Honeywell Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 323 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

HONEYWELL INC . 323
Honeywell Incorporated , Precision Meter Division and Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC--8490. December 21,1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 29, 1965, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1,
among the employees in the stipulated unit. Upon the conclusion of
the election, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which
showed that, of approximately 266 eligible voters, 255 cast valid
ballots, of which 116 were for, and 139 were against, the Petitioner,
and none were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the
Acting Regional Director investigated the objections and, on Sep-
tember 7, 1965, issued and served upon the parties his report on
objections. In his report, the Acting Regional Director recommended
to the National Labor Relations Board that it find all the Petitioner's
objections to be without merit and overrule them. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions with respect to certain of the
Acting Regional Director's findings and recommendations, request-
ing either that objections d, e, and f be sustained and the election set
aside; or that a hearing be directed to determine the merits.
Treating the Petitioner' s exceptions as a request for, reconsidera-
tion of his report on objections, the Acting Regional Director, on
October 12, 1965, issued and served upon the parties a Supplemen-
tal Report on Objections, in which he withdrew his original findings
with respect to objections d, e, and f; found that objections d, e, and
f raised substantial issues of fact which could best be resolved by a
hearing; and recommended that the Board direct such a hearing.
No exceptions were filed to the supplemental report.
The Board, by order dated October 29, 1965, directed that a hear-
ing be held before a Hearing Officer for the purpose of taking testi-
mony to resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner's objections d, e,
and f, and that the Hearing Officer prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to
the disposition of the said issues.'
1 This order overruled the Petitioner 's remaining objections since no exceptions were filed
with respect to the findings and recommendation that these objections be overruled.
162 NLRB No. 10.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the above order, a hearing was held in Manchester,
New Hampshire, on December 7, 8, and 9, 1965, before Hearing Offi-
cer Norman Goldfarb. All parties participated in the hearing and
were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
On February 2, 1966, the Hearing Officer issued and served upon
the parties his report on objections, in which he made findings of
fact and recommendations with respect to objections d, e, and f. The
Hearing Officer recommended that objections be overruled, and that
objections d and f be sustained and the election set aside. The
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report.
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 policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that
the following unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Man-
chester, New Hampshire, plant, but excluding technical employees,
plant clerical employees, expediters, administrative employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer' s rulings made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Hearing
Officer's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings,
conclusions, and recommendation that objection e be overruled, that
objection d be sustained, and that the election conducted on July 29,
1965, be set aside, and a new election be directed.
Objection d relates to the Employer's alleged violation of our Peer-
less Plywood rule.2 The hours of election were 7: 30 to 7: 45 a.m. and
2:30 to 4:30 p.m. The cover room employees were scheduled to vote
during the afternoon period. About 1.p.m. on the day of the election,
2 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
HONEYWELL INC. 325
Supervisor Peterson asked the employees in the cover room, while
they were at work, whether any of them had questions about the
Employer's so-called fact sheets, a compilation of antiunion propa-
ganda previously distributed by the Employer to its supervisors for
use in persuading employees to vote against the Union. Although the
employees stated they had no questions, Peterson nevertheless
instructed the employees to stop work, and, stationing himself in It
position where he could address the cover room employees as a group,
proceeded for a period of 11/2 hours until it was time for the cover
room employees to vote, to read and comment upon the antiunion
material in the fact sheets, and to answer resultant questions which
he invited. This "captive audience" meeting on company time was
conducted with the knowledge and acquiescence of higher manage-
ment. The employees were paid for the 11/2 hours so utilized, the pay-
ment being charged to "employee welfare."
We agree with the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the foregoing
constituted a meeting within the prohibition of the Peerless Plywood
rule. As the Board explained in the Montgomery Ward case, 124
NLRB 343, 344, where a question-and-answer session was similarly
involved, the Peerless Plywood ban is not limited to "a formal speech
in the usual sense," but is designed to bar "absolutely" during the
24-hour preelection period the use of company time for campaign
speeches in any form, including specifically campaign electioneering
of the type engaged in by Peterson in this case. Like the Hearing
Officer, we think it clear that the "captive audience" of cover room
employees, who were required as a group to cease work and pay heed
to Peterson's antiunion electioneering, constituted a massed assembly
within the intent of the Peerless Plywood rule. In these circum-
stances, we are unable to agree with the view of our dissenting col-
leagues that because only a single section of the Employer's employ-
ees was involved, an exception from the "absolute" prohibition of
the Peerless Plywood rule is warranted.
Nor are we able to accept the implication of the dissent that Peter-
son's conduct should in any event be regarded as de minimis because
the number of employees directly affected by such conduct consti-
tuted but a small percentage of all eligible voters, not alone sufficient
to have affected the election result. It has long been settled that the
term "massed assemblies," as used in the statement of the Peerless
Plywood rule, is not to be construed as "limited to all or most of the
unit employees, or to any certain percentage of them, or to an assem-
blage of such employees whose votes would be [sufficient in number]
to affect the outcome of the election." See The Great Atlantic cC
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Tea Company, 111 NLRB 623, 625-626.8 To construe the rule
differently in this case would mark both a reversal of established
precedent 'and a departure from the policy we have heretofore fol-
lowed, and which we continue to think desirable, of requiring strict
adherence to the Peerless Plywood regulation in the interest of pro-
moting fair elections.
As our holding that objection d should be sustained is dispositive
of the ultimate issue in this case, we find it unnecessary to reach the
merits of the Hearing Officer's further finding that certain comments
made by Peterson while addressing the cover room employees con-
tained threats of reprisal and, accordingly, do not adopt the Hear-
ing Officer's recommendation that the election also be set aside on
the basis of objection f.
[The Board set aside the election conducted herein on July 29.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS, dissenting :
We disagree with our colleagues' holding that Supervisor Peter-
son's talk with six employees at work stations on election day inter-
fered with the election under the Peerless Plywood Company rule,
107 NLRB 427.
The record shows that Peterson had under his supervision the 6
employees in question, who comprise the Employer's cover room, and
about 54 employees in two other nearby sections of the printing
department. There were about 266 eligible voters in the unit. On the
day of the election, Peterson entered the cover room to answer an
inquiry from one of the employees there about a job elsewhere in the
plant, and, thereafter, Peterson initiated a question-and-answer dis-
cussion period among the cover room employees, during which he
conveyed to them information from an antiunion fact sheet previ-
ously distributed by the Employer to its supervisors in connection
with preelection campaigning. This discussion period commenced
about 1 p.m.. during working hours and lasted until the normal
break period at 2:30 p.m., at which time the polls opened for voting
by the cover room and other unit employees. Peterson did not have
any such discussions, during the 24-hour period preceding the elec-
tion, with any other employees under his supervision or with other
3 In the cited case , the Board on Peerless Plywood grounds set aside an election conducted
among 6 , 500 employees in about 400 separate stores because at 8 of the stores a supervisory
employee spoke during the proscribed period about the election to groups ranging from
3 to 10 employees The total addressed was under 80-less than 2 percent of the eligible
voters
HONEYWELL INC. 327
employees in the unit. There were 255 ballots cast in the election, of
which 116 were for the Union, and 139 against.
Our colleagues' holding that the conduct of Peterson comes within
the meaning of the Board's Peerless Plywood rule is, in our view,
unsupportable. As the Board stated in Peerless Plywood, the rule
simply prohibits "election speeches on company time to massed
assemblies of employees within 24 hours before the scheduled time
for conducting an election." [Emphasis supplied.] As the Board
has repeatedly held, this rule was never intended to impose a bar
upon any other form of legitimate electioneering including that of
individual talks with employees,' or even the giving of speeches to
small groups of. employees.5 All that is forbidden by the rule are-
as expressly stated in Peerless Plywood and repeated in subsequent
cases-speeches to massed assemblies of employees.' Thus, the issue
here is : Did Peterson give a speech to a massed assembly of employ-
ees? We think not. As stated above, there were about 266 eligible
voters in the unit and 255 ballots were cast, and Peterson spoke to
but 6 employees. In these circumstances, there could have been no
engendering of the "mass psychology" condemned in Peerless Ply-
wood. To treat this minute number as a "massed assembly" is in our
view not only unrealistic but inconsistent with Peerless Plywood and
other Board precedent. We would therefore find Peterson's conduct
was not proscribed by Peerless Plywood, and since his statements to
the employee on this occasion were not otherwise coercive,' we would
certify the results of the election.
A Montgomery Ward & Co., 119 NLRB 52; Globe Motors, Inc., 123 NLRB 30; The Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company, 123 NLRB 207.
ilndependent Linen Service Company of Mississippi , 124 NLRB 717 Cf. Crown Paper
Board Company, Inc, 158 NLRB 440. Of course , planned and systematic speeches given to
groups of employees could fall within the rule since it is possible to treat all of the em-
ployees in the separate groups as though they had been addressed in a single massed as-
sembly. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 111 NLRB 623 See also Riblet Welding
and Mfg. Corp ., 112 NLRB 712 We do not have here a series of planned and systematic
speeches as was the case in The Great Atlantic f Pacific Tea Company, supra, upon which
our colleagues so heavily rely. We note also that in that case the Board rejected as "patently
farfetched" ,the notion that the rule would apply to a foreman or union steward who
speaks to one or two employees
6 See, e .g, Crown Paper Board Company , supra; Citrus Division, Kraft Foods Div., 122
NLRB 1318.
i While our colleagues do not reach this issue, we think the basis upon which the Hearing
Officer found Peterson 's "speech" to the six cover room employees "coercive . . . and a
threat of reprisal in view of its timing and content" to be tenuous, and not in line with
his other findings. In contrast , the Hearing Officer correctly found similar remarks by
Peterson to the approximately 50 to 60 other employees ender his supervision in nearby
sections of the printing department , as well as by other supervisors to various employees
during the critical period, "as lacking the elements to impede a free election," and permis-
sible under Board precedent . See Indianapolis Plant, Jones & Laughlin Steel Warehouse
Division, 160 NLRB 1629. We fail to see how statements which the Hearing Officer found
were "noncoercive and did not threaten a loss of benefits if the Union came in" took on
a different character simply because they were repeated to a few employees in the 24-hour
period before the election.