St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 527 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ST. LOUS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES 527
St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries, Inc.
and Teamsters Local Union No. 688 , affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Cases 14-CA-5160 and 14-RC-6115
July 13, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
THIRD ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On February 25, 1970, 'Trial Examiner James M.
Fitzpatrick issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that such allegations be dismissed. The
Trial Examiner further recommended that certain
objections to conduct affecting the election be
overruled and the results of the rerun election be
certified. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
brief in support thereof. The Respondent filed an
answer to the General Counsel's exceptions, cross-
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a
brief in support of its cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, ex-
cept as modified below.
1. The Trial Examiner found that chief project
engineer Woley's interrogations of draftsman Ed-
ward Hart in early 1969 and manager of quality
control Murphy's conversation in his office with
Larry Philpot on June 13 were violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. We concur in these findings.
2. We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
the announcements and granting of certain salary
increases and hospitalization insurance benefits in
June 1969 were made with the intention of in-
fluencing the employees to vote against the Union
in the rerun election of June 24, 1969; that this
constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act;
and that the violations provide sufficient grounds
for setting aside the rerun election and directing a
new election.
Among the unrepresented salaried employees,
the first to receive increases were the keypunch
operators, who, in early June, were granted in-
creases of from $40 to $50 effective June 1, before
raises were granted other salaried employees.
Respondent's contention is that the situation with
these keypunch operators constituted an emergen-
cy justifying immediate increases in advance of
other employees. In the fall and winter of 1968
Respondent decided to perform all its own
keypunch operations and since December 28,
1968, has hired employees in addition to the two
girls who were doing some of this work. Wayne
Thomas, division controller and supervisor of this
operation, testified that there was dissatisfaction
over their compensation . More particularly he
testified that one of the girls complained 6 months
after she was hired about failing to receive a raise,
as she had been led to believe she would by
Thomas who had interviewed her at hiring. Al-
legedly, another girl brought in a clipping advertis-
ing for such operators at a rate considerably above
what Respondent's employees were making. Ac-
cording to Thomas he then had Frank Biondo, a
system analyst, look into the situation and based on
Biondo's findings he recommended the raises which
were given around June 9, effective June 1.
However, in our view, the record does not sup-
port the conclusion that this increase was neces-
sitated before the election and that it was made
wholly without consideration of its effect on the
election. In this connection, we note that while
Respondent claims an employee was requesting, in
accordance with her hiring arrangement, an in-
crease after 6 months' employment, none of the
new employees had been employed that length of
time until the middle of June, that the investigation
allegedly made after expressions of discontent must
have begun in May well before any such 6-month
period;' that in early June Respondent was still in
the process of checking information on wages of
keypunch operators in the area;' that other salaried
' The Trial Examiner infers that some keypunch operators resigned salary administrator of Respondent 's General Steel Industries , concerning
because of dissatisfaction with their pay We note, however, that there is no wages at the Castings Division and wages in the Granite City area We find
record evidence of the reasons for any of these resignations and conclude this sequence to be inconsistent with Respondent 's contention that as of
these inferences are not supported by the record May I it was ready to institute new rates but held off because of contract
R Resp Exh 2 is a letter to Biondo, dated June 2, from James Marlow, a negotiations with the P & M unit
184 NLRB No. 55
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees were expressing discontent with their
situation; and that Respondent used the increases
to the keypunch operators as effective campaign
material in its campaign against the Union, even
though an actual increase for other salaried em-
ployees was not granted till after the rerun election.
That this salary increase for the keypunch opera-
tors was an element in the Respondent's campaign
against the Union is evidenced in its letter of June
17 to the salaried employees.3 Therein the Respon-
dent discussed the wage and salary policy it in-
tended to use in the future" which would involve
merit increases as well as comparison with area
rates, and then used as an example of the policy the
increase given keypunch operators, adding the as-
surance that this was only a step in the direction of
comparable wages. Additional publicizing of the
plan to bring wages up to area standards is
reflected, in speeches around June 20, by President
Delancy Davis and Vice President Tuckers The
publicizing, 1 week before the election, of a new sal-
ary adjustment policy which had been considered
for some 9 months previously, without Respon-
dent evidently feeling any urgent need to impart
to its employees the information that such a policy
was under consideration, and the increase to the
keypunch operators which was utilized as an exam-
ple of this policy in the Respondent's antiunion
campaign (salary increases to all salaried em-
ployees were granted on June 27) constituted a
promise and granting of benefits not previously en-
joyed which we conclude was intended to influence
the employees against the Union and interfered
with the employees' free' choice in the election.
We also find that, in its handling of improved
hospitalization benefits, Respondent sought to im-
properly influence the election results. In the past,
salaried employees had received hospitalization
benefits similar to those received by hourly em-
ployees. Little notice was given of changes aside
from booklets distributed, usually a month or two
after the effective date of the changes. In June
1969, however, the insurance plan for salaried em-
ployees was changed from that received by hourly
employees and the timing of the change and the
notification of the changes were handled differently
than in the past. According to Respondent, the new
plan for these unrepresented salaried employees
was ready by May 1 and could have been put into
effect at that time, but Respondent delayed until
June 1 to do so because of contract negotiations
with its production and maintenance employees at
the St. Louis Car Division. We find this reason un-
persuasive , for the insurance plan for salaried em-
ployees of other divisions of the Company besides
the St. Louis Car Division. However, by delaying
the effective date of the plan Respondent was ena-
bled to fully publicize the improved benefits in a
period close to the election date. This it did in a
manner significantly different from its past methods
of informing employees of changes. Whereas, in the
past, information on changes was imparted by
booklets drawn up by the insurer, the Respondent
in the instant case first sent salaried employees a
letter on June 9 setting forth the improvements,
around June 17 sent out a detailed description of
the plan, and on June 17 and 18 conducted
meetings for the employees where the insurance
plan was explained in detail. Moreover, in its letter
of June 17 to employees and in speeches given by
President Delancy J. Davis to all employees on
June 20, Respondent in campaigning against the
Union reminded employees of the improvements,
even implying that they had been made in "spite of
the legal restrictions placed on us."6
In these circumstances it is evident that Respon-
dent acted inconsistently with its past practice
when granting improved hospitalization insurance
for its unrepresented salaried employees and that,
despite Respondent's repeated disclaimer that its
handling of these benefits was not intended to in-
fluence employees in their voting, the granting of
the benefits was in fact calculated to influence the
employees in the coming election, thus interfering
with the employees' free choice in said election.
The above-recited conduct with respect to the
promising and granting of salary increases and the
granting of hospitalization insurance benefits vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Together with
other conduct found by the Trial Examiner as viola-
tive of the Act, it consitutes conduct sufficiently
objectionable to interfere with the results of the
rerun election. Accordingly, we shall set the rerun
election aside and direct that a third election be
conducted at a time to be determined by the Re-
gional Director.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
3 Joint Exh 10
While the Respondent , commencing in the fall of 1968, began a pro-
gram of surveying jobs to determine wage comparability with other con-
cerns in the area, and began such a survey with respect to St Louis Car
Division in April 1969, it appears that the employees , despite Respondent's
apparent problems of hiring and retaining the employees it needed, were
first informed of its intention of paying comparable wages in the June
period, shortly before the election of June 24
On June 27 , 3 days after the election , Respondent gave all salaried em-
ployees except the keypunch operators , a $30 a month cost -of-living in-
crease
6 Joint Exh 14
ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondent , St. Louis Car Division
General Steel Industries , Inc., St . Louis, Missouri,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified.
1. Reletter paragraph 1(c) as paragraph 1(d)
and substitute the following as paragraph 1(c):
"(c) Granting or promising wage and salary in-
creases and improved hospitalization insurance or
other benefits , publicizing these actions to em-
ployees and promising employees to continue or ex-
pand some or all of these programs , in order to in-
duce employees to vote against a union in a Board-
conducted representation election."
2. Strike the two paragraphs beginning "IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED."
3. Insert the following as the third indented para-
graph of the Appendix:
WE WILL. NOT grant or promise wage and sal-
ary increases and improved hospitalization in-
surance or other benefits , publicize these ac-
tions to employees and promise employees to
continue or expand some or all of these pro-
grams, in order to induce employees to vote
against a union in a Board -conducted represen-
tation election.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rerun election
held on June 24, 1969, in Case 14-RC-6115, be,
and it hereby is, set aside , and that said case be,
and it hereby is , remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 14 to conduct a new election when he
deems that circumstances permit the free choice of
a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Third Election' omitted from publi-
cation.]
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un-
derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman -Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con-
taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by
the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 within 7 days after
the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional
Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties
to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the
Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to
comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: This is a
consolidation for the purpose of hearing, ruling,
and decision of objections to an election in a
529
representation proceeding (Case 14-RC-6115) and
a complaint in an unfair labor practice proceeding
(Case 14-CA-5160). Both involve the same events.
In the representation case Teamster Local Union
No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (herein called Teamsters),
filed objections to conduct affecting the results of a
Live June 1 it had improved the employees'
Board (the Board) on June 24, 1969,' among cer-
tain employees of St. Louis Car Division General
Steel Industries, Inc. (herein called respondent or
company). On August 29 the Board's Director for
Region 14, on behalf of the Board, dismissed some
of the objections but ordered a hearing on others
and on certain additional conduct. Also on August
29, on behalf of the Board 's General Counsel, he is-
sued the complaint in Case 14-CA-5160 founded
on a charge of June 24 and an amended charge of
July 1 filed by the Teamsters, alleging that the com-
pany had committed unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). I heard the consolidated
proceeding at St. Louis, Missouri , on October 14.
Upon the entire record, my observations of the
witnesses , and consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel and respondent, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged
at St. Louis, Missouri, through its St. Louis Car
Division in the manufacture and sale of highspeed
railway and subway passenger equipment, special-
ized railway freight equipment, and defense
products such as tanks. During the year ending
June 30 it received at its St. Louis plant from points
outside Missouri goods and materials valued at over
$50,000 and shipped from its St. Louis plant to
points outside Missouri products valued at over
$50,000. The parent company, General Steel Indus-
tries, headquartered in St. Louis, also operates a
number of other manufacturing divisions, including
its Castings Division (located in nearby East St.
Louis, Illinois), National Roll Division, Ludlow-
Saylor Wire Cloth Division, Flex-O-Lite Division,
and Standard Pipeprotection Division.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Teamsters is a labor organization which at
times material has admitted to membership em-
ployees of respondent.
Of the total complement of about 1,200 em-
ployees at St. Louis Car Division, about 900
production and maintenance employees are
represented by United Steelworkers of America,
I All dates herein are in 1969 unless otherwise indicated
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 1055 (a labor organization
referred to hereinafter as Steelworkers). The com-
pany has long had an established collective-bargain-
ing relationship with the Steelworkers, including a
series of 3-year contracts, the most recent of which
became effective June 1 following extensive
negotiations concluding on May 29.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT
A. Background
On January 10 the Teamsters filed a petition
seeking a Board election among certain of respon-
dent's unrepresented employees. On March 14 the
Regional Director directed that an election be held
in an appropriate unit consisting of all office cleri-
cal, plant clerical, technical employees, and super-
visory inspectors at the St. Louis plant.' The elec-
tion was held April 15. Thereafter the employer
filed timely objections. On May 28 the Regional
Director issued a supplemental decision and order
in part sustaining the employer's objections and or-
dering the election set aside and directing a rerun
election. As noted above the rerun election was
conducted on June 24. The Teamsters lost by a
vote of 69 for to 82 against with 10 ballots chal-
lenged, and thereafter filed timely objections. On
August 29 the Regional Director in a second sup-
plemental decision overruled certain of the objec-
tions. But as to Objections I and II, as well as other
conduct which came to light in the course of the in-
vestigation but was not specifically alleged in the
objections, he concluded that substantial and
material questions of fact were raised which would
be best resolved by a hearing. Consolidation with
the complaint herein which alleged the same con-
duct as violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
resulted.
B. The Issues
The issues framed by the pleadings are: (a)
whether on February 15 respondent's chief project
engineer unlawfully interrogated an employee
about his union activities; (b) whether respondent,
in announcing and granting a wage increase to em-
ployees on June 9, retroactive to June 1, did so for
the purpose of unlawfully influencing them against
the Teamsters; (c) whether respondent, in an-
nouncing and granting improvements in the em-
ployees' hospitalization insurance on June 11, ef-
fective June 1, did so for the purpose of unlawfully
influencing them against the Teamsters; (d)
whether on June 13 respondent's manager of quali-
ty control unlawfully threatened an employee with
loss of benefits if the Teamsters prevailed in the
election scheduled for June 24; (e) whether respon-
2 The exact description of the unit found appropriate is as follows
All office clerical, plant clerical, technical employees and supervisory
inspectors at the employer 's 9000 Hall Street , St Louis, Missouri,
dent, in announcing a wage and salary administra-
tion program on June 17, did so for the purpose of
influencing employees against the Teamsters; and
(f) whether respondent, in announcing and granting
wage increases to employees on June 27, effective
July 1, did so for the purpose of unlawfully in-
fluencing them against the Teamsters. Finally
presented is the question whether such conduct, if
established, warrants setting aside the election of
June 24.
C. Woley's Interrogations of Hart
Edward Hart, a draftsman in respondent's en-
gineering department from March 1968 until June
27, 1969, testified without contradiction that on
more than one occasion in early 1969 chief project
engineer, Gary Woley, an admitted supervisor,
discussed the union situation with him. The first oc-
casion was about one month before the first Board
election on April 15 and occurred in the engineer-
ing deparment during the lunch hour. Woley asked
him, "How the union was coming?" Another in-
cident occurred around April 1 at Hart's work sta-
tion when Woley stated that he had understood that
Hart was heavily involved in the union and asked
him if he had made up his mind. When Hart replied
yes, Woley commented that he hoped Hart knew
what he was doing.
Although Hart's testimony is somewhat confusing
with regard to the date of the first dicussion with
Woley, his testimony as a whole is credible and un-
contradicted. Moreover, he impressed me as an
honest witness. Accordingly, I find that Woley
asked the questions and made the statements which
Hart attributed to him.
D. Murphy's Meeting With Philpot
Respondent's manager of quality control, a man
named Michael Murphy, supervised the quality
control inspectors. After the company decided
upon a general wage increase effective June 1,
Murphy on June 10 called his inspectors together
and announced to them a wage increase of 30 cents
an hour which would appear in their next
paycheck. He also announced that a new insurance
program was being put into effect but gave no
details regarding it:'One of the inspectors, Larry
Philpot, asked Murphy a couple of questions in-
cluding whether Murphy was sure they were going
to receive the raise, whether Murphy would put in
writing that they were going to get it, and whether
the raise would be taken away in the future.
Murphy thought these questions were "unusual"
and a few days later, on June 13, he called Phil-
pot into his office for an extended interview lasting
two hours in the course of which they discussed
plant , excluding professional employees, salesmen, guards, supervisors
as defined by the Act, and all other employees represented by any
other labor organization
ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES
many topics and Murphy endeavored to learn what
sort of individual Philpot was. According to Mur-
phy's own testimony, the union was discussed.
Murphy said he himself had been in a union. He
asked what Philpot thought the advantages of hav-
ing a union would be and indicated his preference
not to have a union in his department. The com-
pany policy of encouraging employees to obtain
further schooling by helping them with tuition was
also discussed. Murphy said there was a possi-
bility this benefit might or might not be retained for
the employees, that it would be completely on a
bargaining basis between the company and the
union if the union got in.
E. Wage and Insurance Changes
About June 9 respondent announced that it had
granted wage increases effective June 1 to
keypunch operators, timekeepers, inspectors, and
shop clerks. All of these classifications were of em-
ployees not represented by the Steelworkers. Of the
six keypunch operators involved, four received
raises of $40 and two of $50. The other classifica-
tions received uniform raises of 30 cents per hour.
About June 11 respondent announced that effec-
tive June 1 it had improved the employees'
hospitalization insurance.
These increases in pay and insurance benefits
were communicated to the employees in various
ways. The keypunch operators were called together
by Wayne Thomas, the controller under whom they
indirectly worked, and were told by him that when
they were hired their salaries matched those of the
two keypunch operators who were already with the
company, that since that time the company had
realized they were being underpaid in relation to
what other industries in the area were paying
keypunch operators, and accordingly that the com-
pany was raising them all. The date on which
Thomas talked to the keypunch operators is not
clear in the record, but I infer from the fact that
their raise caused grumbling among others, that
they were informed first. The timekeepers were
notified of their 30-cent-an-hour raise and the im-
proved insurance plan by their supervisor, Phillip
Sandell, who went to each individual timekeeper on
June 9 and 10 and advised them of the new
benefits. The inspectors were called together in a
meeting on June 10 and notified by their super-
visor, Murphy, of the new benefits. Neither Sandell
nor Murphy made any reference to the Teamsters
or the election.
On June 9 in a memorandum to its salaried em-
ployees the company described the improved
benefits of their life, accident, and hospitalization
insurance, the entire cost of which as of June 1 was
'The company has had two separate insurance plans with differing
benefits in effect, one for hourly paid employees including those
represented by the Steelworkers as well as those who were unrepresented
such as inspectors and timekeepers, and another for salaried employees
531
being borne by the company. In another June 9
memorandum the company advised hourly paid
employees of the improved benefits of their
hospitalization insurance , the entire cost of which
was also being borne by the company as of June 1.3
Neither of these memorandums mentioned the
Teamsters or the forthcoming election.
As noted above, the June 1 raise given keypunch
operators occasioned dissatisfaction among other
employees who were still not raised. About mid-
June Vice President Tucker, who was in charge
of the engineering department, called together
the employees in that department to discuss the
problem. Tucker told them the company was going
to have a general review of the pay of all employees,
possibly after the upcoming union election of June
24, but that he could not promise anything.
This was followed by a company letter on June
17 to salaried employees within the unit involved in
this case, the gist of which was that,
Having just negotiated a new contract with our
production and maintenance employees effec-
tive June 1, 1969, it is now the time, based on
established custom, to review and adjust wages
of other employees not covered by a bargain-
ing unit . Those employees paid on an hourly
basis have historically received additional com-
pensation closely corresponding to that given
employees represented by the United Steel-
workers and their increases have been effec-
tive at the same time as the Steelworkers'
increases. This has occurred at this time
relative to individuals on an hourly basis where
past practive clearly indicated this was normal
procedure.
Salaried employees wage increases have been
given throughout the year on an individual
merit basis. But in the future a regular wage
and salary administration program will require
a review of each employee regularly comparing
employees earnings with other individuals on a
merit basis within the department, and at the
same time comparing them with area rates in
similar jobs with other local firms. Under this
program our future plan is to compensate all
employees at a rate comparable to what is
being paid by other firms in our area.
The letter then cited the recent raise to keypunch
operators as an example of this policy. It also
referred to the improved hospitalization plan effec-
tive June 1. The letter went on to say,
Beyond this improvement anything we might
extend to you or even imply that it might be
extended to you, could be construed in this
period before the election to be a promise of
benefits contingent on the results of the elec-
tion and subject the company to an unfair
The new plan for hourly employees was that incorporated in the Steel-
workers contract negotiated May 29 Both plans were in effect in other
divisions of the Company and were not confined to the St Louis Car
Division
427-835 0 - 74 - 35
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practice charge . We disavow any
promises or threats which might influence the
outcome next Tuesday and are anxious only
that you know what the Company policies are
with regard to the subjects mentioned above.
The next day , June 18 , the company sent a letter
to its hourly paid employees within the unit in-
volved in this case which said , among other things,
You were recently given an increase of 30 cent
per hour as well as receiving the benefits of a
greatly improved hospitalization program
which is now entirely company paid. These
benefits were not given to you to attempt to in-
fluence your vote and they shouldn't. The
raises and improved benefits were given to you
because you deserved them and they have
historically been given at this time . Regardless
of the outcome of the election on June 24
these improvements are yours , they will not be
rescinded.
The letter also indicated the company 's view that
the Teamsters could not adequately represent, nor
was it necessary to protect , the employees' in-
terests.
On June 18 the company also distributed to its
salaried employees in the unit a detailed schedule
of the benefits provided by their improved in-
surance plan which had gone into effect June 1.
Also on June 18 and 19 the company 's supervisor
of employee benefits held a series of eight meetings
of employees at St . Louis Car similar to those held
at three other divisions of the company in which he
explained in depth the provisions of the new in-
surance programs , which were the same as in effect
in other divisions of the company . At these
meetings no mention was made of the Teamsters or
of the upcoming election.
F. Company Communications Immediately Before
the Election
On June 20 the company sent another letter to
the employees in the unit which may be described
as anti -Teamsters propaganda. It urged them to
vote against the Teamsters , but contained no
threats or promises . The same day respondent's
President Delancy Davis made four speeches to em-
ployees , including all employees in the unit here in-
volved , in which he disclaimed any promises or
threats to them , but argued that the Teamsters
could not adequately represent their interests. He
noted that in spite of legal restrictions the company
had been able to make some improvements , refer-
ring specifically to the improved hospitalization in-
surance . However , he disclaimed that this was given
to influence their vote . He asserted instead that the
old programs had become outmoded , while the new
programs were the same as in effect at other divi-
sions of the company . In addition , according to the
uncontradicted testimony of Edward Hart, who at
the time was a draftsman in the engineering depart-
ment , in the meeting which Hart attended Davis de-
parted from his text to say that the company was
bringing salaries up to the metropolitan area stand-
ard, that on account of the union election he
could not promise employees anything regarding it,
but that there were plans being made with respect
to it . Hart also testified without contradiction that
about the same date Vice President Tucker, in
meeting with the employees of the engineering de-
partment , mentioned that the union election was
coming up, that he wished that they all would vote,
that they would all be getting a raise after the elec-
tion on a average with the rest of the metropolitan
area , that they would all be brought up to standard,
and that he had been reclassifying everybody. But
the evidence does not indicate that anything he said
made these prospects contingent upon the outcome
of the election. I find that Davis and Tucker made
the above -described statements.
G. Postelection Increases
On June 27 , three days after the rerun election,
Vice President Tucker again addressed the em-
ployees in the engineering department , this time
about cutbacks in production and the need for tem-
porary layoffs . He also advised them that beginning
July 1 everyone in the department would receive a
blanket $30 per month raise . On July 1 salaried em-
ployees ( except for keypunch operators who had
been raised as of June 1 ) received a blanket cost-
of-living increase of $30 per month.
H. The Company 's Defense
Stated briefly the company 's defense is that it did
not act out of union animus or for the purpose of
influencing the election on June 24. On the contra-
ry, its position is that the increases granted to the
employees in June were economically motivated
and consistent with past practice, and asserts that
had it not given the increases it might have sub-
jected itself to unfair labor practices on that ac-
count . The company also takes the position that its
pre-June 24 statements referring to the election or
to the Teamsters were lawful expressions of
opinion.
In support of its position the company showed
that for many years the bulk of its employees at St.
Louis Car Division (approximately 900 out of a
total complement of about 1,200) have been
represented by a local of the Steelworkers with
whom the company has had a series of collective-
bargaining agreements." It argues that its long and
successful relationship with that union covering the
' Employees at the company's Castings Division in Granite City , Illinois,
a distance of 5 miles east of the plant involved herein , are renr'.ented by
another local of the Steelworkers
ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES, 533
bulk of its employees demonstrates the absence of
union animus.
The evidence shows the company has had a
problem in retaining qualified personnel , particu-
larly in technical or skilled jobs where it has suf-
fered a high rate of turnover . In mid- 1-968 the
problem became acute in that the company was
unable to maintain production schedules on two
important contracts . A new management team was
marshaled for St . Louis Car Division to try and
solve this problem . Accordingly an initial wage sur-
vey was started in September 1968 and in October
and November the company began developing a
program for a survey in depth of jobs with the ulti-
mate aim of raising the compensation of company
personnel to a competitive level. Respondent was in
close competition with a few other concerns in its
industry for the production and sale of its particular
type of products . In the St . Louis area it was in
competition with many other companies and indus-
tries , and in fact with other divisions within its own
concern , for the services of qualified technical and
skilled employees. According to James Marlow, sal-
ary administrator from the company's headquar-
ters in St. Louis who was in charge of developing
and implementing the surveys regarding jobs, the
project involved first of all preparing job descrip-
tions and classifications so that a comparison could
be made between different divisions of the com-
pany and also with other companies in the area.
Thereafter other companies in the area were sur-
veyed to determine what they were paying for these
jobs . Similarly divisions within the company were
surveyed . Such a survey with respect to the St.
Louis Car Division commenced at the beginning of
April 1969.
In the meantime a special problem developed
with respect to keypunch operators . In the past the
company had contracted out most of its keypunch
work , employing on its own staff only two em-
ployees qualified to do keypunch work . Toward the
end of 1968 the company decided to perform the
keypunch work in -house . Commencing in January
1969 it hired additional keypunch operators and set
up a new department for the performance of the
keypunch function . When hired these new opera-
tors were paid at a rate equivalent to that paid the
two original operators . This was not comparable to
what other companies in the area were paying
keypunch operators or even what was advertised in
the newspapers by others as the offering rate. Some
of the operators complained to the company that
their pay was not competitive . Some even resigned.
In the face of this situation the supervisor of
keypunch operators inquired of Marlow , who was
in charge of the job survey mentioned above, what
the pay rates were for this job in other divisions of
the company as well as in other companies in the
area. The results of this inquiry showed that-pay for
keypunch operators in St. Louis Car was substan-
tially below what was paid in the Castings Division
which in turn was somewhat below what was-paid
by other companies in the area.
Since the keypunch operator problem was
viewed as an emergency requiring immediate atten-
tion , they were , as indicated previously herein, in
early June and in advance of other employees given
an immediate raise . The other employees who were
not immediately - raised were then dissatisfied
because of the uneven treatment and some of them
expressed this dissatisfaction to their supervisors. In
the meantime the results of the job survey made by
Marlow indicated that generally the rates paid the
unrepresented employees in St . Louis Car were
below the rates paid for comparable work by other
employers in the area . As of May 1 the company
was ready to institute new rates but held off
because of the Steelworkers negotiations then in
progress.
As an additional aspect of its defense the com-
pany showed that during the spring of 1969 it was
engaged in negotiations with the Steelworkers on
behalf of its production and maintenance em-
ployees until May 29, at which point they agreed on
a new 3 -year contract providing for substantial pay
increases as well as improved insurance benefits for
hourly paid employees within -that bargaining unit.
Uncontradicted -testimony of company witnesses
established that historically when new contracts
were negotiated with the Steelworkers providing-for
pay increases for production and maintenance em-
ployees the company reviewed the compensation of
unrepresented employees and made upward adjust-
ments which were comparable to, although not ex-
actly the same as, those given employees
represented by the Steelworkers. Company wit-
nesses also testified without contradiction that the
pay raises 'given the unrepresented employees in
June were made because that was what had histori-
cally been done in the past and the unrepresented
employees expected the adjustments , and also
because the job surveys of Marlow showed that the
company pay scales lagged behind the area
standard.
1. Analysis and Conclusions
With regard to the two occasions , on about
March 15 and April 1, when Woley , an admitted
supervisor, questioned employee Hart about union
activities, I conclude these were violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. The reasons I conclude the
company thereby coercively interfered with em-
ployee Section 7 rights are that both incidents oc-
curred in the plant where the employee worked. In
fact the second incident occurred at his work sta-
tion and included a note of warning that the super-
visor hoped the employee knew what he was doing.
Considering the superior status of Woley and the
subordinate status of Hart , which were inherent in
the employment relationship , I conclude the inter-
rogations were unlawful.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For similar reasons I conclude that parts of
Murphy's conversation with Philpot on June 13
were coercive interference with employee Section 7
rights contrary to Section 8(a)(1). I do not think
that Murphy was pursuing a company plan -to
discourage unionism. The-purpose of his individual
meeting with Philpot on June 13 was to -find'out
whether he was a desirable employee. Nevertheless,
in ,his discussion with Philpot he overstepped the
line drawn by Section 8(a)(1). While many of his
statements' taken individually, such as for example
that he preferred that his department not be union,
might in some circumstances be lawful, expressions
of opinion, when all of the references which ° he
made regarding unionism and employee benefits
are considered together, they amount to coercion
and interference. I note, that Murphy, the super-
visor, called Philpot, the employee, into his office
only a few -days after, as a direct result of a
meeting during which the employee had aggressive-
ly questioned the supervisor about an announced
wage increase. Although their later individual
discussion in Murphy's office on June 13 was
general, covering many topics, unionism was among
the topics discussed and Murphy indicated his per-
sonal opposition to the -Teamsters. He also asked
Philpot what he-thought the advantages of unionism
would be. He talked about the company policy of
helping employees with school tuition. In some cir-
cumstances a supervisor's statement that an existing
employee benefit would in the future in the event
of unionism be the subject of collective bargaining
might be a lawful statement. But in the context here
presented, Murphy's comment, that paying em-
ployee tuition might or might not be retained and
that in the event the Teamsters prevailed it would
be completely on, a bargaining basis between the,
company and the union, was immersed in a- general
probe of the employee's qualifications, a probe ar-
ranged by the' supervisor in his office during which,
he indicated his antiunion attitude and- also
questioned the -employee about his union views.
Thus what in another context might have been an
innocuous statement, in these circumstances car-
ried to the employee the message that if the Team-
sters got in the company might withdraw the
benefit.
Although the conduct of Woley and Murphy was
unjustified,, I conclude that those incidents standing
alone are an insufficient basis for upsetting the
rerun election on June 24. They were isolated in-
cidents involving only two employees in a unit- in
which 175 were eligible to vote. Moreover, the-
Woley interrogations took place long before the
rerun election, in fact even before the first election
on April 15, and this is an additional reason for not
upsetting the,election because of them. See Home
Comfort Products Co., 180 NLRB 597. -
Turning now to the announcing and granting of
wage and salary increases, improved hospitalization
insurance benefits, and the institution of a policy of
continual review of employee- compensation (wage
and salary administration program), I conclude that
the company was justified in making them and did
not thereby violate Section 8(a)(1). I also conclude
that they are not sufficient, grounds for setting aside
the rerun election of June 24..
The complaint alleges that-, these actions were
taken for the purpose of influencing the employees
against the Teamsters. The company contends that
its motives were pure. It claims- it, harbored no
union animus, citing the fact that-it has had a long
and successful collective-bargaining relationship
with the Steelworkers covering most of its em-
ployees: Considering all the evidence one must con-
clude that the company has not harbored a general
animus toward unions. On the -other hand, con-
sidering the anti-Teamsters comments of Murphy
and the anti-Teamsters literature and statements is-
sued by the company before the June 24 rerun
election, it is clear the company preferred not to
have the Teamsters represent its unorganized em-
ployees. While this attitude explains the company's
reasons for issuing its electioneering literature and
statements, it does not, in the light of the entire
evidence, seem adequate- to explain the- wage in-
creases, improvements in hospitalization insurance,
and the wage and salary administration program.
In- the past- when- the Steelworkers contract
resulted, in higher wages or benefits for the large
number of employees represented by them, the
practice had been to grant some similar wage
increases to other hourly paid employees-who were
unrepresented and to review the compensation of
unrepresented salaried employees, granting them
appropriate increases. Such increases and benefits
granted the unrepresented employees were not ex-
actly the same as those won in bargaining by the
Steelworkers but were closely comparable. The
most recent history, which is involved in this case,
follows that pattern. The company and the Steel-
workers concluded negotiations for a new 3-year
contract providing for wage increases and improved
hospitalization, among other things, on May 29, the-
new terms to be effective June 1. It was following
this that the company put into effect the increases
in compensation and the improved insurance provi-
sions about ,which the General-Counsel complains.
But since , these increases were in line with past
practice, the company was justified on that ground
in instituting them. Borden Cabinet Corporation, 148
NLRB 996, 1002; United Screw & Bolt Corporation,
91 NLRB 916.
Regarding the compensation , of the un-
represented employees, the evidence shows in addi-
tion that the rates-paid by St. Louis Car lagged sub-
stantially behind' what competing companies in -the
St. Louis area paid and-in certain categories behind
what other divisions- of the respondent company
paid. Because of its unsatisfactory performance a
new management team had been assigned- to St.
Louis Car and-as early' as: July 1968 planning began
for upgrading employee compensation: The com-
pany carried forward with this program in Sep-
ST. LOUIS CAR DIV. GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES
tember, October, and November by way of starting
wage surveys . It did not learn of the Teamsters or-
ganizing effort until early November, and vice pres-
ident of administration Bryan testified credibly
that the fact that the Teamsters organizing and the
company 's wage survey program were going on at
the same time was just a coincidence . The record
shows that there were legitimate economic reasons
for the company's effort to upgrade wages and that
the program to achieve this upgrading was in
response to these economic considerations and, in
fact, commenced before the Teamsters appeared
on the scene . See Motorola , Inc., 163 NLRB 385.
The dual hospitalization insurance program was
in part tied to the Steelworkers contract in that the
unrepresented hourly paid employees historically
were covered by the same plan as those under the
Steelworkers contract. And when improved
benefits were negotiated into the Steelworkers con-
tract effective June 1, similar benefits were then ex-
tended to the unrepresented hourly paid em-
ployees. The same justification does not apply to
the improved hospitalization insurance benefits
granted in June to the unrepresented salaried em-
ployees. However, other considerations adequately
justified the granting of those improvements. The
plan for salaried employees was not just a plan for
St. Louis Car. It was in effect in other divisions of
the company as well and the improvements granted
in June were applied not just to St. Louis Car but
also to the other divisions. As early as May 1 the
company was prepared to put the improved pro-
gram for salaried employees into effect at St. Louis
Car but held off because it feared they would
become a floor in the negotiating then going on
with the Steelworkers. Consequently implementa-
tion* was deferred until after the Steelworkers
negotiations were concluded . These facts argue
against the assertion of the General Counsel that
the improvements were granted in June in order to
influence the results of the election on June 24.
The General Counsel seems to argue that the com-
pany accelerated the effective date of the benefits
in order to affect the election , and in this connec-
tion points to the fact that when improvements in
insurance were made in the past pamphlets explain-
ing the changes were normally issued to the em-
ployees . No such pamphlets were issued in the
present matter. Instead meetings were held and
memorandums were distributed explaining the
changes . The General Counsel's argument loses
whatever force it might have when consideration is
taken of the fact that the pamphlets are prepared
by the insurance carrier and as of the time of the
hearing herein they were still not ready for distribu-
tion . That detail, therefore, appears to have been
outside the control of respondent . But in any case it
seems to me that the mode of communication of
the benefit is immaterial.
The General Counsel also argues that the wage
increases and benefits put into effect in June could
as well have been postponed until after the rerun
535
election on June 24 and that the fact that they were
not indicates a motivation to use them as devices
for unlawfully influencing the employees in the
election. The facts indicate however that there was
a serious need for the improvements that were
made . A good example of this is the matter of the
keypunch operators which was so pressing that it
required announcement of their increase in ad-
vance of other unrepresented employees . The com-
pany plan to combat the problems of a low-wage
structure was a long range plan which was ready for
implementation as early as May 1. At the time the
improvements were made the representation case
had been in progress for over six months . The em-
ployees expected the improvements to be made
about the time that they were. And there was at
least the risk that delay to a later date might have
subjected the company to charges of unfair labor
practices on that account. See The Deutsch Com-
pany, 178 NLRB 616.
In the period just before the rerun election the
company engaged in anti-Teamsters electioneering.
I conclude these were "permissible expressions of
opinion ." United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 91
NLRB 916, 917, fn. 4. The statements contained
nothing which could reasonably be characterized as
a threat or a promise. It is true that the company
called attention to the recent increases and
benefits. But if these were justifiably granted,
reference to their existence was lawful. See William
L. Bonnell Co., Inc., 170 NLRB 204. The closest
thing to a promise was the company announcement
on June 17, before the election, that a continuing
review would be made of employee compensation,
the June 20 speeches of President Davis and Vice
President Tucker to the engineering department in-
dicating salaries would be brought up to standard,
and the announcement on June 27, after the elec-
tion, that as of July 1 a cost-of-living increase
would be given to unrepresented salaried em-
ployees (other than the keypunch operators).
These actions however were in line with the com-
pany's economically justified program of upgrading
employee compensation and of reexamining com-
pensation levels on an orderly basis, and none of
them were contingent upon the outcome of the
election. See American Dredging Company, 180
NLRB 800; and cf. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 160
NLRB 279, 284.
Considering all the evidence I conclude that a
preponderance of the evidence does not establish
that the changes announced and put into effect in
June were for the purpose of influencing the votes
of employees in the election. On the contrary I con-
clude that based on past practice and the more
recent economic status of the enterprise:, the com-
pany had valid justifications for its conduct. In this
regard the present matter differs from Triangle
Plastics, Inc., 166 NLRB 768, and N.L.R.B. v.
Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, relied on by the
General Counsel. Accordingly I conclude that ex-
cept for the conduct of Woley and Murphy previ-
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ously found herein to be unfair labor practices, the
company did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. I have previously concluded that the conduct
of Woley and Murphy, standing alone, is an insuf-
ficent basis for upsetting the June 24 election. I also
conclude that the other conduct on which objec-
tions to the election were based and which was al-
leged in the complaint as violations of Section
8(a)(1) likewise does not warrant setting aside the
election of June 24.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the company set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the company in certain
respects violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Having found that the
company did not engage in conduct sufficiently ob-
jectionable to interfere with the results of the rerun
election held June 24, 1 recommend that Objections
I and II of the Teamsters be overruled, that said
election not be set aside and that the results thereof
be certified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of
the Act.
2. The Teamsters and the Steelworkers are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By such unfair labor practices respondent has
not interfered with nor illegally affected the results
of the Board rerun election held among respon-
dent's employees on June 24, 1969.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na-
5. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record herein I hereby
issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
St. Louis Car Division General Steel Industries,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees con-
cerning their union sympathies and activities.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of benefits
if a union is selected as their collective-bargaining
representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at St. Louis, Missouri, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by
respondent's representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Objections I and II to
conduct affecting the results of the Board rerun
election conducted in an appropriate unit of
respondent's employees on June 24, 1969, be over-
ruled and that the results of said election be cer-
tified.
tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 14 , in wasting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
ST LOUIS CAR DIV GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES 537
APPENDIX ST. Louis CAR DIVISION
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their union sympathies or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
loss of any benefit if they select a union as
their collective -bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
GENERAL STEEL
INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions , may be directed to the
Board's Office , 1040 Boatmen 's Bank Building, 314
North Broadway , St. Louis , Missouri 63102,
Telephone 314-622-4167.