International Shoe Co.

(682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce and the Respondent Local 984 is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By executing, maintaining, and enforcing the contract with Local 984 dated June 11 , 1957, as well as the superseding agreement which was effective on March 1, 1958, the Respondent Company has given material aid and support to the Respondent Union and has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 3. By picketing for recognition of the shop employees and the auto checkers at the Company's Memphis terminal at a time when it was neither the majority representative, nor the certified or statutory bargaining agent of the aforesaid ,employees, Local 984 has violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] International Shoe Company and United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3482. April 8, 1959 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was held under the direction of the Regional Director on October 16, 1958, among the employees at the Employer's Salem, Mis- souri, plant. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The tally showed that, of 412 eligible voters, 182 voted for, and 187 voted against, the Petitioner, 3 ballots were void, and none of the ballots were challenged. On October 20, 1958, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director caused an investigation to be made of the Petitioner's objections, and on January 21, 1959, issued his report in which he found that the objections of the Petitioner did not raise substantial and material is- sues with respect to the conduct of the election. However, the Re- gional Director did find, in the course of his investigation, that the Employer had engaged in other described conduct which interfered with the conduct of the election and he recommended that the election be set aside and a new election directed. Thereafter, the Employer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 1 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 123 NLRB No. 83. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 683 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation ,of said employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section '9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer-as stipulated by the parties-constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Salem, Missouri, plant, excluding office clerical and plant clerical em- ployees, head stock clerk in leather room, head fitting room machinists, professional employees, bonded watchmen , guards, and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. 5. Subsequent to filing of the objections , the Petitioner submitted a copy of an announcement 2 which it stated appeared on the Salem, Missouri , plant bulletin board shortly before the election. The Re- gional Director 's investigation disclosed the following facts : The Petitioner represents employees in 28 of the Employer's plants. In September 1958 the Petitioner and the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-CIO, were engaged in negotiations I with the Employer for a new collective-bargaining agreement. On or about September 25, 1958, the parties reached an impasse and the unions refused to accept the Employer's offer of 31/2-percent wage increase. On October 9, Dave Wilson, Petitioner 's National director, after consulting with the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, telephoned George Abbott, Employer's director of industrial relations , and informed him that if the Employer's offer would be raised to 4 percent that he, Wilson, would guarantee the Company a settlement with respect to Petitioner's contract. Abbott, after consulting with the Employer's board of directors, telephoned Wilson and told him that the Company would give Petitioner a 4-percent increase if Wilson would guarantee a contract. Wilson replied that he would 4 Abbott then talked to the 3 The announcement read as follows : "NOTICE" Approval of a proposed two year contract calling for a wage increase totaling 1G1/ per cent for workers in International Shoe Company was made known here this week. The Agreement calls for a wage increase of 4 per cent this year, retroactive to October 1, 1958, and an additional 2^/•_. per cent increase next year, and improve- ments in retirement and insurance benefits. The proposal will be submitted to members of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union and the United Shoe Workers Union this week with Union negotiators recommending acceptance. These wage increases and other employee benefits will be extended to Non-Union plants. "For several years it has been the Petitioner's practice, when negotiating a new con- tract with the Employer, to conduct negotiations jointly with the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-CIO, which represents employees at various other plants of the Employer. About 12 of the Employer' s plants are unorganized . When full agreement on contract terms is reached each union executes a separate contract with the Employer. This prac- tice was followed in the 1958 negotiations during the months of September and October. * According to Wilson, such an understanding would have to be accepted by Petitioner's negotiating committee and then ratified by the membership before becoming final. Wilson 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD director of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union and received a similar assurance of a contract. On October 15, one day before the election, the notice of the wage increases 5 was posted on the Salem plant bulletin board and by the time clocks of the various departments. No similar information was conveyed to employees of any of the organized or unorganized plants of the Employer with but one exception-the Hamilton, Missouri, plant. On October 21 Wilson telephoned Abbott and advised him that the local unions had voted to accept the contract. On October 24 the Employer posted a notice on the plant bulletin board giving details of the wage increases as it applied to piece-work rates and as to hourly rates and also giving October 1, 1958, as the effective date. The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's report mainly on the grounds that : (1) the matter on which a new election is recom- mended was not mentioned in the Petitioner's original objections, but arose out of the investigation by the Regional Director; and (2) the announcement of the wage increases did not interfere with free choice by the employees. We find no merit in these exceptions. Regarding (1), it is well established that the jurisdiction of the Regional Director in making post-election investigations is not limited to the specific issues raised by the parties." With regard to (2), the Board has held that the granting of employee benefits during the period immediately preceding an election is not per se ground for setting aside an election.' However, in the absence of a showing that the timing of the announcement was governed by factors other than the pendency of the election, the Board has set aside elections on the grounds that the granting of benefits at that particular time was calculated to influence the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative." The burden of showing these other factors is upon the Employer.9 In the instant case, we can perceive no reason why, if the sole purpose of the announcement was to inform the employees of the proposed wage increase the Employer did not delay it as least until after the election or until it was finally approved on October 21, 1958. The Employer did not show that it had an established practice of informing its employees of the progress of the negotiations with the unions. Indeed, the announcement on October 15 was made only to^ the Salem and Hamilton, Missouri, plants. The mere fact that the states in his affidavit : "I knew this would be a formality because they always follow my recommendation. Abbott knows this, too." b See footnote 2, supra. 8 Carter-Lee Lumber Company, 119 NLRB 1374 , 1376, and cases cited therein ; Hobart: Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 203, 205. 7 United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916, 917-919. 8 Glosser Bros., Inc., 120 NLRB 965; Bata Shoe Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1239. 9 Glosser Bros ., Inc., supra ; Food Fair Stores, 120 NLRB 1669. THE BERKLINE CORPORATION 685 Employer had previously given the unorganized plants the same wage increase as was negotiated for its organized employees when weighed against the facts that there is no showing that the Employer made a practice of announcing the progress of the negotiations, did not an- nounce the progress in all plants, and so scheduled the announcement as to fall 1 day before the election, when it would have the "maximum possible impact on the minds of the employees," 10 does not constitute a credible explanation for the timing of the announcement. In view of the foregoing, we find that the timing of the announcement of the wage increase, was calculated to, and did, interfere with the election. Accordingly, we shall set it aside and direct a new election. [The Board set aside the consent election.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 10 Food Fair Stores, supra; Bata Shoe Company, Inc., supra. The Berkline Corporation and Local 2888, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America The Berkline Corporation and Local 2888, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Cases Nos. 10-CA-2801 and 10-CA-92979. April 9, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On August 20, 1958, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond- ent, General Counsel, and Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modification : 1 1 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the evidence shows that the Respondent learned that Thomas was a union member in March 1957 , and not in July, as the Trial Examiner 123 NLRB No. 59.