Gaylord Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 496 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GAYLORD PRODUCTS, INC., EnlrLoYER and AMA]-
GA-MATED LOCAL 453; UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICUL-
TURAL WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-3497.-Decided July 11, 1947
Mr. Willard C. Walters, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Myers, Myers and Rothstien, by Mr. David B. Rotlistien, of Chicago,
I11., for the Petitioner.
Miss Irene R. Shriber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
November 26, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among the eIn-
ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit to determine
whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par-
ties . The Tally indicated that of approximately 620 eligible voters,
543 cast votes of which 208 were for the Petitioner, 309 against the
Petitioner, and 26 were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on February 12
and 13, 1947, before Robert T. Drake, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Gaylord Products, Inc., is a Delaware corporation operating a plant
in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture of hair
pins, bobby pins, and curlers. During the year 1946, the Employer
74 N L. I{ B No SO
40G -
GAYLORD PRODUCTS, INC. 497
purchased approximately $500,000 worth of raw materials, approli-
mately 25 percent of which was obtained from points outside the State
of Illinois. During the same period, the Employer's sales exceeded
$3,000,000, of which more than 50 percent represented sales to out-
of-State customers.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTLON CONCERNINC REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of.the Employer, within the meaning of
Sect ion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees of the Employer , including
working supervisors , but excluding office einployees , time-study ein-
ployees, the timekeeper , guards, the nurse, and all other supervisory
einployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge , discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of einployees , or effectively
recoimneiul such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective barga ining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DI?'rrRIIINATION OF KI•IPRI:SENTA'FIVES; 01.1I C'1'IONS TO THE CONDUCT
OF TI-TE ELECTION
As previously stated, the Tally of Ballots shows that a majority of
the votes cast were against the Petitioner. On December 4, 1946, the
Petitioner filed objections to the conduct of the election alleging in
substance that (1) the day before the election of November 26, 1946,
the Employer addressed its employees concerning the election, an-
nounced that wage increases would be put into effect shortly, and
thereafter dismissed the employees before their usual quitting time
with the announcement that it would not deduct the time lost from their
C
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pay; (2) free lunches were served to the employees on November 24
and 25, 1946; (3) the employees were given a 3-day holiday imme-
diately after the election; (4)_ the pay roll used in the election was
padded with names of persons ineligible to vote; and (5) the Employer
paid numerous employees a consideration to vote against the Petitioner
in the election.
As to the first objection the record shows that the day before the
election, the employees of the plant were assembled during working
hours to listen to speeches by Personnel Director Moltrum and Presi-
dent Gaylord. In his speech, Moltrum denied certain charges that the
Petitioner had allegedly made against the Employer, listed various
benefits granted the employees by the Employer, and urged the em-
ployees to vote in the forthcoming election. In the course of her
remarks, Mrs. Gaylord stated that "regardless of the outcome of the
election we intend to give you an increase in wages. A study is under
way now to determine how much that increase shall be." Both speeches
having been completed at 2: 30 p. m., Moltrum thereupon announced
to the employees that they were released for the day although their
shift normally ended at 3: 30 p.m. At the same time, Moltrum assured
the employees that they would be paid for a full workday.
We have frequently held that the announcement of a wage increase
on the very eve of a crucial election would tend to undercut the
prestige of the union appearing on the ballot and that the utilization
by an employer of such economic inducement warrants setting aside
the results of the election.' The record discloses no reason why the
Employer could not have postponed the announcement until after the
election . Although it is difficult to determine its full effect, we are
of the opinion that the announcement of the wage increase, particu-
larly in view of its timing, tended improperly to influence the voting
of the employees herein.
We find no merit, however, to the remaining objections. As to
the second objection, the record shows that turkey dinners were sold
in the plant cafeteria at a nominal cost on the days mentioned above.
The Employer, however, had sold inexpensive turkey dinners at
Thanksgiving time the previous year as well. Ss to the third objec-
tion, the 3-day holiday and the announcement thereof occurred after
the election. No evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the
fourth and fifth objections.
Accordingly, we find that by the above-described announcement of
a wage increase, the Employer interfered with the freedom of its
'Matter of Shelbyville Desk Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 925 ; Matter of National Carbon
Company, Inc, 65 N L R B 830; Matter of Roofs-Conversi4lle Blower Corp , 64 N L R B.
855, 860; cf. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N. L. R. 13 , 321 U S 678.
GAYLORD PRODUCTS, INC. 499
employees',, choice of a bargaining representative. We shall, there-
fore, set the election aside and shall direct a new election at such time
as the Regional Director advises us that the circumstances permitting
a free choice among the employees have been restored.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on November 26, 1946,
amOiig employees of Gaylord Products, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, be,
and it hereby is, vacated and set aside.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.