Hurwitz Electrical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1265 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

HURWITZ ELECTRICAL COMPANY, ETC. 1265
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region , in writing , within
20 days from the receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Decision and Recommended Order;
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 28
It is also recommended that the election conducted in the unit of Respondenft
employees on February 5, 1963, be set aside and a new election directed at an ap-
propriate time.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found herein.
28 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this -provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion; make statements to employees which create an impression
that their union activities are under surveillance; threaten employees with cur-
tailment of privileges or loss of benefits if they select a union; or in any like or
related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Hy PLAINS DRESSED BEEF, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------=-----------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore
1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Hurwitz Electrical Company, Hillen Electrical Company and
Local Union No. 24, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-4348. May 1,
1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
approved October 8, 1963, a secret ballot election was conducted by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region on October 18, 1963, among the
employees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the balloting,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 31 eligible voters, 30 ballots were cast, of which 16 were
for the Petitioner and 14 were against the Petitioner. Thereafter,
the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
The Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on January
29, 1961,'issued his report on objections, in which he recommended
146 NLRB No. 149. -
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that, of the three objections , two be sustained and the third overruled,
and that the election of October 18, 1963 , be set aside and a new
election directed . Thereafter , the Petitioner and the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director '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 purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated , and we find , that all journeymen and ap-
prentice electricians employed on the Employer 's projects in the coun-
ties of Anne Arundel , Baltimore , Caroline, Carroll, Frederick, Han-
ford , Howard , Kent, Queen Annes , Talbot, and in Baltimore city, all
located in the State of Maryland , including foremen , but excluding all
other employees , estimators , office clerical employees, guards , profes-
sional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Employer 's objections , the Regional
Director 's report and recommendations , and the exceptions thereto, and
we hereby adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director with
the modifications described below.
For a number of years prior to 1961, the Employer and other elec-
trical contractors in and around Baltimore , Maryland , recognized
Local 28 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, as the collective -bargaining representative of their employees.
At that time, an intraunion dispute arose which, in the course of much
litigation ,' resulted in revocation of the charter of Local 28 by the
International and the formation of a new local , Local 24, the Petitioner
herein , to take over the jurisdiction previously exercised by Local 28.
Other electrical contractors in the area recognized Local 24 as the
representative of their employees and signed contracts with it through
the National Electrical Contractors Association . The Employer, how-
ever, refused to do so and its employees were not represented by any
labor organization . The Regional Director made the following finding
concerning the Employer's employees :
The majority of Hurwitz ' employees were members of Local 28
who remained loyal to Local 28 during the total period of dispute
1 See Parks v. IBEW,• 203 F. Supp. 288 (D .C., lid.), revd . 314 F. 2d 886 (C.A. 4), cert.
denied 372 U. S. 976.
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1267
and litigation. While they remained members of the Interna-
tional, they were not members of Local 24, and many who applied
for membership in Local 24 were denied it.
During the summer of 1963 the Petitioner undertook an organizing
campaign among employees of the Employer. The Employer alleges,
and Skopp, business manager of the Petitioner, admits, that during
the course of the campaign Skopp stated to employees that if the
Petitioner lost the election, they would have to stop working for the
Employer or face charges of violating the International constitution
by working for a nonunion contractor. We agree with the Regional
Director that this statement, in the context in which it was made,
interfered with the employees' free choice. Thus, a responsible union
official threatened employees that if the Petitioner lost the election,
they would be confronted with the choice of giving up their jobs or
facing union charges. We think that employees could reasonably be-
lieve that if union charges were brought against them, various penal-
ties might be imposed on them and that these charges might otherwise
adversely affect their good standing in the International and thus
jeopardize their opportunities for jobs on union projects. Under all
the circumstances, we find that Skopp's statements to the employees
threatened retaliation if the Petitioner lost the election and thereby
interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice. Accordingly,
we shall set the election aside and order a new one 2
[The Board set aside the election conducted on October 18, 1963.1
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
2 The Petitioner asserts that its conduct is protected by the proviso to Section
8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act concerning ". . . the right of a labor organization to prescribe
its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership ." Without de-
ciding the extent to which this proviso, which relates to an unfair labor practice section,
affects representation proceedings under Section 9 of the Act , we hold that threats of
reprisal , such as made in the instant case, which interfere with employees ' free choice in
an election , do not fall under the protection of this proviso. Our decision herein makes
it unnecessary for us to consider other issues raised by the exceptions.
Monroe Auto Equipment Company and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 17-CA-2123 and
17-CA-.185. May 4, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December' 30, 1963, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood
issued his Decision in the above case, finding that the Respondent had
146 NLRB No. 168.