NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,596, COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT and LOCAL UNION 74, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC., (Jan. 27, 1995), National Labor Relations Board, (Jan 27, 1995)

COLLEGE OF MOUNT SAINT VINCENT and LOCAL UNION 74, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC.

316 NLRB No. 30.Case Nos. 2-CA-25615 and 2-RC-21126. January 27, 1995 Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Stephens, Cohen and Truesdale.

Nancy K. Reibstein and David Pollack, for General Counsel. Stephen F. Hannigan, for Respondent. Ronald Goldman (Manning, Raab, Dealy & Sturm), for Charging Party.

Elections--Rerun--Egregious Employer Violations.--The NLRB set aside a union representation election because, immediately prior to the election, an employer committed several serious unfair labor practices that prevented employees from voting in an atmosphere free from intimidation. These coercive acts included interrogating employees regarding their union activities, threatening union supporters that their jobs would be contracted out, threatening employees with discharge and creating the impression that the employees’ union activities were under surveillance. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2790.034.

Interference--Fact Finding--Coercive Remarks.--On the facts, an employer interfered with its employees’ right to select a bargaining representative by creating the impression that their union activities were under surveillance, threatening them with discharge, coercively interrogating them and threatening to subcontract their work. Section 8(a)(1).

From Text of Board’s Decision

On February 2, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the judge’s decision.

* * *

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.

Representation Case

The judge failed to rule on the Union’s objections to the election. [1] The issues raised by the unfair labor practice charge decided by the judge were coextensive with the Union’s objections to the election. The judge found that the Respondent committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act including creating the impression that the employee’s union activities were under surveillance, interrogating employees regarding their union activities, threatening employees with discharge. We find that these violations prevented employees from voting in a representation election free of intimidation. Dal-Tex Optical Co., [1962 CCH NLRB ¶11,485] 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-1787 (1962); Super Thrift Markets, [1977-78 CCH NLRB ¶18,723] 233 NLRB 409 (1977). Accordingly, we sustain the objections and find the election must be set aside and a new election directed. [2]