Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 583 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. 583
and exclusive agreement between the parties." 3 Moreover, even if
the 1951 contract be considered an amendment to the 1950 contract,
this Employer would not be bound, since the 1951 agreement specifi-
cally provides that only present members who do not adopt the 1951
contract shall continue to be bound by the preceding one. As it is
clear the Employer was not a member of the Association when the
1951 agreement was executed, the Employer is not bound by the 1950
contract.4 We find, therefore, that inasmuch as the Employer has
indicated a desire to pursue an independent course with respect to its
labor relations, it is no longer obligated to bargain upon a multi-
employer basis .,9
Accordingly, upon the basis of the above amended findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, we reach the following conclusions :
1. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of the employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. We find that all production employees at the Employer's Engle-
wood, New Jersey, plant, excluding office employees, salesmen, execu-
tives, lithographic production employees, teamsters, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order dismissing the petition in this
case be, and it hereby is, vacated.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 The preamble of the 1951 contract provides "that the present contract between the
parties is hereby amended in all respects , the following to constitute the full and exclusive
agreement between the parties."
* Assuming that the Employer is so bound , since less than 60 days remain before the
Mill B date of the 1950 agreement , it would still be an appropriate time for the Employer
to withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit. Economy Shade Company , 91 NLRB
1552; Engineering Metal Products Corporation , 92 NLRB 823.
5 Coca Cola Bottling Works Company , 93 NLRB 1414 ; The Milk and Ice Cream Dealers
of the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio Area et at, 94 NLRB 23; Leland J . Pasch,ch et at. d/b/a
Economy Shade Company, supra ; Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 696.
CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. and LOCAL LODGE 789, DIS-
TRICT 34, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER.
Case No. 9-CA66. July 26, 1951
Decision and Order
On May 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
95 NLRB No. 63.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and- desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions
and modifications: 1
The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner's credibility
findings are erroneous. The Board attaches great weight to a Trial
Examiner's credibility findings in view of his opportunity for ob-
servation of the witnesses, and accordingly does not overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolution of credibility except where the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces it that his resolution was
incorrect.2 No such conclusion is warranted in this case. The Board
therefore adopts the Trial Examiner's credibility findings and his.
findings of fact based thereon.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Clippard Instru-
ment Laboratory, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Polling its employees to determine whether they desire to be '
represented by Local Lodge 789, District 34, International Associa-
tion of Machinists ; International Union of Electrical, Radio and.
Machine Workers, CIO; or any other labor organization.
(b) Making promises of reward to its employees in return for their
renouncement of Local Lodge 789, District 34, International Associa-
tion of Machinists; International Union.of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, CIO; or any other labor organization.
I The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's statement that its out -of-State sales
during the year ending April 2, 1951, exceeded $750,000. This was obviously a typograph-
ical error, and this figure should have been $75,000 . The statement is hereby corrected.
The Respondent further excepts to the fact that the notice attached to the Intermediate
Report does not state that the employees are free to refrain from becoming members of the
union. This provision has been added to the notice.
2 General Electric Company, 94 NLRB 1260.
CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. 585
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Local Lodge 789, District 34,
International Association of Machinists, or International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, or any other labor
organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be. affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to -comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the .National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT poll our employees to determine whether they
desire to be represented by LOCAL LODGE 789, DISTRICT 34,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or by INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO,
or by any other labor organization.
8In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice before the words , "A Decision and Order ," the words,
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise or grant raises in pay or better working
conditions or other rewards in return for relinquishment of union
membership or activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all of such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or, refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the above-named union or any
other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC.,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------- I
notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The above-captioned matter involves allegations that Clippard Instrument
Laboratory, Inc., herein called Respondent, unlawfully interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as, amended, herein called the Act. The
issues, framed by a complaint and answer duly filed, were fully litigated at a
hearing before the undersigned in 'Cincinnati, Ohio, on April 2, 1951. Counsel
for the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
General Counsel, counsel for the Respondent, and a Grand Lodge representative
for the Union participated fully in the afore-mentioned hearing. After the close
of the hearing the General Counsel submitted a memorandum brief which has
been considered.
There is no dispute concerning the following matters and the evidence reveals
and the undersigned finds that (1) Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,' and (2) Local Lodge 789,
'Respondent engages in Cincinnati , Ohio, in the manufacture and sale of radio, tele-
vision , and electrical equipment and in connection therewith receives from States other
CLIPPARD INSTRUMENT LABORATORY, INC. 587
District 34, International Association of Machinists, herein called the Union,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
An election was conducted among the production and maintenance employees
of Respondent on January 17, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). The tally of ballots
shows 60 valid ballots cast for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, CIO ; 9 valid ballots cast for Lodge 789, District 34, Inter-
national Association of Machinists ; 52 valid ballots cast against both labor
organizations ; and 24 challenged ballots.
On January 16, 1951, Local Lodge 789, District 34, International Association
of Machinists filed the charges involved herein, and thereafter filed timely
objections to the conduct of the election of January 17, 1951, alleging that about
January 16, 1951, Respondent polled its employees to determine whether they
desired to be represented by a labor organization, and promised them benefits if
they voted against such representation. On February 28, 1951, the Regional
Director issued his report on challenged ballots and objections to the election
recommending that the election be set aside. Thereafter the National Labor
Relations Board set aside said election.'
On March 8, 1951, the Regional Director issued the complaint involved herein
alleging that Respondent in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act polled its
employees during working hours to determine whether they desired to be rep-
resented by a labor organization and promised its employees benefits if they
voted against representation by a labor organization in the election scheduled
for January 17, 1951. Respondent's answer denies such conduct.
Facts
During the morning rest period (the rest period begins at 9:30 a. m.) on
January 16, 1951, Mrs. Michelson (an office worker in the office of Respondent's
president) announced over the plant loud-speaker system that there would be
an assembly of all employees in an open area on the third floor of Respondent's
plant immediately after the rest period. After the employees assembled in the
designated area, William Leonard Clippard, Jr., Respondent's president, ad-
dressed the assembly. Clippard reminded the employees that there "is going to
be an election here tomorrow" and stated that Respondent was not a big concern
and could not pay the wages that some of the larger concerns could, that since
the organizing efforts there had been disturbance in the shop that there would not
be otherwise, and that a straw vote would be taken and "if the girls wanted
better working conditions and more money, they will vote no Union."
Clippard denied saying "anything about improved wages" and testified that
he explained to the employees that Respondent was not a large Company and not
blessed with a lot of money and told them the organizing efforts then current
had produced "a lot of fighting and a lot of hard feeling" and that the only way
"we could better our working conditions around there was to quit fighting and
work together instead of scrapping among ourselves constantly" and that "we
were going to have a ballot because I [Clippard] would like to know how we
stand." Clippard testified that when he addressed the employees on January
than Ohio, substantial quantities of materials , supplies, and equipment (in excess of
$50,000 worth during the year ending April 2, 1951) and ships to points and places in
States other than Ohio substantial quantities of products manufactured by it. (Respond-
ent's out-of-State sales during the year ending April 2 , 1951 , exceeded $ 750,000.)
2 94 NLRB 5.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16, 1951 , he read from written statements . He testified that he did not have
these statements available at the hearing but "I may be able to find them in my
desk." However the statements were not produced at the hearing and no ade-
quate explanation of their absence appears in the record . On the other hand
employees present at the assembly testified that Clippard did not read from any-
thing and was not holding any paper in his hand at the time he addressed the
assembly. From my observation of the witnesses and the entire record herein
I credit the testimony of the employees involved and find that Clippard promised
better working conditions and more money to the employees if they voted against
representation by a labor organization.
Immediately after the employees went back to their work on January 16,
1951, Clippard went to his office and had the supervisor on the various floors
of Respondent ' s plant pass out ballots among the employees . These ballots con-
sisted of pieces of paper on which were written : "Do you wish to be repre-
sented by either Union ?" and two squares . One marked "Yes" and the
other "No."
These ballots were distributed among the employees at their places of work
by the various supervisors . On the second floor they were distributed in the
presence of Respondent 's vice president , George F. Platts . The employees
marked their ballots by placing an appropriate mark in one of the squares.
The employees then folded their ballots and placed them in boxes which the
supervisors carried through the plant . After collecting the ballots the super-
visors turned them over to Clippard , Plaits, and Mrs. Michelson, who counted
them. After the count Clippard announced the results over the plant loud-
speaker system . A majority of the ballots were marked "No." After making
this announcement Clippard thanked the employees "for the apparent vote of
confidence" and said he hoped that the election (under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director and scheduled for the next day) would turn
out the same way.
Conclusion
Upon the foregoing facts, the undersigned concludes and finds :
1. That Respondent unlawfully infringed upon the statutory rights of its em-
ployees by polling its employees on January 16, 1951. (See F. C. Russell Com-
pany, 92 NLRB 206 and cases cited therein.)
2. That the conduct of Respondent in connection with the afore-mentioned
election, under the attendant circumstances, intimated to the employees Re-
spondent's antipathy to union membership and that they stood to gain by re-
nouncing labor organizations and relying on Respondent alone.
3. That Respondent , through its president , promised its employees better work-
ing conditions and more money if they renounced labor organizations.
4. That by the afore-mentioned expressions and conduct Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
The Remedy
As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom. The scope
of the unfair labor practices discloses a purpose to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and that danger of other unfair labor practices in the future is to be
CARLTON WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 589
anticipated from the course of Respondent 's conduct in the past . In order, there-
fore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act
and effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed
in the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
CARLTON WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY and BLUE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. OF L. Case No.19-CA 353. July 26,1951
Decision and Order
On May 10, 1951, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that.
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, accompanied by a sup-
porting brief. The Union filed a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended,
the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. [Members
Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
.and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.- The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and the recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
The Respondent now contends that it should not be required to
bargain with the Union in view of the length of time which has
elapsed since the election in April 1950. We find no merit in this con-
tention. There is no showing that the Union lost its majority status.
In any event, the Union's loss of majority, if any, is attributable to
the Respondent's own unlawful refusal to bargain. We find it neces-
sary to direct the Respondent to bargain collectively with the Union
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. International Associa-
tion of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; Franks Bros. Company
v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 702.
95 NLRB No. 78.