Teledyne, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 9, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1488 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Taber Instruments , Division of Teledyne , Inc. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases 3-CA-3305 and 3-RC-41 18 August 9, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He also found, in Case 3-RC-4118, that the Respondent interfered with a Board election held on May 4, 1967, and recommended that the elec- tion be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. 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. 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, the exceptions, and the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc, North Tonawanda, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer 's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on May 4, 1967, in Case 3-RC-41 18, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that said case be severed from Case 3-CA-3305 and remanded to the Regional Director for Region 3 of the Board for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. ' We do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Superintendent Hale's interrogations of Klaus concerning his union button violated Sec. 8(a)( I ), as it was not alleged in the complaint and was not fully litigated 172 NLRB No 169-T-11 TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS F. MAHER, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on September 11, 1967, by Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, the Regional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on January 31, 1968, issued a consolidated complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, against Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc.,' Respondent herein, wherein it was alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. The complaint incorporates Case 3-RC-4118, wherein, upon a petition for an elec- tion filed by the Union on March 15, 1967, an elec- tion pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election was conducted on May 4, 1967, resulting in a vote of 36 to 50 against the representation of the employees by the Union. Upon objections filed by the petitioning Union to conduct of Respondent affecting the results of the election, the Regional Director ordered that a hear- ing in the matter be consolidated with the hearing in the instant unfair labor practice proceeding. In its duly filed answer Respondent, while admitting certain allegations in the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice a trial was held before me in Buffalo, New York, where the parties were present, represented, and afforded full opportunity to be heard, present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. Briefs were filed by Respondent and General Counsel on April 15, 1967. Upon consideration of the entire record, includ- ing the briefs of the parties, and specifically upon my observation of each witness appearing before me,2 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne , Inc., a Delaware corporation , maintains its principal office and sole plant in North Tonawanda, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and ' The name of the Respondent appears as corrected at the hearing by motion to amend the pleadings ' Cf Bishop and Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker 's, 159 NLRB 1159,1161 172 NLRB No. 169 TABER INSTRUMENTS 1489 distribution of machine tools, aerospace electronic equipment , and related products . During the past year in the course and conduct of its business operations it manufactured , sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000 of which products valued in excess of $50 ,000 were shipped from the North Tonawanda, New York, plant directly to States of the United States other than the State of New York. Upon the foregoing ad- mitted facts I conclude and find that the Respon- dent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. so, how we fare as a team without the need of any union. Remember , once you have a union represent you, you are no longer free to handle you own affairs with us directly. We don't think you need a union to represent you. For those of you who have already signed IUE cards, we ask that you reconsider your actions and get your signed cards back. Let us know if the IUE will not return them. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted and I conclude and find that Inter- national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ISSUES 1. Soliciting authorization card revocations, threats of plant and department relocation, and promises of work improvement as interference, restraint , and coercion. 2. Effect of such conduct upon employees' free choice in a Board -conducted election. IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of Events Following an organizing campaign among Respondent 's employees in early March 1967 the Union filed its petition for an election with the Board on March 15. On the same date W. J. Hil- debrandt, Respondent 's assistant manager , sent the following letter to these employees: March 15, 1967 Dear Fellow Employees: On December 30, 1966, Teledyne formally took over the operation of this plant. Already the IUE has accused them of not living up to promises and asking you to become a member of the Union.-What promises has Teledyne not lived up to?-Several months of new ownership is not much to prove or disprove whether or not you need union representation. We think you should give them a chance as new owners ; to find out how they operate, how they will deal with you as individuals and what the results will show. This plant is just getting on its feet . Many of you are new in it . We are also new in seeing what you and we can do here in North Tona- wanda. Let us both see, over the next year or If you have any questions see your supervisor. To repeat , before you start putting dues money in the IUE pockets give us a chance to proves without IUE interference. /s / W. J. Hildebrandt W. J. Hildebrandt On the next day the Union distributed the following flyer to employees as they appeared at the plant en- trance: PETITION FILED YESTERDAY In a record time of only 5 days , TABER IN- STRUMENT employees overwhelmingly chose IUE as their Union . IUE immediately filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board and already proceedings have begun. YOUR COMPANY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE YOUR UNION. Apparently, they are going to delay your representation by refusing recognition and bombarding you with propaganda in an effort to brain wash you. HOWEVER-since the NLRB has now en- tered the proceedings , YOU WILL HAVE JUSTIFICATION VERY SOON. We asked the NLRB to contact your management im- mediately and schedule a hearing just as soon as possible. See the reverse side for copies of all pertinent letters sent out by the IUE. TABER INSTRUMENT/IUE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FORMED At your IUE meeting Tuesday evening, thir- teen Taber Instrument employees volunteered to serve on the active in-plant organizing com- mittee. This committee has complete protec- tion of Federal Laws. In addition ALL TABER EMPLOYEES PRESENT GAVE UNANIMOUS ENDORSEMENT TO STAND BEHIND THEIR COMMITTEE-ALL THE WAY. This committee is voluntary and anyone in- terested in joining the committee , contact a 1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD committee member . Becuase of the amount of work that needs to be completed , the commit- tee has contract questionnaires which need to be completed by you. Please see your organiz- ing committee member BEFORE WORK, DURING YOUR LUNCH PERIOD and AFTER WORK. Do not contact him during working hours for these questionnaires. YOUR OWN LOCAL UNION Begin to write down the rules and procedures you want to see contained in your own local union consititution . YOU write your own rules. YOU run your own local union . YOU elect your own officers and negotiating committee- members from among the employees in the certified bargaining unit here at Taber Instru- ment . IT IS YOUR UNION .... YOU CAN MAKE IT THE VERY BEST. A meeting will be called shortly in which some very important procedures will be voted upon , byyouu, before the NLRB election . YOU and only YOU de- cide any issue about strikes and dues. THERE ARE NO ASSESSMENTS IN IUE. DUES ARE NOT PAYABLE UNTIL AFTER YOU APPROVE THE TERMS OF YOUR NEGOTIATED CONTRACT AND IT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND IS IN EFFECT. Then al- most 50% of your dues will remain in your own local union treasury for you to do with as you please . DUES (AFTER THE CONTRACT IS IN EFFECT) is $4.00 a month-or about 2-1/2 cents per hour (figured on 40 hours a week.) IRRESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT We see Mr . Willick refuses to abide by FEDERAL LAWS. His illegal acts are ALL being recorded and our day of reckoning WILL COME. We will NOT be side tracked by his maneuvers in hopes that IUE will stall proceedings by filing charges . OUR DAY WILL COME LEO .... In the letter you received yesterday, he vio- lated the LAW by requesting that you obtain your signed cards back. WHAT'S HE DOING? TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO SIGNED? Well-all cards are in the hands of the U.S. Government. AND SO IS HIS LETTER. DON'T BE MISLED BY MANAGEMENT FED RUMORS You can NOT LOSE a thing by joining IUE ex- cept Wage inequities poor hospitalization in- surance-POOR VACATION SCHEDULES and POOR PROTECTION OF YOUR PROFIT SHARING PLAN. The Company CANNOT SHUT DOWN IT'S DOORS OR CHANGE ANY BENEFIT YOU NOW ENJOY. ALL MUST AND WILL BE IMPROVED AND GUARANTEED IN A SIGNED UNION AGREEMENT. Today you have no job security. TOMORROW WITH IUE YOU WILL HAVE JOB SECURITY. Issued by: TABER INSTRUMENT ORGANIZING COMMITTEE for IUE, AFL-CIO-CLC In the election thereafter held on May 4 the Union lost by a vote of 36 to 50. As the election campaign progressed to its inauspicious end Respondent's officials engaged in a campaign directed to the Union's defeat . Thus a week before the election Superintendent of Manufacturing Mer- ritt Hale visited employee John Reeves, a tool- maker in Respondent 's employ for 5 years, at Reeves' work station and told him that " the men don't realize what they could lose in this election. If Teledyne chooses to, they could phase out these operations throughout their other plants."3 During the same period Hale also had a conver- sation with employee Rudolph Klaus , known by Respondent to be a member of the Union 's organiz- ing committee ." Hale visited Klaus at his workplace and told him of plans the Respondent had in the event the Union was defeated . They would move Klaus ' lathe into a toolroom that would be thereafter constructed , then Klaus would be doing only toolroom work , "and he 'd have it made." But if the Union did get in "he didn't know what would happen." In the course of his testimony Klaus made it clear that he did not consider being moved into the tool- room to be any improvement in his lot, but Hale thought he would " have it better ." For, as Klaus ex- plained it, Hale was a toolmaker by trade and "to a toolmaker there's nothing like a tool room ." In the course of Hale 's many other conversations with Klaus he would repreatedly ask him "what the hell I wore the button ( union organizer's button) for, I didn't need it to hold my job. "I Finally, Robert Grabeau , an employee of 18 years' service with Respondent and a known union organizer , credibly testified that during the preelec- tion period he had had many conversations with Hale concerning the Union and one particular one 'The credited testimony of Reeves who further testified on cross-ex- amination that what he had quoted as Merritt's statement on direct ex- amination might not have been exactly what was said but was his best recol- lection after a lapse of 8 months. I do not credit Hale's denial of this con- versation as recounted by Reeves. ' The flyer distributed among the employees ( supra ) included a copy of a letter sent to Respondent by the Union in which all the organizers were listed by name s The credited testimony of Klaus Hale denies having made such a state- ment but testified on cross-examination that plans for the separate tool- room had been made and thereafter put into effect . I reject Hale 's denial of the conversation attributed to him TABER INSTRUMENTS 1491 with Assistant Manager Warren Hildebrandt, the author of the letter quoted above (supra, Sec. IV, A). This conversation took place several days be- fore the May 4 election and lasted for 2 or 3 hours, with time out for lunch. While no effort was made to illicit from Grabeau the entire conversation he did recall Hildebrandt's statement to the effect that "there was a possibility that in the event that the Union was successful that the Company, if they thought it in their best interest, could move some of the departments into other plants of the Teledyne Corporation." He then referred to the harm that the Union had done to a neighboring plant, stating that the employees had lost some of the advantages that they had already held. Hildebrandt's descrip- tion of this conversation lends corroboration to Grabeau. Thus he stated: Yes, we did discuss this. This came up in our discussion on the pros and cons of a Union in a Company. And we did discuss the fact that if the demands of a Union or the operation of a plant-in other words, it wasn't strictly on the basis of a Union-was not economically feasi- ble for a Company to operate successfully, they could move a department out or a product line out and move another product line in. But it was based on economics or for the best interest of the Company; and it could have also been for the best interest of the em- ployees. Q. Was there any mention of the Union in respect to this movement? A. I believe we discussed this could happen if we had a Union or if we didn't have a Union. B. Conclusions A reading of that portion of Teledyne's letter which states: For those of you who have already signed IUE cards, we ask that you reconsider your actions and get your signed cards back. Let us know if the IUE will not return them. clearly describes Respondent's offer to retrieve em- ployee authorization cards. Indeed that is the un- spoken assurance of the final sentence . It is well established that an employer 's intrusion into the circumstances of his employees ' union membership would have the effect of influencing this member- ship in one direction or the other and constitutes unwarranted interference , restraint , and coercion. That is precisely what Respondent did here by seeking to pry into its employees' private affairs with the Union and offering its assistance to withdraw. This was an area in which it had no proper concern. I would accordingly conclude and find that Hildebrandt's letter to the employees did constitute such interference , restraint , and coercion and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.6 Similarly, Hale's repeated inquiry of Klaus as to "what the hell he wore the button for" was a form of intrusion into employee union activities that has consistently been viewed as a violation of the Act, and I therefore find that in this respect Hale's re- marks constituted interference, restraint, and coer- cion in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Hale's additional remarks to Klaus, as well as his statement to Reeves, and Hildebrandt's statements to Grabeau are equally improper. Thus Hale's state- ments and Hildebrandt's substantially admitted one, each to the effect that the men did not realize what they would lose in the election and that, in effect, the plant could be closed, or that certain depart- ments could be transferred to other plants of the parent company, each bear a positive threat that could not possibly be lost upon the employees who were about to vote. And finally, as one• last instance of misconduct, there was Hale's assurance to Klaus that if the Union lost then Klaus' work area would be improved. Albeit, Klaus himself had no desire to improve his lot in this conduct. "The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act."' Each of the foregoing statements, occurring as they do in the context of the expressed Respondent antipathy to the Union in a vigorously contested election, most certainly interferes with the em- ployees' freedom to choose their representative by imposing the coercion and restraints which are in- herent in the promises and threats made to them. I accordingly conclude and find that Respondent has thereby further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Objections to the Election In addition to the foregoing findings and conclu- sions upon which I shall base my recommendations for a remedy for the unfair labor practices com- mitted, I also have before me objections to the con- duct of Respondent affecting the results of the elec- tion , in Case 3-RC-41 18, referred to me by the Re- gional Director for disposition. A review of the pleadings and related evidence discloses that the objections raised are substantially identical with the allegations of Section 8(a)( 1) in the complaint . To the extent, therefore, that I have already treated of these allegations and found cer- tain of them to constitute unlawful conduct, as al- leged , it would unduly burden this Decision and the reader to reiterate these findings in a parallel con- text. Suffice it to say that in the instances of inter- ference, restraint , and coercion which I have al- ready found (supra) it is an a fortiori conclusion that such conduct interferes with the exercise of the free choice of voters necessary for an election.' Ac- Astronautics Corporation of America, 164 NLRB 623. N L.R.B. v Ford Brothers, 170 F 2d 735, 738 (C A. 6). e Irving Air Chute Company, Inc., Marathon Division , 149 NLRB 627, affd. 350 F.2d 176 (C A 2), Bryan Brothers Packing Company, 171 NLRB 39. 1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cordingly , I shall recommend that the representa- tion election heretofore held in Case 3-RC-4118 be set aside and that the said case be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 3 of the Board to conduct a new election at such time he deems the circumstances would permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in connection with its business operations described in section I , above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY It has been found that Respondent has violated the Act in certain respects. I will accordingly recommend that an order issue requiring Respon- dent to cease and desist therefrom and to take affir- mative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Furthermore, in view of my finding that Respondent's conduct has prevented the employees from exercising their free choice in the selection of their bargaining representative, I will recommend that the election held in Case 3-RC-4118 be set aside and that a new election be held at a time when circumstances permit free choice of a representative. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend9 that Taber Instru- ments , Division of Teledyne , Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with the closing of the plant and/or the elimination or transfer of cer- tain of its departments if they select International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO , as their representative. (b) Promising its employees benefits to induce them to vote against the aforesaid labor organiza- tion in the pending election , and soliciting its em- ployees to revoke authorizations given to Interna- tional Union of Electrical . Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO , or offering assistance in such an endeavor. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of rights guraranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a)Post at its North Tonawanda , New York, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, 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 wnere notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held on May 4, 1967, in Case 3-RC-4118 be set aside, and that said case be remanded to the Re- gional Director for Region 3 of the Board to con- duct a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargain- ing representative. In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board the word " Recommended" shall be deleted from the caption and wherever else it appears thereafter , and for the words "I recommend" there shall be sub- stituted " The National Labor Relations Board Hereby Orders " 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words " a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten that we will close the plant or move any of it departments elsewhere if you select International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, as your bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT promise you benefits as a re- ward for your vote against the aforesaid Union in any future election. WE WILL NOT urge or otherwise solicit you to revoke your authorization to the aforesaid Union to represent you. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to self-organization or to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to bargain collectively with us concerning TABER INSTRUMENTS terms or conditions of employment through the representative you select , or to refrain from any of these activities if you so choose. You and all our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of, or withdrawing membership in, any labor organization. TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIVISION OF TELEDYNE, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 1493 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fourth Floor , The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue Buffalo , New York 14202, Telephone 842-3112.