Spengler-Loomis Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 243 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SPENGLER-LOOMIS MFG . Co. 243
It has been found that by interrogating its employees as to their union member-
ship and otherwise, the Respondent Company has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Utah Construction Company, in its operations, is engaged in trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1498
and Local No. 184, AFL, and International Association of Machinists are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By entering into the collective bargaining agreements of June 1, 1948, and
August 12, 1949, containing unlawful union-security provisions involving discrim-
ination in the hire and tenure of employees because of their union membership
and activities, and by assenting to such unlawful provisions, the Respondent
Company, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company, has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John A.
Olsen, because of his union membership and activities, the Respondent Company
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By attempting to cause and causing the Respondent Company to enter into
a collective bargaining agreement with unlawful union-security provisions United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1498 and Local No.
184, AFL, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.
SPENGLER -Loomis MFG. Co. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW-CIO),
PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-1732. July 17, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On April 11, 1951, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election herein, dated March 13, 1951,1 an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among a unit composed generally
of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rock-
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
95 NLRB No. 39.
961974-52-vol. 95-17
244- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ford, -Illinois,. plant. Upon completion of the election, a tally, of
ballots was furnished the parties: The tally shows that, of the 14a,
valid votes counted, 70 were for, and 73 against, the Petitioner. There
was no challenged or void ballots.
On April 13,1951, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation,
and, on May 17, 1951, issued and served upon the parties his report on
objections. In his report the Regional Director found that the Em-
ployer .engaged in activities reasonably calculated to interfere with,.
and raising substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct
of, the election, and recommended that the objections be sustained and
the election set aside. The Employer timely filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
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, Murdock, and Styles].
The Regional Director's recommendations that the election be set
aside are based essentially on the following findings : The petition
herein was filed on January 9, 1951, and on January 30, the initial
joint conference on the petition was conducted. By letter dated
January 31, the Employer advised its employees that it had been ap-
proached by unions desiring to represent the employees, and that it
felt "that we can best solve our mutual problems by working directly
with each other without outsiders." The letter further stated that
the Employer would be asking the employees for advice in its con-
tinued efforts to improve working. conditions and indicated that meet-
ings would be held to discuss the employees' feelings toward the
Employer as a place to work.
Commencing about the end of February,2 the Employer's plant
manager held a series of conferences in his office with groups of 5 to 20
employees during working hours. In opening the conferences, he
stated that apparently some employees were dissatisfied and the pur-
pose of the meetings was to ascertain the causes of dissatisfaction.
Various complaints were then voiced by the employees concerning
such matters as wages, foremen, and physical working conditions. At
the-close of each conference, the plant manager repeated the principal
matters raised and again indicated that it was his purpose to find out
the causes of dissatisfaction.
Thereafter, the plant manager time studied the piece rates to which
employees had objected and made "several" adjustments of inequities.
He further initiated action to improve toilet facilities and to provide
additional smoking areas and time clocks, had lighting adjusted, and
had replaced a foreman about whom complaints had been made.
2 The hearing in this case was held on February 15.
SPENGLER-LOOMIS MFG. CO. 245
Following this action, the plant manager held another series of con-
ferences similar to those previously conducted .3 He opened these
conferences by remarking that:
In our last meeting you raised several questions about in-
equities and other matters relating to your work. As I told you
1, would, I have checked into these alleged inequities and.com-
plaints. and where I found''your- complaints justified I made
adjustments.
He then reviewed the complaints and explained what had been
done. He also outlined the Employer's benefits and policies, explain-
ing in connection with vacations, that there would be a change in
vacation policy in line, as he stated, with the Employer's policy of each
year adding "fringe benefits." 4 In addition, he announced a 10 cent
increase in the guaranteed minimum rate.5 Subsequently, by letter
dated April 9, the plant manager thanked the employees for taking
part in the conferences and for their suggestions, stating that "Each
of the items presented by you has been acted upon in the same con-
structive spirit as it was presented."
. The Regional Director found that the granting of benefits by the
Employer was not pursuant to a preileterlllitied schedule or pattern,
that these benefits were not anticipated by the employees, and that
the relationship between the benefits and the election was not a
temporal coincidence. He concluded that, under the circumstances,
the conduct of the Employer, in eliciting from the employees their
complaints and attempting to satisfy such complaints by granting
benefits and changing various employment conditions, was motivated
by the desire to influence the determination of representatives. He
further concluded, as already mentioned, that such conduct was
reasonably calculated to interfere with the election and recommended
that the election be set aside.
The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations principally on the grounds that : (1) The report
is based on an inadequate investigation; (2) the changes in employ-
ment conditions conformed generally with previously established
Employer policy and practice; (3). the letters .and conferences were
protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act; and (4) the Regional Director's
8 The Regional Director. fixed the second meetings as having occurred on or about
April 1. The Employer, in his exceptions, alleges that the first meetings were held
between February 6 and February 16, and the second between March 14 and March 20.
The differences in dates,. in our opinion, are without controlling significance in this case.
4 Under the previous vacation practice,. enrployees who had worked from 1 to 5 years
were paid for 40 hours of average earnings, and those with service of 5 or more years
received SO hours of average earnings. Under the new policy, the payments were 40 hours
for 1 year's service, with an increase of 10 hours each year up through 5 years ; 90 hours
for employees with 10 years' service ; and 100 hours for employees serving 15 years.
6 Increases in the minimum and piece rates had last been made on September 25, 1950,
Thrre had been no previous increases in piece rates for over 10 years.
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
findings do not warrant setting aside the election. We find these
contentions to be without merit.
As to the adequacy of the investigation, the Regional Director's
.findings were based mainly on information supplied by the plant
.manager, and the Employer. has, failed to adduce any persuasive evi-
de'nee that the investigation was, incomplete.6
With respect to the contention that the adjustments generally were
made pursuant to established practices, it is significant that the
changes were made after the complaints were elicited at the first meet-
ings. Moreover, the plant manager, except in connection with vaca-
tions, clearly indicated both at the second series of conferences _and
in his letter of April 9 that the adjustments resulted from the` com-
plaints voiced at the first meetings. And even as to vacations, the
changes appear "to be more substantial than mere "fringe" increases
contemplated by the Employer's stated policy? Furthermore, it is
uncontroverted that certain changes, such as the replacement of the
foreman and the increase in minimum rates, were not pursuant to any
predetermined plan .s
As to the applicability of Section 8 (c) of the Act, the Board has
repeatedly held that the announcement of benefits is without the
protection of this section of the Act.'
Finally, contrary to the Employer's contention that the facts are
insufficient to warrant. setting aside the election, we find, upon the
entire record, that the granting of benefits by the Employer was timed'
in connection with the pending election and improperly affected the
results of the election 10 Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Direc-
tbrs' recommendations and shall set aside the election. We will direct
a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises the
Board that the circumstances permit a free choice among the employees'
herein concerned.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on April 11, 1951, among
the employees of Spengler-Loomis Mfg. Co., Rockford, Illinois, be,
and it hereby. is, set aside.
William R. Whittaker Company, Ltd., 94 NLRB 1151.
while the Employer asserts - that the increased vacation benefits became effective in
September 1950 , it is not denied that such benefits were announced at the second meetings.
8 The Employer ' s contention , in its exceptions , that the increase in guaranteed miminum
rates is insubstantial because it affected only a few employees is rejected . U. S. Rubber
Co. (Scottsville Plant ), 86 NLRB 3.
8 See e. g., Direct Laboratories, Inc., 94 NLRB 380.
18'Cf . Direct Laboratories, Inc., supra, and Lake Superior District Power Company.
S8 NLRB 1496. The cases cited by the Employer , namely Eisner Grocery Company,
93 NLRB 1614 , and United Screw & Bolt Corporation, 91 NLRB 916, are clearly dis-
tinguishable on their facts.