United Screw & Bolt Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 916 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of UNITED SCREW & BOLT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AdRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case `No.13 RC-1048
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
October 12, 1950
On June 1, 1950, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1
issued by the Board on May 2, 1950, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Thirteenth Region among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in the Decision. Upon the conclusion of the election, a
tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of approxi-
mately 214 eligible voters, 203 cast valid ballots, of which 76 were for
the Petitioner and 127 were against the Petitioner. There were no
challenged ballots.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election alleging, inter alia, that the Employer
interfered with the election by putting into effect a wage increase and
insurance plan for the employees of the Employer during the period
between the hearing in this case and the election. Thereupon, in ac-
cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector conducted an investigation and issued and duly served upon the
parties his report on objections to election, finding merit in the
foregoing objection and recommending that the election be set aside.2
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report, and a supporting brief.
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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
The Regional Director found that beginning about January 13,
189 NLRB 953.
2 The Petitioner also objected to the election on the grounds that the Employer threat-
ened its employees with loss of employment , and that supervisors transported employees
to the polling place. The Regional Director recommended that these objections be over-
ruled. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we hereby adopt the Regional Director's
recommendation and overrule these objections.
91 NLRB No. 156.
916
UNITED SCREW d, BOLT CORPORATION 917
'1950, and continuing until about May 31, 1950 3 the Employer issued
a number of letters and bulletins to its employees, setting forth its posi-
tion with respect to the Petitioner's. organizational campaign, and its
opposition thereto,4 and also announcing certain wage increases and
other benefits. Thus, on March 2, 1950, the Employer announced that
the insurance company had increased the premiums on hospital in-
surance carried by the employees, but that, in accord with its action in
connection with a similar increase in 1947, the Employer would pay
the increase, and the cost to the employees would remain unchanged.5
On April 17, 1950, the Employer announced that, in line with its policy
of adjusting wage rates and benefits to conform to those in the indus-
try, it was increasing wage rates 6 cents per hour, effective immedi-
ately, and was making changes in its insurance program, at a cost to
it of about 4 cents per hour per employee. On the following day, the
details of the increased insurance benefits were announced, preceded by
statements that the wage and insurance benefit increases were based
upon changes made in other plants in the industry, in line with the
Employer's past policy, and that "although a union has for some
months been seeking to represent you in your dealings with us, we
feel that it would not be fair to- you if we delayed giving you those
benefits which we would normally grant at this time."
The Employer contended that the foregoing wage and benefit in-
creases were made to conform wages and employee benefits at its Chi-
cago, Illinois, plant, to increases effective April 14,1950, made through
bargaining negotiations at its Cleveland, .Ohio, plant .6 It contended
further that such increases were made in accord with its historic policy
.of adjusting wages and benefits at its Chicago plant to conform to
adjustments made at its Cleveland plant,' and, at other plants in the
8 The petition was filed in this proceeding on January 17, 1950 ; the hearing was held
on February 24, 1950. As noted hereinbefore , the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Election on May 2 , 1950 , and the election was held on June 1, 1950.
4 Although the Regional Director does not rely on these letters as a basis for his recom-
mendation that the election be set aside , we have nevertheless considered the contents of
the letters set forth in the Regional Director 's report and find that they constitute permis-
sible expressions of opinion.
The Regional Director does not rely on this incident as a basis for. recommending that
the election be set aside.
u The Employer operates two plants, one at Chicago , Illinois , and the other at Cleveland,
Ohio . Only the Chicago plant is involved in this proceeding . Since about 1943, the em-
ployees at the Cleveland plant have been represented by a labor organization , since 1948
by the Petitioner herein.
7 The Employer asserts that for many years prior to 1943 , wage increases were made at
both its plants at the same time and on . the same basis . Thus, both plants received a
10-percent increase on April 21 , 1941. Since that time , increases have been made as
follows :
1944: Increased vacation benefits were granted at Chicago , following the granting of
similar benefits at Cleveland , pursuant to a War Labor Board directive , and in conformity
with the pattern in the industry.
1946: A 12 cents per hour increase was granted at Chicago , effective January 1, 1946.
Subsequently , an 181, cents per hour increase was negotiated at Cleveland , effective March
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
industry. It asserts that because the increase of April 17 conformed
to its historic policy, it did not constitute a basis for setting aside the
results of the election. Relying on certain Board precedents,8 how-
ever, the Regional Director concluded that in view of the pendency of
the Board Decision, and the absence of any compelling circumstances,'
the increase was sufficiently proximate to the date of the election to
interfere with the results thereof. Accordingly, he recommended that
the election be set aside. We do not agree.
The Regional Director's investigation, as supplemented by the Em-
ployer's brief,10 establishes that for a number of years before the Peti-
tioner filed its petition herein, the Employer has followed the practice
of attempting to maintain substantial equality of wages and other
benefits between its two plants. Although the time differential be-
tween the granting of increases at the two plants has varied, such
variations have been insubstantial. They do not detract from the
fact'that it has been the Employer's past practice to attempt to equal-
ize, as between the two plants, the benefits granted to its employees,
adjusting the terms of employment in one plant at about the same
time changes were made in the other. The Employer's past practice
in this regard is of great significance unless we are to hold that the
25, 1946. An additional 6 cents per hour increase was thereupon granted at Chicago,
effective April 1, 1946.
1947: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland in March. An industry pattern
of wage increases approximating 11% cents per hour, plus six paid holidays , became
apparent about mid -April . An increase of 12 cents per hour, plus six paid holidays, was
granted at Chicago, effective April 21, 1947. The' negotiations at Cleveland were con-
cluded on June 2, 1947, on the basis of an increase of 11 cents per hour, plus six paid
holidays.
1948: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland on July 21 , 1948, and an in-
crease of 10 cents per hour was offered on July 28. On August 9, during the Cleveland
negotiations , an increase of 9 percent ( about 10 cents per hour ), was made effective at
Chicago. A subsequent strike at Cleveland was settled, on October 11, 1948, on the basis
of an average increase of 10 cents per hour.
1950: Contract negotiations were initiated at Cleveland on January 20, 1950, and a
strike was called on March 31. About this time, an industry pattern of a 10 cents per
hour "package " increase, variously divided between wages and insurance , became apparent.
On April 6, 1950, the Employer decided to grant the 10 cents per hour package at Cleve-
land, and to institute a similar package at Chicago , but to withhold announcement of its
action at Chicago until settlement of the Cleveland strike. (It asserts that premature
announcement of its action at Chicago would have prejudiced other aspects of its Cleveland
negotiations.) The Cleveland strike was settled on Friday, April 14, 1950, and the.Chicago
announcement was made the following Monday.
"Hutton Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1434; Lake Superior District Power Company,
88 NLRB 1496. '
0 In this connection , he noted that the Chicago announcement was made 3 days after the
effective date of the Cleveland increase , although in 1946, 1947, and 1948, the effective
dates of the increases at the two plants varied from 1 week to almost 1 month.
10 The Employer's brief contains allegations of facts which are not contained in the
Regional Director's report. As these. allegations merely amplify facts revealed by the
Regional Director's investigation, and are not contradicted thereby, or challenged in any
exceptions filed by the Petitioner, we shall, for the purposes of this Decision, accept such
allegations as proved.
UNITED SCREW, & BOLT_ CORPORATIQN,_ 919
granting of wage increases^or other employee benefits during the pend-
ency of a representation proceeding is per se,grounds for setting
aside an election.
We do not so hold. It is true that we have carefully scrutinized an
employer's granting of benefits' to his, employees during the period
prior to a representation election to determine its likely effect upon
the employees' freedom of choice." However, where we. have set aside
elections on such grounds, we have found that the relationship between-
the granting of benefits and the election was more than mere temporal
coincidence." We have found, under the circumstances of the case,
that the granting of the benefits was intended, or was reasonably cal-
culated to interfere with the employees' free choice. This has been
found where, for example, (1) the announcement of benefits follows no
request by the employees and at a time wholly unexpected by them, or
(2) the benefits, while decided upon somewhat earlier, are not an-
nounced to the employees until just before the election, and no credi-
ble explanation is offered for the delay, or (3) the announcement comes
at a time substantially different from that which had been the
employer's customary time to grant employee benefits 12
No such factors are present in the instant case. As noted above,
the announcement of the wage increases and insurance benefits to
the Chicago employees followed almost immediately after the formal
conclusion of collective-bargaining negotiations at the Cleveland
plant, at a time when it had been customary to grant such benefits,
and when the Chicago employees could, on the basis of past practice,
have reasonably expected that adjustments in the terms and conditions
of their employment would be made. Under these circumstances we
conclude that neither the wage increase and insurance benefits granted
by the Employer, nor the announcement thereof were intended, or
reasonably calculated, to interfere with the election. Accordingly,
we find this objection to be without merit, and it is hereby overruled 13
Il Compare Gray Drug Stores, Inc., 79 NLRB 1140 , 1142 , in which the Board held that
promises of individual wage increases within 2 weeks of an election , when such increases
were in accordance with the Employer's regular wage policy , did not constitute a basis
for setting the election aside. See also Lane Drug Stores , Incorporated, 88 NLRB 584,
and Volney Felt Mills, Inc., 70 NLRB 908, in which the Board refused to consider as a
basis for unfair labor practice findings , or, in the Lane case , to consider as a basis for
setting aside an election , the granting of general benefits within 3 weeks of the elections,
when similar benefits were simultaneously granted to other employees at other locations
not involved in representation proceedings.
32 See, for example , F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289; Union Twist Drill Com-
pany, 88 NLRB 1361 ; Lake Superior District Power Company, 88 NLRB 1496: Craddock-
Terry Shoe Corporation, 82 NLRB 161 ; Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1.434.
Is Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated ,' supra ; Gray Drug Stores, Inc., supra ; Volney Felt
Hills, Inc., supra. For the same reasons , we find that the Employer 's announcement of
March 2 , 1950, that it was absorbing the increase in the hospital insurance premium rates,
did not interfere with the election.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As we have overruled the • Petitioner's objections, and as the tally
of ballots shows that no collective-bargaining representative has been
chosen, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be , and it hereby is,
dismissed.