Texas Prudential Insurance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 802 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were terminated, and in the divisional reorganization which occurred
a few months later a separate seniority system for each division was
instituted.
In view of the organizational cleavage which has been effected, and
the present nonintegrated character of the two divisions, we believe
that a single multiplant unit of Capehart and Farnsworth employees
is no longer appropriate. Although the former Capehart Company
had a history of bargaining for all its employees, this was, except for
the last year of the last contract, based on the manufacture of related
products within a single plant. Although we accord great weight to
a collective-bargaining history, we do not regard it as determinative
in deciding the appropriateness of a multiplant unit where, as here,
significant changes have recently occurred.4
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All production and maintenance employees of Capehart-
Farnsworth Company, at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employees of Farnsworth
Electronics Company, at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
4 Frost Lumber Industries, 101 NLRB 659, General Electric Company, 100 NLRB 1489,
1490-3; and Fruehauf Trailer Company, 87 NLRB 589.
TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Co. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, LOCAL #27, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-782.
February 28,1955
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board on July 22, 1954,1 a representation elec-
tion was conducted on August 9, 1954, among the employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate. Upon completion of the elec-
tion the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of
ballots. The tally indicated that of approximately 107 eligible voters,
'109 NLRB 319
111 NLRB No. 131.
TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Co. 803
99 cast ballots, of which 58 were against the Petitioner and 41 were for
the Petitioner . There were no void or challenged ballots.
Thereafter , the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Board , the Regional Director conducted an investigation and
duly issued and served upon the parties his report on objections. The
Regional Director found that of the 4 objections filed, Nos. 1, 2, and 3
were not supported by the evidence , and he therefore recommended
that they be overruled . As there is no exception to this recommenda-
tion, it is hereby adopted. The Regional Director further recom-
mended that objection No. 4, involving a speech by the Employer to
the assembled employees , be sustained , and that the Board set aside
the election and direct a new one. The Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the report on objections.
On August 6, 1954, 3 days before the election, the Employer's vice
president read to the assembled employees a prepared speech which
contained the following paragraph :
Now let me just mention briefly some changes in your working
conditions that have recently been granted without a union. It
may be that you have been told that these things were forced
upon us by the union . - If so, someone has misled you or delib-
erately misinformed you, because it is of record that these bene-
fits were authorized before we knew of any union activities what-
soever in our office. As this Company has progressed it has
granted more and more to its employees because it believes they
rightfully deserve it and because it had the ability to do so. For
instance , since last year we have granted one additional holiday.
We participate in the maintenance of a camp for those who find
their pleasures outdoors or near the water. Last year the di-
rectors of this Company authorized the establishment of a pen-
sion plan, the greater part of the expense for such plan to be borne
by the Company. This plan will probably be placed in effect early
in 1955.
The Regional Director concluded that the quoted announcement re-
lating to the pension plan was calculated to, and did , interfere with
the results of the election , finding that there was no indication that
the announcement was timed for reasons other than the impending
election, and that it was not shown that the plan would be insti-
tuted irrespective of the outcome of the election . He reasoned that
the word "probably " indicated that granting the plan was contingent
upon the happening of some future event.
We cannot agree with the Regional Director 's conclusion that the
word "probably," in the context in which it was used, indicates that
institution of the plan was to be contingent upon the happening of
.144056-55-vol 111 52
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some future event. We find that a fair reading of the last two sen-
tences of the quoted paragraph compels the conclusion that they ex-
press uncertainty only as to the precise date on which the plan was to
be put into effect. The Employer had already stated unequivocally that
the plan had previously been authorized, and it seems clear that this
assertion was accurate.
The Employer explains that these statements, including the one with
respect to the pension plan, were made in order to combat exaggerated
union propaganda. Moreover, asserts the Employer, it could not have
affected a free choice by the employees, as a number of its employees
were previously aware of the existence of the plan. The facts disclosed
by the Regional Director's report give substantial support to this con-
tention. The report finds that the Employer had been considering the
pension plan since 1950, and that some of the employees had worked
on the plan themselves over the years. In 1952, the Employer dis-
tributed questionnaires to all employees requesting information which
it was necessary to secure for use in formulating the plan. When
some of the employees inquired as to the purpose for which the in-
formation was requested, they were told by the Employer that a
pension plan was being considered. In April 1954, at the hearing on
the representation petition in this case, the Employer testified that a
pension plan had been under consideration, and "was supposed to go
into effect on July 1" (1954).
As the Board has had occasion to state, it will not reject what
purports to be the choice of the voters in a Board-conducted election
unless the registration of a free choice is shown by all the circum-
stances to have been unlikely? In the circumstances of this case we
find that a free choice was not rendered unlikely because of the Em-
ployer's announcement. Unlike the Regional Director, we cannot dis-
regard the many prior informal indications of the existence of the
plan, including the fact that over an extensive period of time, em-
ployees at various times worked on the plan, filled out questionnaires
relating to the plan, and the fact that a number of employees were
explicitly told that the plan was being evolved. In view of the sub-
stantial employee awareness, we find that the Employer's truthful an-
nouncement of the plan's prior authorization and prospective institu-
tion could not have been calculated to, and did not, substantially affect
the results of the election. We shall, therefore, overrule the Regional
Director's recommendation to set aside the election, and shall certify
the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Office Employees International Union, Local 27, AFL, and
that the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the employees of the Employer.]
2 The Liberal Market, Inc., 108 NLRB 1481.
SOUTHWESTER CO. 805
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I cannot agree with my colleagues' conclusion that the Employer's
preelection conduct did not interfere with the employees' freedom of
choice in the election. As found by the Regional Director, the an-
nouncement of the pension plan was made by the Employer's vice
president in a speech delivered to the employees on company time
just outside the 24-hour period defined in the Peerless Plywood case a
The facts as to employee knowledge of the plan were reported by the
Regional Director as follows : (1) A few employees had worked on
various phases of the plan; (2) in 1952 the Employer had obtained
some information to be used in formulating the plan by means of
-employee questionnaires; (3) at that time a few employees were told,
when they asked the purpose of the questionnaires, that the Company
was considering a pension plan. This evidence does not, in my opin-
ion, support the majority's finding of "substantial employee aware-
ness" that the plan was near fruition. On the contrary, it supports
the Regional Director's conclusion that the employees were unaware
that such a plan was close to reality until so notified in the Employer's
speech of August 6. In announcing the plan just before the election,
the vice president said, "This plan will probably be placed in effect
early in 1955." Upon the basis of these facts, it is clear to me that
the institution of a pension plan was not anticipated by the employees
prior to the announcement and that the relationship between the an-
nouncement (which preceded the earliest possible effective date of the
plan some 5 months) and the election was not a temporal coincidence.
Accordingly, I would find that the timing of the announcement was
governed solely by the imminence of the election and, therefore, it was
deliberately calculated to, and did, interfere with the employees' free-
dom of choice of a bargaining representative' I would, therefore, set
aside the election as recommended by the Regional Director.
J Peerless Plywood, Company, 107 NLRB 427.
* Knickerbocker Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 107 NLRB 507.
MORRIS SEIDMON , GOLDIE SEIDMON, HARRY HENKIN AND LEONARD
SEIDMON, D/B/A SOUTHWESTER Co. and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, AFL. Case No. 13-CA-1401. March 1, 1955
Decision and Order
On March 8, 1954, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that the Respondents cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
111 NLRB No. 136.