GTE Sylvania Inc.

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GTE Sylvania Incorporated and International Union, United. Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement ; Workers of America-UAW, P_etition- er. Case 4-RC-11766 December 9, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER Pursuant to authority granted it by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- member panel has considered the objections to an election held on September 25, 1975,1 the Acting Regional Director's report recommending disposition of same, and the Regional Director's Supplemental Report on Objections Correcting and Supplementing Exhibits. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief2 and hereby adopts the Acting Regional Director's findings and recommen- dations. The Employer here stated, among other things, to employees that its "benefit programs are the SAME at ALL Sylvania plants, union and non-union alike. We do not give `more or additional benefits to those Sylvanians who pay union dues," and "We have no intention of doing `more' for Towanda Sylvanians until the Company is prepared to further improve its benefit programs at ALL Sylvania plants ...." The plain meaning of this language is, as the Acting Regional Director concluded, that the Employer would condition bargaining at Towanda on what it decided to grant at all of its other plants; it would grant no more and no less at Towanda; the scope of the bargaining would not be the employees in the unit at Towanda but would include similar employees in all the other plants; the Employer would adopt a "take-it-or-leave-it" position in bargaining; and the Union would have to accept the terms determined by the Employer. The Acting Regional Director proper- i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The tally was 294 for, and 439 against, the Petitioner ; there were 2 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results 2 The Employer has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied because the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 3 See Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 222 NLRB 965 (1976) 4 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication ] 5 In a letter to employees dated September 4, 1975, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A, the Employer made one of several statements of its position. The letter stated, inter alia: So keep these thoughts in mind when you hear the UAW "benefit promises". . ly concluded that these statements-"inter€eredwith a fair election, and- a second election should be held. In his dissent, Member Walther asserts that these statements of the Employer mean no more than that the Employer will grant at all its nonunion plants whatever it grants at unionized plants, and is,-no more than an assertion- of the Employer's Jawful_ right- to establish unilaterally the " terms and conditions, of employment for its unorganized employees Our dissenting colleague is, looking,through the wrong end of the telescope. He ignores the fact that the Employer expressly made benefits at Towanda conditional upon being available at all other plants, and did not say the reverse, which is the meaning Member Walther would read into the statement. By specifically tying its bargaining at Towanda to what, and only what, it was willing to grant at all its other plants, the Employer conveyed a clear message that the Union would have to accept this policy and position; the Employer would determine unilaterally for all the plants the benefits it would give; the benefits at Towanda would be determined by what the Employer unilaterally decided to give at unorgan- ized plants; and the Employer would refuse to bargain with the Union about those benefits. The Employer's assertion that it had "no intention of doing `more' for Towanda" than it would do for "ALL Sylvania plants" conveyed to the employees in as explicit a sense as possible without using the "take-it- or-leave-it" phraseology that this was precisely the position the Employer would take in any bargaining with the Union. Accordingly, we shall direct a new election.3 [Direction of Second Election4 omitted from publi- cation.] MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting: I disagree with my colleagues' decision to set aside the election in the instant case based on alleged objectionable statements made by the Employer during the organizing campaign.5 In my view, these statements were legitimate expressions of a lawful bargaining position and did not interfere with the election. 2. "Sylvania benefits" are competitive for OUR INDUSTRY and our benefit programs are the SAME at ALL Sylvania plants, union and non-umon alike. We do not give "more" or additional benefits to those Sylvanians who pay union dues! 3 We have NO INTENTION of changing our long-established and fair policy of uniform benefits throughout all Sylvania plants We have no intention of doing "more" for Towanda-Sylvamans until the Company is prepared to further improve its benefit programs at ALL Sylvania plants, and 4. The UAW knows this and happily ACCEPTS the standard "Sylva- nia benefit package" at Winchester-and they've gotten NO MORE in benefits for Winchester employees than you now have without paying UAW dues. 227 NLRB No. 14 GTE SYLVANIA INCORPORATED My colleagues- have interpreted these statements as evidence of a take-it-or-leave--it bargaining policy on the part of the Employer and thus an unwillingness to bargain in good faith with the Petitioner. I fmd such a conclusion unwarranted. The Employer's statements clearly indicate a nondiscriminatory bargaining poli- cy. They imply that benefits - obtained by unit employees- through collective bargaining at the Em- ployer's unionized plants will- also be granted to unrepresented employees at other facilities operated by the Employer. The Employer's message is plain: it will not deprive unrepresented -employees of im- proved benefits and working conditions which the Company agrees to provide to unit employees. Such a policy emphasizes the well-established right of an employer to unilaterally establish terms and condi- tions of employment for its unrepresented employ- ees.6 In my view, this right encompasses an employ- er's freedom to improve the terms and conditions of employment of unrepresented employees by equaliz- ing them with unit employees. In McCulloch Corporation, supra, the Board adopt- ed the decision of its Trial Examiner who found that an employer's unilateral announcement and subse- quent implementation -of benefits and wage increases for nonunit, employees did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In that case, an employer announced that it would immediately contribute $300,000 to the company's profit-sharing plan and increase wages and hospitalization benefits for nonunit employees but would defer giving such benefits to employees in the bargaining unit until such time as a collective- bargaining agreement was signed. The Trial Examin- er found, inter alia: I do not fmd that any of the above communica- tions constituted promises of benefit or other inducements calculated to undermine the Union's bargaining position or to cause defection among its members. I do not understand the contention that a statement of benefits to be given employees who were not in the bargaining unit coupled with a statement that the same benefits were offered to the Union on behalf of the unit employees as a bargaining proposal, constituted an inducement 6 McCulloch Corporation, 132 NLRB 201 (1961); Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, 77 NLRB 1306 (1948). 7 McCulloch Corp, supra at 212-213. 8 In Montgomery Ward, the record contained evidence that the employer intended not to bargain in good faith. There the employer informed its employees that, inter alia : "There would be no change in benefits, because it was company policy, they had their own benefits and there would be no change. . . there would be no change in our benefits, that we have now. Under no circumstances would there be any changes because of company policy"; and "Everything that's set down is company policy as far as wages and things like that, there is nothing a union can do for you . . he also told us that he wouldn't give us anything else, other than what we have right now ... [b ]ecause company benefits are laid down by company policy and there is nothing that can be changed." In my view , such statements-in 147 to quit- the Union. The Union may not have enjoyed the dilemma of either accepting or rejecting such an offer but collective bargaining presents hazards to both sides and the Company could not have done other than make the offer it did- without either granting benefits to excepted employees while withholding them from unit employees or giving the Union a concession of benefits without any quid pro quo;7 My colleagues' decision implies that an employer automatically interferes with an election when it informs its employees during the organizing cam- paign that it will exercise its lawful prerogative to unilaterally establish terms and conditions of employ- ment for its nonunit employees. In my judgment, the Employer's stated policy ofgiving to nonunit employ- ees what it gives to represented employees serves to nondiscriminatorily equalize the terms and condi- tions of employment of all of the Employer's employ- ees and, as in McCulloch Corporation, supra, consti- tuted a lawful collective-bargaining position. Unlike Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 222 NLRB 965 (1976), cited by my colleagues, in which the employer's campaign was infused with rhetoric which conveyed to employees a take-it-or-leave-it bargain- ing policy,8 GTE Sylvania's campaign stressed a lawful bargaining position and an express willingness to bargain in good faith. Thus, in, a speech to employees 2 days before the election, the Employer explained that it would bargain in good faith if the Petitioner won the election. Furthermore, GTE Sylvania's Towanda employees had additional assu- rances of the Employer's good-faith bargaining policy at other plants. These assurances came from the Petitioner in letters sent to the employees during the campaign which asserted that collective bargaining with the Petitioner had brought, inter alia, harmoni- ous labor-management relations, increased employ- ment, fewer layoffs, high wages for women, and grievance and arbitration procedures.9 - My colleagues, by overlooking the entire 8-month preelection campaign and instead narrowly focusing on one isolated Employer communication, have misinterpreted the Employer's policy. They, not I, are contrast to the statements, of the Employer in the instant case-impressed employees with the ' fuuhty of unionization and therefore interfered with the Montgomery Ward election. 9 For example, see Petitioner's September 6, 1975, letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B. Petitioner's compliance with the Employ- er's collective-bargaining policy and its evident satisfaction with it was again expressed in its letter to employees of September It, 1975. The Petitioner stated there, inter alra: We in the UAW believe that, by any objective evaluation, our union based on its experience, its capabilities and its record of achievement- has proved its success in dealing with GTE Sylvania-and the earnings of women employees at Winchester-are THE PROOF. 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Their interpretation of the Employer's policy as that of determining benefits at unionized plants on the basis of what is unilaterally -given at unorganized plants is the reverse of actual practice. Thus, it is clear that the Employer's policy has been to grant to its nonunion- -ized Towanda-plant whatever it has already granted to its unionized plants. And, indeed, the Union recognized such policy. Thus, Petitioner stated to employees in its letter of September 22, 1975, inter alia: EVEN-the few critics of UAW admit that there is no VALID ARGUMENT-"if it.were not for UAW's efforts and the many unions who bargain with GTE Sylvania, Towanda, Sylvania employ- ees' wages would be a lot less today. In my view, the Towanda employees, on the basis of all the campaign literature and the Employer's good- faith bargaining pledge, could make a reasoned choice in the election, and it cannot be said that the Employer's isolated- - statement interfered with the election. - ` Contrary to my colleagues, I cannot agree that the Employer adopted- a take-it-or-leave-it bargaining posture which conveyed to employees the futility of unionization. In my judgment, its adherence to past practice in pursuing a lawful collective-bargaining policy and its announcement to employees that it would continue to pursue this lawful course and bargain in good faith refute the majority contention. I find that the Employer's statements did not interfere with the election. I would, therefore, certify the results in this case. APPENDIX A GTE SYLVANIA - September 4, 1975 Dear Sylvanian: For many months, the UAW organizer has been praising the employee benefits his union has won for members in the auto industry - and hinting that the UAW will get you these "auto industry benefits" if you'll only give them two hours pay each month. DON'T BE FOOLED! The UAW talked the same "line" to employees during the campaign at our Winchester, Ky. plant in 1969 - and employees fell for it hook - line - and - sinker! After a 105-day, pay- losing STRIKE, Winchester employees realized they'd been "had" by the UAW! So keep these thoughts in mind when you hear the UAW "benefit promises" ... . 1. We are NOT in the auto industry. We compete for survival in the ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY and we have no intention of trying to match the benefit programs -in companies outside our industry! 2. "Sylvania benefits" are competitive for OUR INDUSTRY and our benefit programs are the SAME at ALL Sylvania plants, union and non-union alike. We do not give "more" or additional benefits to those Sylvanians who pay union dues! 3. We have NO INTENTION of changing our long-,established and fair policy of uniform benefits throughout all Sylvania plants. We have no intention of doing "more" for To- wanda-Sylvanians until the Company is prepared to further improve its benefit pro- grams at ALL Sylvania plants, and 4. The UA W knows this and happily ACCEPTS the standard "Sylvania benefit package" at Winchester - and they've gotten NO MORE in benefits for Winchester employees than you now have without paying UAW dues. After reading over the enclosed summary of your present "Sylvania benefits", I'm confident you'll realize there's no point in paying monthly UAW dues for the fine benefits you already enjoy. APPENDIX B Sat. 9/6 Dear G.T.E. Sylvania Employee: This has not been a particularly happy year for non-union Sylvania workers. Men and women who had routinely worked 48 to 56 hours a week and had been encouraged by our society to build up financial obligations on the expectation that this rate of overtime would continue indefinitely, - suddenly brought home 30% to 50% less pay a week. There was no time to adjust to such a change. Similarly, when there were layoffs the company was uninformative. Workers were laid off (regardless of length of service) "bumped back" in a seemingly unpredictable, crazy - quilt pattern. Through it all "Towanda Sylvanias" felt increasingly insecure. As each worker left the plant regrets mixed with disgust was frequently expressed: "JOE IT ISN'T FAIR THAT SO AND SO COULD BUMP YOU OFF YOUR JOB WHEN HE HAS LESS SERVICE." THINGS MUST GO ON The lives of those who are fortunate to retain their jobs at Sylvania in Towanda must go on. Individual workers must keep their nose cleaner than ever to avoid the petty, harassing that rain down in times of GTE 'SYLVANIA economic distress when workers feel so defenseless. Towanda Sylvanias know, more over, that layoffs involved not simply invisible forces - but manageri- al decisions, and that a transfer to other jobs is even more a matter of managerial decision - without consideration to the employees length of service with the company to enable him to bump to a more desirablejob. "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - NOT BEGGING" WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY Winchester Sylvanias have forged a meaningful partnership in harmony and unity with UAW as their bargaining agents. Today in this southern town Sylvania employees are among the highest paid in their community. Women employees earn as much as $5.00 and more per hour performing assembly operations. The history of collective bargaining at Winchester has been a history of steady increasing employment from less INCORPORATED 149 than 500 employees to a current workforce of 700 employees. IT CAN BE SAID NO ONE HAS BEEN LAID OFFA T THIS PLANT. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Grievance mechanisms are a key benefit to UAW Sylvanias in Winchester. If any one is treated unfairly, UAW contract provides for a procedure to use to appeal. The UAW contract also provides for impartial arbitration if the problem can't be worked out using the regular grievance mechanism. HELP YOURSELF The famous newspaper writer who did tremendous research on the matter, had this to say: "THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING A UNION FAR OUT WEIGHS THE DISADVANTAGES OF NO UNION," MORE TO COME.