St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc.

ST. LOUS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES 527 St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica. Cases 14-CA-5160 and 14-RC-6115 July 13, 1970 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF THIRD ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 25, 1970, 'Trial Examiner James M. Fitzpatrick issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that such allegations be dismissed. The Trial Examiner further recommended that certain objections to conduct affecting the election be overruled and the results of the rerun election be certified. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The Respondent filed an answer to the General Counsel's exceptions, cross- exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a brief in support of its cross-exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-ex- ceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, ex- cept as modified below. 1. The Trial Examiner found that chief project engineer Woley's interrogations of draftsman Ed- ward Hart in early 1969 and manager of quality control Murphy's conversation in his office with Larry Philpot on June 13 were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We concur in these findings. 2. We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the announcements and granting of certain salary increases and hospitalization insurance benefits in June 1969 were made with the intention of in- fluencing the employees to vote against the Union in the rerun election of June 24, 1969; that this constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; and that the violations provide sufficient grounds for setting aside the rerun election and directing a new election. Among the unrepresented salaried employees, the first to receive increases were the keypunch operators, who, in early June, were granted in- creases of from $40 to $50 effective June 1, before raises were granted other salaried employees. Respondent's contention is that the situation with these keypunch operators constituted an emergen- cy justifying immediate increases in advance of other employees. In the fall and winter of 1968 Respondent decided to perform all its own keypunch operations and since December 28, 1968, has hired employees in addition to the two girls who were doing some of this work. Wayne Thomas, division controller and supervisor of this operation, testified that there was dissatisfaction over their compensation . More particularly he testified that one of the girls complained 6 months after she was hired about failing to receive a raise, as she had been led to believe she would by Thomas who had interviewed her at hiring. Al- legedly, another girl brought in a clipping advertis- ing for such operators at a rate considerably above what Respondent's employees were making. Ac- cording to Thomas he then had Frank Biondo, a system analyst, look into the situation and based on Biondo's findings he recommended the raises which were given around June 9, effective June 1. However, in our view, the record does not sup- port the conclusion that this increase was neces- sitated before the election and that it was made wholly without consideration of its effect on the election. In this connection, we note that while Respondent claims an employee was requesting, in accordance with her hiring arrangement, an in- crease after 6 months' employment, none of the new employees had been employed that length of time until the middle of June, that the investigation allegedly made after expressions of discontent must have begun in May well before any such 6-month period;' that in early June Respondent was still in the process of checking information on wages of keypunch operators in the area;' that other salaried ' The Trial Examiner infers that some keypunch operators resigned salary administrator of Respondent 's General Steel Industries , concerning because of dissatisfaction with their pay We note, however, that there is no wages at the Castings Division and wages in the Granite City area We find record evidence of the reasons for any of these resignations and conclude this sequence to be inconsistent with Respondent 's contention that as of these inferences are not supported by the record May I it was ready to institute new rates but held off because of contract R Resp Exh 2 is a letter to Biondo, dated June 2, from James Marlow, a negotiations with the P & M unit 184 NLRB No. 55 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees were expressing discontent with their situation; and that Respondent used the increases to the keypunch operators as effective campaign material in its campaign against the Union, even though an actual increase for other salaried em- ployees was not granted till after the rerun election. That this salary increase for the keypunch opera- tors was an element in the Respondent's campaign against the Union is evidenced in its letter of June 17 to the salaried employees.3 Therein the Respon- dent discussed the wage and salary policy it in- tended to use in the future" which would involve merit increases as well as comparison with area rates, and then used as an example of the policy the increase given keypunch operators, adding the as- surance that this was only a step in the direction of comparable wages. Additional publicizing of the plan to bring wages up to area standards is reflected, in speeches around June 20, by President Delancy Davis and Vice President Tuckers The publicizing, 1 week before the election, of a new sal- ary adjustment policy which had been considered for some 9 months previously, without Respon- dent evidently feeling any urgent need to impart to its employees the information that such a policy was under consideration, and the increase to the keypunch operators which was utilized as an exam- ple of this policy in the Respondent's antiunion campaign (salary increases to all salaried em- ployees were granted on June 27) constituted a promise and granting of benefits not previously en- joyed which we conclude was intended to influence the employees against the Union and interfered with the employees' free' choice in the election. We also find that, in its handling of improved hospitalization benefits, Respondent sought to im- properly influence the election results. In the past, salaried employees had received hospitalization benefits similar to those received by hourly em- ployees. Little notice was given of changes aside from booklets distributed, usually a month or two after the effective date of the changes. In June 1969, however, the insurance plan for salaried em- ployees was changed from that received by hourly employees and the timing of the change and the notification of the changes were handled differently than in the past. According to Respondent, the new plan for these unrepresented salaried employees was ready by May 1 and could have been put into effect at that time, but Respondent delayed until June 1 to do so because of contract negotiations with its production and maintenance employees at the St. Louis Car Division. We find this reason un- persuasive , for the insurance plan for salaried em- ployees of other divisions of the Company besides the St. Louis Car Division. However, by delaying the effective date of the plan Respondent was ena- bled to fully publicize the improved benefits in a period close to the election date. This it did in a manner significantly different from its past methods of informing employees of changes. Whereas, in the past, information on changes was imparted by booklets drawn up by the insurer, the Respondent in the instant case first sent salaried employees a letter on June 9 setting forth the improvements, around June 17 sent out a detailed description of the plan, and on June 17 and 18 conducted meetings for the employees where the insurance plan was explained in detail. Moreover, in its letter of June 17 to employees and in speeches given by President Delancy J. Davis to all employees on June 20, Respondent in campaigning against the Union reminded employees of the improvements, even implying that they had been made in "spite of the legal restrictions placed on us."6 In these circumstances it is evident that Respon- dent acted inconsistently with its past practice when granting improved hospitalization insurance for its unrepresented salaried employees and that, despite Respondent's repeated disclaimer that its handling of these benefits was not intended to in- fluence employees in their voting, the granting of the benefits was in fact calculated to influence the employees in the coming election, thus interfering with the employees' free choice in said election. The above-recited conduct with respect to the promising and granting of salary increases and the granting of hospitalization insurance benefits vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Together with other conduct found by the Trial Examiner as viola- tive of the Act, it consitutes conduct sufficiently objectionable to interfere with the results of the rerun election. Accordingly, we shall set the rerun election aside and direct that a third election be conducted at a time to be determined by the Re- gional Director. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- 3 Joint Exh 10 While the Respondent , commencing in the fall of 1968, began a pro- gram of surveying jobs to determine wage comparability with other con- cerns in the area, and began such a survey with respect to St Louis Car Division in April 1969, it appears that the employees , despite Respondent's apparent problems of hiring and retaining the employees it needed, were first informed of its intention of paying comparable wages in the June period, shortly before the election of June 24 On June 27 , 3 days after the election , Respondent gave all salaried em- ployees except the keypunch operators , a $30 a month cost-of-living in- crease 6 Joint Exh 14 ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent , St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. 1. Reletter paragraph 1(c) as paragraph 1(d) and substitute the following as paragraph 1(c): "(c) Granting or promising wage and salary in- creases and improved hospitalization insurance or other benefits , publicizing these actions to em- ployees and promising employees to continue or ex- pand some or all of these programs , in order to in- duce employees to vote against a union in a Board- conducted representation election." 2. Strike the two paragraphs beginning "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED." 3. Insert the following as the third indented para- graph of the Appendix: WE WILL. NOT grant or promise wage and sal- ary increases and improved hospitalization in- surance or other benefits , publicize these ac- tions to employees and promise employees to continue or expand some or all of these pro- grams, in order to induce employees to vote against a union in a Board-conducted represen- tation election. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rerun election held on June 24, 1969, in Case 14-RC-6115, be, and it hereby is, set aside , and that said case be, and it hereby is , remanded to the Regional Director for Region 14 to conduct a new election when he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of Third Election' omitted from publi- cation.] ' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un- derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman -Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con- taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: This is a consolidation for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and decision of objections to an election in a 529 representation proceeding (Case 14-RC-6115) and a complaint in an unfair labor practice proceeding (Case 14-CA-5160). Both involve the same events. In the representation case Teamster Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called Teamsters), filed objections to conduct affecting the results of a Live June 1 it had improved the employees' Board (the Board) on June 24, 1969,' among cer- tain employees of St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc. (herein called respondent or company). On August 29 the Board's Director for Region 14, on behalf of the Board, dismissed some of the objections but ordered a hearing on others and on certain additional conduct. Also on August 29, on behalf of the Board 's General Counsel, he is- sued the complaint in Case 14-CA-5160 founded on a charge of June 24 and an amended charge of July 1 filed by the Teamsters, alleging that the com- pany had committed unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act (the Act). I heard the consolidated proceeding at St. Louis, Missouri , on October 14. Upon the entire record, my observations of the witnesses , and consideration of the briefs of the General Counsel and respondent, I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at St. Louis, Missouri, through its St. Louis Car Division in the manufacture and sale of highspeed railway and subway passenger equipment, special- ized railway freight equipment, and defense products such as tanks. During the year ending June 30 it received at its St. Louis plant from points outside Missouri goods and materials valued at over $50,000 and shipped from its St. Louis plant to points outside Missouri products valued at over $50,000. The parent company, General Steel Indus- tries, headquartered in St. Louis, also operates a number of other manufacturing divisions, including its Castings Division (located in nearby East St. Louis, Illinois), National Roll Division, Ludlow- Saylor Wire Cloth Division, Flex-O-Lite Division, and Standard Pipeprotection Division. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Teamsters is a labor organization which at times material has admitted to membership em- ployees of respondent. Of the total complement of about 1,200 em- ployees at St. Louis Car Division, about 900 production and maintenance employees are represented by United Steelworkers of America, I All dates herein are in 1969 unless otherwise indicated 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 1055 (a labor organization referred to hereinafter as Steelworkers). The com- pany has long had an established collective-bargain- ing relationship with the Steelworkers, including a series of 3-year contracts, the most recent of which became effective June 1 following extensive negotiations concluding on May 29. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT A. Background On January 10 the Teamsters filed a petition seeking a Board election among certain of respon- dent's unrepresented employees. On March 14 the Regional Director directed that an election be held in an appropriate unit consisting of all office cleri- cal, plant clerical, technical employees, and super- visory inspectors at the St. Louis plant.' The elec- tion was held April 15. Thereafter the employer filed timely objections. On May 28 the Regional Director issued a supplemental decision and order in part sustaining the employer's objections and or- dering the election set aside and directing a rerun election. As noted above the rerun election was conducted on June 24. The Teamsters lost by a vote of 69 for to 82 against with 10 ballots chal- lenged, and thereafter filed timely objections. On August 29 the Regional Director in a second sup- plemental decision overruled certain of the objec- tions. But as to Objections I and II, as well as other conduct which came to light in the course of the in- vestigation but was not specifically alleged in the objections, he concluded that substantial and material questions of fact were raised which would be best resolved by a hearing. Consolidation with the complaint herein which alleged the same con- duct as violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act resulted. B. The Issues The issues framed by the pleadings are: (a) whether on February 15 respondent's chief project engineer unlawfully interrogated an employee about his union activities; (b) whether respondent, in announcing and granting a wage increase to em- ployees on June 9, retroactive to June 1, did so for the purpose of unlawfully influencing them against the Teamsters; (c) whether respondent, in an- nouncing and granting improvements in the em- ployees' hospitalization insurance on June 11, ef- fective June 1, did so for the purpose of unlawfully influencing them against the Teamsters; (d) whether on June 13 respondent's manager of quali- ty control unlawfully threatened an employee with loss of benefits if the Teamsters prevailed in the election scheduled for June 24; (e) whether respon- 2 The exact description of the unit found appropriate is as follows All office clerical, plant clerical, technical employees and supervisory inspectors at the employer 's 9000 Hall Street , St Louis, Missouri, dent, in announcing a wage and salary administra- tion program on June 17, did so for the purpose of influencing employees against the Teamsters; and (f) whether respondent, in announcing and granting wage increases to employees on June 27, effective July 1, did so for the purpose of unlawfully in- fluencing them against the Teamsters. Finally presented is the question whether such conduct, if established, warrants setting aside the election of June 24. C. Woley's Interrogations of Hart Edward Hart, a draftsman in respondent's en- gineering department from March 1968 until June 27, 1969, testified without contradiction that on more than one occasion in early 1969 chief project engineer, Gary Woley, an admitted supervisor, discussed the union situation with him. The first oc- casion was about one month before the first Board election on April 15 and occurred in the engineer- ing deparment during the lunch hour. Woley asked him, "How the union was coming?" Another in- cident occurred around April 1 at Hart's work sta- tion when Woley stated that he had understood that Hart was heavily involved in the union and asked him if he had made up his mind. When Hart replied yes, Woley commented that he hoped Hart knew what he was doing. Although Hart's testimony is somewhat confusing with regard to the date of the first dicussion with Woley, his testimony as a whole is credible and un- contradicted. Moreover, he impressed me as an honest witness. Accordingly, I find that Woley asked the questions and made the statements which Hart attributed to him. D. Murphy's Meeting With Philpot Respondent's manager of quality control, a man named Michael Murphy, supervised the quality control inspectors. After the company decided upon a general wage increase effective June 1, Murphy on June 10 called his inspectors together and announced to them a wage increase of 30 cents an hour which would appear in their next paycheck. He also announced that a new insurance program was being put into effect but gave no details regarding it:'One of the inspectors, Larry Philpot, asked Murphy a couple of questions in- cluding whether Murphy was sure they were going to receive the raise, whether Murphy would put in writing that they were going to get it, and whether the raise would be taken away in the future. Murphy thought these questions were "unusual" and a few days later, on June 13, he called Phil- pot into his office for an extended interview lasting two hours in the course of which they discussed plant , excluding professional employees, salesmen, guards, supervisors as defined by the Act, and all other employees represented by any other labor organization ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES many topics and Murphy endeavored to learn what sort of individual Philpot was. According to Mur- phy's own testimony, the union was discussed. Murphy said he himself had been in a union. He asked what Philpot thought the advantages of hav- ing a union would be and indicated his preference not to have a union in his department. The com- pany policy of encouraging employees to obtain further schooling by helping them with tuition was also discussed. Murphy said there was a possi- bility this benefit might or might not be retained for the employees, that it would be completely on a bargaining basis between the company and the union if the union got in. E. Wage and Insurance Changes About June 9 respondent announced that it had granted wage increases effective June 1 to keypunch operators, timekeepers, inspectors, and shop clerks. All of these classifications were of em- ployees not represented by the Steelworkers. Of the six keypunch operators involved, four received raises of $40 and two of $50. The other classifica- tions received uniform raises of 30 cents per hour. About June 11 respondent announced that effec- tive June 1 it had improved the employees' hospitalization insurance. These increases in pay and insurance benefits were communicated to the employees in various ways. The keypunch operators were called together by Wayne Thomas, the controller under whom they indirectly worked, and were told by him that when they were hired their salaries matched those of the two keypunch operators who were already with the company, that since that time the company had realized they were being underpaid in relation to what other industries in the area were paying keypunch operators, and accordingly that the com- pany was raising them all. The date on which Thomas talked to the keypunch operators is not clear in the record, but I infer from the fact that their raise caused grumbling among others, that they were informed first. The timekeepers were notified of their 30-cent-an-hour raise and the im- proved insurance plan by their supervisor, Phillip Sandell, who went to each individual timekeeper on June 9 and 10 and advised them of the new benefits. The inspectors were called together in a meeting on June 10 and notified by their super- visor, Murphy, of the new benefits. Neither Sandell nor Murphy made any reference to the Teamsters or the election. On June 9 in a memorandum to its salaried em- ployees the company described the improved benefits of their life, accident, and hospitalization insurance, the entire cost of which as of June 1 was 'The company has had two separate insurance plans with differing benefits in effect, one for hourly paid employees including those represented by the Steelworkers as well as those who were unrepresented such as inspectors and timekeepers, and another for salaried employees 531 being borne by the company. In another June 9 memorandum the company advised hourly paid employees of the improved benefits of their hospitalization insurance , the entire cost of which was also being borne by the company as of June 1.3 Neither of these memorandums mentioned the Teamsters or the forthcoming election. As noted above, the June 1 raise given keypunch operators occasioned dissatisfaction among other employees who were still not raised. About mid- June Vice President Tucker, who was in charge of the engineering department, called together the employees in that department to discuss the problem. Tucker told them the company was going to have a general review of the pay of all employees, possibly after the upcoming union election of June 24, but that he could not promise anything. This was followed by a company letter on June 17 to salaried employees within the unit involved in this case, the gist of which was that, Having just negotiated a new contract with our production and maintenance employees effec- tive June 1, 1969, it is now the time, based on established custom, to review and adjust wages of other employees not covered by a bargain- ing unit . Those employees paid on an hourly basis have historically received additional com- pensation closely corresponding to that given employees represented by the United Steel- workers and their increases have been effec- tive at the same time as the Steelworkers' increases. This has occurred at this time relative to individuals on an hourly basis where past practive clearly indicated this was normal procedure. Salaried employees wage increases have been given throughout the year on an individual merit basis. But in the future a regular wage and salary administration program will require a review of each employee regularly comparing employees earnings with other individuals on a merit basis within the department, and at the same time comparing them with area rates in similar jobs with other local firms. Under this program our future plan is to compensate all employees at a rate comparable to what is being paid by other firms in our area. The letter then cited the recent raise to keypunch operators as an example of this policy. It also referred to the improved hospitalization plan effec- tive June 1. The letter went on to say, Beyond this improvement anything we might extend to you or even imply that it might be extended to you, could be construed in this period before the election to be a promise of benefits contingent on the results of the elec- tion and subject the company to an unfair The new plan for hourly employees was that incorporated in the Steel- workers contract negotiated May 29 Both plans were in effect in other divisions of the Company and were not confined to the St Louis Car Division 427-835 0 - 74 - 35 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practice charge . We disavow any promises or threats which might influence the outcome next Tuesday and are anxious only that you know what the Company policies are with regard to the subjects mentioned above. The next day , June 18 , the company sent a letter to its hourly paid employees within the unit in- volved in this case which said , among other things, You were recently given an increase of 30 cent per hour as well as receiving the benefits of a greatly improved hospitalization program which is now entirely company paid. These benefits were not given to you to attempt to in- fluence your vote and they shouldn't. The raises and improved benefits were given to you because you deserved them and they have historically been given at this time . Regardless of the outcome of the election on June 24 these improvements are yours , they will not be rescinded. The letter also indicated the company 's view that the Teamsters could not adequately represent, nor was it necessary to protect , the employees' in- terests. On June 18 the company also distributed to its salaried employees in the unit a detailed schedule of the benefits provided by their improved in- surance plan which had gone into effect June 1. Also on June 18 and 19 the company 's supervisor of employee benefits held a series of eight meetings of employees at St . Louis Car similar to those held at three other divisions of the company in which he explained in depth the provisions of the new in- surance programs , which were the same as in effect in other divisions of the company . At these meetings no mention was made of the Teamsters or of the upcoming election. F. Company Communications Immediately Before the Election On June 20 the company sent another letter to the employees in the unit which may be described as anti-Teamsters propaganda. It urged them to vote against the Teamsters , but contained no threats or promises . The same day respondent's President Delancy Davis made four speeches to em- ployees, including all employees in the unit here in- volved , in which he disclaimed any promises or threats to them , but argued that the Teamsters could not adequately represent their interests. He noted that in spite of legal restrictions the company had been able to make some improvements , refer- ring specifically to the improved hospitalization in- surance . However , he disclaimed that this was given to influence their vote . He asserted instead that the old programs had become outmoded , while the new programs were the same as in effect at other divi- sions of the company . In addition , according to the uncontradicted testimony of Edward Hart, who at the time was a draftsman in the engineering depart- ment, in the meeting which Hart attended Davis de- parted from his text to say that the company was bringing salaries up to the metropolitan area stand- ard, that on account of the union election he could not promise employees anything regarding it, but that there were plans being made with respect to it . Hart also testified without contradiction that about the same date Vice President Tucker, in meeting with the employees of the engineering de- partment , mentioned that the union election was coming up, that he wished that they all would vote, that they would all be getting a raise after the elec- tion on a average with the rest of the metropolitan area, that they would all be brought up to standard, and that he had been reclassifying everybody. But the evidence does not indicate that anything he said made these prospects contingent upon the outcome of the election. I find that Davis and Tucker made the above-described statements. G. Postelection Increases On June 27 , three days after the rerun election, Vice President Tucker again addressed the em- ployees in the engineering department , this time about cutbacks in production and the need for tem- porary layoffs . He also advised them that beginning July 1 everyone in the department would receive a blanket $30 per month raise . On July 1 salaried em- ployees ( except for keypunch operators who had been raised as of June 1 ) received a blanket cost- of-living increase of $30 per month. H. The Company 's Defense Stated briefly the company 's defense is that it did not act out of union animus or for the purpose of influencing the election on June 24. On the contra- ry, its position is that the increases granted to the employees in June were economically motivated and consistent with past practice, and asserts that had it not given the increases it might have sub- jected itself to unfair labor practices on that ac- count . The company also takes the position that its pre-June 24 statements referring to the election or to the Teamsters were lawful expressions of opinion. In support of its position the company showed that for many years the bulk of its employees at St. Louis Car Division (approximately 900 out of a total complement of about 1,200) have been represented by a local of the Steelworkers with whom the company has had a series of collective- bargaining agreements." It argues that its long and successful relationship with that union covering the ' Employees at the company's Castings Division in Granite City , Illinois, a distance of 5 miles east of the plant involved herein , are renr'.ented by another local of the Steelworkers ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES, 533 bulk of its employees demonstrates the absence of union animus. The evidence shows the company has had a problem in retaining qualified personnel , particu- larly in technical or skilled jobs where it has suf- fered a high rate of turnover . In mid- 1-968 the problem became acute in that the company was unable to maintain production schedules on two important contracts . A new management team was marshaled for St. Louis Car Division to try and solve this problem . Accordingly an initial wage sur- vey was started in September 1968 and in October and November the company began developing a program for a survey in depth of jobs with the ulti- mate aim of raising the compensation of company personnel to a competitive level. Respondent was in close competition with a few other concerns in its industry for the production and sale of its particular type of products. In the St. Louis area it was in competition with many other companies and indus- tries, and in fact with other divisions within its own concern , for the services of qualified technical and skilled employees. According to James Marlow, sal- ary administrator from the company's headquar- ters in St. Louis who was in charge of developing and implementing the surveys regarding jobs, the project involved first of all preparing job descrip- tions and classifications so that a comparison could be made between different divisions of the com- pany and also with other companies in the area. Thereafter other companies in the area were sur- veyed to determine what they were paying for these jobs . Similarly divisions within the company were surveyed . Such a survey with respect to the St. Louis Car Division commenced at the beginning of April 1969. In the meantime a special problem developed with respect to keypunch operators . In the past the company had contracted out most of its keypunch work, employing on its own staff only two em- ployees qualified to do keypunch work . Toward the end of 1968 the company decided to perform the keypunch work in-house . Commencing in January 1969 it hired additional keypunch operators and set up a new department for the performance of the keypunch function . When hired these new opera- tors were paid at a rate equivalent to that paid the two original operators . This was not comparable to what other companies in the area were paying keypunch operators or even what was advertised in the newspapers by others as the offering rate. Some of the operators complained to the company that their pay was not competitive . Some even resigned. In the face of this situation the supervisor of keypunch operators inquired of Marlow , who was in charge of the job survey mentioned above, what the pay rates were for this job in other divisions of the company as well as in other companies in the area. The results of this inquiry showed that-pay for keypunch operators in St. Louis Car was substan- tially below what was paid in the Castings Division which in turn was somewhat below what was-paid by other companies in the area. Since the keypunch operator problem was viewed as an emergency requiring immediate atten- tion, they were , as indicated previously herein, in early June and in advance of other employees given an immediate raise . The other employees who were not immediately - raised were then dissatisfied because of the uneven treatment and some of them expressed this dissatisfaction to their supervisors. In the meantime the results of the job survey made by Marlow indicated that generally the rates paid the unrepresented employees in St . Louis Car were below the rates paid for comparable work by other employers in the area. As of May 1 the company was ready to institute new rates but held off because of the Steelworkers negotiations then in progress. As an additional aspect of its defense the com- pany showed that during the spring of 1969 it was engaged in negotiations with the Steelworkers on behalf of its production and maintenance em- ployees until May 29, at which point they agreed on a new 3-year contract providing for substantial pay increases as well as improved insurance benefits for hourly paid employees within -that bargaining unit. Uncontradicted -testimony of company witnesses established that historically when new contracts were negotiated with the Steelworkers providing-for pay increases for production and maintenance em- ployees the company reviewed the compensation of unrepresented employees and made upward adjust- ments which were comparable to, although not ex- actly the same as, those given employees represented by the Steelworkers. Company wit- nesses also testified without contradiction that the pay raises 'given the unrepresented employees in June were made because that was what had histori- cally been done in the past and the unrepresented employees expected the adjustments , and also because the job surveys of Marlow showed that the company pay scales lagged behind the area standard. 1. Analysis and Conclusions With regard to the two occasions , on about March 15 and April 1, when Woley , an admitted supervisor, questioned employee Hart about union activities, I conclude these were violations of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. The reasons I conclude the company thereby coercively interfered with em- ployee Section 7 rights are that both incidents oc- curred in the plant where the employee worked. In fact the second incident occurred at his work sta- tion and included a note of warning that the super- visor hoped the employee knew what he was doing. Considering the superior status of Woley and the subordinate status of Hart, which were inherent in the employment relationship, I conclude the inter- rogations were unlawful. 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD For similar reasons I conclude that parts of Murphy's conversation with Philpot on June 13 were coercive interference with employee Section 7 rights contrary to Section 8(a)(1). I do not think that Murphy was pursuing a company plan -to discourage unionism. The-purpose of his individual meeting with Philpot on June 13 was to -find'out whether he was a desirable employee. Nevertheless, in ,his discussion with Philpot he overstepped the line drawn by Section 8(a)(1). While many of his statements' taken individually, such as for example that he preferred that his department not be union, might in some circumstances be lawful, expressions of opinion, when all of the references which ° he made regarding unionism and employee benefits are considered together, they amount to coercion and interference. I note, that Murphy, the super- visor, called Philpot, the employee, into his office only a few -days after, as a direct result of a meeting during which the employee had aggressive- ly questioned the supervisor about an announced wage increase. Although their later individual discussion in Murphy's office on June 13 was general, covering many topics, unionism was among the topics discussed and Murphy indicated his per- sonal opposition to the -Teamsters. He also asked Philpot what he-thought the advantages of unionism would be. He talked about the company policy of helping employees with school tuition. In some cir- cumstances a supervisor's statement that an existing employee benefit would in the future in the event of unionism be the subject of collective bargaining might be a lawful statement. But in the context here presented, Murphy's comment, that paying em- ployee tuition might or might not be retained and that in the event the Teamsters prevailed it would be completely on, a bargaining basis between the, company and the union, was immersed in a- general probe of the employee's qualifications, a probe ar- ranged by the' supervisor in his office during which, he indicated his antiunion attitude and- also questioned the -employee about his union views. Thus what in another context might have been an innocuous statement, in these circumstances car- ried to the employee the message that if the Team- sters got in the company might withdraw the benefit. Although the conduct of Woley and Murphy was unjustified,, I conclude that those incidents standing alone are an insufficient basis for upsetting the rerun election on June 24. They were isolated in- cidents involving only two employees in a unit- in which 175 were eligible to vote. Moreover, the- Woley interrogations took place long before the rerun election, in fact even before the first election on April 15, and this is an additional reason for not upsetting the,election because of them. See Home Comfort Products Co., 180 NLRB 597. - Turning now to the announcing and granting of wage and salary increases, improved hospitalization insurance benefits, and the institution of a policy of continual review of employee- compensation (wage and salary administration program), I conclude that the company was justified in making them and did not thereby violate Section 8(a)(1). I also conclude that they are not sufficient, grounds for setting aside the rerun election of June 24.. The complaint alleges that-, these actions were taken for the purpose of influencing the employees against the Teamsters. The company contends that its motives were pure. It claims- it, harbored no union animus, citing the fact that-it has had a long and successful collective-bargaining relationship with the Steelworkers covering most of its em- ployees: Considering all the evidence one must con- clude that the company has not harbored a general animus toward unions. On the -other hand, con- sidering the anti-Teamsters comments of Murphy and the anti-Teamsters literature and statements is- sued by the company before the June 24 rerun election, it is clear the company preferred not to have the Teamsters represent its unorganized em- ployees. While this attitude explains the company's reasons for issuing its electioneering literature and statements, it does not, in the light of the entire evidence, seem adequate- to explain the- wage in- creases, improvements in hospitalization insurance, and the wage and salary administration program. In- the past- when- the Steelworkers contract resulted, in higher wages or benefits for the large number of employees represented by them, the practice had been to grant some similar wage increases to other hourly paid employees-who were unrepresented and to review the compensation of unrepresented salaried employees, granting them appropriate increases. Such increases and benefits granted the unrepresented employees were not ex- actly the same as those won in bargaining by the Steelworkers but were closely comparable. The most recent history, which is involved in this case, follows that pattern. The company and the Steel- workers concluded negotiations for a new 3-year contract providing for wage increases and improved hospitalization, among other things, on May 29, the- new terms to be effective June 1. It was following this that the company put into effect the increases in compensation and the improved insurance provi- sions about ,which the General-Counsel complains. But since , these increases were in line with past practice, the company was justified on that ground in instituting them. Borden Cabinet Corporation, 148 NLRB 996, 1002; United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916. Regarding the compensation , of the un- represented employees, the evidence shows in addi- tion that the rates-paid by St. Louis Car lagged sub- stantially behind' what competing companies in -the St. Louis area paid and-in certain categories behind what other divisions- of the respondent company paid. Because of its unsatisfactory performance a new management team had been assigned- to St. Louis Car and-as early' as: July 1968 planning began for upgrading employee compensation: The com- pany carried forward with this program in Sep- ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES tember, October, and November by way of starting wage surveys . It did not learn of the Teamsters or- ganizing effort until early November, and vice pres- ident of administration Bryan testified credibly that the fact that the Teamsters organizing and the company's wage survey program were going on at the same time was just a coincidence . The record shows that there were legitimate economic reasons for the company's effort to upgrade wages and that the program to achieve this upgrading was in response to these economic considerations and, in fact, commenced before the Teamsters appeared on the scene . See Motorola, Inc., 163 NLRB 385. The dual hospitalization insurance program was in part tied to the Steelworkers contract in that the unrepresented hourly paid employees historically were covered by the same plan as those under the Steelworkers contract. And when improved benefits were negotiated into the Steelworkers con- tract effective June 1, similar benefits were then ex- tended to the unrepresented hourly paid em- ployees. The same justification does not apply to the improved hospitalization insurance benefits granted in June to the unrepresented salaried em- ployees. However, other considerations adequately justified the granting of those improvements. The plan for salaried employees was not just a plan for St. Louis Car. It was in effect in other divisions of the company as well and the improvements granted in June were applied not just to St. Louis Car but also to the other divisions. As early as May 1 the company was prepared to put the improved pro- gram for salaried employees into effect at St. Louis Car but held off because it feared they would become a floor in the negotiating then going on with the Steelworkers. Consequently implementa- tion* was deferred until after the Steelworkers negotiations were concluded . These facts argue against the assertion of the General Counsel that the improvements were granted in June in order to influence the results of the election on June 24. The General Counsel seems to argue that the com- pany accelerated the effective date of the benefits in order to affect the election , and in this connec- tion points to the fact that when improvements in insurance were made in the past pamphlets explain- ing the changes were normally issued to the em- ployees . No such pamphlets were issued in the present matter. Instead meetings were held and memorandums were distributed explaining the changes . The General Counsel's argument loses whatever force it might have when consideration is taken of the fact that the pamphlets are prepared by the insurance carrier and as of the time of the hearing herein they were still not ready for distribu- tion . That detail, therefore, appears to have been outside the control of respondent . But in any case it seems to me that the mode of communication of the benefit is immaterial. The General Counsel also argues that the wage increases and benefits put into effect in June could as well have been postponed until after the rerun 535 election on June 24 and that the fact that they were not indicates a motivation to use them as devices for unlawfully influencing the employees in the election. The facts indicate however that there was a serious need for the improvements that were made . A good example of this is the matter of the keypunch operators which was so pressing that it required announcement of their increase in ad- vance of other unrepresented employees . The com- pany plan to combat the problems of a low-wage structure was a long range plan which was ready for implementation as early as May 1. At the time the improvements were made the representation case had been in progress for over six months . The em- ployees expected the improvements to be made about the time that they were. And there was at least the risk that delay to a later date might have subjected the company to charges of unfair labor practices on that account. See The Deutsch Com- pany, 178 NLRB 616. In the period just before the rerun election the company engaged in anti-Teamsters electioneering. I conclude these were "permissible expressions of opinion ." United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916, 917, fn. 4. The statements contained nothing which could reasonably be characterized as a threat or a promise. It is true that the company called attention to the recent increases and benefits. But if these were justifiably granted, reference to their existence was lawful. See William L. Bonnell Co., Inc., 170 NLRB 204. The closest thing to a promise was the company announcement on June 17, before the election, that a continuing review would be made of employee compensation, the June 20 speeches of President Davis and Vice President Tucker to the engineering department in- dicating salaries would be brought up to standard, and the announcement on June 27, after the elec- tion, that as of July 1 a cost-of-living increase would be given to unrepresented salaried em- ployees (other than the keypunch operators). These actions however were in line with the com- pany's economically justified program of upgrading employee compensation and of reexamining com- pensation levels on an orderly basis, and none of them were contingent upon the outcome of the election. See American Dredging Company, 180 NLRB 800; and cf. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 160 NLRB 279, 284. Considering all the evidence I conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the changes announced and put into effect in June were for the purpose of influencing the votes of employees in the election. On the contrary I con- clude that based on past practice and the more recent economic status of the enterprise:, the com- pany had valid justifications for its conduct. In this regard the present matter differs from Triangle Plastics, Inc., 166 NLRB 768, and N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, relied on by the General Counsel. Accordingly I conclude that ex- cept for the conduct of Woley and Murphy previ- 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ously found herein to be unfair labor practices, the company did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I have previously concluded that the conduct of Woley and Murphy, standing alone, is an insuf- ficent basis for upsetting the June 24 election. I also conclude that the other conduct on which objec- tions to the election were based and which was al- leged in the complaint as violations of Section 8(a)(1) likewise does not warrant setting aside the election of June 24. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the company set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions described in section 1, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the company in certain respects violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Having found that the company did not engage in conduct sufficiently ob- jectionable to interfere with the results of the rerun election held June 24, 1 recommend that Objections I and II of the Teamsters be overruled, that said election not be set aside and that the results thereof be certified. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. The Teamsters and the Steelworkers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By such unfair labor practices respondent has not interfered with nor illegally affected the results of the Board rerun election held among respon- dent's employees on June 24, 1969. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na- 5. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law and the entire record herein I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating its employees con- cerning their union sympathies and activities. (b) Threatening employees with loss of benefits if a union is selected as their collective-bargaining representative. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant at St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Objections I and II to conduct affecting the results of the Board rerun election conducted in an appropriate unit of respondent's employees on June 24, 1969, be over- ruled and that the results of said election be cer- tified. tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 14 , in wasting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " ST LOUIS CAR DIV GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES 537 APPENDIX ST. Louis CAR DIVISION NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT question our employees about their union sympathies or activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of any benefit if they select a union as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office , 1040 Boatmen 's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway , St. Louis , Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.