General Industries Electronics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

GENERAL INDUSTRIES ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1139
tract is signed by the Employer, by two International IBEW rep-
resentatives, and by the four-man negotiating committee of the Coun-
cil, and becomes binding upon ratification by a majority of the locals.
Also, section 1, article III, thereof states that any units for which the
Union or its locals is certified, upon a certain procedure, shall be
covered by "This Agreement"; and the recognition clause states that
"the unit [emphasis supplied], defined in the singular, consists of all
[emphasis supplied] production and maintenance employees, with
certain exclusions."
As the Leavenworth, Kansas, plant, has been covered at least since
May 15, 1961, by the master contract, we find that the multiplant
bargaining history is effective and controlling as to this plant.' Ac-
cordingly, the Board affirms the Regional Director's determination
that the history of bargaining for the Leavenworth plant has been on
a multiplant basis, and his dismissal of the petition filed on October 9,
1963, for a single-plant unit.'
2 Univao Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137
NLRB 1232.
3 We find no merit in the reliance of the Petitioner and the Employer on the General
Counsel 's ruling in Gould-National Batteries , Inc., Case No . 18-CA-1542 ( in which no
complaint was issued ), because consideration of the case appears to have been limited to
the question of principal and agent.
General Industries Electronics Company and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 26-RC-2020. April 28, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 27, 1963,
under the supervision and direction of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-sixth Region, among employees in an agreed unit. Upon the
conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of
ballots which showed that, of approximately 360 eligible voters, 94
cast valid ballots for, and 247 against the Petitioner. " Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election.
After an investigation, the Regional Director issued his report and
supplemental report on- objections in which he recommended that
objections Nos. 3 and 4 be sustained, objections Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7
be overruled, and that the election be set aside and a new election
ordered: The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
146 NLRB No. 115.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims. to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees, as stipulated by' the parties, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Forrest City, Arkansas, plant, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the. Re-
gional Director's report and supplemental report, and the Employer's
,exceptions thereto, and adopts' the Regional Director's recommenda-
tion to set aside the election.'
Thus, as set forth in the Regional Director's report, the Employer's
campaign speeches and letters emphasized to employees that Peti-
tioner "can get you less than you have," that "a union has to negotiate
with management from scratch to establish ALL working conditions
for the employees it represents . . . the only way that the union can
try to force the company to agree is to make you go out on strike .. .
after the strike is over you may no longer have a job." These state-
ments, and the graphic portrayal of strike violence attributed to Peti-
tioner in letters, speeches, and posters (the-last carrying the headline
declaration:. "Violence, One.Promise the Union Will Keep") could
only lead employees to understand that their selection of Petitioner as
their bargaining representative would inevitably lead to a strike,
violence, and likely loss of jobs if Petitioner should attempt to achieve
better conditions of employment than those currently in effect. Under
all the circumstances, we find that an atmosphere of fear and of com-
plete futility in selecting Petitioner as a bargaining agent was thereby
created, and that such atmosphere prevented the employees' exercise
of free choice in the election. ,
1 As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations that objec-
tions Nos . 1, 2, 5, 6 , and 7 be overruled , those recommendations are adopted pro forma.
2 N.L.R.B. v. Realist , Inc., 328 F. 2d 840 ( C.A. 7), and in addition to cases cited by the
Regional Director, see Texas Industries , Inc. et al ., 139 NLRB 365 , 368; Dal-Teo Optical
Company, Inc ., 137 NLRB 1782 , 1785-1786 ; R. D. Cole Manufacturing Company, 133
NLRB 1455; Marsh Supermarkets , Inc., 140 NLRB 899, 901-902, enfd. In relevant part,
327 F. 2d 109 (C.A. 7).
GENERAL INDUSTRIES ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1141
Our dissenting colleague argues that no single.-action' of the-Em-
ployer "when viewed separately" had sufficient impact to interfere
with the election and sees "no warrant for concluding that the whole
is here greater than the sum of its parts." While we agree that the
whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, this fact does not excuse
the Board from adding those parts together. In our judgment, the
sum total of the Employer's separate communications to its employees
constituted a..clear message that it was futile for them to select- the
Petitioner as their bargaining representative for the purpose of im-
proving their conditions of employment,' and that selection of Peti-
. tioner could only bring strikes, violence, and loss of jobs. It makes
no sense to us to find that such a message does not interfere simply
because each component part of the message, viewed separately, falls
-just a little short of interference. We are not here engaged in the
addition of a series of ciphers, the sum of which is always zero, but
rather in assessing the impact,of a series of statements delivered in
the course of an antiunion campaign and couched in words which
were well calculated to impress upon employees that the selection of
Petitioner as their bargaining representative could only change their
conditions of employment for worse.
[The Board set aside the election conducted on September 27, 1963.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
My colleagues have decided to set this election aside on the basis
of certain employer conduct, in combination. Because, in my opinion,
each aspect of this conduct, when viewed separately, does not constitute
interference with the election, and because I see no. warrant for con-
cluding that the whole is here greater than the sum of its parts,' I must
dissent.
With respect to the Employer's posters and speeches on strike vio-
lence, it appears that, with one exception, the references were to strikes
by the Union herein. While the Employer sought to make capital of
these events, the fact remains that this conduct involved no more than
'propaganda of the type which the Board should, and has, left to the
good sense of the voter to evaluate.
With respect to the Employer's statement that the Petitioner "can
get you less than you have," it is significant that the Employer was
using as a point of departure a contract which the Union had negoti-
ated with Wagner Electric Company for a plant about 24 miles away.
3 See my dissenting opinion in Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee , Inc., 143 NLRB 546.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These remarks were no more than an effort by the Employer to demon-
strate to its employees that they had fared better without the benefit
of a union than did the employees of Wagner Electric Company.
Again, this could be readily recognized by employees for what it was,
namely, employer propaganda.
My colleagues also rely upon the Employer's remarks that "a union
has to negotiate with management from scratch to establish ALL
working conditions for the employees it represents ... the only way
that the union can try to force the company to agree is to make you go
on strike ... after the strike is over you may no longer have a job."
The reference to bargaining from scratch is, in my opinion, an expres-
sion of the Employer's legal position which the Employer had a right
to make 4 In indicating further that during negotiations an employer
could not be forced to agree to union demands, the Employer was mak-
ing a correct reference to his rights under the law, and by referring
to the possibility of the strike and its impact on the jobs of employees,
the Employer was making a permissible prediction.'
Accordingly, as the conduct discussed above does not separately or
in combination constitute prohibited preelection conduct and as the
employees did, in my view, exercise their free choice in the election, I
would not set the election aside, but would certify the election results.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Second Election.
4 Schick, Incorporated, 118 NLRB 1160, 1162, 1163.
6 See footnote 5 of Texas Industries, Inc., et al., 139 NLRB 365, 368, in which I dis-
sented on this point.
Gould-National Batteries , Inc. and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, Petitioner and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO . Case No. 23-RC-2071.
April 28, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director
on August 23, 1963, among the employees in the stipulated unit de-
scribed below. After the election, the Regional Director served upon
the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately
86 eligible voters, 45 cast valid ballots of which 25 were for the
Petitioner, 19 were for the Intervenor, and 1 for neither union.
Thirty-six ballots were challenged and 1 ballot was declared void,
146 NLRB No. 132.