Pick Your Part Auto Wreckers, Inc.

446 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pick Your Part Auto Wreckers, Inc. and Interna- tional Molders and Allied Workers Union, Local 164, International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 32-RC-2564 May 13, 1989 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT The National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held August 13, 1987, and the hearing offi- cer's report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 14 for and 19 against the Petitioner, with 2 chal- lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing officer's fmdings' and recommendations,2 and fords that a certification of results of election should be issued. Citing precedent where the Board has found the impartial depiction of strikers to be privileged under Section 8(c), the hearing officer recommend- ed that those portions of Objections 2 and 6 that alleged the Employer's showing of the movie con- cerning a strike at Magic Chef was objectionable be overruled. In its exceptions, the Petitioner con- tends that the movie is not impartial but anti-union in tenor. We agree that the movie overwhelmingly promoted the Employer's point of view. However, the Board has found similar films, especially those occurring in a context free of objectionable con- duct, to be unobjectionable. Sab Harmon Industries, 252 NLRB 953 (1980); Northern States Beef, 226 NLRB 365, 376 (1976); Litho Press of San Antonio, 211 NLRB 1014, 1014-1015 (1974), enfd. on other grounds 512 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1975). We, therefore, i The Petitioner has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil- ity findings including the assertion that they were the result of the hear- ing officer's bias and prejudice After carefully examining the entire record, we ford the Petitioner's exceptions are without ment It is well settled that no basis exists for finding credibility findings are based on bias or prejudice merely because important factual conflicts are resolved in one party's favor See, e g, McLean Roofing Co., 276 NLRB 830 fn. 1 (1985). Moreover, the Board's established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us they are incorrect Stretch-Tex Co, 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957) We find no basis for reversing the findings No exceptions were made to the hearing officer 's recommendations to overrule Objections 1, 4, and 8, and we therefore adopt pro forma those findings The Petitioner withdrew Objection 5 9 We correct the hearing officer's inadvertent misstatement of the July I wage increases they ranged from $1 25 per hour to $1 50 per hour adopt the hearing officer's recommendation to overrule Objections 2 and 6 which, inter alia, al- leged that the movie interfered with the free con- duct of the election. Further, we agree with the hearing officer's rec- ommendation to overrule that portion of Objection 7 relating to the Employer's provision of additional wage increases based on longevity beyond the July 1 wage increase. In so doing, we do not rely on her rationale. According to the credited or uncontradicted tes- timony, the pertinent facts are as follows. The terms and conditions of employment of the Em- ployer's five facilities are determined centrally by a general management team and at its Garden Grove, California corporate office. Prior to the im- plementation of the new wage scale on July 1, 1987, the wages differed from plant to plant. Be- cause of management's concerns about standardiz- ing the equalizing wages, as well as bringing them up to scale to facilitate hiring, the general manage- ment team began discussions about an overall wage plan for its five stores. These discussions began at the general management team's March 12, 1987 meeting; the new wage plan was finalized and ap- proved at the June 18, 1987 meeting. The final version of the approved wage scale was attached to the Employer's minutes for the June 18 meeting ("Management Team Meeting Recap").3 This three-page document entitled "Clerical/Technical Pay Rate Schedule" individ- ually lists each job classification and provides the following data for each classification: starting pay rate, maximum pay rate, maximum raises after 90 days, and semiannual raises up to maximum rate. The schedule concludes with this restatement, "AFTER INITIAL 90 DAY RAISE, all classifica- tions will be eligible for a 25 cents per hour raise every six months" (capitals in original). The last data on the schedule, the semiannual rate up to the maximum rate, as well as the final statement, refer to the longevity increases, under dispute here. This wage plan, according to the undisputed testimony of General Manager and Vice President Chris McElroy, was basically the same, with only a few minor changes, as that implemented at the Employ- er's Stanton store 7 months earlier, which also in- cluded longevity increases. 3 The Petitioner argues that the minutes of the June 18 meeting specifi- cally discuss the increases implemented on July 1, but do not mention the longevity increases Thus, the Petitioner reasons, the grant of longevity increases was separate from the grant of the increases mentioned in the minutes and was not pursuant to the wage plan agreed on before the union organizing campaign However, the June 18 minutes themselves do not exhaustively describe the changes in the wage structure, as the ap- proved wage scale, referenced in the minutes and attached to them, dis- closes 294 NLRB No. 32 PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKERS On the basis of these facts, we find it clearly es- tablished that longevity increases were an integral part of the Employer's overall plan, approved before the advent of the Union, to standardize and upgrade wages. The only remaining issue for clari- fication is the date of the Employer's decision that on July 1 it would grant employees a pay raise for time already worked, as opposed to implementing a prospective longevity pay system . The testimony on this point is inconclusive. Vice President James Casten testified that he thought the decision to grant immediate pay increases for longevity was made at the June 18 meeting (at which he was not present). General Manager McElroy testified that the decision was not made by the general manage- ment team, nor at the June 18 meeting , but that "[Vice President and General Manager] Tommy Hutton handled that." However, McElroy also tes- tified that when the almost identical plan was im- plemented at the Stanton store 7 months earlier, he and that store's manager went over the list of em- ployees one by one, giving them credit (and pay in- creases) for time already worked . The same proc- ess was followed when the increases at issue here were implemented. Additional evidence indicates that granting the longevity increases was consistent with past prac- 447 tice and was contemplated prior to the critical period . Thus, Vice President Casten testified that when the Employer gave seven employees raises on June 12, prior to the new plan , their raises were based on "work performance or length of service." Also, according to employee Pablo Magana, when he asked Casten about raises 2 to 3 months before the July 1 increase, Casten replied that there would be an increase in the future , "[f]or the older ones, yes, the ones who deserved a raise." Based on the above facts, we find that the Em- ployer's grant of longevity increases on July 1 was consistent with past practice and with plans under- way well before the Union 's June 24 filing of its petition. We, therefore , adopt the hearing officer's recommendation to find the longevity increases un- objectionable. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal- lots has not been cast for International Molders and Allied Workers Union, Local 164, International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and that it is not the exclusive representative of these bargaining unit employees.