George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 947 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

ECONOMIC MACHINERY COMPANY 947
by our determination covers all of North and South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, and part of Tennessee. Yet Local 177 of the Pipe-
fitters has jurisdiction over and operates in only a small portion of
Georgia. We do not believe that under these circumstances we would
be warranted in making such a broad determination.
Moreover, as there is no evidence that Local 177 is presently en-
gaging in other similar disputes, we will snake the usual determina-
tion applying only to the parties immediately involved.17
Determination of Dispute
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pur-
suant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL,
Local Union No. 177, and E. T. Winburn, its agent, are not and have
not been lawfully entitled to force or require Carrier Corporation or
Turner Transfer, Inc., to assign the rigging work on any equipment
in connection with construction work at the naval air station near
Brunswl^•k, Georgia. to members of Local 177 rather than to members
of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, the Respondent Local 177 and E. T. Winburn,
its agent, shall notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in
writing, as to what steps they have taken to comply with the terms
of this Decision and Determination of Dispute.
17 See Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL (Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corporation), 83 NLRB 477, 482 at footnote 8
ECONOMIC MACHINERY COMPANY, DIVISION OF GEORGE J. MEYER MAN-
UFACTURING Co. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PE-
TITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-.1518. March 15, 1955
Supplemental Decision , Order , and Direction of Second Election
On March 19, 1954, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region,
among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. At
the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the par-
'Economic Machinery Company, Division of George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co.,
1-RC-3518, February 24, 1954, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and
Orders.
111 NLRB No. 154.
344056-55-vol. 111--61
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ties. The tally shows that of approximately 14 eligible voters, 14
cast ballots, of which 7 were for, and 7 were against, the Petitioner.
On March 24, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
election, a copy of which was served on the Employer. In accord-
ance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Di-
rector conducted an investigation of the objections and, on May 10,
1954, issued and served on the parties his report on objections in which
he found merit in some of the Petitioner's objections and recommended
to the Board that the election be set aside and a new election directed.
Thereupon, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report on objections.
On August 13, 1954, the Board issued an order directing a hearing
on objections, and on August 30 and 31, 1954, a hearing was held be-
fore Sidney A. Coven, hearing officer. On October 29, 1954, the hear-
ing officer issued and caused to be served upon the parties his report
on objections, findings, and recommendations. The hearing officer
found that by certain conduct the Employer had interfered with the
employees' free choice of a bargaining representative, and, therefore,
recommended that the election be set aside. On November 8, 1954, the
Employer filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
The hearing officer found that prior to February 11, 1954, after the
hearing was held on the petition for certification filed on January 18,
1954, and before the Board's Decision and Direction of Election dated
February 24, 1954, George L. N. Meyer, Jr., the Employer's assistant
manager, and Philip K. Bridgham, the Employer's personnel man-
ager, determined to conduct a series of separate interviews with the
14 employees in the unit affected, to acquaint them with the Employer's
policies and practices in personnel matters. The first series of inter-
views, with Meyer interviewing 8 employees and Bridgham interview-
ing 6 employees, was completed by February 15, 1954. Thereafter, on
March 15 and 16, 1954, another series of interviews was held, with
Meyer at this time interviewing, separately, the 6 employees who had
been interviewed by Bridgham in February, while the latter inter-
viewed, separately, the 8 employees who had been interviewed by
Meyer previously.
The record shows that the individual interviews lasted from a few
minutes to as long as 3 hours. During the course of the interviews,
Meyer and Bridgham discussed such subjects as the installation of
time clocks, sick-leave benefits, vacations, overtime, pensions, job
security, and compensation. In addition, they explained, in part, the
Employer's merit-rating system in effect among the drafting room em-
ployees, and compared this system with the single rate system nego-
tiated by the Petitioner for the shop employees. Each employee's sal-
ary was compared with the amount paid to the shop employees, and
ECONOMIC MACHINERY COMPANY 949
it was pointed out that the Petitioner had not done as well for those
it represented in the shop as the drafting room employees had done
individually. Thereafter the employees were told that the Employer
preferred the merit-rating system and would like to continue it in the
future, but that it would be "limited should a labor organization come
into existence in the drafting room." In addition, Meyer also ex-
pressed disapproval of the Union as bargaining representative for
such a small group of employees. The employees were thereafter
urged to vote in the election.
The hearing officer found that during the course of some of the inter-
views, Bridgham and Meyer made remarks to employees which were
calculated to and did create the impression that if the Petitioner was
successful in the election, the merit-rating system would be discon-
tinued. The hearing officer concluded that these statements consti-
tuted threats of economic disadvantage sufficient to constitute inter-
ference in the employees' free choice of the selection of a collective-
bargaining representative, and he recommended that the election be
set aside. On the other hand, the Employer, in its exceptions, contends
that the evidence is "entirely free of even any intimation, suggestion.
or implication" that it told the employees that it would eliminate
merit increases as a form of retribution if the Petitioner were success-
ful in the election.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to de-
termine whether or not, during the course of the private interviews
with each employee in the voting unit, Meyer and Bridgham threat-
ened to discontinue merit increases if the Petitioner won the election.
It is clear that Meyer and Bridgham, during the course of the inter-
views, left no doubt in the employees' minds that the Employer disap-
proved of the Petitioner as collective-bargaining representative for
the drafting room employees, and that the employees should reject the
Petitioner in the election? In these circumstances, the technique of
calling the employees into the Employer's office individually to urge
them to reject the Union is, in itself, conduct calculated to interfere
with their free choice in the election.' This is so, regardless of the non-
coercive tenor of an employer's actual remarks.
Accordingly, we find that the interviews conducted by Meyer and
Bridgham interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the
selection of a bargaining representative. We shall order that the elec-
tion be set aside and direct that a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election of March 19,1954.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
6 Indeed Meyer testified , as to the purpose of the interviews , that if the employees had
all the facts they would reject the Union.
8 Lakeshore Motors, Ino., 101 NLRB 89; General Shoe Corporation (Marman Bag Plant),
97 NLRB 499.