GTE Sylvania Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1976

227 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GTE Sylvania Incorporated and International Union,
United . Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement ; Workers of America-UAW, P_etition-
er. Case 4-RC-11766
December 9, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND WALTHER
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered the objections to an
election held on September 25, 1975,1 the Acting
Regional Director's report recommending disposition
of same, and the Regional Director's Supplemental
Report on Objections Correcting and Supplementing
Exhibits. The Board has reviewed the record in light
of the exceptions and brief2 and hereby adopts the
Acting Regional Director's findings and recommen-
dations.
The Employer here stated, among other things, to
employees that its "benefit programs are the SAME
at ALL Sylvania plants, union and non-union alike.
We do not give `more or additional benefits to those
Sylvanians who pay union dues," and "We have no
intention of doing `more' for Towanda Sylvanians
until the Company is prepared to further improve its
benefit programs at ALL Sylvania plants ...."
The plain meaning of this language is, as the Acting
Regional Director concluded, that the Employer
would condition bargaining at Towanda on what it
decided to grant at all of its other plants; it would
grant no more and no less at Towanda; the scope of
the bargaining would not be the employees in the unit
at Towanda but would include similar employees in
all the other plants; the Employer would adopt a
"take-it-or-leave-it" position in bargaining; and the
Union would have to accept the terms determined by
the Employer. The Acting Regional Director proper-
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 294 for, and 439 against, the
Petitioner ; there were 2 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect
the results
2 The Employer has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied because the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties.
3 See Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 222 NLRB 965 (1976)
4 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication ]
5 In a letter to employees dated September 4, 1975, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Appendix A, the Employer made one of several
statements of its position. The letter stated, inter alia:
So keep these thoughts in mind when you hear the UAW "benefit
promises". .
ly concluded that these statements-"inter€eredwith a
fair election, and- a second election should be held.
In his dissent, Member Walther asserts that these
statements of the Employer mean no more than that
the Employer will grant at all its nonunion plants
whatever it grants at unionized plants, and is,-no more
than an assertion- of the Employer's Jawful_ right- to
establish unilaterally the " terms and conditions, of
employment for its unorganized employees
Our dissenting colleague is, looking,through the
wrong end of the telescope. He ignores the fact that
the Employer expressly made benefits at Towanda
conditional upon being available at all other plants,
and did not say the reverse, which is the meaning
Member Walther would read into the statement. By
specifically tying its bargaining at Towanda to what,
and only what, it was willing to grant at all its other
plants, the Employer conveyed a clear message that
the Union would have to accept this policy and
position; the Employer would determine unilaterally
for all the plants the benefits it would give; the
benefits at Towanda would be determined by what
the Employer unilaterally decided to give at unorgan-
ized plants; and the Employer would refuse to
bargain with the Union about those benefits. The
Employer's assertion that it had "no intention of doing
`more' for Towanda" than it would do for "ALL
Sylvania plants" conveyed to the employees in as
explicit a sense as possible without using the "take-it-
or-leave-it" phraseology that this was precisely the
position the Employer would take in any bargaining
with the Union.
Accordingly, we shall direct a new election.3
[Direction of Second Election4 omitted from publi-
cation.]
MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting:
I disagree with my colleagues' decision to set aside
the election in the instant case based on alleged
objectionable statements made by the Employer
during the organizing campaign.5 In my view, these
statements were legitimate expressions of a lawful
bargaining position and did not interfere with the
election.
2. "Sylvania benefits" are competitive for OUR INDUSTRY and our
benefit programs are the SAME at ALL Sylvania plants, union
and non-umon alike. We do not give "more" or additional
benefits to those Sylvanians who pay union dues!
3 We have NO INTENTION of changing our long-established and
fair policy of uniform benefits throughout all Sylvania plants
We have no intention of doing "more" for Towanda-Sylvamans
until the Company is prepared to further improve its benefit
programs at ALL Sylvania plants, and
4. The UAW knows this and happily ACCEPTS the standard "Sylva-
nia benefit package" at Winchester-and they've gotten NO
MORE in benefits for Winchester employees than you now have
without paying UAW dues.
227 NLRB No. 14
GTE SYLVANIA INCORPORATED
My colleagues- have interpreted these statements as
evidence of a take-it-or-leave--it bargaining policy on
the part of the Employer and thus an unwillingness to
bargain in good faith with the Petitioner. I fmd such a
conclusion unwarranted. The Employer's statements
clearly indicate a nondiscriminatory bargaining poli-
cy. They imply that benefits - obtained by unit
employees- through collective bargaining at the Em-
ployer's unionized plants will- also be granted to
unrepresented employees at other facilities operated
by the Employer. The Employer's message is plain: it
will not deprive unrepresented -employees of im-
proved benefits and working conditions which the
Company agrees to provide to unit employees. Such a
policy emphasizes the well-established right of an
employer to unilaterally establish terms and condi-
tions of employment for its unrepresented employ-
ees.6 In my view, this right encompasses an employ-
er's freedom to improve the terms and conditions of
employment of unrepresented employees by equaliz-
ing them with unit employees.
In McCulloch Corporation, supra, the Board adopt-
ed the decision of its Trial Examiner who found that
an employer's unilateral announcement and subse-
quent implementation -of benefits and wage increases
for nonunit, employees did not violate Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act. In that case, an employer announced that
it would immediately contribute $300,000 to the
company's profit-sharing plan and increase wages
and hospitalization benefits for nonunit employees
but would defer giving such benefits to employees in
the bargaining unit until such time as a collective-
bargaining agreement was signed. The Trial Examin-
er found, inter alia:
I do not fmd that any of the above communica-
tions constituted promises of benefit or other
inducements calculated to undermine the Union's
bargaining position or to cause defection among
its members. I do not understand the contention
that a statement of benefits to be given employees
who were not in the bargaining unit coupled with
a statement that the same benefits were offered to
the Union on behalf of the unit employees as a
bargaining proposal, constituted an inducement
6 McCulloch Corporation, 132 NLRB 201 (1961); Shell Oil Company,
Incorporated, 77 NLRB 1306 (1948).
7 McCulloch Corp, supra at 212-213.
8 In Montgomery Ward, the record contained evidence that the employer
intended not to bargain in good faith. There the employer informed its
employees that, inter alia : "There would be no change in benefits, because it
was company policy, they had their own benefits and there would be no
change . . . there would be no change in our benefits, that we have now.
Under no circumstances would there be any changes because of company
policy"; and "Everything that's set down is company policy as far as wages
and things like that, there is nothing a union can do for you . . he also told
us that he wouldn't give us anything else, other than what we have right
now ... [b ]ecause company benefits are laid down by company policy and
there is nothing that can be changed." In my view , such statements-in
147
to quit- the Union. The Union may not have
enjoyed the dilemma of either accepting or
rejecting such an offer but collective bargaining
presents hazards to both sides and the Company
could not have done other than make the offer it
did- without either granting benefits to excepted
employees while withholding them from unit
employees or giving the Union a concession of
benefits without any quid pro quo;7
My colleagues' decision implies that an employer
automatically interferes with an election when it
informs its employees during the organizing cam-
paign that it will exercise its lawful prerogative to
unilaterally establish terms and conditions of employ-
ment for its nonunit employees. In my judgment, the
Employer's stated policy ofgiving to nonunit employ-
ees what it gives to represented employees serves to
nondiscriminatorily equalize the terms and condi-
tions of employment of all of the Employer's employ-
ees and, as in McCulloch Corporation, supra, consti-
tuted a lawful collective-bargaining position.
Unlike Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 222 NLRB
965 (1976), cited by my colleagues, in which the
employer's campaign was infused with rhetoric which
conveyed to employees a take-it-or-leave-it bargain-
ing policy,8 GTE Sylvania's campaign stressed a
lawful bargaining position and an express willingness
to bargain in good faith. Thus, in, a speech to
employees 2 days before the election, the Employer
explained that it would bargain in good faith if the
Petitioner won the election. Furthermore, GTE
Sylvania's Towanda employees had additional assu-
rances of the Employer's good-faith bargaining policy
at other plants. These assurances came from the
Petitioner in letters sent to the employees during the
campaign which asserted that collective bargaining
with the Petitioner had brought, inter alia, harmoni-
ous labor-management relations, increased employ-
ment, fewer layoffs, high wages for women, and
grievance and arbitration procedures.9
- My colleagues, by overlooking the entire 8-month
preelection campaign and instead narrowly focusing
on one isolated Employer communication, have
misinterpreted the Employer's policy. They, not I, are
contrast to the statements , of the Employer in the instant case-impressed
employees with the ' fuuhty of unionization and therefore interfered with the
Montgomery Ward election.
9 For example , see Petitioner's September 6, 1975, letter, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Appendix B. Petitioner's compliance with the Employ-
er's collective-bargaining policy and its evident satisfaction with it was again
expressed in its letter to employees of September It, 1975. The Petitioner
stated there, inter alra:
We in the UAW believe that, by any objective evaluation, our union
based on its experience , its capabilities and its record of achievement-
has proved its success in dealing with GTE Sylvania-and the earnings
of women employees at Winchester-are THE PROOF.
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Their
interpretation of the Employer's policy as that of
determining benefits at unionized plants on the basis
of what is unilaterally -given at unorganized plants is
the reverse of actual practice. Thus, it is clear that the
Employer's policy has been to grant to its nonunion-
-ized Towanda-plant whatever it has already granted
to its unionized plants. And, indeed, the Union
recognized such policy. Thus, Petitioner stated to
employees in its letter of September 22, 1975, inter
alia:
EVEN-the few critics of UAW admit that there
is no VALID ARGUMENT-"if it.were not for
UAW's efforts and the many unions who bargain
with GTE Sylvania, Towanda, Sylvania employ-
ees' wages would be a lot less today.
In my view, the Towanda employees, on the basis of
all the campaign literature and the Employer's good-
faith bargaining pledge, could make a reasoned
choice in the election, and it cannot be said that the
Employer's isolated- - statement interfered with the
election. - `
Contrary to my colleagues, I cannot agree that the
Employer adopted- a take-it-or-leave-it bargaining
posture which conveyed to employees the futility of
unionization. In my judgment, its adherence to past
practice in pursuing a lawful collective-bargaining
policy and its announcement to employees that it
would continue to pursue this lawful course and
bargain in good faith refute the majority contention. I
find that the Employer's statements did not interfere
with the election. I would, therefore, certify the
results in this case.
APPENDIX A
GTE SYLVANIA
- September 4, 1975
Dear Sylvanian:
For many months, the UAW organizer has been
praising the employee benefits his union has won for
members in the auto industry - and hinting that the
UAW will get you these "auto industry benefits" if
you'll only give them two hours pay each month.
DON'T BE FOOLED! The UAW talked the same
"line" to employees during the campaign at our
Winchester, Ky. plant in 1969 - and employees fell
for it hook - line - and - sinker! After a 105-day, pay-
losing STRIKE, Winchester employees realized
they'd been "had" by the UAW!
So keep these thoughts in mind when you hear the
UAW "benefit promises" ... .
1. We are NOT in the auto industry. We
compete for survival in the ELECTRICAL
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY and we
have no intention of trying to match the
benefit programs -in companies outside our
industry!
2. "Sylvania benefits" are competitive for OUR
INDUSTRY and our benefit programs are
the SAME at ALL Sylvania plants, union and
non-union alike. We do not give "more" or
additional benefits to those Sylvanians who
pay union dues!
3. We have NO INTENTION of changing our
long-,established and fair policy of uniform
benefits throughout all Sylvania plants. We
have no intention of doing "more" for To-
wanda-Sylvanians until the Company is
prepared to further improve its benefit pro-
grams at ALL Sylvania plants, and
4. The UA W knows this and happily ACCEPTS
the standard "Sylvania benefit package" at
Winchester - and they've gotten NO
MORE in benefits for Winchester employees
than you now have without paying UAW
dues.
After reading over the enclosed summary of your
present "Sylvania benefits", I'm confident you'll
realize there's no point in paying monthly UAW dues
for the fine benefits you already enjoy.
APPENDIX B
Sat. 9/6
Dear G.T.E. Sylvania Employee:
This has not been a particularly happy year for
non-union Sylvania workers. Men and women who
had routinely worked 48 to 56 hours a week and had
been encouraged by our society to build up financial
obligations on the expectation that this rate of
overtime would continue indefinitely, - suddenly
brought home 30% to 50% less pay a week. There was
no time to adjust to such a change.
Similarly, when there were layoffs the company was
uninformative. Workers were laid off (regardless of
length of service) "bumped back" in a seemingly
unpredictable, crazy - quilt pattern. Through it all
"Towanda Sylvanias" felt increasingly insecure.
As each worker left the plant regrets mixed with
disgust was frequently expressed:
"JOE IT ISN 'T FAIR THAT SO AND SO COULD BUMP
YOU OFF YOUR JOB WHEN HE HAS LESS SERVICE."
THINGS MUST GO ON
The lives of those who are fortunate to retain their
jobs at Sylvania in Towanda must go on. Individual
workers must keep their nose cleaner than ever to
avoid the petty, harassing that rain down in times of
GTE 'SYLVANIA
economic distress when workers feel so defenseless.
Towanda Sylvanias know, more over, that layoffs
involved not simply invisible forces - but manageri-
al decisions, and that a transfer to other jobs is even
more a matter of managerial decision - without
consideration to the employees length of service with
the company to enable him to bump to a more
desirablejob.
"COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - NOT BEGGING"
WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY
Winchester Sylvanias have forged a meaningful
partnership in harmony and unity with UAW as their
bargaining agents.
Today in this southern town Sylvania employees
are among the highest paid in their community.
Women employees earn as much as $5.00 and more
per hour performing assembly operations.
The history of collective bargaining at Winchester has
been a history of steady increasing employment from less
INCORPORATED 149
than 500 employees to a current workforce of 700
employees. IT CAN BE SAID NO ONE HAS BEEN
LAID OFFA T THIS PLANT.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Grievance mechanisms are a key benefit to UAW
Sylvanias in Winchester . If any one is treated
unfairly, UAW contract provides for a procedure to
use to appeal . The UAW contract also provides for
impartial arbitration if the problem can't be worked
out using the regular grievance mechanism.
HELP YOURSELF
The famous newspaper writer who did tremendous
research on the matter, had this to say:
"THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING A UNION FAR
OUT WEIGHS THE DISADVANTAGES OF NO
UNION," MORE TO COME.