for the Union and
why was I." Hunt replied that until it was proved to him
that they did not need a union he would be for it. Griggs
then said that he did not mean anything by his question.
but that he was just interested in the activity in which Hunt
was involved.'
Approximately I week before the election, according to
the testimony of Clay Hunter, he was approached by Ron
Richardson. the assistant personnel manager, while work-
ing at his machine. Richardson asked him. "say Hunter.
how is the election coming on?" Hunter replied that he did
not know, that he had not had to vote on it yet. Hunter was
an overt union supporter who normally wore union insignia
on his clothes while working. He had no specific recollec-
tion of whether he was wearing that insignia at the time of
this conversation. Richardson claimed that he merely asked
Hunter how things were going, to which Hunter responded
by saying that the election had not yet been held. Richard-
son then disclaimed any intent to inquire about the Union.
As I would not find that this query of an employee who
openly supported the Union constituted coercive interroga-
tion even if Hunter's testimony were to be credited. I find it
unnecessary to resolve this credibility conflict. Accordingly.
I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
Employee Roger McMahan told of a conversation with
Plant Manager Don Chapman sometime in September and
of another with Plant Superintendent Robert Reichard on
an unknown date. In each of these conversations the named
Although Henry had testified that his conversation with Griggs was on or
about September I. Griggs was asked only about conversations with Henry
"on or about September 7" Gnggs did not specifically deny asking Henry
"how the Union was looking." Accordingly. I must conclude that Respon-
dent has not specifically contradicted Henry's testimony. That testimony was
credibly offered, and I accept it as the truth.
'According to Griggs. Hunt initiated this conversation by stating. "You
knew I never was for the Union before but I am this time." Griggs claimed
that he did not know of Hunt's union proclivities prior to that moment.
Grigg's testimony in regard to this incident is mprobable and somewhat
inconsistent with his earlier testimony regarding his observation of Hunt
outside the union meeting. I therefore credit the testimony as offered by
Hunt.
1105
supervisor asked McMahan wh, he thought a union was
needed.' \McMahan replied to each of them that he felt the
treatment the employees received warranted union repre-
sentation. In his conversation with Chapman, McMahan
recalled Chapman saying that it sounded like McMahan
had a chip on his shoulder. Reichard. he recalled, told him
that he did not think too much otf his job and said that if the
Union came the plant would not be in Selmer very long.'
The Board's "basic premise in situations involving the
questioning of employees b their employer about union
activities is that such questions are inherently coercive bh
their very nature." P.B. wind S. Chemical Conpany. 224
NLRB 1. 2 (1976). However, not every employer inquir
that touches upon union activity is necessarily violative of
the Act. See, e.g.. Johnnie's Poultn Co. and John Bishop
Poultr' Co., Successor, 146 NLRB 770 (1964). enforcement
denied 344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965). In the instant case I
have credited the testimony of employee Henry that Super-
visor Vernon Griggs asked him, about September 1. "how
the Union was looking." Such a question, I find. would tend
to elicit an answer forcing disclosure of the emplo ee's ex-
tent of involvement in the union activity. Such interroga-
tion clearly tends to interfere with employee Section 7
rights and violates Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Additionally, I have credited the testimony of employees
Hunt and McMahan establishing that Griggs asked Hunt
why he was for the Union on or about October 1, and that
similar questions were asked of McMahan by Freeman and
Chapman (both in September) and by Reichard (on an un-
known date). While both Hunt and McMahan had, at some
point during the union campaign, openly declared their
union adherence. such questioning of them is nonetheless
violative. The Board has held that employer questioning of
the reasons why employees support the Union "tends to
have a coercive effect upon employees, whether or not the
employees have openly declared their support for a union."
ITT utornotive Electrical Prodtct.s Division 231 NLRB 878
(1977), Board Member Walther dissenting. Moreover. the
questioning of McMahan by Reichard and Chapman oc-
curred in the context of other statements which added to
the coercive atmosphere of the exchanges.
Accordingly, I find that by the conduct described above
Respondent has interrogated its employees concerning their
union activities, thereby interfering with or coercing them
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby has
violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
5It is noted that McMahan similarly testified to being asked the same
question by Supervisors Vernon Griggs and Bob Freeman.
Chapman admitted coming upon McMahan and Richardson in the
course of an intense discussion about wage rates and commentilg that it
appeared that McMahan had a chip on his shoulders. and that one did not
always get everything one wanted in life. Richardson. who was placed at that
conversation by McMahan as well as by Chapman. did not testify in regard
thereto. Reichard testified that he had no recollection of any conversations
with McMahan concerning the Union: however, he did not specifically den
making the statement attnrbuted to him. In the absence of available corrobo-
rative testimony in regard to the McMahan-Chapman conversation or a
specific denial by Reichard in a situation where one would expect an em-
ployee relations specialist like Reichard to be able to recall whether he ever
made such statements, I am constrained to credit the testimono of McMia-
han.
D)E('ISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Futility
In the third or fourth week of September. employee Joe
Henry came upon a conversation between four other em-
ployees and the third-shift supervisor, Ralph Souser. Henry
heard the supervisor7 say "that if the Union came in that he
didn't think that we would get any more money or any job
upgrade." This statement is apparently the basis for the
General Counsel's allegation at paragraph I I of the com-
plaint that Ralph Souser coerced employees by telling them
that the Union would not do them any good if it came in.
Whoever made this statement, I find that it falls far short of
any assertion that Respondent would refuse to bargain with
the Union if certified or the selection of the Union as the
employees' representative would be an act of futility, and as
such might violate the Act. See American Medical Insurance
Company, Inc., 224 NLRB 1321 at 1328-29 (1976): Red
Barn Svstem, Inc., 224 NLRB 1586. 1587 (1976).
5. Threats
In the latter part of August, according to employee Cal-
vin Plunk, Superintendent Reichard approached Plunk and
told him that Respondent has received a couple of phone
calls informing it that Plunk was passing out union cards.
He told Plunk to "watch himself."' Such a statement, in-
forming employees that their union activities are being ob-
served and reported it to management and further advising
employees that such activities entail risk to them, clearly
tends to interfere with the employees' exercise of their
statutory rights and violates Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Employee Paul Baker testified that he was called into
Reichard's office in about the first week of September and
asked why he wanted the Union. Reichard allegedly told
him that if the Union came in "he would just about bet me
money that it would be moved out within 3 year period ...
there was going to be a bunch of changes made ... if the
Union didn't come in .... " Reichard, however, specifically
denied making the union-related statements attributed to
him by Baker, and he described a conversation initiated by
Baker wherein they discussed certain problems Baker was
having in the toolroom, with no reference being made to the
Union. In this instance, noting that Reichard has here spe-
cifically denied the proscribed statements whereas in other
incidents he was only able to testify to a lack of recollec-
tion, and noting further that Baker testified to this conver-
sation in a manner which was hesitant and less than fully
convincing, I credit Reichard. Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that this allegation be dismissed.
In the third week of September, according to employee
Joe Henry, a conversation was held between Henry and
7 The record is not clear at this point whether Henry was talking about
Souser or First-Shift Supervisor Dwayne Mounce. For the reasons hereafter
expressed I find it unnecessary to attempt to resolve the lack of clarity
I Reichard did not recall, but did not specifically deny, having the forego-
ing conversation with Plunk. He did recall remarking to another employee
"that it had come to my attention that Plunk was distributing literature and
soliciting signatures in the restroom." He said "that is not good on company
time." Noting that Reichard did not specifically deny Plunk's allegation and
noting further that, even if Reichard's testimony were to he credited m'
conclusion would remain the same. I credit Plunk.
Supervisor Dwayne Mounce. Henry, who was wearing his
union button at the time, did not know how the subject of
the Union came up or who initiated it. Mounce had been a
supervisor at Respondent's Blue Ash plant. According to
Henry, Mounce said that from his prior experience at Blue
Ash he felt that if a union came in the Company would
probably crack down on the employees. He told Henry that
he was always having trouble up at Blue Ash "and it seem
like he had warning papers in his hand all the time and said
he even had to fire people for things like being away from
their work station." Mounce recalled that Henry initiated
the discussion in regard to the Union, asking for Mounce's
opinion in light of the fact that Mounce had worked both in
Blue Ash and in Selmer. Mounce told Henry that he did
not believe that they needed a union in Selmer. Henry then
said that he knew that Mounce had not had any problems
with employees at Selmer and asked whether Mounce had
fired anyone in Selmer. Mounce said that he had not. In
response to Henry's further question, he acknowledged that
he had done so at Blue Ash. When asked how the company
went about it, Mounce said that they did it "just like we
would here if it was necessary . . . we do it with warning
notices." Finally, in response to a last question by Henry,
Mounce said that he did not see any reason why Selmer
would change if a union came in. He specifically denied
threatening Henry with loss of jobs if the Union came.
While there were no obvious defects or impediments in
the credibility demeanor of employee Henry, I was more
favorably impressed with the testimony of Mounce. That
testimony, given in great detail, had a ring of truth about it
particularly warranting its acceptance. Accordingly, I find
that the General Counsel has failed to sustain her burden of
proof in regard to this allegation and recommend that it be
dismissed.
Toward the latter part of September, according to Wyley
Hunt, Hunt was called into Reichard's office. There Rei-
chard told Hunt "that he was surprised at me having union
activity and that Mr. Chapman [plant manager] was very
disappointed in me . . . being with the Union because I was
one of the highest paid or in the higher bracket hourly that
there was inside the plant." Reichard spoke of having sent
Hunt to school to learn the operation of a particular ma-
chine and said that they had acquired another such ma-
chine. He told Hunt that they were going to send someone
to school but did not know whether it would be Hunt "be-
cause he said that they didn't want no union down there."
Reichard did not remember having any conversation with
Hunt concerning the Union. Under all the circumstances
present here, noting Hunt's specific recollection of that con-
versation and his credible demeanor, I must conclude that
the conversation occurred essentially as described by the
employee. I must further conclude that the statements con-
stituted both expressed and implied threats directed at
Hunt which would tend to coerce that employee in the ex-
ercise of his statutory rights and violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. The roundtable meetings
Respondent regularly held "round table meetings" with
groups of its employees approximately every 5 weeks. In
late September and again in late October the roundtable
1106
G(ENERAL. EI.ECTRIC COMPANY
meetings were devoted essentially to the subject of pending
election. In both meetings the employee groups were ad-
dressed by Bob Freeman, manager of employee relations.
Freeman presented the September roundtable meetings
using notes and flip charts. He described the various GE
plants around the country, pointed out the number of rep-
resented and unrepresented employees GE had. and argued
that fewer than half of the GE employees were represented
by unions. He next explained the coalition bargaining in
which GE participated and told the employees that when
the coalition bargaining worked out a job package that
same package was implemented at the nonunion GE plants.
Thus, he told them, the Selmer employees and the employ-
ees of the other nonunionized plants received the same
benefit increases that were implemented for the unionized
plants. He emphasized this by comparing the wage and
benefit package at the Selmer plant with those packages
resulting from negotiations with the various unions. He fur-
ther pointed out that. in those units wherein the unions had
taken the employees out on strike, the unions had not suc-
ceeded in securing improvements in excess of that agreed to
in the coalition bargaining and had only caused a delay in
the implementation of those increased benefits by the
length of the strike. Freeman continued by showing and
reading to the employees newspaper clippings describing
strikes at various union plants, illustrating the points he had
made. He referred to a 6-week strike in one unit which did
not succeed in modifying the wage and benefits package,
and he told the employees:
I said bargaining really gets tough .... They got
that--6 weeks on the street. I said maybe some of you
have got questions of me about that how did that
happen. I don't really know how it happened. I know
what bargaining is. Bargaining is a two-way street.
That is what it is.
Next, Freeman read a newspaper article captioned
"When a Firm Pulls up Stakes a Lot of People Lose. One
Group is Fighting the Problem." He followed the caption
by reading a quote from Herb Messer, president of Local
1198, IBEW, a 16-year employee at the closed Blue Ash
plant, who said: "If the employees had known the company
was serious they probably would have changed their deci-
sion. A job without a union shop is better than no job at
all." Freeman then stated:
Now what am I saying? If the majority of our people
vote for the Union the plant will close or move. Abso-
lutely not. I will sit down and negotiate a contract with
them; but bargaining is a two-way street. No one, nei-
ther union nor the company'. can predict what will
happen.
Well, you can put everything in the pot: and you can
start negotiating and there is give and take across the
table.
Freeman then discussed the Company's triannual job pack-
age questionnaire used at nonunion plants and concluded
by telling the employees that management wanted a "no"
vote on the Union.
Various employees also testified about the September
roundtable meetings. Their recollections, however, pre-
sented only of fragments of those meetings, and they' did
not purport to describe the meetings in full. Thus. employ-
ees Henry, Plunk, Baker, and Keel all recalled Freeman
making remarks to the effect that, if the Union came in.
Respondent would "wipe the slate clean" and bargain from
scratch or start from nothing. Henry recalled further that
Freeman told the employees that equipment could be
moved and had been moved from Blue Ash. In this regard
Plunk said Freeman stated that. at Blue Ash. the employees
had been told that management was serious about moving
the plant, and "that they were just as serious at this time."
In a similar vein, Keel testified that they were told by Free-
man that Freeman's boss had called and told Freeman that
he was tired of the production slowdown and that, if they
kept on, it would be like Blue Ash where there was a pad-
lock on the door. Baker. however, recalled no threats to
close the plant.
Freeman specifically denied threatening to "wipe the ta-
ble clean" and denied threatening the loss of jobs. His testi-
mony was corroborated by that of Ron Richardson and
Donald Chapman. Noting the detail with which Freeman
described the September roundtable meetings, and noting
further that the notes which he followed in making his pre-
sentation contained no such threat, I must conclude the
Freeman's testimony more accurately described that series
of meetings than did the more isolated recollections of the
named employees. Based upon the credited testimony I
must further find that Freeman made no threat to close the
plant. Neither can I find from the foregoing that Freeman's
references to bargaining as a two-way street constituted a
threat of a loss of benefits in the event that the Union be-
came the collective-bargaining representative. See Madison
Kipp CornpaW. 240 NLRB 879 (19791. wherein the Board
stated:
Although it is permissible to inform employees of the
realities of the collective-bargaining process, which
necessarily include the possibility that the union might
trade away some existing benefits in order to obtain
some other benefits and that reaching agreement may
be difficult, an employer violates the Act when it
makes a bargaining from scratch statement that can
reasonably be interpreted as a threat either to unilater-
ally discontinue existing benefits prior to negotiations
or to adopt a regressive bargaining posture to punish
the employees for choosing collective representation.
The instant case contains no such threats. Accordingly, I
shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint per-
taining to such threats be dismissed.
At the October roundtable meetings, conducted on Octo-
ber 16 and 17, Freeman read from a script in order to avoid
being misquoted. He compared the GE employees' hand-
book, which in format closely paralleled a typical collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, to the benefits under a contract
between Owens-Corning Glass and the Teamsters, choosing
that location because it was the closest Teamsters-repre-
sented plant.
Employee Dubois testified that, in the course of this
meeting, Freeman stated that "the GE plant down here
can't tolerate a union-they were going to lock the doors if
it comes in." Dubois' recollection was not corroborated by
any other employee, notwithstanding that virtually all the
1107
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees attended these meetings. And, Dubois' affidavit,
given shortly after this meeting, contained no reference to
such an alleged threat. Employee Hunter recalled a threat
by Freeman to "wipe the table clean" and start from
scratch in the event of a union victory. Freeman's credible
denial of making either threat was corroborated by the
script which he followed in delivering the October round-
table meetings and was further corroborated by the testi-
mony of Chapman and Richardson. Accordingly, I cannot
credit the testimony of either Dubois or Hunter, and I shall
recommend that these allegations be dismissed.
Employee Dubois further testified that during this meet-
ing he asked Freeman a question about being upgraded.
Freeman looked over at Dubois who was wearing his
Teamsters insignia, pointed his finger at him, and said. "if
you want to work for [the] Teamsters you need to go to
Owens-Corning and go to work." Hunter recalled Freeman
making such a statement to Dubois, although not as a re-
sponse to any question by Dubois. Freeman recalled Du-
bois making some remark to him in the course of that meet-
ing and specifically denied the statement attributed to him
by Dubois and Hunter. Freeman recalled that another em-
ployee, Joe Griggs, was the one who told Dubois that if he
wanted the Teamsters he should go to work at Owens-Cor-
ning. In this regard Freeman's testimony is corroborated by
that of Chapman and John Droke, Dubois' supervisor.
Griggs was not called by either party to corroborate or
deny his role in this exchange. On balance, considering the
inconsistency between the testimony of Dubois and Hunter,
and noting that I have found their testimony as to other
aspects of this meeting to be less than fully credible. and
finally noting the credible demeanor of Freeman, Chap-
man, and Droke, I find that the General Counsel has failed
to sustain her burden of proof as to this allegation. I shall
therefore recommend that it be dismissed.
III. (ONI)U( I AFFE(CTING RESUl.S OF El.EC(TION
I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I1) of
the Act by certain conduct occurring prior to September 8.
the date the petition was filed. Under longstanding Board
precedent, such conduct cannot be relied upon as a basis
fqr setting aside the election. The Ideal Electric and Manu-
facturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961); Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453 (1962). However,
within the objections period I have found that Respon-
dent's supervisors interrogated at least one employee
(Griggs' interrogation of Hunt on or about October I) and
threatened another (Reichard's threat to Hunt in late Sep-
tember).
This conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and it is
the Board's generally stated policy "to direct a new election
whenever an unfair labor practice occurs during the critical
period since '[c]onduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) is, aforti-
ori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and
untrammeled choice in the election.' " Super Thrift Mar-
kets, Inc. /a Enola Super Thrifi. 233 NLRB 409, 410
(1977): Dal-Tex Optical Company. Inc., 137 NLRB 1782,
1786 (1962). I further find that such conduct, the continu-
ation of similar conduct occurring prior to the objections
period, cannot be deemed so isolated or minimal in scope or
substance "that it [would have been] virtually impossible to
conclude that [it] could have affected the results of the elec-
tion." Enola Super Thrift, supra. I therefore find that this
conduct interfered with the exercise of a free and untram-
meled choice in the election held on October 27. Accord-
ingly, I recommend that that election be set aside and a
rerun election conducted.
IV. 1I1E RI-MH)Y
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(Co N(CI.tSIlNS OF LAW
1. By interrogating its employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires, and by threatening its
employees with loss of job training opportunities and other
unspecified reprisals because they engaged in union activi-
ties, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are un-
ftiir labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Certain of the unfair labor practices set forth above.
occurring on or after September 8. 1978, have interfered
with the employees' rights to a free and untrammeled
choice in the election conducted in Case 26 RC 5857 on
October 27. 1978. and have tainted the results of that elec-
tion.
4. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor prac-
tices not specifically found herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby make the following recommended:
ORDER9
The Respondent, General Electric Company, Selmer,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
membership, activities. and desires.
(b) Threatening its employees with loss of job training
opportunities or other reprisals because of their union ac-
tivities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Lab)r Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1108
GENERAL. ELECTRIC COMPANY
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Selmer, Tennessee, plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."'0 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis-
missed in all other respects.
I-r Is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Case 26-RC 5857 be
remanded to the Regional Director, that the election con-
ducted on October 27, 1978, be set aside, and that the Re-
gional Director conduct a rerun election at such time as he
deems the circumstances permit a free choice on the issue of
representation.
Dated July 17, 1979, Washington, D.C.
'lIn the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by the
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF IHE
NAIIONAI. LABOR REIATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties were afforded the op-
portunity to present evidence. it has been found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain re-
spects and we have been ordered to post this notice and to
carry out its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives
you, as employees, certain rights, including the right:
To engage in self-organization
To form. join, or help a union
To bargain collectively through a representative
of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any of all of these things.
WE WILL NOt interrogate you concerning your
union membership activities or desires.
WE Wl.l. Nor threaten you with loss of job opportu-
nities or other reprisals in order to discourage you from
supporting the Highway & Local Motor Freight Em-
ployees, Local No. 667, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their statutory rights.
GENFRAI. EI.,i(crRIC COMPANY
1109