Knickerbocker Manufacturing Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 507 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 507
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they shall be deemed to constitute a part of the
existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Di-
rector will issue a certification of results of election to such
effect.
5. A question was raised at the hearing involving the eligi-
bility of 3 analysts (Savage, Hutkai, and Miller) who had been
severed from the Employer's payroll. These employees were
held by the Board to have been discriminatorily discharged.5
Although the Board's decision in the unfair labor practice case
is before a United States court of appeals for enforcement, we
find, in accordance with precedent , that the Board ' s decision in
that proceeding is binding upon the Employer unless and until it
is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.6 We therefore
find that the employees in question are eligible to vote in the
election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Ohio Ferro Alloys Corporation, 104 NLRB 542.
6See Stationers Corporation, 97 NLRB 601.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 15 -RC-925. December 23, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by
the Board on June 3, 1953, 1 an election by secret ballot was
conducted orr June 12, 1953, under the supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region among the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's West Point,
Mississippi, plant. Upon completion of the election, the
parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 357 eligible voters, 345 cast valid ballots,
of which 143 were for, and 202 against, the Petitioner.
On June 18, 1953, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. In ac-
cordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on September
4, 1953, issued and served on the parties his report on objec-
tions, in which he recommended that some of the objections be
sustained and others overruled, and that the Board set aside
the election and direct a new election. Thereafter the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report in which it
moved that the Board overrule the Regional Director and
certify the results of the election.
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No. 111
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner , in substance , alleges that the Employer in-
terfered with the free choice of a bargaining representative by
announcing just before the election an improved vacation plan,
and a paid holiday plan whereas none existed before, and by
threatening in its June 10 and 11 letters to the employees that,
if they voted for the Petitioner , they would suffer economic loss.
The pertinent facts are these : 2 In mid-February 1953, the
Petitioner began to organize among the employees of the Em-
ployer's West Point plant and -in March it began distributing
organizational literature . By a letter from the generalmanager
to the president dated April 6, the Employer revived intra-
management discussions of possible increased benefits for the
employees .' On April 14 , the Petitioner requested recognition
from the Employer as the bargaining representative of its em-
ployees at West Point . The request was denied and on April 16
the Petitioner filed its petition with the Board. In a conversation
between the Regional Director's representative and the Em-
ployer's attorney on April 24, a hearing date of May 7 was
agreed upon and the Employer ' s attorney was notified that a
notice of hearing would issue promptly . The notice of hearing
issued the next working day of the Board, Monday , April 27.
Meanwhile , on Sunday , April 26, a notice was posted on the
plant bulletin board announcing that a new vacation plan had
been approved and would be set out in more detail within 30
days and containing the following additional paragraph:4
It is our understanding that the companyis also considering
giving you additional benefits , such as paid holidays. The
foregoing will be put into effect just as soon as details have
been worked out.
2 Although the Employer excepts to certain inferences and conclusions made by the Regional
Director in the report on objections , it does not dispute the findings of facts as herein re-
lated.
3 The text of the letter reads:
As previously discussed , I would like to finally review with you the proposed new
vacation plan and suggested holidays for West Point
As you know , most of the plants in our industry throughout the country have a more
liberal vacation policy than we do and the question of holidays has come up previously.
In fact, Mr. Estes suggested that we do these things prior to our 1950 Vacation at
which time you thought we could wait until the 1952 Vacation.
I intend being in West Point for about a week or ten days from April 15 on and feel
we should conclude the matter one way or the other at this time
4The complete notice posted on April 26 reads:
We have been advised by our New York office that a general change in the Company's
vacation plan has been approved.
The new plan will be set up on the basis of one and two weeks vacation paid at your
average hourly earnings and complete details of the plan will be fully worked out in
about thirty days.
It is our understanding that the company is also considering giving you additional
benefits , such as paid holidays . The foregoing will be put into effect just as soon as the
details have been worked out.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 509
Concededly none of the employees in the voting unit saw this
announcement until the following Monday, the day on which the
notice of hearing issued . The hearing was conducted as
scheduled on May 7. On May 28 the vacation plan was posted. 5
On June 3 the Board Decision and Direction of Election issued
which set the election for June 12 . Prior to receipt of the
Board's decision by the Employer , a paid holiday plan was
posted on June 4. 6 On June 10 and 11 letters were posted on the
bulletin board from the president and plant manager of the
Employer urging the employees to vote against the Petitioner
and containing reference to the recently granted benefits. The
election was held on June 12 and the Petitioner lost.
The Regional Director found that objections relating to the
vacations and paid - holidays raise substantial and material is-
sues affecting the results of the election for the reason that the
Employer made no explanation for the. precise timing of the
announcements of the benefits other than the fact that the va-
cation period , was scheduled to begin the week of June 29 and
the first holiday was to fall on July 4. He concluded therefrom
that the reasons given were less than compelling and that the
announcements were reasonably calculated to affect the em-
ployees in their choice of a bargaining agent. He found it un-
necessary to decide whether the letters of June 10 and 11 were
coercive.
In its exceptions , the Employer contends that, as its notice
of April 26 antedated the issuance of the Board ' s notice of
hearing , its conduct at that time cannot , under the authority
of the great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company case 7 be asserted
as grounds for setting the election aside. With respect to the
subsequent notices of May 28 as to the vacation benefits and
June 4 as to paid holidays , it argues that they were not objec-
tionable because they merely carried out or detailed the com-
mitments previously made on April 26.
Assuming without deciding that , under the above-cited case,
the Petitioner is precluded from asserting the Employer's
conduct as to the announcement of vacation benefits , we cannot
agree that the Petitioner is similarly precluded with respect to
the announcement of paid holidays. For in our opinion the paid
holidays were not in fact announced until shortly before the
election. The language of the April 26 notice that the Employer
was "also considering giving you additional benefits , such as
paid holidays " was no more than a vague suggestion of a
possibility of paid holidays . It was not until the notice of June 4,
5 The plan, in effect , grants a 2- week vacation to employees with more than 5 years'
service whereas such employees formerly received 1 week.
6 The plan established July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day as paid
holidays.
7101 NLRB 1118. The cited case held, in part, that where, as here, a notice of hearing
has issued , the Board will consider on its merits only such interference as is alleged to
have occurred after the date of issuance of the notice of hearing.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after the hearing herein,a that this uncertain reference as-
sumed the proportions of a promise. Indeed, it was then that
the employees were told that there were to be 4 paid holidays,
that they were to receive 8 hours' pay for each, and that their
first paid holiday was to be July 4.9 We conclude, therefore,
and we find, that the June 4 notice to the employees constituted
the first actual announcement of paid holiday benefits.
It is not contended, nor does it appear, that the June 4 an-
nouncement was in accord with any fixed practice of periodic
increases or improvements in conditions of employment which
the employees could normally expect at the time. 10 However,
the Employer seeks to justify its conduct on the ground that
the first holiday was to fall on July4. As to this contention, we
fail to perceive any element of urgency in the situation,
particularly since the holiday was then a full month away. Nor
do we find merit in the Employer's further argument that, in
view of its assurance to the employees thereafter that they
would get the benefits whether the Unionwonor lost, there was
no interference with the election. We fail to see how this
could operate to dissipate the vice inherent inthe timing of the
June 4 notice as to holiday benefits.
Accordingly, as we are not persuaded that the timing of the
announcement was governed by factors other than the impending
election, we conclude that the announcement was deliberately
timed and calculated to, and did , interfere with the employees,
freedom of choice of a bargaining representative . We shall set
aside the election of June 12, 1953.11
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the previous election among
the Employer ' s employees be, and it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the pur-
pose of conducting a new election at suchtime as he deems the
circumstances permit a free choice of acollective - bargaining
representative.
eAt the hearing the sole issue between the parties was whether part-time student em-
ployees in the otherwise stipulated unit should be included and be allowed to vote. The
Employer , therefore , could reasonably have believed that an election was impending.
9Contrary to our dissenting colleague, the concluding sentence of the April 26 notice
stating "the foregoing will be put into effect just as soon as details have been worked out"
in our opinion had reference to the new vacation plan and not to paid holidays. In the notice
the only matter as to which the Employer had announced that details were being worked
out was the vacation plan. Consequently the reference to putting the foregoing into effect
just as soon as details were worked out obviously referred to that vacation plan.
iiSee Union Sulphur and Oil Corporation, 106 NLRB 384 and cases cited therein.
ii The Employer 's motion to reverse the Regional Director 's recommendations and certify
the results of the election is hereby overruled.
AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY COMPANY 511
Member Rodgers , dissenting:
I am unable to agree with my colleagues that "the paid
holidays were not in fact announced until shortly before the
election ." The Employer' s posted announcement of April 26,
after informing the employees that "a general change in t e
company's vacation plan has been approved," plainly stated
that "the company is also considering giving you additional
benefits , such as paid holidays " and that "the foregoing will
be put into effect just as soon as details have been worked out."
(Emphasis supplied.)
The notice of hearing in this case was issued by the Regional
Director on April 27. Clearly, then, under the rule in Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118, the April 26
announcement cannot be considered as a valid election objec-
tion. That the Employer ' s notice of June 4 gave the details of
the proposed paid holidays in no way diminishes the fact that
the employees had already been made aware --at a time deemed
unobjectionable by the Board--that such benefits were to be
expected.
All that is involved here is a notice which carried out the
Employer's express written promise made in an earlier
announcement , at an appropriate time. The majority ' s char-
acterization of the April 26 announcement as "no more than
a vague suggestion of a possibility of paid holidays " ignores
the obvious import of the statement that "the foregoing will
be put into effect just as soon as details have been worked
out." Under any reasonable construction of the April 26 an-
nouncement, "the foregoing " necessarily included "paid holi-
days, " and not merely "vacation benefits " as the majority
would seem to suggest . Under the circumstances , the ground
relied on by my colleagues seems entirely too belabored and
mechanistic a reason for setting aside this election.
AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY COMPANY and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , C.I.O., Petitioner. Case
No. 3-RC-1239. December 23, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Electionissued by the
Board on July 31, 1953 ,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on August 28, 1953, under the supervision of the Regional
Director for the Third Region, among the employees in the ap-
propriate unit at the Employer's plant inRochester, New York.
Upon completion of the election , the parties were furnished with
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No. 114.