Cadillac Overall Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1133 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CADILLAC OVERALL SUPPLY COMPANY 1133
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging,
refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment''
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the appropriate unit described below
All production and maintenance employees' at our Lapeer, Michigan,
plant, including shipping employees and truckdrivers, but excluding office
and plant clerical employees, professional employees, plant guards, and
supervisors within the meaning of the Act
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the,Act
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Ray Hanchett to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without loss of seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make whole him and all employees whose work
houis were reduced on January 9, 1964, for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the unlawful action against them
WE WILL, upon request of the above-named Umon, execute the written agree-
ment submitted to us on October 22, 1963, which embodies the oral under-
standing reached on October 17, 1963
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor orga-
nization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described
appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement
AIRCRAFT SPECIALTIES, INC,
Employer
Dated------------------- By--------- - --------------- (Ti---tle-) ------(Representative)
NOTE-We will notify Ray Hanchett, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 501
Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No
963-9330, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions
Cadillac Overall Supply Company and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, Petitioner . Case No 7-RC-5829 Sep-
tember 18, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
and election by secret ballot was conducted on July 24, 1963, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 7,
among the employees in the appropriate unit At the conclusion of
the balloting, the parties Nvei e furnished with a tally of ballots which
shod ed that, of approximately 36 eligible voters, 30 cast ballots, of
which 1 was cast for the Petitioner, 12 ww ere cast for the Intervenor,'
1 Laundry and Linen Drivers Union Local 285, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind, intervened In this
proceeding
148 NLRB No 119
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16 were cast against the participating labor organizations, and 1 bal-
lot was void. Thereafter, the Intervenor filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the election.
The Acting Regional Director investigated the objections and, on
October 2, 1963, issued his report on objections in which he found no
merit in the Intervenor's objections. Accordingly, he recommended
that they be overruled and, since a majority of the valid ballots were
cast against the participating labor organizations, that the Board
certify the results of the election. The Intervenor filed timely excep-
tions to the Acting Regional Director's report. On January 21,
1964, the Board referred the matter to the Regional Director for
Region 7 for the purpose of holding a hearing with respect to the is-
sue raised by objections Nos. 1 and 4 pertaining to circumstances at-
tending the Employer's announcement shortly before the election of
a contemplated hospitalization plan. On February 17, 1964, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph B. Bixler. All parties
were afforded opportunity to participate in the hearing, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On March 6,
1964, the Hearing Officer issued his report and recommendation on
objections, in which he recommended dismissal of the objections in
issue and certification of the results of the election. The Intervenor
filed timely exceptions and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members' Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act: All office clerical employees employed by
the Employer at its offices located at Woodward and Garfield, and
at 18841 John R., Detroit, Michigan, excluding the office manager,
purchasing agent, IBM supervisor, assistant IBM supervisor, ac-
CADILLAC OVERALL SUPPLY COMPANY 1135
countant-auditor, payroll supervisor, accounts receivable supervisor,
confidential secretary to vice president, and all supervisors, as defined
in the Act.
5. The Hearing Officer recommended dismissal of objections be-
fore him pertaining to the announcement of the contemplated hos-
pitalization plan on the ground that the employees were advised of
the potential plan before the petition, and the subsequent allusions
to the plan were not couched in terms of a benefit condition upon the
Union's losing of the election. We do not agree with the Hearing
Officer's conclusion.2
The Intervenor's organizational campaign began in mid-May 1963.
Soon after, on about June 19, the Employer sent a questionnaire to
unit employees bearing the following language :
We are looking into various types of hospitalization insurance
coverage for our office employees. Please indicate below what in
your opinion would be a suitable plan for you.
Please sign and return . . . at once.
Although the Employer had been investigating possible hospitaliza-
tion plans for over 31/2 years, this was the first indication to the em-
ployees that it was thinking in those terms.
On June 25 Poskel, the office manager and comptroller of the Em-
ployer, delivered the first of four speeches to employees at both loca-
tions involved.' The instant petition was also filed on June 25 and
Poskel was aware of the fact that union representation was being
sought when he made the speech of June 25.
In his speech, Poskel told the employees in the unit that the Em-
ployer had' been working on a hospitalization plan for the past 6
months, but that the plan could not be implemented at that time be-
cause he had been "... informed by the N.L.R.B. that the Union is
seeking representation and the Company doesn't want to be in the posi-
tion of having unfair labor practice charges against it . . . ."
The testimony given at the hearing as to Poskel's precise language
on this occasion is somewhat at variance, but it seems clear from the
entire record that Poskel did not merely hint at the vague possibility
of a hospitalization plan but, rather, clearly implied that the Em-
ployer was committed to such a plan.
By Poskel's own admission, the Employer had been investigating
possible hospitalization plans for over 31/2 years. But no mention of
this subject was ever made to the employees until after the advent of
union organizational activity. Even then, the employees were only
2 In view of our disposition of this issue, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other
issues posed by the objections.
3 The remaining speeches were made during the first week in July, on July 18, and on
July 22, 1963. Poskel could remember no other instance of ever having addressed the
employees.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
queried in a general fashion as to their interest in such a plan ; in no
way did the Employer commit itself to do anything further about a
plan at any time in the future. However, in a series of meetings be-
ginning on the very day that the petition was filed, and with admitted
knowledge that representation rights were being sought, the Employer
proceeded to hold out the reality of a hospitalization plan only to
withhold an actual grant of this benefit at the time, assertedly to avoid
the commission of an unfair labor practice. Poskel's hospitalization
plan remarks are not per se ground for setting aside the election, but
it was incumbent upon the Employer to come forward with a valid
reason for the timing of these references to benefits in the offing.4 It
has offered no such explanation. Indeed, all the circumstances of the
case persuade us that Poskel's remarks concerning hospitalization
during the critical period before the election were calculated to, and
did, interfere with the election. Accordingly, we shall set aside the
election and direct a second one.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
4 See Bata Shoe Company, Inc ., 116 NLRB 1239, 1241 ; International Shoe Company,
123 NLRB 682.
Northwest Engineering Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO
Northwest Engineering Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 30-CA-18 (formerly
13-CA-5653) and 30-RC-5 (formerly 13-RC-9227). Septem-
ber 21, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his Deci-
sion and Report on Objections in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent-Employer had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices as alleged and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety and that the Board overrule the Petitioner's objections
to the election, all as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and Report on Objections. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Petitioner-Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and Report on Objections and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
148 NLRB No. 112.