Le Roi Co.

LE ROI COMPANY 55 lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WILL OFFER C. H. McCorkle immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any sen- iority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and WILL MAKE whole said C. H. McCorkle for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against him. All employees are free to become , remain, or to refrain from becoming or re- maining, members of any labor organization except to the extent that his right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Dated -------------------- H. I. GooDE, d/b/a GOODE MOTOR, COMPANY Employer. By ---------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. LE Roi COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2911. October 22, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Order On March 13, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections,' elections were conducted, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer in the voting groups found appropriate, to determine whether or not the said employees desired the Petitioner to represent them in collective bargaining, either as a single unit or as separate units. Upon the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots were issued and served upon the parties hereto in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tallies show that of approximately 151 eligible voters in voting group (a),2 52 cast valid ballots in favor of the Petitioner, 82 cast valid ballots against it, and 5 ballots were 198 NLRB No. 24. 2 This voting group was composed of all office clerical employees at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all employees listed in Schedule A attached to the Decision and Direction of Elections, nurses, production and maintenance employees, methods engineers , executives, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 101 NLRB No. 7. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD challenged; of the 3 eligible voters in voting group (b),3 no ballots were cast in favor of proposition 14 or proposition 2,5 whereas 2 cast valid ballots against it on both propositions. On March 17, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to the elections. On August 18, 1952, after investigating the objections, the Regional Director issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that a hearing be ordered on certain issues of fact raised with respect to objection No. 5 and that the remaining objections be overruled. Because the challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the elec- tions, the Regional Director made no report concerning the challenges. The Petitioner and the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board 6 has considered the Regional Director's report on ob- jections, and the exceptions filed by the Petitioner and the Employer, and, unlike the Regional Director, finds merit in the Petitioner's ob- jection No. 1, which alleged that the Employer interfered with the free choice of the employees voting in the elections by granting wage increases immediately prior to the date of the elections. The Regional Director's recommendation that the Petitioner's ob- jection No. 1 be overruled is based essentially on the following find- ings: The wages of the office employees, who were alone involved in the elections, were increased at a faster rate percentagewise than the wages of the production employees 7 from January 1946 until late 1948, when a wage plateau for both categories was reached. The wages for both categories remained constant through mid-1950, with minor adjustments being made in the wage structure of both cate- gories during the third quarter of 1950. Approximately the same in- creases in wages, percentagewise, were granted to both office and pro- duction employees from late 1950 through 1951. But the wages of the production employees drew ahead of the office employees at a substantial rate, percentagewise, during the period from January through May 1952. Moreover, the disparity between the wages of the office employees and those of the production employees was en- hanced because of the retroactive wage agreements secured for the production employees. This retroactivity ranged from 3 to 10 months for the production employees and was a factor in eight adjustments 3 This group was composed of all nurses in the medical department at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. 4 This proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group ( b) desired to be included in a unit with the employees of voting group (a) for the purposes of collective bargaining. 6 This proposition was to determine whether the employees in voting group (b) desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Petitioner. 6 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 7 The Petitioner represents these employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. LE ROI COMPANY 57 of their wages, whereas the office employees at no time had a retro- activity factor greater than 1 month. The wage adjustments for the production and the office employees from January 1951 to the date of the election are as follows : On May 28, 1951, the production employees were granted a 4 cents per hour wage increase retroactive to March 1, 1951. A petition was filed on June 27, 1951, with the Wage Stabilization Board requesting an addi- tional 4 cents per hour increase for the production employees. Ap- proval was granted on January 7, 1952, with retroactivity to March 31, 1951. The contract between the Employer and the Petitioner for the production employees was reopened on October 1, 1951, for read- justment of their wage structure. This matter was taken to concilia- tion early in December and ultimately settled on May 8, 1952, granting a substantial wage increase for the production employees. The office employees were granted a wage increase in October 1951 pursuant to the Wage Stabilization Board's approval of a petition filed in their behalf on May 26, 1951. During December 1951, substantial wage increases were granted by the Employer to approximately 70 percent of the office employees. Wage Stabilization Board approval was not required for this increase. The Employer granted an increase ef- fective on March 3, 1952, to 47 office employees, approximately 33 per- cent of the eligible voters. The next instance of wage increases being granted to office employees was on May 26, 1952. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Regional Director was of the opinion that the wage increases granted during the pendency of the petition substantially fitted within the Employer's wage pattern de- veloped over a period of several years; that, because of this wage pat- tern, the employees could have reasonably expected a wage adjust- ment at or about the date such adjustments were effected; and, further, that the relationship between these wage benefits and the election was a temporal coincidence. We do not agree. The increases in wages for the office employees during the year 1951 and the first quarter of 1952 do not appear to follow any particular pattern in relation to the wage increases granted to the production employees during that same period. The production employees were granted, between January 1, 1951, and the date of the election, increases of 4 cents per hour in May 1951 and 4 cents per hour in January, both increases being retroactive to March 31, 1951. During this same time, all of the office employees were granted increases in wages in October 1951, part of these em- ployees were granted substantial increases in December 1951 and part of them were granted increases in March 1952. Approximately 60 percent of the office employees receiving the March 1952 increase in wages had also received the December 1951 increase. These increases in wages do not appear to follow an established pattern such as existed 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the United Screw & Bolt Corporation 8 case, which was cited by the Regional Director in support of his recommendation to overrule objec- tion No. 1. In that case, unlike the present case, although the time differential between the granting of increases at the Employer's two plants had varied, such differential had been insubstantial. The Employer stated that the retroactive wage increase for its pro- duction employees which was approved by the Wage Stabilization Board on January 7, 1952, caused it to experience increased pressure for wage increases from its office employees. However, the next in- crease granted to the office employees was approximately 2 months later, just 10 days before the election, and was then granted only to about one-third of these employees. No reason appears why the Em- ployer could not have postponed this March 3, 1952, increase 9 until after the election. In view of the foregoing, we find that the purpose of the granting of this increase in wages, particularly in view of its timing, was to influence the results of the elections; and that the grant- ing of such increase interfered with the elections. We accordingly, sustain objection No. 1 filed by the Petitioner to the conduct of the elections 10 We shall, therefore, set aside the elections of March 13, 1952, and direct new elections at such time as the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice among the employees herein concerned. Order IT IS HEREBY oRDF1iED that the elections held on March 3,1952, among the employees of Le Roi Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, be, and they thereby are, set aside. MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting : While I think the matter is not free from doubt, I am not persuaded that the Employer's purpose in granting the wage increase effective March 3, 1952-10 days before the elections-was to influence the em- ployee's choice. Accordingly, I would adopt the Acting Regional Director's recommendation that this objection be overruled. As rec- ommended by the Acting Regional Director, I would order a hearing on objection No. 5, which raised questions of fact as to whether super- visory employees interrogated employees regarding union membership and promised benefits to them if the Union lost the election. 8 91 NLRB 918. 9 The Board does not rely upon the increases in wages granted to the office employees in October and December of 1951 as grounds for setting the election aside. 10 Shelbyville Desk Company, 72 NLRB 925 ; Shreve and Company, 57 NLRB 1483; Spingler-Loomis Mfg. Co., 95 NLRB 243 . In view of our finding herein, we do not consider it necessary to rule on the other objections raised by the Petitioner.