United Screw & Bolt Corp.

In the Matter of UNITED SCREW & BOLT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AdRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case `No.13 RC-1048 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER October 12, 1950 On June 1, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on May 2, 1950, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of approxi- mately 214 eligible voters, 203 cast valid ballots, of which 76 were for the Petitioner and 127 were against the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election alleging, inter alia, that the Employer interfered with the election by putting into effect a wage increase and insurance plan for the employees of the Employer during the period between the hearing in this case and the election. Thereupon, in ac- cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di- rector conducted an investigation and issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections to election, finding merit in the foregoing objection and recommending that the election be set aside.2 Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report, and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. The Regional Director found that beginning about January 13, 189 NLRB 953. 2 The Petitioner also objected to the election on the grounds that the Employer threat- ened its employees with loss of employment, and that supervisors transported employees to the polling place. The Regional Director recommended that these objections be over- ruled. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule these objections. 91 NLRB No. 156. 916 UNITED SCREW d, BOLT CORPORATION 917 '1950, and continuing until about May 31, 1950 3 the Employer issued a number of letters and bulletins to its employees, setting forth its posi- tion with respect to the Petitioner's. organizational campaign, and its opposition thereto,4 and also announcing certain wage increases and other benefits. Thus, on March 2, 1950, the Employer announced that the insurance company had increased the premiums on hospital in- surance carried by the employees, but that, in accord with its action in connection with a similar increase in 1947, the Employer would pay the increase, and the cost to the employees would remain unchanged.5 On April 17, 1950, the Employer announced that, in line with its policy of adjusting wage rates and benefits to conform to those in the indus- try, it was increasing wage rates 6 cents per hour, effective immedi- ately, and was making changes in its insurance program, at a cost to it of about 4 cents per hour per employee. On the following day, the details of the increased insurance benefits were announced, preceded by statements that the wage and insurance benefit increases were based upon changes made in other plants in the industry, in line with the Employer's past policy, and that "although a union has for some months been seeking to represent you in your dealings with us, we feel that it would not be fair to- you if we delayed giving you those benefits which we would normally grant at this time." The Employer contended that the foregoing wage and benefit in- creases were made to conform wages and employee benefits at its Chi- cago, Illinois, plant, to increases effective April 14,1950, made through bargaining negotiations at its Cleveland, .Ohio, plant .6 It contended further that such increases were made in accord with its historic policy .of adjusting wages and benefits at its Chicago plant to conform to adjustments made at its Cleveland plant,' and, at other plants in the 8 The petition was filed in this proceeding on January 17, 1950 ; the hearing was held on February 24, 1950. As noted hereinbefore, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election on May 2 , 1950 , and the election was held on June 1, 1950. 4 Although the Regional Director does not rely on these letters as a basis for his recom- mendation that the election be set aside , we have nevertheless considered the contents of the letters set forth in the Regional Director 's report and find that they constitute permis- sible expressions of opinion. The Regional Director does not rely on this incident as a basis for. recommending that the election be set aside. u The Employer operates two plants, one at Chicago , Illinois, and the other at Cleveland, Ohio. Only the Chicago plant is involved in this proceeding . Since about 1943, the em- ployees at the Cleveland plant have been represented by a labor organization , since 1948 by the Petitioner herein. 7 The Employer asserts that for many years prior to 1943 , wage increases were made at both its plants at the same time and on . the same basis . Thus, both plants received a 10-percent increase on April 21 , 1941. Since that time , increases have been made as follows : 1944: Increased vacation benefits were granted at Chicago , following the granting of similar benefits at Cleveland , pursuant to a War Labor Board directive , and in conformity with the pattern in the industry. 1946: A 12 cents per hour increase was granted at Chicago , effective January 1, 1946. Subsequently , an 181, cents per hour increase was negotiated at Cleveland , effective March 918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD industry. It asserts that because the increase of April 17 conformed to its historic policy, it did not constitute a basis for setting aside the results of the election. Relying on certain Board precedents,8 how- ever, the Regional Director concluded that in view of the pendency of the Board Decision, and the absence of any compelling circumstances,' the increase was sufficiently proximate to the date of the election to interfere with the results thereof. Accordingly, he recommended that the election be set aside. We do not agree. The Regional Director's investigation, as supplemented by the Em- ployer's brief,10 establishes that for a number of years before the Peti- tioner filed its petition herein, the Employer has followed the practice of attempting to maintain substantial equality of wages and other benefits between its two plants. Although the time differential be- tween the granting of increases at the two plants has varied, such variations have been insubstantial. They do not detract from the fact'that it has been the Employer's past practice to attempt to equal- ize, as between the two plants, the benefits granted to its employees, adjusting the terms of employment in one plant at about the same time changes were made in the other. The Employer's past practice in this regard is of great significance unless we are to hold that the 25, 1946. An additional 6 cents per hour increase was thereupon granted at Chicago, effective April 1, 1946. 1947: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland in March. An industry pattern of wage increases approximating 11% cents per hour, plus six paid holidays , became apparent about mid -April . An increase of 12 cents per hour, plus six paid holidays, was granted at Chicago, effective April 21, 1947. The' negotiations at Cleveland were con- cluded on June 2, 1947, on the basis of an increase of 11 cents per hour, plus six paid holidays. 1948: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland on July 21 , 1948, and an in- crease of 10 cents per hour was offered on July 28. On August 9, during the Cleveland negotiations, an increase of 9 percent (about 10 cents per hour ), was made effective at Chicago. A subsequent strike at Cleveland was settled, on October 11, 1948, on the basis of an average increase of 10 cents per hour. 1950: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland on January 20, 1950, and a strike was called on March 31. About this time, an industry pattern of a 10 cents per hour "package " increase, variously divided between wages and insurance , became apparent. On April 6, 1950, the Employer decided to grant the 10 cents per hour package at Cleve- land, and to institute a similar package at Chicago , but to withhold announcement of its action at Chicago until settlement of the Cleveland strike. (It asserts that premature announcement of its action at Chicago would have prejudiced other aspects of its Cleveland negotiations.) The Cleveland strike was settled on Friday, April 14, 1950, and the.Chicago announcement was made the following Monday. "Hutton Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1434; Lake Superior District Power Company, 88 NLRB 1496. ' 0 In this connection , he noted that the Chicago announcement was made 3 days after the effective date of the Cleveland increase , although in 1946, 1947, and 1948, the effective dates of the increases at the two plants varied from 1 week to almost 1 month. 10 The Employer's brief contains allegations of facts which are not contained in the Regional Director's report. As these. allegations merely amplify facts revealed by the Regional Director's investigation, and are not contradicted thereby, or challenged in any exceptions filed by the Petitioner, we shall, for the purposes of this Decision, accept such allegations as proved. UNITED SCREW, & BOLT_ CORPORATIQN,_ 919 granting of wage increases^or other employee benefits during the pend- ency of a representation proceeding is per se,grounds for setting aside an election. We do not so hold. It is true that we have carefully scrutinized an employer's granting of benefits' to his, employees during the period prior to a representation election to determine its likely effect upon the employees' freedom of choice." However, where we. have set aside elections on such grounds, we have found that the relationship between- the granting of benefits and the election was more than mere temporal coincidence." We have found, under the circumstances of the case, that the granting of the benefits was intended, or was reasonably cal- culated to interfere with the employees' free choice. This has been found where, for example, (1) the announcement of benefits follows no request by the employees and at a time wholly unexpected by them, or (2) the benefits, while decided upon somewhat earlier, are not an- nounced to the employees until just before the election, and no credi- ble explanation is offered for the delay, or (3) the announcement comes at a time substantially different from that which had been the employer's customary time to grant employee benefits 12 No such factors are present in the instant case. As noted above, the announcement of the wage increases and insurance benefits to the Chicago employees followed almost immediately after the formal conclusion of collective-bargaining negotiations at the Cleveland plant, at a time when it had been customary to grant such benefits, and when the Chicago employees could, on the basis of past practice, have reasonably expected that adjustments in the terms and conditions of their employment would be made. Under these circumstances we conclude that neither the wage increase and insurance benefits granted by the Employer, nor the announcement thereof were intended, or reasonably calculated, to interfere with the election. Accordingly, we find this objection to be without merit, and it is hereby overruled 13 Il Compare Gray Drug Stores, Inc., 79 NLRB 1140 , 1142, in which the Board held that promises of individual wage increases within 2 weeks of an election , when such increases were in accordance with the Employer's regular wage policy , did not constitute a basis for setting the election aside. See also Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated, 88 NLRB 584, and Volney Felt Mills, Inc., 70 NLRB 908, in which the Board refused to consider as a basis for unfair labor practice findings , or, in the Lane case , to consider as a basis for setting aside an election , the granting of general benefits within 3 weeks of the elections, when similar benefits were simultaneously granted to other employees at other locations not involved in representation proceedings. 32 See, for example , F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Union Twist Drill Com- pany, 88 NLRB 1361 ; Lake Superior District Power Company, 88 NLRB 1496: Craddock- Terry Shoe Corporation, 82 NLRB 161 ; Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1.434. Is Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated,' supra ; Gray Drug Stores, Inc., supra ; Volney Felt Hills, Inc., supra. For the same reasons , we find that the Employer's announcement of March 2 , 1950, that it was absorbing the increase in the hospital insurance premium rates, did not interfere with the election. 920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As we have overruled the • Petitioner's objections, and as the tally of ballots shows that no collective-bargaining representative has been chosen, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed.