Lexplug logoLexplug

Timsco Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2636, 819 F.2d 1173, 260 U.S. App. D.C. 374 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The cumulative effect of multiple instances of employer interrogation regarding union activities can be deemed coercive, thereby disrupting the "laboratory conditions" required for a fair representation election and justifying the invalidation of the election results, especially in a small bargaining unit where the vote was close.


Facts:

  • Timsco Inc. is a screen printing company with a production and maintenance unit of approximately 22 employees.
  • During a union organizing campaign, on November 10, 1984, General Manager Keith Pritchard told employee John Marhefka that whoever was behind the union effort was "going to screw up a lot of jobs for a lot of people."
  • Following this statement, Keith Pritchard questioned Marhefka on three separate occasions about employees' reasons for wanting a union and the union's strategy, with one interrogation occurring in Pritchard's office after he requested confidentiality.
  • On December 6, 1984, the day before the election, company president Walter Pritchard questioned Marhefka about his prior union membership and asked for his support.
  • On that same day, Walter Pritchard approached another employee, Dorothea Green, on two separate occasions to question her about her role in contacting the union, expressing his surprise and disappointment.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Graphic Communications International Union filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a representation election at Timsco Inc.
  • The first secret ballot election resulted in an 11-11 tie vote, meaning the Union lost its bid for representation.
  • The Union filed objections with the NLRB, alleging improper pre-election conduct by the Company.
  • An NLRB Hearing Officer sustained several objections, including one for coercive interrogation, and recommended setting aside the election.
  • The NLRB adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation based solely on the coercive interrogations and ordered a second election.
  • The Union won the second election 11-6 and was certified by the NLRB as the exclusive bargaining representative.
  • Timsco Inc. refused to bargain with the Union, arguing the certification was improper.
  • The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge, and the NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint against Timsco Inc.
  • The NLRB granted summary judgment against the Company, ordering it to bargain with the Union.
  • Timsco Inc. (Petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to deny enforcement of the Board's order, and the NLRB (Respondent) cross-applied for enforcement.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer's series of interrogations of employees about their union sympathies, which included a threat and were conducted by high-level managers in a small workplace before a close election, constitute coercive conduct sufficient to invalidate the election results?


Opinions:

Majority - Mikva, Circuit Judge

Yes. The series of interrogations constituted coercive conduct sufficient to invalidate the election. The court, applying a 'totality of the circumstances' test, found that the cumulative effect of the seven interrogations upset the 'laboratory conditions' necessary for a fair election. The court deferred to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) expertise, noting that the initial conversation between Keith Pritchard and Marhefka was a threat that colored the subsequent questionings. The high rank of the questioners (General Manager and President), the small size of the voting unit (22 employees), and the close tie vote in the first election (11-11) amplified the coercive impact of the conduct, making the Board's decision to order a new election reasonable.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the significant deference courts give to the NLRB in its oversight of representation elections and its expertise in evaluating workplace atmosphere. It illustrates the 'totality of the circumstances' approach, where a series of actions, none of which might be sufficient alone, can cumulatively create a coercive environment. The case serves as a precedent showing that context, such as the size of the workplace and the closeness of a vote, is critical in determining whether employer speech crosses the line from permissible persuasion to unlawful coercion, thereby invalidating an election.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Timsco Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Timsco Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board