The McLaughlin Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1971

187 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

THE MCLAUGHLIN CO.
The McLaughlin Company, Petitioner and The
Pioneer Union of Petoskey . Case 7-RM-803
January 18, 1971
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election approved on June 11, 1970, an
election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-
entitled matter on June 25, 1970, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for Region
7, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the
conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots, which showed that of
approximately 101 eligible voters, 99 cast ballots, of
which 53 were for The Pioneer Union of Petoskey, 42
for the Intervenor, UAW, 2 were cast against the
participating labor organizations, and 2 were chal-
lenged. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in
number to affect the results of the election. Thereaft-
er, on July 2, 1970, the Intervenor, UAW, filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director
investigated the objections and, on September 22,
1970, issued and duly served on the parties his Report
and Recommendations on Objections, in which he
concluded that Objections to the Employer's conduct
numbered 4, 6, and 7 constituted grounds for setting
aside the election, and, accordingly, recommended
that the election of June 25, 1970, be set aside, and
that a second election be directed. Thereafter, the
Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
I See Plymouth Company, 182 NLRB No 1.
2 In finding that the Employer's June 22 letter did not mitigate the
coercive effect of its June 20 letter, the Regional Director relied on the fact
that the later communication listed the names of "UAW plants that have
closed or moved away" At the top of this list, in bold letters and
underscored, appeared the Employer's name
897
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Pioneer Union of Petoskey and the Interve-
nor, UAW, are labor organizations claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the
parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of
the Employer employed at its facility in Petoskey,
Michigan; but excluding office clerical employees,
technical employees, engineering and professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Direc-
tor's Report, the Employer's exceptions, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.' In adopting the Regional Direc-
tor's determination that the Employer's June 22 letter
failed to mitigate the coercive effect of the implied
threat of plant closure contained in its letter of June
20, we rely not only on those aspects of the June 22
letter cited by the Regional Director2 but also on the
letter's closing admonition, "Think it over carefully. If
you want to avoid the possibility of being out of work
or on a picket line, Do Not Vote For The UA W. " The
distinction there drawn by the Employer between
being "out of work" and being "on a picket line"
clearly kept alive the earlier threat that the Employer
might, on its own initiative, close the plant if the
UAW won the election. Accordingly, we find that the
impact of the Employer's letters interfered with the
free choice of the employees and made a fair election
impossible. See N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395
U.S. 575, 618-620. We shall, therefore, set the election
aside and direct that a second election be conducted.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted on
June 25, 1970, among employees of The McLaughlin
Company, at its Petoskey, Michigan, plant, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
187 NLRB No. 131
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Direction of second election3 omitted from
publication.]
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting:
I do not agree with my colleagues that statements in
the Employer's letters to its employees a few days
before the election carried an implication that a UAW
victory would inevitably result in closure or removal
of the plant. I would, accordingly, find no proper
basis to set aside the election, and, therefore, would
certify The Pioneer Union of Petoskey as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees.
The letters are written in the tone customarily found
in preelection campaigns. The Regional Director set
the election aside on the basis of a single reference to
strikes and fights attributed to UAW and a reference
to the Employer's past relationship with UAW at its
Detroit location, which resulted in closure and
removal of that operation to the present site in
Petoskey. This, despite the Employer's specific indica-
tion to employees that these statements should not be
construed as a suggestion that selection of UAW
would result in plant closure at Petoskey, and further
expression that if UAW is selected "we will sit down
at the bargaining table and try to arrive at a contract."
The letters include no specific threat and merely
recite facts representing UAW's history as known to
the Employer. To imply a threat from them is to
preclude an employer from truthfully relating his
experiences with a union to employees, which
experiences, in an employer's view, are relevant to an
informed choice. In my opinion, the Board's role, in
policing preelection campaigns, is not to strip preelec-
tion statements of the protection afforded by Section
8(c) of the Act simply because they stress the
disadvantages of collective bargaining as drawn by an
employer from his own experience. I would reverse
the Regional Director and allow the first election to
stand.
3 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L.R B v Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 7 within 7 days
after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional
Director The Regional Direc tor shall make the list available to all parties
to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed