Hunt Electronics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any activities affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) or (ii) (B ) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
I recommend that the Board enter an order dismissing the complaint.
Hunt Electronics Company and International Union , United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1907. May 5,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown,
and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Hunt
Electronics Company, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
with the following modification :
Delete paragraph 1(c) and substitute the following :
(c) Promulgating, maintaining, enforcing, or applying any
rule or regulation which prohibits its employees, during non-
working time, from soliciting their fellow employees to join or
support the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-
146 NLRB No. 155.
HUNT ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1329
CIO, or any other labor organization, or which prohibits em-
ployees during nonworking time to distribute handbills or sim-
ilar literature on ,behalf of any labor organization in nonworking
areas of Respondent's property.'
i The notice attached hereto is substituted for that recommended by the Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, you are notified that :
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of jobs or closing of the
plant to discourage your union membership and activity.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of employees' union
activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, enforce or apply any rule
or regulation which prohibits our employees, during nonworking
time, from soliciting their fellow employees to join or support the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, or which prohibits employees dur-
ing nonworking time to distribute handbills or similar literature
on behalf of any labor organization in nonworking areas of our
premises.
WE WILL NOT in any manlier solicit your revocation of union
authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
oragnization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choice, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities.
HUNT ELECTRONICS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----=-=-----------------------=
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street,. Fort
Worth Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on July 23, 1963, by the above-named labor organization the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on September 6, 1963 , issued
his complaint and notice of hearing , alleging that the above-named Respondent Com-
pany had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act , as amended. The Respondent duly filed its answer,
denying the commission of unfair labor practices . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was
held in Dallas , Texas, on October 23, 1963, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity
to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally and to file briefs . A brief
has been received from General Counsel and from the Respondent.
Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon -which
ruling was reserved at the hearing , is made by the following findings , conclusions,
and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hunt Electronics Company is a Texas corporation with principal office and place
of business in Dallas, Texas , where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and
distribution of electrical switches and related products.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint it sold and shipped to points
outside the State of Texas products valued at more than $50,000.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE CHARGING UNION
International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
General Counsel contends and the Respondent denies that immediately upon
learning that their plant employees were embarking upon a course of self -organization
management officials and agents took countermeasures unlawful -in nature.
Such unlawful conduct , General Counsel claims, includes interrogation , threats of
reprisals , inauguration of a restrictive rule governing communication among em-
ployees , and open solicitation of employees to revoke their union authorization
cards.
B. Interference , restraint, and coercion
1. Relevant facts
It appears that management was made aware of the organizational start early in
the morning of July 18 , 1963 . As they reported for work that morning employees
Polk, Woorley , and White informed McCoy, head of the subassembly department and
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,' that they were going to try to "organize a
union ." 2 He asked them how they planned to "go about this ." Polk told him they
were - going to solicit "authorization cards" and petition for an election. McCoy
voiced no objections.
'General Manager Stone testified that McCoy at this time was "responsible for the
work" of this department , was on a salary basis , and attended management supervisors'
meetings . It is undisputed that lie hired employee Polk.
2 The quotations as to this incident are from the undisputed testimony of Polk.
HUNT ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1331
Later the same morning, however, Billy M. Spencer, in charge of the shipping and
receiving departments, stock and inventory, and a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act,3 approached employees Woorley and White and advised them to "drop this
because the instigators will be fired." During the employees' lunch hour Polk gave
two other employees authorization cards. As she did so Spencer came up to them,
accompanied by Lester Ferguson, in charge of the material section and some nine
employees. Both warned the girls: "You'll be sorry." Spencer then told Polk that
she had better know what she was signing before distributing the cards, and declared
that she did not "know what it was all about." Polk invited him to tell them.
Spencer replied that while he did not know, Larry Pettiet, manufacturing manager,
did, and that he "says that the girls handing out these authorization cards are going to
be fired." Spencer added that Hunt had eight plants in Texas, that "none of them
are union and none of them are going to be union." 4
Information concerning the start of organization clearly reached top management
the same day. According to his own testimony General Manager Stone authorized
R. J. Ford, quality control supervisor, to assemble plant employees during working
hours late that afternoon. At this meeting Ford told them that he had been au-
thorized to voice company policy, and warned them that there was to be no solicita-
tion of any kind, or distribution of any literature, including union cards, anywhere
on company premises, even the parking lot.
As employees left work the same day, some of them distributed union cards in
front of the plant, on public property. At least four company representatives:
Mason, McCoy, Ford, and Spencer stood at the exit doorway, watching the distribu-
tion. Ford was seen by employees to be holding a pad and pen, Mason and
McCoy were heard by employee White to be calling out names of employees .5
The next day Stone posted the following notice to all employees:
No solicitation of any kind will be allowed on company premises for Com-
munity Chest, Union, United Fund, or any other endeavor. No literature of
any kind except employee handbooks and materials from your employer may be
handed out or remain on company premises. Violation of any of the above
rules will result in company discipline.
On July 23 Stone sent the following letter to all employees:
Please excuse this impersonal letter. I would like to sit down and write
each of you a personal letter, but time prevents me from doing so.
I would like to simply again reiterate what I said in my speech to you on
Monday. I am against unions. I do not want one in our plant. I think
you will recall the numerous reasons I outlined in my Monday speech and so
I will not again burden you with those reasons.
But if you remember nothing else about my talk, or if you disagree with every-
thing I said, please remember, for your own sake, that the decision as regards
membership in a labor union is one of the biggest of your life. Give your-
self plenty of time to think it over. Discuss it with your family. Don't take
hasty action.
I am enclosing a form for your use if you have already signed a union author-
ization card and now have changed your mind and desire more time to think
things over. Let me say that you have no obligation to sign this revocation
of your authorization card. Please read the revocation carefully and be sure
8 At the hearing counsel for the Respondent at first conceded and then denied that
Spencer was a supervisor. Stone's testimony establishes that Spencer was responsible not
only for the departments but for the work of at least two employees, and attended super-
visors' meetings.
4 The findings as to the two incidents involving Spencer are based upon the credible
testimony of Polk and Woorley. Spencer was not questioned specifically about either
event but merely denied generally having threatened any employee. He admitted having
told "several girls to be sure they read what the card said before they signed it." His
general denial is not credited.
"The finding as to this incident rests upon the credible testimony of employees Woorley
and White. Spencer at first denied standing in the doorway with other supervisors on
this occasion, and then admitted that at that time he did observe "pamphlets and bro-
chures being passed out in front." Ford admitted being there, with a pad, but claimed
that he customarily carried one. Although there is no evidence that Union Representative
Purcell even attempted to leave public property on this occasion, Ford volunteered testi-
mony to the fact that he took it upon himself to go out, introduce himself to Purcell, and
warn her to "remain off our premises." Neither Mason nor McCoy was called as a witness.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you do understand it before you sign. Do not sign it if it does not represent
your desire.
I am firmly convinced that we have a tremendous possibility at Hunt Elec-
tronics Corp. to build a future for everyone of us. At the moment the business
is still in a crucial period and I can't turn it around without your help and
co-operation. Each of us depends on the other.
Attached to each letter was a form reading as follows:
I am an employee with Hunt Electronics Corp. of Dallas, Texas and in
connection with that employment I have recently signed a union authoriza-
tion card in favor of the United Auto Workers. After gaining a more com-
plete understanding of my rights, it is my desire to revoke the said authoriza-
tion card signed by me and I do hereby revoke the said authorization card for
all purposes and ask that it be disregarded completely. I sign this revocation
voluntarily and with the full understanding of my right not to so sign.
On August 1 Stone sent all employees another long letter in which he said, in part:
A number of you have now signed revocations of your union authorization
cards, and I am very happy about this. You need do nothing more. A copy
has been sent to the Union and to the National Labor Relations Board in Fort
Worth....
I feel that the presence of a union in this plant could prove disadvanta-
geous to you . .
. Remember that if a union does get into a plant, the law does not re-
quire the employer to change any past policies. The bargaining in some cases
has gone on for months and months. If and when the Union and the em-
ployer reach a contract, that contract will very likely only continue the past
policies of the employer. So again you end up paying to work.
And on August 19 Stone sent all employees a third long diatribe against unions
and attached to it another revocation form.
C. Conclusions
The above facts lead to the reasonable conclusion, in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner, that management was resolved, from the very beginning of its employees'
self-organizational efforts, to discourage them in exercising their statutory rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
In his letter of July 23 Stone stated his position bluntly and clearly: "I am against
unions. I do not want one in our plant." Plainly enough the head of this plant had
the right not only to hold this opinion but also to express it-even to the point of in-
vading their homes with such "solicitation" against the Union.
But the Board and the courts have consistently found unlawful the various methods
and measures which management here used to coerce employees to adopt Stone's
point of view and to waive their rights. The incident of management's campaign
against employees' guaranteed rights may not be reasonably considered in isolation
and apart, it seems to the Trial Examiner. The single effect and result of dis-
couragement and revocation may well come from not one, but several causes. That
such result was a fact is shown by Stone's August 1 letter, previously quoted, in which
he expressed his extreme happiness that "a number" of employees "have now signed
revocations." Here employees were subjected to threats of firing and of the plant
closing, to a suddenly imposed rule restricting communication on company premises
at all times, to being watched even on public property, and to a plain implication
that even if a majority, contrary to Stone's pleas, wanted the Union to represent
them any negotiations would be fruitless. It is small wonder that employees,
dependent upon their job for their livelihood, yielded to such pressures and signed
the revocations designed, prepared, and sent to them by their employer.
In short, it is concluded that the Respondent unlawfully interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees by: (1) Spencer's threats of reprisals voiced to employees;
(2) Stone's threats of discipline and imposition of the rule prohibiting union solicita-
tion on company premises; (3) Stone's solicitation of revocations of union authoriza-
tion cards; (4) Stone's thinly veiled threat that any negotiations would be futile if
an election were won by the Union; and (5) the open surveillance of distribution
of union literature off company premises.6
"General Counsel appropriately cites: Rockioell Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB
288, 290; Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615 ; United Aircraft Corporation,
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division , 139 NLRB 39; Shawnee Industries , Inc., 1 . 40 NLRB
1451 ; Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F. 2d 117 (C.A. 5)
and Atlanta Paper Company, et al., 121 NLRB 125.
HUNT ELECTRONICS COMPANY 1333
Stone offered no lawful justification for imposing the no-solicitation rule, nor for
his own solicitation of revocation signatures.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Hunt Electronics Company, its
officers, agents , successors; and assigns, shall: 7
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with economic or other -reprisals to discourage union
membership.
(b) Engaging in surveillance of employees ' union activities while off company
property.
(c) Rescind in its entirety the no-union -solicitation rule, or so modify it as to make
it clear that its restrictions apply only to working time of employees concerned.
(d) In any manner soliciting signatures to forms or any other document revoking
union authorization cards.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor organizations, to
joint or assist International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Dallas, Texas, plant , copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
7In the event the Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this paragraph shall
be amended to read:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
8 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order."
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith .9
91n the event that this Recommended Order be adapted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith,"
Safeway Cabs, Inc. and Taxicab Drivers Union Local No. 762,.
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,.
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No.
17-CA-2207. May 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 6, 1964, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,.
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members,
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made'
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire'
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex-
ceptions and the briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's find
ings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following additions
and modifications :
1. We find, in agreement with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner,,
that the Respondent's distribution and posting of a notice on June 10,.
1963, to the effect that its employees could "get out of the union," and
could revoke their dues checkoff authorizations within the next 10,
days, and providing forms for the latter purpose, constituted unlawful
solicitation in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. In reaching
this conclusion we rely on all the circumstances of this case, including
(1) President Volcheck's subsequent remark to Union Representative
146 NLRB No. 165.