The Vellumoid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

THE VELLUMOID COMPANY 1431
Manager." We find no merit in the Petitioner's contentions concern-
ing the supervisory character of Singer, and shall overrule the chal-
lenge to his ballot as recomended by the Regional Director. It is
well established that the sporadic exercise of supervisory authority
does not constitute an employee a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2 (11) of the Act. See Sunnyland Packing Company,
113 NLRB 162, 165; Sebastopol Cooperative Cannery, 111 NLRB
530, 531.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this direction,
open and count the ballots of Mary Roeder, and of McGory, Heidel,
Maimes, and Singer, and thereafter serve upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots.]
The Vellumoid Company and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4891. September 24,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 25, 1957, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First
Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees
in the stipulated unit. Following the election, the parties were fur-
nished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 172
eligible voters, 84 were for the Petitioner, 71 were against the Peti-
tioner, and 14 were challenged.
On May 2, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to the election.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election, the Regional Director investigated both the objections
and the challenges, and thereafter, on June 17, 1957, issued and duly
served upon the parties a report on objections and challenged ballots,
a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that the objec-
tions were without merit, and recommended that they be overruled
and the challenges to the ballots of four individuals be sustained.'
The Employer timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report with supporting brief.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
I The Regional Director made no ruling as to the remaining challenges because they
could not affect the results of the election.
9 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers,
and Bean].
118 NLRB No. 194.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Worcester, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the
Regional Director's report and the Employer' s exceptions thereto
and its supporting brief, and hereby adopts the findings and recom-
mendations of the Regional Director. Accordingly, as we are sus-
taining the challenges to the ballots of four individuals, and as the
tally of ballots therefore shows that the Petitioner has received a
majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall, in accordance
with the recommendations of the Regional Director, certify the Peti-
tioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of employees at
the Employer's Worcester, Massachusetts , plant in the unit found
appropriate.]
CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON OBJECTIONS AND
CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated April 12,
1957, and approved by the Regional Director on April 12 , 1957, the Regional
Director conducted an election on April 25, 1957 , among certain employees of the
Employer . The tally of ballots cast at said election is as follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters-------------------------- 172
Void ballots------------------------------------------------ 0
Votes cast for Petitioner-------------------------------------- 84
Votes cast against participating labor organization ----------------- 71
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------ 155
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------- 14
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots ----------------------- 169
Challenges are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
On May 2, 1957, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election , serving copies thereof on the Petitioner . Pursuant to para-
graph 5 of said stipulation , and Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, the Regional Director has conducted an investigation of the objections and
challenged ballots and makes this his consolidated report thereon , together with
his recommendations.
THE OBJECTIONS
The objections allege, in substance , that on the morning of April 25 , 1957, 6 to 8
hours prior to the commencement of the voting period , agents of the Petitioner
distributed a leaflet to the employees of the Employer which contained false, mis-
leading, and inaccurate information.
The objection to a portion of the leaflet , a copy of which is attached, is contained
in the third paragraph from the end of that leaflet and deals with wage rates at
the Employer 's plant and at a plant of the U. S. Envelope Company located in the
THE VELLUMOID COMPANY 1433
same general neighborhood . The Employer states that this matter is "false, mis-
leading and inaccurate " in that:
a. U. S. Envelope Company has no Beam presses at all and thus the com-
plained-of statement misrepresents rates at U. S. Envelope Company;
b. The rates for Beam press operators at Vellumoid for approximately one-
half of such operators is $2.02 per hour rather than $1.90, the rate alleged to
be represented as the "maximum" at Vellumoid;
c. The "going rate" for Seybold press operators at U. S. Envelope Company
was represented to be from $2.19 to $2.345 per hour while, in fact, the rates
paid at that plant for such operations range from $1.39 to $2.195 per hour,
except for certain operators who for merit do receive as much as $2.345 per
hour, and that the Seybold press work at U. S. Envelope is not comparable
with the work done on such presses at Vellumoid; and
d. The work on the Kluge presses at Vellumoid is not comparable to the
work done on such presses at U. S. Envelope, and that operators of such
presses at U. S. Envelope receive as little as $1.55 per hour.
Investigation reveals that the complained -of leaflet was distributed as alleged.
It further appears from such investigation that the leaflet had as its background a
speech to the assembled employees given by the Employer's president, Mr. Wald,
in which Mr. Wald stated, inter alia, "First, wages: I understand the Union has
made the statement that they will get you a 30¢ an hour increase. Are any of you
going to fall for a statement like that? How can any union promise you in advance
that they are going to get you 300 or 130 or 3¢? Such things have to come as a
result of negotiation and bargaining and no union can promise you in advance what
they are going to get. The Company has to agree to anything that goes into a
union contract. We had a contract in our Detroit plant before we closed it up in
1946 and I participated in every negotiation meeting. So I know, from personal
experience, how these things work.
"Another point-from what I have heard, the union has. quoted examples of
higher wages being paid in other plants for the same kind of work. I have checked
on some of these quoted rates. For instance, on one job where we are paying
something over $1.90 per hour, the union claimed that men in some other plants
were getting $2.25 an hour. The truth of the matter is that the actual rate being
pair for this work in the plant mentioned is about $1.65 per hour."
On April 18, 1957, the Employer distributed a letter to each of its employees
which stated, inter alia, as follows:
About wages-Vellumoid has always paid fair wages. They compare favor-
ably with wages paid for jobs in other plants in Worcester for the same amount
of skill and effort. We don't have to tell you that this is not a sweat shop.
We have voluntarily put wage increases into effect from time to time without
being asked by anyone to do so.
The Employer claims that the Union's leaflet of April 25, 1957, was misleading
in its reference to Beam presses since U. S. Envelope does not operate such equip-
ment. Close examination of the literature, however, reveals that the Union does
not claim that U. S. Envelope operates Beam presses, but merely compares the work
on Beam presses at Vellumoid with work on "the same type of presses at U. S.
Envelope."
The Employer further complains that the union literature represents the rate at
Vellumoid for Seybold and Beam presses to be a "maximum" of $1.90 an hour
whereas, in fact, approximately 50 percent of the Beam operators at Vellumoid
receive $2.02 per hour. Again, a close examination of the complained-of literature
does not reveal any indication that the quoted rate is represented to be a "maximum."
As to the Seybold press comparison, the Employer complains that the leaflet
falsely indicates the "going rate" at U. S. Envelope to be from $2.19 to $2.345 per
hour. Examination of the literature shows that the words "going -rate" do not
appear therein. Investigation discloses that the top rate for such work at U. S.
Envelope is $2.345 per hour as alleged in the union literature and that the minimum
for work on such presses is $1.39 per hour with an automatic progression between
these figures. Between these extremes are various rates with a first-class ex-
perienced operator receiving $2.195 per hour, approximately the same figures set out
by the Union in the complained-of literature. It further appears that the type of
work performed on this type of press at Vellumoid is different from that performed
with this equipment at U. S. Envelope.
As a matter of fact, figures supplied by the Employer show that 10 of the 18
Beam and Seybold operators at Vellumoid receive $1.90 per hour or less even
when merit increases are included.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the Kluge presses, it appears that the work on this equipment at the two
compared plants is different in that at the U. S. Envelope plant the work of setting
up the machine is done not by the operator but by a classification known as press-
man, and that the press operators there receive a top rate of $1.55 per hour, while
those who set up the presses receive the rates quoted in the Petitioner's literature.
Vellumoid is a manufacturer of gaskets while U. S. Envelope is engaged in the
making of envelopes. Thus, the uses to which the various types of presses are
put are different. At Vellumoid the presses are used as cutting or punching
machines, while at U. S. Envelope they are utilized as printing presses and for
other uses as well. Since these 2 plants are in the same neighborhood, this dis-
tinction as to the type of work was well known to the employees of Vellumoid
and the comparison by the Petitioner of the 2 types of work can hardly be said
to have misled the electorate at Vellumoid since it was in a position to apprise
itself of the 2 types of employment.
As to the rates quoted, it does not appear that the Petitioner anywhere stated
that the rates quoted by it for U. S. Envelope were the "going rate" or the rates
for operators. Nor does it appear that the rates quoted for Vellumoid were
quoted as the "maximum" rates there. The complained-of literature compares the
rates of "workers on the same types of presses," and the rate ranges quoted are
substantially correct as to "workers." Unlike the rates used, by the unions in
Reiss Associates, Inc., 116 NLRB 217, The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026,
and The Gummed Products Company, 112 NLRB 1092, the quotations here are
not as to particular job descriptions. Also unlike the Reiss, Calidyne, and Gummed
Products cases, the Petitioner here did not have "peculiar" knowledge of the rates
at the plant used for comparison since here, the Petitioner was not the collective-
bargaining agent at U. S. Envelope.
The most recent enunciation of Board policy on the question of pre-election mis-
representations is that contained in the matter of Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 117
NLRB 744, where the Board reaffirms its reluctance to police campaign utterances.
In that case, the Board states that the basic issue in this type of situation is not
the truth or falsity of the representations but the ability of the electorate, under
all of the circumstances, to properly evaluate them.
It is the conclusion of the Regional Director that the Petitioner did not wilfully
misrepresent wage rates, either with respect to the Employer or U. S. Envelope,
but at most used comparisons that were ambiguous; that because of the proximity of
the plants, the employees of the Employer had the knowledge and ability to evaluate
the representations. In fact, they were invited to do so by the very leaflet objected to,
when in the concluding sentence the Petitioner says, "Don't believe us. Ask
some of your friends who work there."
THE CHALLENGES
As indicated above, there were 14 challenged ballots cast at the election con-
ducted on April 25, 1957. Of these, six were challenged by the agent of the
Regional Director since their names did not appear on the eligibility list. Investi-
gation of these 6 challenged ballots reveals that 4 of them were cast by employees
classified by the Employer as firemen and watchmen. These employees are Henry
Leighton, Ernest St. Onge, Leo Tivman, and Willie Putnam.
Each of these employees, except Tivman, works a regular 8-hour shift: Leighton
from 6 a. in. to 2 p. in., St. Onge from 2 p. m. to 10 p. m., and Putnam from
10 to 6 a. in. In addition, Leighton works one 8-hour shift on Sundays. Tivman
is the relief man on weekends who normally works 24 hours weekly from Friday
night through Sunday night as a replacement for the other 3.
In addition to operating the boilers and certain auxiliary pumps in the Employer's
boilerroom, these employees, during the night, on weekends and before 8 o'clock
in the morning, are charged with the security of the plant. From 6 p. m. to 6 a. m.
on weekdays and all day on weekends, the fireman-watchman on duty makes rounds
of the plant "winding clocks" and checking entrances to and exits from the plant
in the interests of security. During the night and at other times when the plant
is not in production, the only entrance available is through the boilerroom, and
it is the responsibility of the fireman-watchman on duty to see that no unauthorized
person is admitted to the premises. As stated by St. Onge, his duty in the event
he found a stranger or unauthorized person in the plant would be "to see how he
got in, what he wanted and if I was not given -a proper reason for his presence,
I would throw him out or call the police to do it."
The Employer's position as to these employees is that while they do not enforce
rules against employees "they would normally make inquiry of any unauthorized
person who might be on the premises."
LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING DRIVERS 1435
Since these employees perform the duties of guards during some or all of their
working hours, they must be considered as guards within the meaning of the Act
and not properly included in this unit of production and maintenance employees.
(See Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act; Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106
NLRB 1383.)
It will accordingly be recommended that the challenges to the ballots of these
four employees be sustained. The remaining challenges, 10 in number, cannot
affect the results of the election and no ruling is made as to them.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
VOTE "YES"
Be sure to vote-and this is particularly for the girls. Yes, as Mr. Wald said,
no one will know you vote, and that goes for the forelady who has been so busy
trying to prevail upon you to vote against the Union.
People in positions of authority naturally don't like the Union. No Union means
they can be the "cock of the walk." They can take care of their favorites with
complete disregard for length of service and ability. When a Union enters the
picture the boss is no longer the supreme power. They have to take seniority into
consideration and treat the help fairly, and the company has to give equal pay for
equal work.
We further understand that Mr. Wald called a meeting yesterday morning and
painted a very gloomy picture about what would happen if you voted for the Union.
Let's look at the record.
The C. I. O. first started organizing in Worcester 20 years ago. Today there
are between 15 and 17 thousand C. I. O. members in this city.
Would such progress have been possible if the Union didn't do a good job for
its members?
Mr. Wald also asserted that Vellumoid was paying as good or better than other
area shops for comparable work. Here is just one example: Seybold & Beams
Presses pay $1.90 at Vellumoid, and Kluge Presses pay '$2.02. Workers on the
same type of presses at U. S. Envelope get $2.19 and $2.34/ per hour. Don't
believe us. Ask some of your friends who work there.
Much gossip has been circulated about what you'll have to pay in the form of
Dues and initiation fees. In forming a new Local we don't charge initiation fees
or assessments-and the dues are $5.00 a month with $2.50 being returned to your
own Local Union. The Union is yours. What you can gain from having a Union
will be measured by the support you give the Union.
Your first step to improve your wages and conditions will be taken today. Vote
YES and win Big. The bigger your victory in today's election, the better your
contract, and the greater your gains in the form of improved wages, pensions,
insurance, vacations and general working conditions.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
274 Main Street, Worcester, Mass.
#716-2521-usa
Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No. 928,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO; and
Local No. 52 , Laundry & Dry Cleaning Workers International,
AFL-CIO and Southern Service Company , Ltd. Case No.
21-CC-?38. September 25,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23, 1957, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, a copy of
which is attached hereto, finding that the Respondents had not en-
gaged in and were not engaging in any unfair labor practices, and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. There-
118 NLRB No. 193.