SNE Enterprises, Inc., (2006)

Extract

---

SNE Enterprises, Inc., (2006)

SNE Enterprises, Inc. and United Steel, Paper Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC, Petitioner. Case 9–RC–17883

October 31, 2006

Decision on Review and Direction of Second Election

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

On October 6, 2005, the Regional Director for Region 9 issued his Third Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative (pertinent portions of which are attached as an appendix) on remand from the Board,1 in which he overruled the objections raised by the Employer to the conduct of the election held on May 20, 2004. The Regional Director found, inter alia, that the solicitation of authorization cards by the Employer’s supervisors was not objectionable conduct under Harborside Health Care, Inc., 343 NLRB No. 100 (2004). The Regional Director also found that the supervisors’ comments and other conduct during the campaign did not constitute objectionable promises of benefits or threats of reprisal and that the conduct of the hearing officer did not warrant overturning the election. The Regional Director therefore certified the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of the Employer’s production and maintenance employees.2

Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review contending that the lead persons’ active role in support of the Union (including soliciting authorization cards), implicit promises of benefits in exchange for support of the Union, and implicit threats of negative consequences if the Union should lose interfered with the employees’ right to free choice. The Petitioner filed a brief in opposition.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

Having carefully considered the entire record, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the leads’ role in soliciting authorization cards constitutes objectionable conduct that warrants setting aside the election. Consequently, we grant the request for review and reverse the Regional Director’s findings in this regard, set aside the results of the election, and remand the case to the Regional Director for the conduct of a new election. We deny the Employer’s request for review in all other respects.[3]

facts

This case concerns a unit of approximately 180 production and maintenance employees at the Employer’s window and door manufacturing facility. The employees report to leadpersons, each of whom supervises about 20 employees.[4] Leads Henry Withrow, Chad Edwards, and Ruth Adkins were involved in the union organizing campaign at the Employer’s plant that began in January, 2004. Withrow and Edwards were on the Organizing Committee. The Union asked each member of the Organizing Committee to collect at least 10 signed cards; Edwards collected about 10 and Withrow about 6.[5] Both leads solicited authorization cards from direct subordinates, as well as others, at least until the petition was filed on February 20, 2004, when most card solicitation by the Union ceased. After the petition was filed, the three leads continued to publicly support the Union, making comments that we find nonobjectionable. For instance, Edwards told a number of employees that the Union would help them get better benefits and treatment from the Employer. Likewise, Edwards and Adkins talked to employees about being “at will” and explained that the Union would negotiate a just-cause provision requiring the Employer to give them due process before firing them.[6]

The lead persons were found to be statutory supervisors in the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, issued on April 21, 2004. At that time, about a month before the election, the lead persons ceased all prounion activities.

analysis

Board Law on the Supervisory Solicitation of Authorization Cards

In Harborside, the Board held that it will look to two factors to determine whether supervisory prounion conduct upsets the requisite laboratory conditions for a fair election:

1. Whether the supervisor’s prounion conduct reasonably tended to coerce or interfere with the employees’ exercise of free choice in the election, including (a) consideration of the nature and degree of supervisory authority possessed by those who engage in the prounion conduct and (b) an examination of the nature, extent, and context of the conduct in question.

2. Whether the conduct interfered with freedom of choice to the extent that it materially affected the outcome of th...

See the full content of this document

---