Carlton Forge Works

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer Edward P. White immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and we will make him whole for any loss of pay, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization , 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. CONSOLIDATED WELDING & ENGINEERING COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street , Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Carlton Forge Works and International Brotherhood of Boiler- makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-8665. April 10, 1964 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to u stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 27, 1963, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty- first Region among the employees in the unit described below. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 70 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots, of which 26 were for, and 39 against, the Petitioner and 4 were chal- lenged. The challenges were insufficient in number to affect the re- sults. The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and thereafter issued and served upon the parties the attached Report on Objections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and a certification of results of election issued. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 146 NLRB No. 9'4. CARLTON FORGE WORKS 751 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Em- ployer at its plant located at 7743 East Adams Street, Paramount, California, including machinists, shipping and receiving employees, plant clerical employees, inspectors, truckdrivers, and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's Report on Objections, and the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.' As we have overruled the objections, and as the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast for International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Build- ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and said organiza- tion is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] MEMBER BROWN, dissenting: I cannot agree with my colleagues' interpretation of the Employer's campaign letters and leaflet. These messages clearly implied that the Union was responsible for the closing of a competitor's business and 1 The exceptions , in our opinion , do not raise any issues which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director 's findings and recommendations . We agree with the Regional Director that statements of the Employer in its campaign letters cannot reasonably be construed as threats of plant shutdown in the event the Petitioner is selected as bargaining representative. Nor do we believe that the Employer 's comparison of its wage rates with those paid by a competitor, as set forth in its letter of November 25, 1963 , constituted a substantial misrepresentation . The Petitioner has not shown that the wage comparison was in fact a misrepresentation . Moreover , the Employer gave the employees opportunity to ascertain the details of the wage comparison as it might affect them . The Petitioner asserts in its exceptions that the Employer interviewed employees individually as to their union affiliation. In the absence of specific evidentiary support therefor , we adopt the Regional Director's conclusion that such interviews, occurring at employees' work stations, were noncoercive. 744-670-65-vol. 146-49 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD caused the layoff of 40 workers at another plant. This theme was care- fully enlarged upon in each of the three communications. It is ap- parent that inserting such fear of job loss into a campaign effectively interferes with a free and reasoned employee choice, and, accordingly, I would direct the Regional Director to hold another election. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on November 6, 1963, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of Regional Director Ralph E. Kennedy on November 27, 1963, among the employees of the Employer in the unit agreed appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' The tally of ballots, which was served upon each of the parties immediately following the election, showed the following results: Approximate number of eligible voters________________________ Void ballots----------------------------------------------- Votes cast for Petitioner____________________________________ Votes cast against participating labor organization_______________ Valid votes counted-------------------------------------- Challenged ballots__________________________________________ Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots____________________ 70 0 26 39 65 4 69 The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the elec- tion. On December 3, 1963, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election,.a copy of which was timely served upon the Employer. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the'Regional Director, after reasonable notice to the parties to present relevant evidence, has completed an in- vestigation of the objections, duly considered all evidence submitted by the parties and otherwise disclosed by the investigation, and hereby issues this report thereon. Objections Nos. 1 and 3 1. The Employer distributed to his employees 2 hours prior to the election a letter containing false and threatening language. 3. The Company prior to the election distributed several letters to their employees, said letters containing false and threatening remarks. Investigation discloses that the Employer mailed to the employees letters dated November 21 and 25, 1963 (attachments A and B hereto), and distributed a leaflet (attachment C) to the employees about 2 hours prior to the election. Copies of the leaflet were handed to employees at their work stations by supervisors, but nothing relating to the election was said by any of the supervisors while the leaflets were being distributed. The Board has held that the Peerless Plywood rule does not apply to election campaign material? In amplification of its allegations concerning falsehoods, the Petitioner contends that "the statement made by Allen J. Carlton to his employees that Allegheny Ludlum was closing because of Union activities, is an untrue statement," and "the true facts of the present status of Ladish Pacific Division has been misrepresented by Mr. Carlton to his. employees." Careful reading of attachments A, B, and C fails to reveal any statement that Allegheny ^.udlum was closing because of union activity. No evidence has been offered that any of the statements actually made as to Allegheny Ludlum were untrue. In leaflets distributed to the employees on November 26, 1963, the Petitioner discussed the layoffs at Allegheny Ludlum and denied that the layoffs were attributable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has asserted that the Employer's comparison of its wage rates with those of Ladish are based on a contract which is outdated. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has failed to offer any contract between itself and Ladish which sets forth wage rates higher than those described in attachment B, and there is no evidence 'Included: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer, at Its plant located at 7743 East Adains Street, Paramount, California, including machinists, shipping and receiving employees, plant clerical employees , inspectors, truckdrivers, and leadmen. Excluded: Office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined In the Act. 2 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427; Crown Drug Company, 110 NLRB 845; Robberson Steel Company, 114 NLRB 344 CARLTON FORGE WORKS 753: that such contract exists. The investigation discloses that Ladish makes to its pro- duction employees, in addition to the contract wage rates, incentive payments under a formula which is not part of its written contract with the Petitioner. Attachment B; however, clearly states that its comparison is "on the basis of straight time pay." In the opinion of the Regional Director, the statements of the Employer are not false and they contain neither implied nor expressed threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.3 The statements differ in tone and content from those relied upon in Trane 4 and Dal-Tex 5 and are insufficient to warrant setting aside the election.e As stated by the Board in Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc.: 7 the mere fact that a message is inartistically or vaguely worded and subject to different interpretations will not suffice to establish such misrepre-' sentation as would lead us to set the election aside. It is recommended that objections Nos. 1 and 3 be overruled. Objection No. 2 Supervisors of the company prior to the election threatened employees by telling said employees the plant would close and the employees would lose all present benefits if the union won the election. The Petitioner has produced no evidence that any supervisor told any employee the plant would close or that employees would lose benefits if the union won the election, and no such evidence has been disclosed by the investigation. The investi- gation shows that the only management representative who spoke to employees concerning the election was the Employer's president, Allan Carlton. Starting about 2 weeks before the election, Carlton held a short conversation with each employee at the employee's work station. The last such conversation was held several days prior to the election date. In each conversation, Carlton inquired as to complaints or grievances and finished by telling the employee that he would be free to vote as he wished but the Company hoped he would "vote right." The employees inter- viewed, including the Petitioner's. witnesses, agree that Carlton made no threats and no promises in these conversations. Most of the conversations are estimated to have lasted from 3 to 8 minutes. The Board has held that such conversations, occurring at the employees' work stations, do not interfere with the employees' free choice.8 It is recommended, therefore, that objection No. 2 be overruled. Conclusion For reasons stated above, the Regional Director concludes that the Petitioner's objections do not raise any material issue which warrants setting aside the election. Accordingly, it is recommended that the objections be overruled, and a certification of results be issued. As provided in Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, any party desiring to take exception to this report and the recommendations herein may, within 10 days from the date of issuance of this report, file with the Board in Washington, D.C., 20570, seven copies of such exceptions. The party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon the other party and shall file a copy with the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region, National Labor Relations Board, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014. 8 Decorated Products, Inc., 140 NLRB 1383. ' The Trane Company, 137 NLRB 1506. 8 Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782. 8 Seven-Up Bottling Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 611. 7 140 NLRB 221. 8 Mall Tool Company, 112 NLRB 1313; The Bryant Electric Company, 118 NLRB 232; Schick, Incorporated, 118 NLRB 1160; Pyramid Mouldings, Inc., 121 NLRB 788. ATTACHMENT A CARLTON FORGE WORKS Quality Forgings Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384 7743 Adams St. P.O Box No. 816 Paramount, Calif. November 21, 1963. As you know, there will be an election November 27, 1963, to determine whether or not you want a union at Carlton Forge Works. The decision you make at the time of the election may well be the most important decision you make in your life. I would like to talk to you about it. 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The grass always looks greener on the other side of the street. You are being told by the union that they will cure all your ills. We have heard rumors of some fantastic promises . Don't be mislead ! If a union comes in at Carlton Forge Works, the union officials will be made up of those persons now active in behalf of the union. You know who they are. We don't! Do you want to put your future in the hands of these individuals? Every organization that functions, grows and progresses makes mistake. Carlton Forge Works is no exception. We have made some mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes whether or not there is a union. The basic question for you to decide is whether the company and the employees can work out problems better with, or without, the union. Remember, unions are run by human beings also. In the past, we have been able to work out the problems together, and there is no reason we cannot do this in the future. On the other hand, I do not believe the union has any special method whereby they can work out our problems so as to be of special benefit to our employees. This very union has been able to "work out the problems for Allegheny Ludlum," and, effective December 1, 1963, they will close the forge shop. No amount of contract clauses or talk will save the jobs of employees at Allegheny Ludlum. Basically, unions do not cure problems, they create them. No union can change the personality of a foreman or any fellow employee. No union can correct the mistakes once they are made. They will tell you they can remedy the effects of mistakes on individual employees, so can you. Monday morning quarterbacks can point to mistakes at Carlton Forge Works, as well as any organiza- tion-DECIDE FOR YOURSELF! Yes, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the street. It is always easier to point out other peoples' mistakes, but, when you are there, you find the grass is no greener than at home. We have no problems at Carlton Forge Works that we cannot work out ourselves. In the coming election, I earnestly urge you to vote. I do not believe we need a union at Carlton Forge Works, but the answer is up to you. Remember, even if you have signed a union card, you can vote NO! Be sure and vote! Very truly yours, CARLTON FORGE WORKS, Allan J. Carlton, Jr., ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr., President. ATTACHMENT B CARLTON FORGE WORKS Quality Forgings Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384 7743 Adams St. P.O. Box No. 816 Paramount, Calif. To All Carlton Forge Works Employees: November 25, 1963. In my last letter to you I said that the grass always looked greener on the other side of the street. You understood me to mean that union promises look better than what the union delivers. You do not need to believe me, just look at the facts. We have examined this very union's contract with Allegheny Ludlum (soon to shut down) and Ladish, who recently laid off forty employees. Our comparison of eight employees in similar job classifications shows some plus and minus rates. The average shows Carlton Forge Works employees take home $.27 per hour more. Our employees actually take home, on the basis of straight time pay, $16.79 per month more than employees in the union at Allegheny Ludlum and Ladish. The contract from which these figures were taken at random are at the office. If you wish to verify your particular rate against these other contracts, come in and we will go over it together. The union has been at Allegheny Ludlum and Ladish for many years Their rates are less than yours with only one or two exceptions. How does the union expect to do better at Carlton Forge Works? While rates are lower at Allegheny, that plant is being closed as an unprofitable operation. Is the closing because of the union or management? If the union, you don't want the union; if the management, it is obvious the union has not corrected management mistakes there. CROTTY BROTHERS, N.Y., INC. 755 You do not need a union at Carlton Forge Works . Vote NO ! Remember, you can vote NO although you have signed a card . Be sure and vote! Sincerely, CARLTON FORGE WORKS, Allan J. Carlton, Jr., ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr., President. ATTACHMENT C CARLTON FORGE WORKS Quality Forgings Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384 7743 Adams St. P.O. Box No. 816 Paramount, Calif. November 27, 1963. To All Carlton Forge Works Employees: Since talking to each one of you, I am sure the majority will VOTE NO in today's election. Your vote will be one of confidence in Carlton Forge Works and its future. We can avoid the economic problems which forced Allegheny Ludlum out of the forging business on the West Coast . Yes, we know their management graciously offered liberal severance pay, but, regardless of Allegheny's fair treatment of their employees, the fact remains-the employees are out of work! As we discussed personally, you must exercise your right to vote today. You can VOTE NO whether you have signed a card or not. It is important that each employee indicate his decision by voting. Remember, this is a SECRET BALLOT. Neither the company nor union offi- cials will be allowed within the vicinity of the polling place (Shop Office). VOTE NO! Sincerely, CARLTON FORGE WORKS, ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr., President. Crotty Brothers, N.Y., Inc. and Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, Cafeteria and Restaurant Union, Local 483, Petitioner. Case No. 5 RC-4228. April 10, 1964 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On July 17, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this case. Thereafter, in ac- cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer (herein referred to as Crotty) and the Intervenor, Trinity College (herein referred to as Trinity), filed with the Board a joint request for review of the Regional Director's determination that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Crotty herein. By telegraphic order dated September 4, 1963, the Board granted the request for review, stayed the election pending decision on review, and invited the parties to brief the questions whether Crotty and Trinity are joint employers of the employees involved and if so whether the Board should assert jurisdiction. Crotty and Trinity, jointly, and the Petitioner filed briefs. 146 NLRB No. 95.