Uniline Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 589 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

UNILINE CORPORATION
Uniline Corporation and Retail Delivery Drivers,
Driver-Salesmen, Product Workers and Helpers
Local No. 588, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America . Case 20-CA-7725
June 14, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On May 5, 1972, Retail Delivery Drivers, Driver-
Salesmen , Product Workers and Helpers Local No.
588, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, was
certified as the exclusive representative of a certain
appropriate unit of employees of Respondent,
Uniline Corporation, following an election and
subsequent resolution of Respondent's objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election which
were overruled without granting the Respondent a
hearing.' Thereafter, on February 22, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision
and Order in the instant case,2 finding that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to
bargain with the certified Union. The Board,
accordingly, ordered the Respondent, upon request,
to bargain collectively with the Union. Respondent
refused to comply with this Order, contending that
the Board's certification of the Union was invalid.
Thereafter, the Board applied for enforcement of
its Order with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit and, on October 17, 1973, the court
denied the application for enforcement at that time,
holding that the Respondent was entitled to a
hearing on its Objections 4, 17, and 20 to conduct
affecting the results of the October 14, 1971, election.
On December 6, 1973, the Board issued an order
reopening the record and remanding the proceeding
to the Regional Director for hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge for the purposes of taking
evidence in accordance with the court's memoran-
dum of October 17, 1973, and to prepare and serve
on the parties a supplemental decision containing
findings of fact based on the evidence received,
conclusions of law, and recommendations. Pursuant
to such order, the Regional Director issued a notice
of hearing on January 11, 1974, and a hearing was
held on February 8, 1974, in San Francisco,
California, before Administrative Law Judge Her-
man Corenman.
On March 5, 1974, the Administrative Law Judge
issued the attached Decision 3 in this proceeding.
589
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommendation.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby overrules the objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election ; affirms
the certification of Retail Delivery Drivers , Driver-
Salesmen , Product Workers and Helpers Local No.
588, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit ; and orders that Respondent , Uniline Corpora-
tion, Union City, California, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Order previously issued herein on February 22,
1973, at 201 NLRB 998.
1 Case 20-RC-10212.
2 201 NLRB 998.
3 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently used the word "Supple-
mentary" Decision rather than "Supplemental" Decision.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CoRENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard by me at San Francisco, California, on
February 8, 1974, pursuant to an order of the National
Labor Relations Board dated December 6, 1973, reopening
the record in the above-entitled matter . On February 22,
1973, the Board had issued a Decision and Order in this
proceeding finding that the Respondent, Uniline Corpora-
tion, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act. The Board's Decision
and Order was based on a Board certification issued May
5, 1972, in Case 20-RC-10212, following an election
conducted on October 14, 1971, certifying the above as the
collective-bargaining representative of a certain appropri-
ate unit of its employees, without granting the Respondent
a hearing on its objections to conduct by the Union
affecting the results of the election. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
Board's Decision and Order herein on the ground that the
Board should have granted the Respondent a hearing on
the Respondent's Objections to Election 4, 17, and 20.
Accordingly, the Board, under date of December 6, 1973,
211 NLRB No. 80
I.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD590
remanded the case for such further proceeding as was
appropriate in conformity with the court's order.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to introduce oral and documentary
evidence relevant to the material issues , to argue orally,
and to file briefs. Upon the entire record in the case and
based upon the demeanor of the witnesses , and the briefs
of the parties, which have been carefully considered, I
make the following findings on the Respondent's Objec-
tions to Election 4, 17, and 20:1
Objection No. 4
The Union, by its agents and representatives, made
material misrepresentations concerning the rate of pay
and other benefits currently in effect at other employ-
ers' facilities , and other places of employment where
this Union and/or other unions have current collective
bargaining agreements.
To support this Objection 4, the Respondent offered the
testimony of Kenneth Foreman, the Respondent 's presi-
dent. Foreman credibly testified that on a day or two prior
to the October 14, 1971, election, at one of his talks to a
small group of about 10 to 15 employees in the factory, 1 of
the employees named Elie Rolf 2 "brought up a question or
made a statement that the American Toy Company3 was
paying $3 .50 an hour as a starting wage for female
employees." Foreman testified he told the employees at
this meeting that the Uniline Corporation would be
competitive in its wages with comparable type businesses
in the area . Foreman testified that he had no opportunity
before the October 14 election to investigate the truth of
Mrs. Rolf's statement concerning the $3.50 rate paid by
American Toy Company. Foreman further credibly testi-
fied that after the meeting, three or four employees asked
him if it was true that the starting wage at American Toy
Company for female employees was $3.50 per hour and he
replied that he didn't know.
John J. Mullen, the union organizer for Local 588,
testified credibly that he himself had never discussed
anything about American Toy Company with the employ-
ees. He further testified credibly that he did not head nor
was he a part of any organizing committee although he was
aware "there was a group of people in there that was union
oriented and wanted ;t." Mullen further credibly and
without contradiction testified that he did not "authorize
them to say or do anything, and they were not in any way,
shape , or form connected with the Union ." Mullen
conceded that he knew Mrs. Rolf was strong for the Union
and that he would assume that Mrs. Rolf would be "chief
cook and bottle washer" of the organizing committee.
Analysis and Conclusionary Finding
I find that there is insufficient evidence to support
Objection 4 above set forth. Initially, it is noted that Mrs.
I The Respondent 's motion to vacate certification , dismiss unfair labor
practice charge and cancel hearing on the ground that the Respondent had
moved its plant from Union City, California , to Reno, Nevada , was denied
on two grounds: namely (1) that it was a matter outside of the Board's
Order of Remand , and (2) that a removal of the plant did not moot the
question whether the Respondent was violating 8(ax5) in refusing to honor
Rolf's statement concerning the $3.50 rate for starting
female employees at the American Toy Company was
expressed in the form of a question put to Mr. Foreman at
the time he was addressing a small group of employees.
Moreover, there is no competent evidence in the record
that the starting rate for females at American Toy
Company is less than $3.50 per hour. Additionally, it is
well established by Board decisions that unauthorized
remarks made by rank-and-file employees are not attribut-
able to the Union. See e.g. Bufkor-Pelzner Division, Inc.,
197 NLRB 950; Janler Plastic Mold Corporation, 186
NLRB 540 and 191 NLRB 162. Gruen Watch Company,
108 NLRB 610; Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 107 NLRB
234; Owen-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 179 NLRB 219, enfd.
435 F.2d 960 (C.A. 4, 1970); Bona Allen, Inc., 190 NLRB
216.
Objection No. 17
The Union , by its agents and representatives,
threatened employees that if there was no Union and
the employees were drafted into the military service,
the Company could let them go after their return from
active duty and would not have to give them their jobs
back.
In support of the aforesaid Objection 17, the Employer
,called as a witness , Mr. Timothy Le Vaser, a former
employee of the Respondent. Mr. Le Vaser testified that
about 2 or 3 days before the election he received a
handwritten letter addressed to him personally and a
campaign leaflet enclosed in an outside envelope which
bore the return address of the Union. The handwritten
letter was enclosed in a plain envelope inside the outer
envelope and was signed "Local 588 Organizing Commit-
tee." Mr. Le Vaser testified he threw the letter away about
2 days after he had received it. In connection with the
contents of the enclosed handwritten letter, Le Vaser
testified as follows:
At the time I was a little worried about being drafted
and the note said that if I was drafted, that Uniline
Corporation had to give me a job back, but it could be
any job they wanted to give me at any rate of pay-the
lowest scale-and that if the Union was elected and I
became a union member, that if I was drafted when I
came back, they would make sure that I got my job
back or another job.
Le Vaser further testified that the letter recited that:
If the Company merged with another Company and
changed their name, that they did not have to give me
my job back.
the Board 's certification, including such matters as the duty to bargain over
the decision to move and the effects of such move on the employees.
2 Mrs. Rolf was one of a number of employees who had voluntarily
formed a group of employees called the "organizing committee.'
3 American Toy Company is located in the Union City, California, area.
UNILINE CORPORATION
Le Vaser further testified he told several people before
the election about the contents of the letter he had
received in the mail . On cross-examination, Mr. Le
Vaser acknowledged that he understood the letter to
represent that the Union would do everything it could
to help him get a job back upon his return from
military duty to make sure that all of his rights were
protected. Le Vaser testified further that the letter said
that if the Union was in and he became a union man,
that when he came back he could get his same job at
Uniline, and if not, they would get him a job some
place else. Le Vaser also testified that the matter of
reemployment rights of returning veterans was also
discussed by Mr. Mullen at the first union organization
meeting he attended.
Called as a witness for the Union, Mr. John Mullen,
union organizer, testified that at a union organization
meeting at the church, it is possible that the reemployment
rights of returning veterans was discussed but "he cannot
recall." Mr. Mullen further testified that he at no time ever
told any employees that the Union would guarantee them
jobs after they returned from the military and he further
testified that he had no knowledge of the letter which Le
Vaser testified he had received in the mail, and he did not
authorize the writing of the letter or the use of Local 588
stationery by the in-plant organizing committee.
Analysis and Conclusionary Finding
The testimony of Le Vaser does not support the
employee's Objection 17 above set forth that if there was
no union then the Company could let returning veterans go
and would not have to give them their jobs back. Le Vaser
591
summed up his understanding of the letter's content to be
that "he understood the letter to represent that the Union
would do everything it could to help him get a job back
upon his return from military duty to make sure that all of
his rights were protected." Moreover, Union Organizer
Mullen credibly testified that he had not authorized the
writing of the letter or the use of the Union's outer
envelope containing the handwritten letter. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that any other union official wrote or
authorized the writing of the letter. In any event , I reiterate
what I said above that there is no evidence that the letter
threatened that in the absence of a union , the Employer
would not have to reemploy returning veterans . I conclude
that the letter was not written by the Union or its writing
authorized by any officer or agent of the Union. Conse-
quently, the Union may not be held responsible for its
content. I further find that the letter did not assert that the
Employer would refuse to take back returning veterans in
the absence of a union. I would therefore overrule the
Employer's Objection 17.
Objection No. 20
The Union, by its agents and representatives,
interfered with the conduct of the election by guaran-
teeing employees that if they voted for the Union they
would receive $3.50 per hour as starting wages.
No evidence was produced to support Objection 20 and I
would therefore overrule it.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Objections 4, 17, and 20 be
overruled and that the Board's previous Decision and
Order herein be reaffirmed by the Board.