Allis Chalmers Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 290 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

)E9t (ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Allis Chalmers Corporation ' and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, UAW. Case 15 CA
6772
August 7, 1978
DECISION AND) ORDER
BY (C'AIRMNAN FANNIN(i ANI) MI Xll RS Ji NKINS
ANi) Pt Ni I.i.o)
Upon a charge filed on January 30(). 1978, by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW.
herein called the Union, and duly served on Allis
Chalmers Corporation, herein called the Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National l.abor Re-
lations Board, by the Regional D)irector for Region
15, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on
March 2, 1978, against Respondent. alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in. and was engaging in, un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( I) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National I abor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the char-gc. complaint, and no-
tice of hearing before an Administrative I.aw Judge
were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor plractic s, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on D)ecember 30(),
1975, following a Board election in ('ase 15 RC(
5364, the Union was dulh certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate: that at all
times since March 21. 1975. and continuing to date,
the Union has been, and is now, the representative
for purposes of collective bargaining in the appropri-
ate unit; and that on or about January 6, 1978. Re-
spondent announced, and on January 16 unilaterally
granted the employees in the appropriate unit, an 8-
percent across-the-board wage increase without noti-
fication to, or bargaining with, the Union concerning
this increase: and that Respondent continues to fail
and refuse to bargain with the [ Inion concerning said
wage increases.
In its answer. Respondent stated that on J;anuals 1 1978, it became ln
division of Siemens-Allis. Inc. which is ilntls owned hb AXlis ( ha:lincr
corporalion and Siemens A :i. As a resul, Respiondeit i, inlt kni :li 1i1 Ihe
Power Breaker Division of Sieneinss-Allis Iln
2officiai notice is taken of the record In the ilprisentlat.iion prrcecdlni
(ase 15 R(' 5364 as the term "record" is defined in Sees 0268 (S n
102 h9(g) of the Board's Rules and Rcgulaltloli. Scries 8,a ;il niitdeal Scc
1.I'[l lectiro iteimst Inc. 166 NILRB 138 (l967, cnilfd t .88 I 2d (183 ( A 4.
1968); (;tilbn Aei l Beleratr ( . , 107 NI RBH lil (I 1',7t. clifd 415 12d 2t
t( A 5 1969): lterllrl ((l v en'cnlh. 269 l Supp 1-7 (I)( \, , 196,7-
fo//tat (-orp, 164 NliRB 378 (194
7) enfd 397' 1 2Id 'I ( A 7. Il(igS, Sc.
9d) if the NiRA, as iamiended
On March 10, 1978, Respondent filed its answer to
the complaint admitting in part. and denying in part.
the allegations in the complaint and stating certain
affirmative defenses.
On April 3, 1978. counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Subsequently, on April 17. 1978, the
Board issued anl Order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the
General Counsel's lMotion for Summary Judgment
should not bhe granted. Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice l o Show Cause and Cross-Mo-
tion for Summary y Judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National I abor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional I abor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the \Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, response to the No-
tice To Show ('ause, and cross-Motion for Summary
lJudgment, Respondent. while acknowledging that it
granted an 8-percent across-the-board wage increase
to thie employees in the unit herein without notifica-
tion to or bargaining with the Ulnion. and that it con-
tinues to refuse to bargain wvith the Union, denies
that it :ioalated Section 8(;a)(5) and (I) of the Act by
doing so. In support thereof Respondent contends
that no bai-gaining obligation arose because the
Board: (I) erred in sustaining the !Union's objections
to the runoff election of Mat 16, 1974: (2) improper-
1I set aside the results of that election; (3) failed to
sustain Respondent's objections to the rerun election
of May 21. 1975: and (4) improperly certified the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees. Respondent further contends that
even if the Union were properly certified. Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act
b) granting employees a wage increase because those
increases were the result of a semiannual review poli-
cy established by Respondent and did not result in a
change in tile terms and conditions of employment
but, rather, was a continuation of the status quo.
Our review of the record herein, including the rec-
ord in ase 15 R(' 5364. discloses that pursuant to a
Stipulation for ('ertification Upon Consent Election.
an election was conducted on April 25, 1974. Of the
total number of votes cast, 5 were for the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 83 were
for the Union, and 86 for none. There were no chal-
lenged ballots. I hereafter, on May 16, 1974, a runoff
election was held in which 87 votes were cast for the
Union, 91 against, and 2 ballots were challenged.
237 NLRB No. 45
290
ALI LIS CHAI MERS CORPORATION
On Ma, 23. 1974. the Union filed objections to the
election. On February 7. 1975. the Board issued its
Decision and Direction of Second Election, in which
it adopted a Hearing Officer's Report on Objections
sustaining certain of the Union's objections, and set
aside the above runoff election and directed a second
runoff election. That election was conducted on
March 21. 1975. and the tall, of ballots indicated
that of the total number of votes cast, 171 were for
the Union, 127 against, and there was I challenged
ballot.
On March 28. 1975, Respondent filed objections to
the second runoff election. On April 15. 1975. the
Union requested Respondent to bargain w ith it as
the unit employees' duly designated bargaining rep-
resentative, and on April 18, 1975. Respondent re-
fused to do so for the stated reason that its obhjections
were still pending. On August 25, 1975. the Regional
Director issued a Report on Objections in which he
recommended that Respondent's objections to the
election be overruled and that the Union be certified
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees. On December 30. 1975. the
Board issued its decision adopting the Regional
Director's recommendations and certifying the
Union as the exclusive collectixe-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit involved
herein. On Januarv 9, 1976, the Union renewed its
request to bargain; and on January 20. 1976. Re-
spondent again refused to bargain with the Union.'
In 411is-Chahnmers Corporalion, 234 NI.RB 350
(1978), the Board found, inter alia, that Respondent's
refusal to bargain with the Union violated Section
8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
With respect to the instant proceeding, the issue is
whether Respondent's grant of an 8-percent across-
the-board wage increase to the unit employees with-
out notification to or bargaining with the Union vio-
lates Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. Respondent
contends that it was under no obligation to bargain
with the Union concerning this increase because the
Union was improperly certified. This contention was
disposed of in the Board decision reported at 234
NLRB 350. Respondent has not presented anything
which would warrant our reconsidering that decision.
We further find no merit to Respondent's conten-
tion that by granting employees an 8-percent across-
the-board wage increase it did not violate Section
8(a)(5) of the Act because the increase was the result
of its semiannual review policy and was Inerely an
attempt to maintain the status quo. As we found with
For a fuller reltatlion of these facts. see 4i -'( hahncr (Cr r/rltio, 214
NL RB 351 (1978)
respect to the wage increase Respondent granted on
Februarx 2, 1976. such unilateral actions are viola-
tive even when thev are made pursuant to an estab-
lished company policy. if they are taken without af-
fording the representative an opportunity to bargain.
Iherefore. we find Respondent's granting of the
wage increases without notification to or bargaining
with the U nion violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
We therefore find that Respondent has not raised
an\ issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding and. accordingly, we grant
the General Counsel's Motion for Summar\ Judg-
Ilien t.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
IJID)iN(;s of FAc
I [iit Hi SINISS Of lliE RE-.SPO)t \I
Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an of-
fice located in Plain. Rankin Counts. Mississippi. is
engaged in the manufacture of power breakers for
electrical generating facilities.
During the past )ear. which is a representative pe-
riod. Respondent sold, shipped, and or furnished
services and or goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points located outside the State of Missis-
sippi. [)uring the same period, Respondent pur-
chased goods and or services valued in excess of
$50.000 which originated outside the State of Missis-
sippi.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing. that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an EmploNer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II lii: IAH()BOR OR(JANIIATION INOILVE.I)
International Union. tlnited Automobile. Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica. UAW. is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111 111 t Nt SIR I ABO(R PRA(ii( ItE
A. It' ReKprse.lntaion Proceeding
I. Ihe unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(hb) of the Act:
' Re.poiicntl ( ri.o-.\,tl on fir Summirts Judgment is herebs denied
291
I)EC ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All hourly paid production and maintenance
employees employed at the Employer's Plain,
Rankin County, Mississippi, plant: 5 excluding
all clerical employees, technical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On March 21, 1975, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 15, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit on December 30, 1975, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Tite Unllailid Rfusarl To Balrlain
On January 16, 1978, Respondent granted an 8-
percent across-the-board wage increase to employees
represented by the Union without notifying or bar-
gaining with the Union concerning said wage in-
crease. Accordingly. we find that bN unilaterally
granting its employees this wage increase, Respon-
dent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act.
IV. ItI iFFE(I OF lit I UINFAIR IBO()R 'PRA(ll(' S I PU)N
C OMM 1 R(T
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
111, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 of commerce.
V.I lit Rt -ht)',
Having found that Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action."
Ihe Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
Allhough the plant .Iddress -Cnilmln d ill the Unit dICriltillo hItic diffici
front that gienr in the descriptnl(l of the Illilt in l1/i ( tllntl.' (' l /!hi/ , ttli.
234 NLRB 350, the pariles agree thai the unit il\ol\ed i thiti cave is the
sanme as the one In that case.
:\ T inll/i, ( h,/,r ( . moztin,r 214 NlRB 350 we shall include in the
(rdlei a pro, ntlll i ntlg l allthat nlthilltg herein shall be construed As requiring
Rcpondellt to 1 reScllld he algce Ilncre.lscs glten.
CON lI.USIONS OF LAW
I. Allis Chalmers Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All hourly paid production and maintenance
employees employed at the Employer's Plain, Ran-
kin County, Mississippi plant: excluding all clerical
employees, technical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Since December 30, 1975. the above-named la-
bor organization has been, and now is, the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By unilaterally granting an across-the-board
wage increase on January 16, 1978, Respondent has
engaged in. and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with. restraining, and coercing, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
7. lThe aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Al-
lis ('haliers Corporation. Plain, Mississippi, its offi-
ceis. agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Ulnilaterally granting wage increases to its rep-
resented employees in the appropriate unit without
prior consultation and bargaining with their repre-
sentative. Nothing herein shall be construed as re-
quiring Respondent to revoke any wage increases.
The appropriate unit is:
All hourly paid production and maintenance
employees employed at the Employer's Plain,
Rankin County, Mississippi. plant: excluding all
clerical employees, technical employees. profes-
292
ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION
sional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment: and. if an under-
standing is reached, embodv such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Plain. Rankin County. Mississippi,
facility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 15. after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarils
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by an other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order r, enforcehd b) a judgment of a nilted Sialte
( ourl of Appeak, the wordJs i the notice readineg o,ted h ()Order of the
National I lahor Relations Board" shall read IPoted tCiulr ll nt l C ilud-
ment of the I nited Stales ( ourt i)f Xppeal, I nifort i..in ()rer irof he
Na311onal Ilhor ReCaiti(on Boa.rd
APPENDIX
Noi (I 1- To Elii (ot Ens
Pos I)ED BN ORD)R ()1- I i
N IONAIi L.NBOR R-l .AIIONS BO()RI)
An Agency of the United States Government
Wi n IIl Nor unilaterally grant wage increases
to our employees in the appropriate unit, de-
scribed below. without prior consultation and
bargaining with their representative. Nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring any wage
increase heretofore granted to be revoked. The
appropriate unit is:
All hourly paid production and mainte-
nance employees employed at the Employer's
Plain, Rankin County, Mississippi, plant; ex-
cluding all clerical employees, technical em-
plovees. professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Wi[ x[l . No[ in an:) like or related manner
interfere with. restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
Wi wll.. upon request, bargain with the
abhove-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed above, with respect to rates of pay, wag-
es. hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment: and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
Ai Is Ct I.MFRS C()RPORAI ()ON
293