Kingsley Stamping Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the opinion of the undersigned Respondent's conduct discloses a fixed pur-
pose to defeat self-organization and its objectives.' Because of Respondent's
unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that
the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair
labor practices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in
the future is to be anticipated from the course of Respondent's conduct in the
past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom-
mendations are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make ef-
fective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of
unfair labor practices, and to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs com-
merce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act"
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Local 65, Wholesale and Warehouse Workers' Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
(2) By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Gloria Merle, Marie Jensen, Franya Manfire, Nadine Sauvajot, James Martin,
Michael Peters, Robert McCaffrey, and Thomas Thompson, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(3) By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
(4) The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
49 See May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
KINGSLEY STAMPING MACHINE Co. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 1185, PETITIONER. Case. No. 21-
UA-3300. April 9,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed pursuant to Section 9 (e) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a union-security election was con-
ducted by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, at the Employer's plant at Hollywood, California,
;psi December 1, 1950. At the close of the election, the parties were fur-
W9 NLRB No. 229.
IUNGSLEY STAMPING -MACHINE CO. 1267
nished a tally of ballots which shows that a majority of the eligible
employees voted against the proposition placed before them.'
On December 5, 1950, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election, alleging illegal conduct, and asked
that the election be set aside.
On January 22, 1950, following,an investigation, the Regional Di-
rector issued a report on objections, in which he recommended that the
objections be sustained and the election be set aside. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director' s report.2
We have considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Di-
rector's report thereon, and the Employer-'s exceptions to the Report .3
In its objections, the Petitioner alleges that the Employer coerced
and intimidated its employees shortly before the election by means of
speeches and a letter, dated November 29, 1950, addressed to the em-
ployees. The Regional Director found in his report on objections that
the letter of November 29, 1950, sufficiently interfered with the rights
of the employees to the extent that a free choice was not possible.
We have carefully examined the content of the afore-mentioned
letter. The Employer, in addition to stating that under the proposed
union-shop contract ". . . we would be much better off to replace the
men now running mills, lathes, shapers, punch pressers, etc. with
highly skilled journeymen machinists . . .," set forth a comparison
between the rate of pay currently, earned by an average employee and
the rate he would earn under the proposed union-shop contract. Ac-
cording to the Employer, the latter rate would be "$21.25 less money
than he is now earning." The Employer arrived at this arithmetical
I "Do you wish to authorize the union which is your present collective bargaining
representative to enter into an agreement with your employer which requires membership
in such union as a condition of continued employment?"
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
3In its exceptions the Employer incorporates its objections to the validity of the
Regional Director ' s direction of the election . These objections were originally made
on November 22, 1950, to the Board agent conducting the investigation of the case.
The Employer alleges that there is a question concerning the appropriate unit in that
foil packers and the janitor are erroneously included . The petition for a union -security
election in this case was filed on October 20 , 1950, 3 days after a Board -conducted
representation election in which a majority of the employees voted for the Petitioner.
The representation election was based upon a consent agreement of the parties, which
set forth the appropriate unit as a production and maintenance unit, specifically including
the foil packers . On October 25, 1950, the Petitioner was certified as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in this unit.
We find no merit in the Employer 's objection to the Regional Director's direction
of the election in the instant case . Absent extraordinary circumstances ( see Giant Food
,Shopping Center, Inc., 77 NLRB 791), not here present , the unit appropriate under
Section 9 ( a) of the Act is also appropriate for a union-security election under Section 9
( e) (1). Furniture Firms of4 Duluth, 81 NLRB 1318. Even assuming the truth of_
the Employer 's allegations with regard to the duties and functions of its employees, we
find that the unit established as appropriate in accordance with the agreement of the
parties in the representative proceedings is appropriate for purposes of the union -security
election herein.
1268 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL,-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
result by omitting to include the current payment for overtime and
bonuses, which, it asserted, it could not continue to pay in the event
the union-shop contract went into effect.
Without considering the effect of other statements contained in the
letter, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the
above statements, which convey a thinly veiled threat of replacement
and a clear threat, in any event, of pecuniary loss, constituted improper
interference with the employees' free designation as to whether a
majority desired their representative to enter into a union-security
agreement. We shall, therefore, set the election aside.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on December 1, 1950,
among the employees of Kingsley Stamping Machine Company, Hol-
lywood, California, be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside, and that
this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for further
proceedings in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and HOMER RICHARDS , JR., PETI-
TIONER and DISTRICT No. 9, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, AFL. Case No. 14-RD-41. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a decertification petition duly filed , a hearing was held before
Milton O. Talent, hearing officer. The hearing -officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer , asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a)
of-the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
The Union , a labor organization ,, is the currently recognized repre-
sentative of these employees.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons: I '
The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit consisting
of all inspectors employed at the Employer's St. Louis , Missouri,
plant, excluding safety and engineering inspectors and all super-
93 NLRB No. 212.