Pick Your Part Auto Wreckers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1989

294 N.L.R.B. 446 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

446 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pick Your Part Auto Wreckers, Inc. and Interna-
tional Molders and Allied Workers Union,
Local 164, International Molders and Allied
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
32-RC-2564
May 13, 1989
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held August 13, 1987, and the hearing offi-
cer's report recommending disposition of them.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows
14 for and 19 against the Petitioner, with 2 chal-
lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the
results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing
officer's fmdings' and recommendations,2 and fords
that a certification of results of election should be
issued.
Citing precedent where the Board has found the
impartial depiction of strikers to be privileged
under Section 8(c), the hearing officer recommend-
ed that those portions of Objections 2 and 6 that
alleged the Employer's showing of the movie con-
cerning a strike at Magic Chef was objectionable
be overruled. In its exceptions, the Petitioner con-
tends that the movie is not impartial but anti-union
in tenor. We agree that the movie overwhelmingly
promoted the Employer's point of view. However,
the Board has found similar films, especially those
occurring in a context free of objectionable con-
duct, to be unobjectionable. Sab Harmon Industries,
252 NLRB 953 (1980); Northern States Beef, 226
NLRB 365, 376 (1976); Litho Press of San Antonio,
211 NLRB 1014, 1014-1015 (1974), enfd. on other
grounds 512 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1975). We, therefore,
i The Petitioner has excepted to some of the hearing officer's credibil-
ity findings including the assertion that they were the result of the hear-
ing officer 's bias and prejudice After carefully examining the entire
record, we ford the Petitioner 's exceptions are without ment It is well
settled that no basis exists for finding credibility findings are based on
bias or prejudice merely because important factual conflicts are resolved
in one party's favor See, e g, McLean Roofing Co., 276 NLRB 830 fn. 1
(1985). Moreover, the Board 's established policy is not to overrule a
hearing officer 's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us they are incorrect Stretch-Tex Co,
118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957) We find no basis for reversing the findings
No exceptions were made to the hearing officer 's recommendations to
overrule Objections 1, 4, and 8, and we therefore adopt pro forma those
findings The Petitioner withdrew Objection 5
9 We correct the hearing officer's inadvertent misstatement of the July
I wage increases they ranged from $1 25 per hour to $1 50 per hour
adopt the hearing officer's recommendation to
overrule Objections 2 and 6 which, inter alia, al-
leged that the movie interfered with the free con-
duct of the election.
Further, we agree with the hearing officer's rec-
ommendation to overrule that portion of Objection
7 relating to the Employer's provision of additional
wage increases based on longevity beyond the July
1 wage increase. In so doing, we do not rely on
her rationale.
According to the credited or uncontradicted tes-
timony, the pertinent facts are as follows. The
terms and conditions of employment of the Em-
ployer's five facilities are determined centrally by a
general management team and at its Garden
Grove, California corporate office. Prior to the im-
plementation of the new wage scale on July 1,
1987, the wages differed from plant to plant. Be-
cause of management's concerns about standardiz-
ing the equalizing wages, as well as bringing them
up to scale to facilitate hiring, the general manage-
ment team began discussions about an overall wage
plan for its five stores. These discussions began at
the general management team's March 12, 1987
meeting; the new wage plan was finalized and ap-
proved at the June 18, 1987 meeting.
The final version of the approved wage scale
was attached to the Employer's minutes for the
June 18 meeting ("Management Team Meeting
Recap").3 This three-page document entitled
"Clerical/Technical Pay Rate Schedule" individ-
ually lists each job classification and provides the
following data for each classification: starting pay
rate, maximum pay rate, maximum raises after 90
days, and semiannual raises up to maximum rate.
The schedule concludes with this restatement,
"AFTER INITIAL 90 DAY RAISE, all classifica-
tions will be eligible for a 25 cents per hour raise
every six months" (capitals in original). The last
data on the schedule, the semiannual rate up to the
maximum rate, as well as the final statement, refer
to the longevity increases, under dispute here. This
wage plan, according to the undisputed testimony
of General Manager and Vice President Chris
McElroy, was basically the same, with only a few
minor changes, as that implemented at the Employ-
er's Stanton store 7 months earlier, which also in-
cluded longevity increases.
3 The Petitioner argues that the minutes of the June 18 meeting specifi-
cally discuss the increases implemented on July 1, but do not mention the
longevity increases Thus, the Petitioner reasons, the grant of longevity
increases was separate from the grant of the increases mentioned in the
minutes and was not pursuant to the wage plan agreed on before the
union organizing campaign However, the June 18 minutes themselves do
not exhaustively describe the changes in the wage structure, as the ap-
proved wage scale , referenced in the minutes and attached to them, dis-
closes
294 NLRB No. 32
PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKERS
On the basis of these facts, we find it clearly es-
tablished that longevity increases were an integral
part of the Employer 's overall plan , approved
before the advent of the Union, to standardize and
upgrade wages . The only remaining issue for clari-
fication is the date of the Employer' s decision that
on July 1 it would grant employees a pay raise for
time already worked, as opposed to implementing a
prospective longevity pay system . The testimony
on this point is inconclusive . Vice President James
Casten testified that he thought the decision to
grant immediate pay increases for longevity was
made at the June 18 meeting (at which he was not
present). General Manager McElroy testified that
the decision was not made by the general manage-
ment team , nor at the June 18 meeting , but that
"[Vice President and General Manager] Tommy
Hutton handled that ." However , McElroy also tes-
tified that when the almost identical plan was im-
plemented at the Stanton store 7 months earlier, he
and that store 's manager went over the list of em-
ployees one by one, giving them credit (and pay in-
creases) for time already worked . The same proc-
ess was followed when the increases at issue here
were implemented.
Additional evidence indicates that granting the
longevity increases was consistent with past prac-
447
tice and was contemplated prior to the critical
period . Thus, Vice President Casten testified that
when the Employer gave seven employees raises
on June 12 , prior to the new plan , their raises were
based on "work performance or length of service."
Also, according to employee Pablo Magana, when
he asked Casten about raises 2 to 3 months before
the July 1 increase , Casten replied that there would
be an increase in the future , "[f]or the older ones,
yes, the ones who deserved a raise."
Based on the above facts , we find that the Em-
ployer 's grant of longevity increases on July 1 was
consistent with past practice and with plans under-
way well before the Union 's June 24 filing of its
petition. We, therefore , adopt the hearing officer's
recommendation to find the longevity increases un-
objectionable.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots has not been cast for International Molders and
Allied Workers Union, Local 164, International
Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
and that it is not the exclusive representative of
these bargaining unit employees.