Detroit Aluminum & Brass Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1411 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

DETROIT ALUMINUM & BRASS CORPORATION 1411
given the opportunity of expressing an independent choice of
whether or not they desire to be included in the existing unit,
we shall order an election only among these nonstaff employees.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among employees
in the following voting group: All free-lance and special
program performers at the Employer ' s Portland , Oregon,
radio stations KEX and KEX-FM, including the sports director,
children program performers , the continuity writer , and the
farm director , but excluding the musicians.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group cast their
ballots for AFTRA, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to be included in an overall performers unit which, in
such event we find to be appropriate.? If a majority of them
vote against AFTRA, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to
that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication.]
7As the Board has considered AFTRA's offers of proof with respect to the musicians'
duties, and has assumed for purposes of this decision that the facts asserted therein are
true, we find without merit AFTRA's contention that it was denied a proper hearing on
remand. As the Board has considered AFM's original brief and as AFM's reply brief and
motion dated November 18, 1953, were not filed in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, we grant AFTRA's motions to strike the reply brief and motion. However, we
deny AFTRA's motion to strike the amici brief filed by Mount Hood Radio and Television
Broadcasting Corporation (KOIN); KPOJ, Incorporated; KXL Broadcasters; and Pioneer
Broadcasters, Inc., radio stations in Portland, Oregon, despite the procedural defect in
filing the brief.
8 This direction of election is made contingent upon AFTRA's adequate showing of interest
among the employees in the voting group. Absent such a showing within 10 days hereof, the
Board will dismiss the petition, without prejudice.
DETROIT ALUMINUM & BRASS CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-1967. February 26,
1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board on June 22, 1953, an election was conducted under
the supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region,
among the production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Bellefontaine, Ohio, plant, to determine whether or
not they wished to be represented by the Petitioner for the
purpose of collective bargaining. Approximately 94 employees
were eligible to vote; of these 32 voted for the Petitioner and
54 against. There were also 6 challenged and 1 void ballot.
107 NLRB No. 285
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
On July 16, 1953, the Petitioner - filed timely objections to
the election . After conducting , an investigation , the Acting
Regional Director for the Eighth Region, on August 28, 1953,
issued his report on objections, ,, sustaining Petitioner's ob-
jections Nos. 1 and 2 and recommending that the election be
set aside . On September 8, 1953 , the Employer filed exceptions
to the report. On September 22, 1953 , having found that the
Petitioner ' s objections and the Employer's exceptions raised
substantial and material issues of fact, the Board issued and
served upon the parties its order directing hearing. A hearing
was conducted October 27, 1953, before Joseph Thackery,
hearing officer . The Employer and the Petitioner were repre-
sented by counsel and both parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard , to introduce evidence , and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses.
On November 23, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report
in which he recommended that the Petitioner ' s objections Nos. 1
and 2 be sustained and that the election be set aside. Thereafter,
the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report.
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed . Having considered the hearing
officer ' s report, the exceptions , and the entire record in the
case, the Board hereby finds as follows:
The Petitioner ' s objections Nos. 1 and 2 were that:
1. During the election campaign on June 25, 1953, the Em-
ployer announced a wage increase of 5 cents an hour retro-
active to June 1, 1953.
2. During the election campaign, the Employer granted
paid -up insurance to its employees and refunded to them monies
that, during June , had been deducted from wages for insurance
premiums.
These economic benefits admittedly were announced to the
employees on June 25 , 1952, the day after the Employer's re-
ceipt of the Board's direction of election ordering an election
within 30 days. As a result, on the next succeeding payday, July
3, all employees received 3 checks, 1 representing their reg-
ular pay forthatperiodasaffectedbythe 5-cent raise ; 1 repre-
senting the extra amount earned during June as the result of
the 5 -cent retroactive wage increase ; and the third representing
a refund of the amount deducted from their June wages for
insurance contributions.
The hearing officer correctly stated that the sole issue was
whether the granting of these economic benefits was calculatedly
timed to influence the outcome of the election or resulted from
following an established practice of maintaining a labor policy
at Bellefontaine consistent with that at the Employer ' s older
plant in Detroit. We do not agree with the hearing officer's
conclusion that the evidence shows that the purpose of the Em-
ployer ' s announcement on June 25 was to influence the outcome
of the election.
DETROIT ALUMINUM & BRASS CORPORATION 1413
The Employer manufactures automobile bearings in its
Detroit and Bellefontaine plants. The employees of the Detroit
plant have for some years been represented by the Petitioner.
The Bellefontaine plant was constructed in 1951 . The hearing
office credited the testimony of the Employer ' s vice president,
Jerome Frank , that before the opening of this plant in the
spring of 1952 , independent experts consulted by the Employer
had advised that the Employer should maintain a policy at the
new plant consistent with that in effect at its Detroit plant with
regard to fringe benefits , cost-of-living increases , paid va-
cations , bonuses, holidays, etc.
The Bellefontaine plant came into full production about June 1,
1952, and shortly after that , about June 12, the Petitioner began
its organizational activities . However , as early as April 30,
Frank had addressed all the employees then employed at Belle-
fontaine and discussed insurance plans contemplated by the
Employer , 1 for life insurance and 1 for hospitalization. Frank
had stated to the employees that the terms of the proposed in-
surance were not as advantageous as those enjoyed by the em-
ployees at its Detroit plant in that the proposed rate of em-
ployee contribution would be higher at Bellefontaine than at
Detroit . He explained that under Wage Stabilization Board rules
this could not be avoided and promised that if W.S . B. was still
in existence when the insurance had run for a year , the Em-
ployer would apply for a reduction in the rate of employee
contribution . Frank also stated that if W.S . B. was no longer in
existence in June 1953, the Employer would give consideration
to adopting a plan whereby the whole cost of the premiums
would be borne by the Employer.
At the next employee -management meeting at Bellefontaine,
September 30, 1952, : rank discussed with the employees the
so-called "technological improvement factor " developed in
the automobile industry . He stated that if W.S .B. was still in
existence in June 1953 ( when the Bellefontaine plant would have
had a year ' s production on which such a factor might be pre-
dicated ), the Employer would file a petition for such an in-
crease and, if W.S .B. was not in existence, would in any event
give consideration to such an increase . At this meeting Frank
also announced W.S.B. approval of a 15-cent an hour increase
retroactive to August 1, and explained the possibility under
W.S.B. regulations of a further increase if inequality should
be established by a study which would be made of general rates
in the area. The study did show inequality , and on March 9 the
Employer granted a wage increase of 4 cents an hour retro-
active to March 1.1 On March 17, the Petitioner issued a
pamphlet claiming credit for this increase.
At the next employee-management meeting at Bellefontaine,
March 24 , 1953, Frank again advised the employees that the
Employer was continui - .g its consideration of insurance program
and annual improvement factors.
1 W.S.B. suspended its operations on February 6, 1953.
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 10, 1953, the Petitioner requested recognition and
on April 20 it filed a representation petition . A hearing was
held on May 7.
'In 1953, the pattern of annual improvement factor in the auto-
mobile industry did not take shape until General Motors,
followed by Ford and Chrysler , reached agreement with the
Petitioner toward the latter part of May and in early June
fixing the figure at 5 cents.
During May the Employer negotiated with the Petitioner for
a new collective - bargaining agreement applicable to the Detroit
plant employees. On May 27 or 29, the Employer made proposals
to the Petitioner which included a 5-cent improvement factor
and noncontributory insurance . These proposals were rejected.
No agreement having been reached by May 31, the terminal
date of the then current contract , the Petitioner on June 2
struck the Detroit plant.
It is clear that the Employer had consistently held out to the
Bellefontaine employees that in June 1953 it would give serious
consideration to the adoption of the annual improvement factor
and to noncontributory insurance . This was not an arbitrary
date for several reasons : On June 1, 1953, the Bellefontaine
plant would have completed its first year of full production;
it was the date on which the greatest number of contracts in
the automotive industry usually became effective ; it was also
the anniversary date of the life -insurance policy at Bellefontaine
(for the hospitalization policy the date was May 1). Furthermore
it was the date on which a renegotiated contract at Detroit
would normally become effective . However, the strike at the
Detroit plant disturbed this anticipated equilibrium . Amongthe
strike issues were the 5-cent improvement factor and noncon-
tributory insurance.
It is true that the Employer must have been reasonably
certain that in an eventual settlement it would grant these
benefits since it had included them in its last offer to the
Petitioner before the strike. However , the Employer contends
that if it had announced these benefits at Bellefontaine before
settlement was in sight at Detroit , it would have weakened its
strategic position on other issues on which it was not prepared
to yield. The Employer' s course of action is consistent with
this contention . On June 18 , after the fourth negotiation meeting
at Detroit , Frank called Bellefontaine and talked with three of
his subordinates on the management staff there . ' He told them
that agreement was near, what he thought would be the terms,
and what would be granted at Bellefontaine as a result . He also
said that he would come to Bellefontaine the next week and
make the announcement but for them to keep quiet about it in
the meantime.
2 Only 1 of the 3 testified at the hearing but it was stipulated that the other 2 would testify
to the same effect if called. This testimony is in complete accord with Frank's own testimony
on direct examination.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 1415
Agreement settling the Detroit strike was not reached until
June 24. On the following day, Frank went to Bellefontaine and
made his announcement . The agreement ending the Detroit
strike was formally signed on June 26.
In the light of all these circumstances , we find that the Em-
ployer was following a normal business course in having Frank
announce the benefits at Bellefontaine immediately after agree -
ment was reached in Detroit . We do not believe that it was
under any obligation to depart from such a course by deferring
the announcement until after the election , because of the fortu-
itous circumstance that on the very day agreement was reached
in Detroit the Employer learned that the Board had directed an
election within 30 days at Bellefontaine . Accordingly , we reject
the hearing officer's recommendation that the election be set
aside and we hereby overrule the Petitioner ' s objections.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as
the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner lost the election,
we shall issue a certification of results of election to that
effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW -CIO, and
that the said labor organization is not the exclusive represent-
ative of the production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Bellefontaine , Ohio, plant.]
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION and LOCAL 167, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 13-RC-3570. March 1, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Virginia M.
McElroy, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
107 NLRB No. 278.