Carlton Forge Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Edward P. White immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and we will make him whole
for any loss of pay, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , which he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization , except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3 )
of the Act.
CONSOLIDATED WELDING & ENGINEERING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street , Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Carlton Forge Works and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-8665. April 10, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to u stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on November 27, 1963, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region among the employees in the unit described below. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots
which showed that, of approximately 70 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots,
of which 26 were for, and 39 against, the Petitioner and 4 were chal-
lenged. The challenges were insufficient in number to affect the re-
sults. The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation, and thereafter issued and served
upon the parties the attached Report on Objections, in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled and a certification of
results of election issued. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report.
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].
146 NLRB No. 9'4.
CARLTON FORGE WORKS 751
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its plant located at 7743 East Adams Street, Paramount,
California, including machinists, shipping and receiving employees,
plant clerical employees, inspectors, truckdrivers, and leadmen, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's Report on
Objections, and the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations.'
As we have overruled the objections, and as the Petitioner has failed
to secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Build-
ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and said organiza-
tion is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees
in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
I cannot agree with my colleagues' interpretation of the Employer's
campaign letters and leaflet. These messages clearly implied that the
Union was responsible for the closing of a competitor's business and
1 The exceptions , in our opinion , do not raise any issues which would warrant reversal
of the Regional Director 's findings and recommendations . We agree with the Regional
Director that statements of the Employer in its campaign letters cannot reasonably be
construed as threats of plant shutdown in the event the Petitioner is selected as bargaining
representative . Nor do we believe that the Employer ' s comparison of its wage rates with
those paid by a competitor , as set forth in its letter of November 25, 1963 , constituted a
substantial misrepresentation . The Petitioner has not shown that the wage comparison
was in fact a misrepresentation . Moreover , the Employer gave the employees opportunity
to ascertain the details of the wage comparison as it might affect them . The Petitioner
asserts in its exceptions that the Employer interviewed employees individually as to their
union affiliation. In the absence of specific evidentiary support therefor , we adopt the
Regional Director 's conclusion that such interviews , occurring at employees ' work stations,
were noncoercive.
744-670-65-vol. 146-49
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
caused the layoff of 40 workers at another plant. This theme was care-
fully enlarged upon in each of the three communications. It is ap-
parent that inserting such fear of job loss into a campaign effectively
interferes with a free and reasoned employee choice, and, accordingly,
I would direct the Regional Director to hold another election.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on
November 6, 1963, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction
and supervision of Regional Director Ralph E. Kennedy on November 27, 1963,
among the employees of the Employer in the unit agreed appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.' The tally of ballots, which was served upon
each of the parties immediately following the election, showed the following results:
Approximate number of eligible voters________________________
Void ballots-----------------------------------------------
Votes cast for Petitioner____________________________________
Votes cast against participating labor organization_______________
Valid votes counted--------------------------------------
Challenged ballots__________________________________________
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots____________________
70
0
26
39
65
4
69
The challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the elec-
tion. On December 3, 1963, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election,.a
copy of which was timely served upon the Employer. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the'Regional Director, after
reasonable notice to the parties to present relevant evidence, has completed an in-
vestigation of the objections, duly considered all evidence submitted by the parties
and otherwise disclosed by the investigation, and hereby issues this report thereon.
Objections Nos. 1 and 3
1. The Employer distributed to his employees 2 hours prior to the election a letter
containing false and threatening language.
3. The Company prior to the election distributed several letters to their employees,
said letters containing false and threatening remarks.
Investigation discloses that the Employer mailed to the employees letters dated
November 21 and 25, 1963 (attachments A and B hereto), and distributed a leaflet
(attachment C) to the employees about 2 hours prior to the election. Copies of
the leaflet were handed to employees at their work stations by supervisors, but
nothing relating to the election was said by any of the supervisors while the leaflets
were being distributed. The Board has held that the Peerless Plywood rule does
not apply to election campaign material?
In amplification of its allegations concerning falsehoods, the Petitioner contends
that "the statement made by Allen J. Carlton to his employees that Allegheny
Ludlum was closing because of Union activities, is an untrue statement," and "the
true facts of the present status of Ladish Pacific Division has been misrepresented
by Mr. Carlton to his. employees." Careful reading of attachments A, B, and C
fails to reveal any statement that Allegheny ^.udlum was closing because of union
activity. No evidence has been offered that any of the statements actually made
as to Allegheny Ludlum were untrue. In leaflets distributed to the employees on
November 26, 1963, the Petitioner discussed the layoffs at Allegheny Ludlum and
denied that the layoffs were attributable to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has asserted that the Employer's comparison of its wage rates
with those of Ladish are based on a contract which is outdated. Nevertheless, the
Petitioner has failed to offer any contract between itself and Ladish which sets
forth wage rates higher than those described in attachment B, and there is no evidence
'Included: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer, at
Its plant located at 7743 East Adains Street, Paramount, California, including machinists,
shipping and receiving employees, plant clerical employees , inspectors , truckdrivers, and
leadmen.
Excluded: Office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined In the Act.
2 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427; Crown Drug Company, 110 NLRB 845;
Robberson Steel Company, 114 NLRB 344
CARLTON FORGE WORKS 753:
that such contract exists. The investigation discloses that Ladish makes to its pro-
duction employees, in addition to the contract wage rates, incentive payments under
a formula which is not part of its written contract with the Petitioner. Attachment B;
however, clearly states that its comparison is "on the basis of straight time pay."
In the opinion of the Regional Director, the statements of the Employer are not
false and they contain neither implied nor expressed threat of reprisal or promise
of benefit.3 The statements differ in tone and content from those relied upon in
Trane 4 and Dal-Tex 5 and are insufficient to warrant setting aside the election.e
As stated by the Board in Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc.: 7
the mere fact that a message is inartistically or vaguely worded and
subject to different interpretations will not suffice to establish such misrepre-'
sentation as would lead us to set the election aside.
It is recommended that objections Nos. 1 and 3 be overruled.
Objection No. 2
Supervisors of the company prior to the election threatened employees by telling
said employees the plant would close and the employees would lose all present
benefits if the union won the election.
The Petitioner has produced no evidence that any supervisor told any employee
the plant would close or that employees would lose benefits if the union won the
election, and no such evidence has been disclosed by the investigation. The investi-
gation shows that the only management representative who spoke to employees
concerning the election was the Employer's president, Allan Carlton. Starting about
2 weeks before the election, Carlton held a short conversation with each employee
at the employee's work station. The last such conversation was held several days
prior to the election date. In each conversation, Carlton inquired as to complaints
or grievances and finished by telling the employee that he would be free to vote
as he wished but the Company hoped he would "vote right." The employees inter-
viewed, including the Petitioner's. witnesses, agree that Carlton made no threats
and no promises in these conversations. Most of the conversations are estimated
to have lasted from 3 to 8 minutes. The Board has held that such conversations,
occurring at the employees' work stations, do not interfere with the employees' free
choice.8 It is recommended, therefore, that objection No. 2 be overruled.
Conclusion
For reasons stated above, the Regional Director concludes that the Petitioner's
objections do not raise any material issue which warrants setting aside the election.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the objections be overruled, and a certification
of results be issued.
As provided in Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, any party desiring to take exception to this report and the recommendations
herein may, within 10 days from the date of issuance of this report, file with the
Board in Washington, D.C., 20570, seven copies of such exceptions. The party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon the other party and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region, National Labor Relations
Board, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014.
8 Decorated Products, Inc., 140 NLRB 1383.
' The Trane Company, 137 NLRB 1506.
8 Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782.
8 Seven-Up Bottling Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 611.
7 140 NLRB 221.
8 Mall Tool Company, 112 NLRB 1313; The Bryant Electric Company, 118 NLRB 232;
Schick, Incorporated, 118 NLRB 1160; Pyramid Mouldings , Inc., 121 NLRB 788.
ATTACHMENT A
CARLTON FORGE WORKS
Quality Forgings
Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384
7743 Adams St. P.O Box No. 816
Paramount , Calif.
November 21, 1963.
As you know, there will be an election November 27, 1963, to determine whether
or not you want a union at Carlton Forge Works. The decision you make at the
time of the election may well be the most important decision you make in your life.
I would like to talk to you about it.
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The grass always looks greener on the other side of the street.
You are being told by the union that they will cure all your ills. We have heard
rumors of some fantastic promises . Don't be mislead ! If a union comes in at
Carlton Forge Works, the union officials will be made up of those persons now active
in behalf of the union. You know who they are. We don't! Do you want to put
your future in the hands of these individuals?
Every organization that functions, grows and progresses makes mistake. Carlton
Forge Works is no exception. We have made some mistakes, and will continue to
make mistakes whether or not there is a union. The basic question for you to decide
is whether the company and the employees can work out problems better with,
or without, the union. Remember, unions are run by human beings also. In the
past, we have been able to work out the problems together, and there is no reason
we cannot do this in the future.
On the other hand, I do not believe the union has any special method whereby
they can work out our problems so as to be of special benefit to our employees.
This very union has been able to "work out the problems for Allegheny Ludlum,"
and, effective December 1, 1963, they will close the forge shop. No amount of
contract clauses or talk will save the jobs of employees at Allegheny Ludlum.
Basically, unions do not cure problems, they create them.
No union can change the personality of a foreman or any fellow employee. No
union can correct the mistakes once they are made. They will tell you they can
remedy the effects of mistakes on individual employees, so can you. Monday morning
quarterbacks can point to mistakes at Carlton Forge Works, as well as any organiza-
tion-DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
Yes, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the street. It is always
easier to point out other peoples' mistakes, but, when you are there, you find the grass
is no greener than at home. We have no problems at Carlton Forge Works that we
cannot work out ourselves. In the coming election, I earnestly urge you to vote. I
do not believe we need a union at Carlton Forge Works, but the answer is up to you.
Remember, even if you have signed a union card, you can vote NO!
Be sure and vote!
Very truly yours,
CARLTON FORGE WORKS,
Allan J . Carlton, Jr.,
ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr.,
President.
ATTACHMENT B
CARLTON FORGE WORKS
Quality Forgings
Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384
7743 Adams St. P.O. Box No. 816
Paramount, Calif.
To All Carlton Forge Works Employees:
November 25, 1963.
In my last letter to you I said that the grass always looked greener on the other
side of the street. You understood me to mean that union promises look better
than what the union delivers. You do not need to believe me, just look at the facts.
We have examined this very union's contract with Allegheny Ludlum (soon to
shut down) and Ladish, who recently laid off forty employees. Our comparison
of eight employees in similar job classifications shows some plus and minus rates.
The average shows Carlton Forge Works employees take home $.27 per hour more.
Our employees actually take home, on the basis of straight time pay, $16.79 per
month more than employees in the union at Allegheny Ludlum and Ladish.
The contract from which these figures were taken at random are at the office.
If you wish to verify your particular rate against these other contracts, come in and we
will go over it together.
The union has been at Allegheny Ludlum and Ladish for many years Their rates
are less than yours with only one or two exceptions. How does the union expect
to do better at Carlton Forge Works?
While rates are lower at Allegheny, that plant is being closed as an unprofitable
operation. Is the closing because of the union or management? If the union, you
don't want the union; if the management, it is obvious the union has not corrected
management mistakes there.
CROTTY BROTHERS, N.Y., INC. 755
You do not need a union at Carlton Forge Works . Vote NO ! Remember , you can
vote NO although you have signed a card . Be sure and vote!
Sincerely,
CARLTON FORGE WORKS,
Allan J. Carlton, Jr.,
ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr.,
President.
ATTACHMENT C
CARLTON FORGE WORKS
Quality Forgings
Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384
7743 Adams St. P.O. Box No. 816
Paramount , Calif.
November 27, 1963.
To All Carlton Forge Works Employees:
Since talking to each one of you , I am sure the majority will VOTE NO in today's
election . Your vote will be one of confidence in Carlton Forge Works and its future.
We can avoid the economic problems which forced Allegheny Ludlum out of the
forging business on the West Coast . Yes, we know their management graciously
offered liberal severance pay, but, regardless of Allegheny 's fair treatment of their
employees , the fact remains-the employees are out of work!
As we discussed personally , you must exercise your right to vote today. You
can VOTE NO whether you have signed a card or not . It is important that each
employee indicate his decision by voting.
Remember , this is a SECRET BALLOT. Neither the company nor union offi-
cials will be allowed within the vicinity of the polling place ( Shop Office).
VOTE NO!
Sincerely,
CARLTON FORGE WORKS,
ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr.,
President.
Crotty Brothers, N.Y., Inc. and Joint Executive Board of the
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, Cafeteria and Restaurant Union,
Local 483, Petitioner. Case No. 5 RC-4228. April 10, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On July 17, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in this case. Thereafter, in ac-
cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer
(herein referred to as Crotty) and the Intervenor, Trinity College
(herein referred to as Trinity), filed with the Board a joint request
for review of the Regional Director's determination that it would
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Crotty
herein. By telegraphic order dated September 4, 1963, the Board
granted the request for review, stayed the election pending decision
on review, and invited the parties to brief the questions whether
Crotty and Trinity are joint employers of the employees involved
and if so whether the Board should assert jurisdiction. Crotty and
Trinity, jointly, and the Petitioner filed briefs.
146 NLRB No. 95.