Montgomery Ward & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 848 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1015, Retail Clerks Internat'l
Assoc. AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 17-RC-8204
September 30, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an
election held on March 31, 1977,1 and the Hearing
Officer's report recommending disposition of same.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the Hearing
Officer's findings and recommendations, 2 except as
modified herein.
Petitioner has filed exceptions to the Hearing
Officer's recommendations that its Objections 1
through 4 be overruled. As we have decided to direct
a second election based upon Petitioner's exceptions
concerning Objection 2, we find no need to decide
the issues raised by the other objections before us.
Regarding Objection 2, the Hearing Officer credit-
ed testimony of employee Larry Larsen that Leo
Venteicher, one of the Employer's department
managers and a supervisor as defined in the statute,
made promises of benefits and threats of job loss to
Larsen and three other employees a few days before
the election. Venteicher told the employees that "Mr.
Winterschedt [the store manager] had just come into
the company and was making steps to better the
place for the employees," and also that "people
should be patient and that they would get what they
wanted and that they didn't need a third party to
represent them." Such statements, uttered by a
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. Of approximately 254 eligible voters 90 cast valid
ballots for, and 114 against, the Petitioner; there were 2 void ballots and 5
challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Hearing
Officer's recommendations that Objections 5 through 9 he overruled.
supervisor and manager, plainly amounted to prom-
ises by the Employer to improve the working
conditions of the unit employees if they rejected the
Union, and were thus likely to interfere with the
voters' freedom of choice in the election.
Venteicher, however, did not stop with using the
carrot to influence his subordinates' decision about
unionization. He also told them that he was "getting
a lot of pressure from upstairs because he was the
only department manager whose whole department
was voting for the union," and that he was "very
displeased" with the employees' union sympathies.
Venteicher then said that he had "job security" if the
Union came in because there were "plenty of job
opportunities" for him, but that Larsen "better hope
the union comes in because there was a shortage of
mechanics' jobs in Nebraska and [Larsen] could
starve [when he did not] work." The only reasonable
interpretation of these remarks is that the company
would go so far as to discharge union supporters for
their activities on its behalf. These statements,
therefore, constitute impermissible threats of job loss
which tended to interfere with the voters' choice in
the election.
Our conclusion that Venteicher's address to these
employees, containing promises of benefits and
threats of job loss, was objectionable is not affected
by the fact that the comments were made to only 4
persons out of a unit of approximately 254 employ-
ees. The Board has decided that serious threats, even
if made to a single employee, cannot be regarded as
isolated, but are presumed to be the subject of
discussion and repetition among the workers. 3
For the reasons outlined in this Decision, therefore,
we shall set aside the election of March 31, 1977, and
direct another election.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
I Coach and Equipment Sales Corp., 228 NLRB 440 (1977); General
Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB 1109 (1972), enforcement denied 472 F.2d 170
(C.A. 2. 1972)
232 NLRB No. 135
848