Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1629 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

JONES & LAUCHLIN STEEL CORP. 1629
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees about their union member-
ship and activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT condition employees' recall to work upon their promises not to
vote for the Union in any subsequent Board elections.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any union by discriminatorily refus-
ing to reinstate employees to substantially equivalent positions because of their
union membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Onelia Valdez, Isabel Vivanco Garcia, Dolores Vivanco, and
Violetta Sosa full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
criminatory refusal to reinstate them, together with interest at the rate of 6
percent.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor
organization.
PLAYBOY OF MIAMI,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Notify Onelia Valdez, Isabel Vivanco Garcia, Dolores Vivanco, and
Violetta Sosa if serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act,
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
826, Federal Office Building, 51 SW. First Avenue, Miami, Florida 33130, Tele-
phone 350-5391.
Indianapolis Plant, Jones & Laughlin Steel Warehouse Division,
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Indianapolis Plant, Jones & Laughlin Steel Warehouse Division,
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Employer-Petitioner and
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, Union . Cases 25-
RC-3033 and 25-RM-191. October 6, 1966
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed on October 20, 1965, an election by secret ballot was con-
160 NLRB No. 132.
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted on October 26, 1965, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 25 among the employees in the stipu-
lated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 139 eligi-
ble voters, 134 cast ballots, of which 65 were for, and 68 against, the
Petitioner, 1 ballot was void, and none were challenged. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election.
In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, the Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on December 30, 1965, issued and duly served on the parties his
report on objections and recommendations to the Board, in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed timely exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's
report, and the Employer filed a statement in opposition to the Peti-
tioner's exceptions.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees in the
warehouse and industrial supply department at the Employer's
Indianapolis, Indiana, warehouse, including plant clerical em-
ployees, pick-up driver, and leaders; but excluding all salaried
employees, office employees, office clerical employees, sales
trainees, truckdrivers, foremen, superintendents, and all guards,
professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
5. In its objections, the Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that the
Employer, in letters and speeches to, and conversations with, employ-
ees, threatened loss, of overtime benefits if the Union were selected as
collective-bargaining representative.
The Regional Director's investigation revealed that the Employer
communicated, pith its employees concerning the organizational cam-
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. 1631
paign and election through letters dated October 13, 19, 21, and 22,
1965, and through speeches to, and question-and-answer sessions with,
two separate employee assemblages on October 22. The October 21 let-
ter, to which the Petitioner specifically objects, states in pertinent
part :
With respect to the page in the flip chart on Higher Annual
Income, I would like to quote you what I said in our meeting in
March 1964. "We are presently working a 45-hour week. Some of
you are being paid a slightly lower hourly rate than if you held
the same job in our Chicago or Hammond Warehouses, which are
working a 40-hour week. I understand, however, you prefer the
45-hour schedule because each of you enjoys substantially higher
weekly, monthly, and yearly income.
Unless the level of operations at this plant changes substan-
tially or until you indicate that you want a change, we have no
plans for changing our 45-hoar week.
Every one of our organized warehouses, as well as the basic
steel plants have contracted provisions which define the normal
work week as 40 hours.
Attached to the letter were a flip chart outlining current employee
benefits, a list of "Questions Frequently Asked in Union Organizing
Campaigns and My Answers to Them," and a comparison of earnings
between the Indianapolis and Chicago warehouse employees. The
attachments, as did the covering letter, emphasized that the normal
45-hour workweek at Indianapolis provided 5 hours of overtime with
premium pay, while the 40-hour workweek at the Employer's union-
ized warehouses did not.
On October 22, Plant Manager Hale addressed the morning and
afternoon shifts, reiterating the Employer's position with respect to
the Union and reemphasizing employment benefits provided without
a union, including overtime benefits accruing under the 45-hour work
schedule. Following the morning speech, Hale conducted a question-
and-answer session , during the course of which the following colloquy
occurred :
Q. You keep telling us in your letters and in these meetings
that the union contract calls for 40-hour weeks, and that Chicago
works a scheduled 40-hour week. Does this mean men in union
plants can't work over 40 hours in a week?
A. No, it doesn't,no more than our 45-hour scheduled week pro-
hibits your working more than 45 hours if this is necessary.
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the afternoon session the following exchange occurred :
Q. You tell us we all earn more than the men in Chicago. I
have here figures that tell me this is not so. Last year a Chicago
employee in my job class earned over $8,000 and this is consider-
ably more than I earned and I am told there are many other simi-
lar examples.
A. I do not have figures on Chicago employees annual income.
They expanded their warehouse last year, and I assume this
necessitated an annual amount of overtime for some employees.
If you work a straight 45-hour week, and an employee in Chicago
a straight 40-hour week, it is plain as shown in the typical exam-
ples sent to your homes, that you earn considerably more, even if
you are at the minimum of the rate range. Excessive overtime
hours for a Chicago employee could change this result, but I
believe this is an unusual circumstance. Remember, in past
months and years when Chicago employees have worked a mini-
mum number of overtime hours and you have been on a 45-hour
week.
In addition to its objections concerning the October 21 letter and
the October 22 speech, the Petitioner objected to threats to eliminate
overtime, alleged to have been made during the course of a conversa-
tion among employees and a supervisor, occurring 2 weeks before the
election. The Acting Regional Director's investigation, based on inter-
views with persons whose names were submitted by Petitioner,
revealed that, during the reported conversation, the supervisor, in
response to an employee query concerning the possible effect of union-
ization on job classifications, stated that "it would have to be up to the
Union contract ... and ... that different locals have different
ways of doing things." He further assured the employee that payrates
would not decrease; they would remain the same or would increase.
Following this statement, an employee remarked that a union adher-
ent had informed him that the workweek would be reduced if the
Union came in. Reportedly, no comment to this observation was
offered by the supervisor. While discussing the amount of work an
employee could expect to perform if the Union were elected, the
supervisor commented that whether the plant switched to a tonnage
basis, as was the situation in some of the unionized plants, "would
depend on the local [union]." In response to a query as to whether
overtime would be reduced, the supervisor stated that, while such had
been the case at the Employer's unionized plants, he was not certain
that the same result would obtain at Indianapolis. He went on to say
that whether a change was made "would be between the Union and the
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. 1633
Company" and that, although the current schedule called for a
45-hour week, he "had heard the Union was negotiating for a 40-hour
week."
The Acting Regional Director found the Employer's conduct not
to be objectionable and recommended that the Petitioner's objections
thereto be overruled in their entirety. Having considered the Employ-
er's letters and attachments, speeches and conversations, in the entire
context in which the Employer's views and arguments were presented,
we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the alleged objection-
able conduct did not transcend the permissible bounds of campaign
propaganda. In our view, the Employer's writings and utterances con-
cerning the 45-hour workweek and the attendant overtime benefits con-
stituted a presentation of relevant economic considerations that could
be objectively and rationally evaluated by the employees. Contrary to
our dissenting colleagues, we do not find that by calling the attention
of the employees to the fact that the normal workweek at the
Employer's unionized warehouses had been reduced from 45 to 40
hours per week, pursuant to provisions in the collective-bargaining
contracts covering the respective plants, the Employer attempted to in-
still in the minds of the employees the fear that selection of the Union
as bargaining representative would result in unilateral employer
action that would adversely affect overtime benefits at Indianapolis.
The record is entirely devoid of any evidence establishing an overt
threat on the part of the Employer to effect changes in the scheduled
workweek, and to view the Employer's letters and statements concern-
ing overtime as subtle, veiled threats of reprisals for selection of the
Union, requires a strained interpretation of the various communica-
tions which we do not find warranted. Certainly no overt threat is
contained in the letter of October 22 since the Employer made clear
its intention not to modify the workweek unless modification were
dictated by economic necessities or by employee dissatisfaction with
the existing overtime policy. Any doubts concerning the implications
of the Employer's campaign which might have been created by infor-
mation contained in the attachments to the letter should have been dis-
pelled by Plant Manager Hale's assurances, following his October 22
speech, that a contractual provision defining the normal workweek
as 40 hours would not prohibit overtime. In any event, the employees
were not being told that such a provision was the unavoidable conse-
quence of unionization . Moreover, the evidence adduced with respect
to the- alleged supervisory threats does not establish the presence of a
widebased effort of the Employer to create among the employees a
257-551-6 7-vol. 160-104
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pervasive fear that election of the Union would work adverse eco-
nomic results. If anything, such evidence indicates that the employees
and supervisor involved considered a change in the existing work
schedule to be a subject upon which the Union intended to negotiate.
In view of the above, we do not find that the election atmosphere
was such that the employees were precluded from exercising a
rational choice concerning their representation by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, we shall overrule the objections and certify the results
of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and said organiza-
tion is not the exclusive representative of the Employer's employees
in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
Members Brown and Zagoria, dissenting :
We disagree with our colleagues ' finding that the Employer's letter
of October 21, 1965, with attachments, and his speech and answers to
employees' questions on October 22, did not warrant direction of a
new election. In our view, these communications contained threats
that if employees selected the Union, the Employer would retaliate
by abrogating its existing overtime policy and thereby eliminate eco-
nomic benefits.
The existing 45-hour weekwork schedule, providing 5 hours of over-
time with premium pay, was listed in Plant Manager Hale's letter,
dated October 21, as one of the employee benefits accorded by the
Employer. In an attachment to this letter the Employer set forth a
series of purported employee questions alleged to have been most fre-
quently asked of it and its answers thereto, both of which were clearly
designed as a stratagem to present the message of its antiunion cam-
paign. Using this device, the Employer emphasized to employees that
the National Labor Relations Board would not protect existing
employee benefits and that the same overtime policy as that now exist-
ing at this facility was in effect at its Hammond warehouse prior to
unionization , but after a union was elected the workweek was reduced
to 40 hours.' Also attached was a comparison of earnings which repre-
sented Indianapolis employees as working a 45-hour week and earning
more than did their counterparts at the unionized Chicago warehouse
on a 40-hour "normal" workweek, omitting any reference to compen-
sation received by Chicago employees for overtime worked on an
irregular schedule.
'An example of the questions posed and the answer supplied is the following :
Q. How many hours will we work per week if the union gets in?
A. The Hammond warehouse went from 45 hours to 40 hours per week eleven years
ago. Our present Steelworkers Warehouse agreements provide for a normal 8-hour day,
and 5-day week, but do not guarantee either.
LOONEY SHEET METAL CONSTRUCTION 1635
Thereafter, in its campaign to defeat the Union, the Employer per-
sisted in referring to the elimination of scheduled overtime in its
organized warehouse, inferring that such loss was caused by the selec-
tion of the Union. Thus, in the question and answer period following
the October 22 speech, the following exchange occurred :
Q. .... Are you telling us that if we go union we will go to
40 hours?
A. No, I am not telling you that. If I were to tell you that the
NLRB may constitute it as a threat, which would, of course, be
an unfair labor practice. I can tell you what is a matter of record,
and that is that at Hammond eleven years ago when the union
was voted in, they went from a 45-hour week to a 40-hour week,
and promptly. [Emphasis supplied.]
In the total context, Hale's statement, in the earlier October 21 letter,
that the Employer contemplated no change in the existing workweek
unless the employees indicated otherwise, clearly implied the threat
that selection of the Union would induce the Employer to make that
change. Moreover, while the Employer was in no way reluctant to
inform the employees that it would retain the regularly scheduled
45-hour workweek if there were no union selected, it withheld from
them any assurance that if they chose representation by the Union it
would provide the same work opportunity to the extent economically
justifiable and would maintain the same work schedule until such time
as the basic workweek should be redefined by collective bargaining.
On the basis of the foregoing, we would set the election aside and
direct a second election.
Looney Sheet Metal Construction Co., Inc., d/b/a Tulsa Sheet
Metal Fabricating Co. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-2453. October 7, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 19, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dis-
missal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, Respondent filed
no exceptions.
160 NLRB No. 133.