American Tool Works of Hartford, Inc.

AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED 1143 including the trend toward agreements of longer duration in the auto- motive industry, and cannot be unmindful of the salutory and stabiliz- ing effect of that relationship. We believe that the time has arrived when stability of labor relations can better be served, without unrea- sonably restricting employees in their right to change representatives, by holding as a bar collective-bargaining agreements even for 5 years' duration when, as here, not only General Motors but also a substantial part of the industry concerned is covered by contracts with a similar term. In place of the former test predicated on "custom in the indus- try," the test to be applied here determines reasonableness of contract duration for contract-bar purposes on the basis of whether a sub- stantial part of the industry is covered by contracts of a similar term? This test, in the Board's opinion, is more practicable, is in keeping with present-day normal economic developments, and will better effectuate the policies of the Act. For the reasons stated above, having found the contract a bar to a present determination of representatives, we shall dismiss the peti- tion filed herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. resulted in the consummation of a 2-year contract , without a reopening clause, which con- tained a cost-of-living allowance based on the BLS Consumers' Price Index and an annual improvement factor. As Louis G. Seaton, labor relations director of General Motors, testified , "The successful operation of that two-year agreement caused the parties to explore the possibility of even a longer agreement in 1950." During the 1950 negotiations, General Motors proposed giving a more adequate pension and Insurance program In return for a 5-year contract containing a no-strike clause and a cost-of -living escalator clause, and the Union accepted. In 1950 General Motors negotiated some 100 different contracts with approximately 20 International unions, affiliates of both the CIO and AFL, covering about 325,000 em- ployees , all were 5-year contracts. 9 In adopting this test, we are not passing on whether a contract of more than 5, years could be, under any circumstances, of reasonable duration for contract -bar purposes. AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTUILIL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. I -RC-2839. February 6, 1953 Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election On August 20, 1952, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion 1 issued by the Board on August 4, 1952, an election was conducted among certain employees of the Employer under the direction and 1 Unpublished. 102 NLRB No. 95. 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that of approximately 52 eligible voters 45 cast valid ballots, of which 22 were for and 23 against the Petitioner. On August 26, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director con- ducted an investigation and on October 1,1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections. The Regional Director, upon the facts recited in his report, found merit in certain of the Peti- tioner's objections, concluded that the Employer had interfered with the conduct of the election and recommended that the election be set aside. On October 8, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the Re- gional Director's report. Thereafter on October 27, 1952, the Board issued an order directing that a hearing be held on the issues raised by the Petitioner's objections and exceptions, and directed the hearing officer to resolve credibility issues and to make findings of facts and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objections. The hearing was held on November 14, 1952, before Robert S. Fuchs, hearing officer. The Employer and the Petitioner appeared and par- ticipated. On December 11, 1952, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he recommended that the election be set aside. The hearing officer found that Foreman Ahlberg, in a conversation initi- ated by employee Clark, told Clark that the principal stockholder of the company was the kind of man who would close the plant if the Union won. He further found that in separate conversations initiated by employees Clark and Grant, Ahlberg told each of them that he thought there would be general wage increases if the Union lost the election. The hearing officer concluded that Ahlberg's remarks were reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice. His recommendation that the election be set aside is based on these findings and conclusions, together with the finding of a single interrogation of one employee by Foreman Quinn. The Employer filed exceptions to these recommendations. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the exceptions filed by the Employer, and the entire record in the case. We fully agree with the hearing officer's findings, conclusions, and recommendations and hereby adopt them and shall O Pursuant to the provision 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 Houston and Murdock]. AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED 1145 therefore order that the election be set aside and shall direct that a new election be conducted. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of August 20, 1952, conducted among employees of American Tool Works of Hartford, Incorporated, at Hartford, Connecticut, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Report of Hearing Officer Upon a petition duly filed pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act, and a Decision and Direction of Election of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, dated August 4, 1952, an election was conducted on August 20, 1952, among certain employees of the Employer, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region. A tally of ballots, which was served upon the parties, showed the following results : Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 52 Void ballots------------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO------------------ 22 Votes cast against participating labor organization------------------- 23 Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ 45 Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------- 0 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots--------------------------- 45 The Petitioner herein filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election on the following grounds : (1) The Employer sent letters to the employees containing thinly veiled threats of reprisal for union activity by the employees. (2) The Employer offered employees wage increases and other benefits in excess of those approvable under the Wage Stabilization policies of the United States Government in order to affect their union activity. (3) The Employer threatened and intimidated employees for action and ac- tivities in behalf of the petitioning Union. (4) The Employer individually interrogated employees on their union activ- ities the week preceding the election. (5) The Employer made promises of benefits to individual employees in an effort to influence their vote. (6) The Employer laid off and discharged employees who were members of unions. (7) The Employer addressed groups of workers on company time and prop- erty and denied the Union a similar opportunity. On October 1, 1952, the Regional Director issued his report on objections to the election finding inter alia that the American Tool Works of Hartford, In- corporated, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, had made statements which were reasonably calculated to influence the employees in their choice of a bar- gaining representative by indicating to them that the Employer would grant wage increases if the Petitioner lost the election. 1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 8, 1952, the Employer through its counsel filed exceptions thereto. On October 27, 1952, the Board ordered a hearing with respect to the issues raised by the Petitioner in its objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. Pursuant to the order directing hearing on objections the Regional Director, on October 30, 1952, issued his notice of hearing under Section 102.61 (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, and after notice to the parties a hearing was conducted before the undersigned, duly appointed hearing officer, on Friday, November 14, 1952. Both parties were represented by counsel who, at the close of the hearing, waived oral arguments before and briefs to the hearing officer. All of the witnesses with the exception of Alexander Alves, executive vice president of the Employer, testified under subpena, requested by counsel for the Employer, and were called as witnesses by the Employer. Evidence was introduced in connection with the following incidents relating to the Petitioner's objections: (1) The Employer directed two letters, dated July 12 and August 15, 1952, respectively, to its employees. (Company Exhibits Nos. 1 and 1-a.) Careful consideration of the language contained in these letters discloses no express or implied threat of economic reprisal or promise of benefit in connection with the union activities of the employees involved and is not considered grounds for setting aside the election. (2) The evidence disclosed that 27 employees received wage increases be- tween August 4 and September 15, 1952. These increases are described by the Employer as merit increases, automatic merit increases, and in one instance as the result of a reclassification. (Board Exhibit No. 2.) Ten of these increases were granted between the date of the receipt of the Petitioner's claim for recog- nition as the majority representative of the employees of the Employer and the election conducted on August 20, 1952. Evidence offered by the Employer that this type of increase was consistent with its long-established policy was uncontradicted and is credited by the undersigned. Thus, it is concluded that the increases in question were placed into effect by the Employer in the normal course of its business and were not calculated to improperly influence the em- ployees in the choice of a bargaining representative. (3) Alexander L. Alves was appointed executive vice president of the Em- ployer around March 1, 1952. He testified that he made certain suggestions concerning labor relations to his superiors and that on April 23, 1952, these suggestions were incorporated in a general report. (Company Exhibit No. 5.) As a result of these suggestions certain benefits were announced to the em- ployees at a meeting held on the morning of June 12, 1952, between 8 and 9 a. in. The benefits announced concerned a vacation policy and a paid-holiday policy. Alves testified that at the time of this announcement he had no knowledge of the Petitioner's written request for recognition, which was mailed to the Em- ployer on June 11, 1952. The announcement of these benefits was subsequently reduced to writing and placed upon the bulletin board of the Employer on June 16, 1952. Alves' testimony in this regard is credited. The benefits announced on June 12, 1952, had been planned in March and April of 1952 by Alves, whereas the Petitioner's organizational drive did not commence until May of 1952. Under the circumstances, although the timing of the announcement granting vacation benefits 1 week in excess of that requested of the Wage Stabilization Board in March of 1952, together with the Employer's denial of any knowledge of the Union's activities after such activities had been carried on in the plant, employ- AMERICAN TOOL WORKS OF HARTFORD, INCORPORATED 1147 ing only about 50 production workers, for a period of approximately 4 weeks' creates a suspicious circumstance, the evidence of record does not support the Petitioner's allegation that it was designed to improperly influence the choice of the employees involved. (4) The evidence does not disclose that any representative of the Employer addressed the employees on company time or premises after receiving the Peti- tioner's request for recognition on matters related to employee benefits, but to the contrary topics of discussion between June 12 and August 20 related to pro- duction matters only. (5) The Petitioner contends that union members were laid off and discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Petitioner. The record contains no evidence to support such a conclusion. Uncontradicted evidence introduced by the Employer reveals that a part-time night shift was discontinued for economic reasons during the period involved and that one employee, Ralph E. Grant, was laid off for lack of work on July 8, 1952, by a foreman, whose employment with the Employer terminated in July 1952. On July 8, when Grant was laid off during the middle of the day a group of his fellow employees protested this layoff claiming that Grant was being discriminated against for his union activities. As a result of his immediate investigation, Vice-President Alves found that there was work available, and recalled Grant forthwith. Because he considered the layoff unfair, Alves reimbursed Grant for the hours which he had lost on July 8. The evidence does not support a finding that Grant was sent home for discrimina- tory reasons attributable to the Employer. Further, the speedy action of Alves In rectifying that which he described as a misunderstanding was reasonably calculated to disavow any discriminatory motive in this connection. (6) Approximately 3 weeks before the election of August 20, 1952, Albert J. Swigut, who was employed on July 17, 1952, was asked by his foreman, Quinn, if anyone approached him regarding the Union. Swigut replied in the affirma- tive. Quinn told Swigut that he had never had any trouble with any of his employees, that there was no union at the last place he worked in and "they" always tried to be fair. He pointed out that Swigut would have to bring his grievances to him (Quinn) whether a union did or did not represent the em- ployees in the plant, since he was in a separate division and so would be his own steward. Quinn further told Swigut that he would treat him "right" whether the Union came in or not. Quinn, who was present in the courtroom, did not refute the testimony of Swigut. The foregoing incident was not communicated to the Petitioner by Swigut until the. night before the election of August 20, 1952. The Board has recently reiterated its estimate of interrogation as follows : An employer's interrogation of an employee concerning an aspect of union activity is a violation of Section 8 (a) (1). Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.' Inasmuch as the interrogation of Swigut constituted interference per se it is immaterial that the subject matter of the conversation which followed was not coercive in its character. However, it is noted that this isolated instance of interrogation is not, of itself, relied upon by the undersigned in making his ulti- mate recommendation herein. 1 Vice-President Alves testified in response to a question as to whether Williamson, an employee, was one of the leaders in attempting to unionize the Employer : Well, it was not known to me until late June or July, but it was well known. It's a small place, and people talk ; but I had no proof that he was, and I didn 't care. 2 Jackson Press, Inc., 96 NLRB 897, cited in J. E. Jewell, Inc., 99 NLRB 61. 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (7) Harry Ahlberg was employed during the early part of January 1952. He was originally appointed a supervisor and subsequently became general fore- man on July 13, 1952. He has been a union member since he was 16 years of age. Evidence was introduced by the Employer that while he was in the position of foreman his duties were restricted to production as distinguished from per- sonnel matters, which were strictly within the jurisdiction of Vice-President Alves. From the time of his appointment as general foreman, on July 14, 1952, he was approached by nearly all of the employees of the Company with regard to higher wages. Ahlberg first testified that he told the employees he had " . . . nothing to do with it . . ." Subsequently, he testified that he told a lot of the employees that he couldn't do anything ; that the matter was entirely out of his hands ". . . until after election . . ." Again, Ahlberg testified that he told various employees ". . . that after there came a union in there, naturally they took care of themselves ; but if it happened the other way I says, 'I am hoping that I can do something . . . I will be glad to'." When asked whether he had stated to the employees that there would be a general wage increase, Ahlberg explained that any reference to wage increase was contained in his hope that things would be better. He further testified that he would work for a wage in- crease regardless of the outcome of the election. On cross-examination Ahlberg testified that when he was approached about higher wages he told the workers in substance that if the Union didn't get in he would take care of "it." Conver- sations with employees in this connection, all of which were initiated by the employees themselves, took place between July 14 and August 20, 1952. While Ahlberg testified he had nothing to do with personnel prior to the election, he admitted on cross-examination that he had spoken to Mr. Alves about one John Christie who was given a raise prior to August 20, 1952, and that he himself brought the matter of Mr. Christie's raise to Mr. Alves' attention. Although on direct examination Ahlberg testified that he told employees he would do what he could about wage increases after the election, on cross- examination he first denied that he had mentioned "after the election" as the time when he would aid them, thus contradicting his previous testimony and then, upon further examination, admitted that he had told employees that he could do nothing about the wage increases until after the election. George J. Clark, Jr., an employee, testified that sometime after June 12, 1952, he requested a job transfer of Mr. Alves. Alves told him that he knew there was union activity in the shop and they wanted only experienced men on the machines because if the Union got in they would have to raise the pay to union wages and they wanted experienced men on the machines. Clark, who ap- peared to be a forthright witness and who exhibited no antagonism toward the Employer but to the contrary gave every indication of a desire to be fair and impartial in his testimony, disclosed that Foreman Ahlberg told him that Gengras (principal stockholder of the Company) was the kind of a guy that would shut down the plant if the Union won. He further testified that during a conversation with Mr. Ahlberg on the day prior to the election Ahlberg stated that there probably would be a general wage increase if the Union lost. Ahl- berg did not say there would be an increase if the Union won. Again the testimony of Ralph E. Grant, who also impressed the undersigned as a credible witness, in a conversation following a request to Ahlberg for a pay raise, was told by Ahlberg that he thought there would be a general increase if the Union lost (the election). After careful consideration of the manner and context of witnesses Ahlberg, Clark, and Grant, and mindful of the fact that Ahlberg admittedly engaged in many and, it is clear from his testimony, varying conversations with employees THE BURROWES CORPORATION 1149 In contrast to the one conversation engaged in by Clark and Grant with Ahlberg, the undersigned credits the version of the conversations with Ahlberg as testi- fied to by Grant and Clark, to wit that Ahlberg thought there would be a gen- eral increase if the Union lost the election and that Gengras was the kind of a man who would close the shop if the Union won. Such express or implied promises of benefits and threat of economic reprisal are clearly inconsistent with the strict standards of laboratory perfection designed to assure that the participating employees have an opportunity to register a free and untram- meled choice in the Board election .8 The conclusion that Ahlberg's remarks were reasonably calculated to inter- fere with the employees' freedom of choice is further supported when con- sidered in conjunction with the fact that the subject of general wage increases was not referred to either in Alves' general report to his supervisors in April of 1952, relating to proposed employee benefits, or in the announcement to the employees of the granting of benefits on the morning of June 12, 1952. Coupled with the practice of the Employer to grant automatic and merit increases to individuals and small groups of individuals, Ahlberg's indications of future general wage increases were not in conformity with the established company practice. A promise of benefit regardless of the outcome of the election has been held by the Board to improperly interfere with the choice of the employees.' Thus, even if Ahlberg's own testimony were credited, wherein he indicated to em- ployees that he would do something about wage increases regardless of the out- come of the election, such statements would constitute interference. Nor are Ahlberg's intentions or motives material so long as the general tenor of his remarks were reasonably calculated to interfere with the em- ployees' free choice. Again, it is immaterial that certain employees who participated in the elec- tion testified in effect that their vote was not influenced by coercive conduct which accompanied the election 6 Accordingly, on the basis of Foreman Ahlberg's statements and Foreman Quinn's interrogation, it is recommended that the election conducted on August 20,1952, be set aside and a new election conducted. 8 General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124. 4 Direct Laboratories, Inc., 94 NLRB 380. S Lane Drug Stores, Inc., 88 NLRB 584. THE BURRowFs CORPORATION and TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL # 340, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER THE BURROWES CORPORATION and DISTRICT 99, INTERNATIONAL AS- SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 1RC- 3048 and 1-RC-305& February 6,1953 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before 102 NLRB No. 108.