International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, MCCORMICK WORKS and
CHICAGO TRUCK DRIVERS , CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS UNION OF
CHICAGO AND VICINITY, LOCAL 705, INDEPENDENT , PETITIONER.
Case No. 13-RC-2606. September 24,195'
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On August 5, 1952, Regional Director Ross M. Madden issued his
,report on objections, a copy of which is attached hereto, recommending
that the objections be overruled and the petitioner certified. There-
after, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the Regional Director's con-
clusions and recommendations contained in the report on objections,
but not to the factual findings made therein.
The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions
thereto, and finds that the exceptions do not raise any substantial or
material issues with respect to the election. Accordingly, the Board 1
hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.2
As we have overruled the Intervenor's objections, and as a majority
of the employees in the unit have selected the Petitioner as their bar-
gaining representative, we shall certify the Petitioner in accordance
with the tally of ballots.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Chicago Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705, Independent, has
been designated and selected by a majority of all "outside truckdrivers"
employed by and operating out of the Employer's McCormick Works,
Chicago, Illinois, but excluding all of the experimental engineering
departments, advanced engineering, dairy products engineering, and
all employees at McCormick Works that are not considered part of
the McCormick Works, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
i 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 . [ Chairman Herzog and -
Members Styles and Peterson].
9 See Underwood Machinery Company, 80 NLRB 1264 ; ef. Robbins Tire h Rubber Com-
pany, Inc, 72 NLRB 157, and The Timken -Detroit Axle Company , 98 NLRB 790.
100 NLRB No. 198.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., McCORMICK WORKS 1267
Report on Objections
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, dated May 7, 1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the supervision of the undersigned on May 27, 1952, within the unit set forth
in the Board 's Order.
The results of the election were as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters--------------------------------- 8
Void ballots---------------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for Chicago Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of
Chicago and Vicinity , Local 705, Independent ------------------------ 5
Votes cast for United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, McCormick
Local 108 , UE------------------------------------------------------ 3
Votes cast against participating labor organizations --------------------- 0
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots---------------------------- 8
On June 3, 1952 , objections to the conduct affecting the results of the election
were filed by the Intervenor , copies being duly served upon the other parties.
The objections allege, in substance . that on the day of and prior to the election
the Petitioner sent telegrams addressed in care of the foreman of the garage
of the Company to each of the eligible employees . The delivery by the foreman
to each of these employees of these telegrams had the effect of a direction by
the foreman to vote for the Petitioner.
In the course of the investigation , the Intervenor raised a second objection that
prior to the election the Company discriminated in favor of the Petitioner by
assigning overtime work to an adherent of the Petitioner.
Pursuant to Sections 102.54 and 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 6, as amended, the undersigned caused an investigation to be made of the
objections and reports as follows :
Objection No. 1
At or about 10 a. in, Tuesday, May 27, 1952, the date of the election, the
regular morning delivery of intraplant mail was brought to the office of the
garage foreman, William F. Schneider. Included among the mail was a small
packet of Western Union telegrams, which, upon examination by Schneider, re-
vealed that separate telegrams were addressed to each of the eight eligible
employees in the garage, "Care of International Harvester Company, % Foreman
of Truck Garage . . ' The contents of each of these telegrams, dated May 26,
8 p. in., were identical, reading as follows :
We want to remind you again if you choose us as your collective bargaining
agent tomorrow afternoon we propose to bring your wage rates to $2.00 per
hour minimum for the balance of this year, at which time we will negotiate a
new contract for the entire membership of the Union of which you will be a
part. Vote tomorrow, vote for the Chicago Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705 as your collective bargain-
ing agents. (Sic) Signed Chicago Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Union of Chicago and Vicinity Local 705.
About a half-hour following receipt of these telegrams, Harold Sternal, garage
employee, appeared in the foieman's office to obtain a new work assignment.
Thereupon, Schneider leafed through the bundle of telegrams and handed Sternal
the one which was addressed to him, unopened, saying, "Here is a telegram for
227260-53-vol. 100-81
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you." According to Schneider, Sternal opened the envelope while in the office,
and after reading it, he made the remark to an ineligible employee, who was pres-
ent in the office, that Local 705 would get the drivers $2 per hour for the balance
of the year. Sternal states that after taking the envelope from Schneider, he,
walked out of the office and then opened and read the telegram. In any event,
Schneider states, without dispute, that after the above remark attributed to
Sternal, nothing further was said by either himself or the latter with reference
to the telegram.
Later the same morning a second garage employee, George Wiedenhoeft,
entered the foreman's office. Again Schneider leafed through the envelopes,
and after finding the telegram addressed to Wiedenhoeft, handed it to him,
unopened, saying, "Here's a telegram for you." According to Schneider, Wieden-
hoeft opened the envelope, read the telegram and then left the office, nothing
being said by either other than the remark by Wiedenhoeft that if the men(
voted for Local 705 they would get $2 an hour.
Sometime shortly before 12 noon that day, as Schneider recalls, he handed
telegrams to L. Kolasinski and Victor Klimek, each of whom was in the garage
at the time. Again, according to Schneider, in handing the telegrams to each
of the latter, he remarked only, "Here is a telegram for you."
The next employee to receive his copy of the telegram from Schneider was
Stanley Sternal, who, as Schneider recalls, was present in the foreman's office
at the time. The sixth and last of the employees working on the day shrift
to receive his telegram from Schneider was William McThomas. Shortly before
3: 30 p. in., marking the end of the first shift, McThomas was handed a telegram,
unopened, in the garage by Schneider, with the remark, "Here's a telegram
for you."
The election was scheduled from 3: 30 to 4 p. in. the same day, to beheld in the
garage in the area adjacent to the foreman's office. Therefore, at or about 3: 30
p. m-., Schneider left his office and walked to the entrance of the garage, where he
remained standing for about 5 or 10 minutes. During this period, J. Engelhardt,
second shift employee, entered the garage in reporting for work. As Engelhardt
passed by, Schneider handed him a telegram, saying, "Here is a telegram for
you." Engelhardt took the envelope and proceeded into the garage, nothing
further being said. About 5 minutes later, W. Gottschalk, second shift employee,
and the last of the total of eight eligible employees, appeared at the garage
entrance and received his telegram in the same manner as had the others.
A witness for the Intervenor, Matthew Halas, president, Local 108, United
Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, UE, states that at or about 10 'a. in.,
May 27, 1952, he left his usual place of work and proceeded to the garage where
he spoke with Harold Sternal concerning the election to be held that afternoon.
Halas learned that Schneider had distributed telegrams that morning, being
shown by Sternal his copy of the telegram, as well as that received by Wieden-
hoeft. According to Halas, he then proceeded to the office of Schneider, accom-
panied by Sternal. Halas states that he advised Schneider that by the latter's
having passed out telegrams, he was interfering with the election and in so doing
was leaving himself open to the filing of objections by the Union. Schneider,
according to Halas, replied that he did not know one way or the other as to
whether he was interfering with the election. Halas then requested that
Schneider cease any further distribution of the telegrams, whereupon the
conversation ended.
Schneider, with reference to the foregoing incident, states that he has no
recollection of such conversation having taken place on the morning of May
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., McCORMICK WORKS 1269
27, 1952. Rather, shortly after 4 p. m., after completion of the count of ballots,
he was approached by Halas, who said, "Let me congratulate you, Bill, for
throwing the election ." Schneider asked what he meant, whereupon Halas
replied, "For passing out those telegrams . That's what beat us." Schneider
then remarked, "What did you want me to do with the telegrams-throw them
in the waste basket?" Halas, according to Schneider , without replying , walked
away, thus ending the conversation.
The Petitioner states that the decision to send telegrams to the employees
involved in the election was made in the early evening of Monday, May 26, 1952.
Since the home addresses of the employees were not readily available, it was
decided to send individual telegrams to the employees in care of the foreman
of the garage, in order to assure delivery to that subdivision of the McCormick
Works, International Harvester Company.
Investigation reveals, and there is no contention to the contrary , that neither
Schneider nor any other company representative had any prior knowledge that
the Petitioner intended to or in fact did direct telegrams to each of the garage
employees on the evening of Monday , May 26, 1952 . Further , each of the tele-
grams, upon being delivered to the foreman ' s office on the morning of Tuesday,
May 27 , 1952, was sealed and therefore bore no indication of the sender 's identity.
In distributing the telegrams , the only remark made by the foreman to
each employee was, "Here is a telegram for you." There is no evidence that
Schneider , at any time prior to the election , either by conduct or work, offered
any encouragement or inducement to the effect that the Company supported
the Petitioner's promise contained in such telegrams. Assuming, without decid-
ing, that the foreman continued the distribution of telegrams despite the express
request by the Intervenor not to do so yet, in view of his neutrality throughout,
the conduct of the foreman cannot be construed as having interfered with the
free choice of the employees. Accordingly, no material or substantial question
concerning conduct affecting the results of the election having been raised by
Intervenor 's objection No. 1, it is recommended that said objection be overruled.
Objection No. 2
The current contract between the Intervenor and the Company provides
. . in cases of overtime in any department , overtime work will be equally
divided among the employees in the department . Employees must be qualified
to do the work required." In or about April 1952, according to Matthew Halas,
president , Local 108, the latter presented a grievance to Schneider that there
had not been equitable distribution of overtime work among the truck drivers.
Specifically , he pointed to the case of Engelhardt who had been assigned overtime
work on the second shift on January 13, March 2, March 9, March 16, March 23,
and April 21, 1952, in violation of the provisions of the contract calling for
rotation in sequence of seniority rating. The Intervenor contends that such
overtime work was offered to Engelhardt because Schneider was favorably
disposed towards the Petitioner and was aware that Engelhardt was a proponent
of the Petitioner.
However , the Intervenor failed to offer any evidence in support of such
contention . Specifically , no evidence was offered to show any statement or
conduct on the part of Schneider on the basis of which such alleged favoritism
might be reasonably inferred . On the other hand , Schneider states that his
assignment of overtime work to Engelhardt on the above dates was made on the
basis that Engelhardt was the older of the two night shift employees in point
of seniority and had the ability to perform the work involved. Also Schneider's
contention that at no time prior to the election had he - seen Engelhardt engage
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in organizational activities in behalf of the Petitioner and further , that he
had no knowledge of Engelhardt 's preference , if any , between the Petitioner
and the Intervenor , is not refuted by any evidence offered by the Intervenor.
Investigation having revealed no evidence of disparate treatment in favor
of the Petitioner in the assignment of overtime work , no material or substantial
question concerning conduct affecting the results of the election has been raised
by Intervenor 's objection No. 2, it is recommended that said objection also be
overruled.
A majority of the valid votes having been cast for Chicago Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705 , Independent,
it is further recommended that said labor organization be certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all outside truck drivers employed by
the Employer at its McCormick Works , Chicago, Illinois , but excluding all of
the experimental engineering departments , advanced engineering , dairy products
engineering , and all employees at McCormick Works that are not considered
part of the McCormick Works, guards, professional employees , and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
HENRICH LUMBER, INC. and PAUL AXTHELM
HENRICH LUMBER, INC. and PAUL AXTHELM . Cases Nos. 3-CA-159
and 3-CA-368. September 26,192E
Decision and Order
On February 14,1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist 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 brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with modifications noted below.
As found by the Trial Examiner, on April 12,1949, the Respondent
discharged bench hand Axthelm at the Union's request, pursuant to a
clearly unlawful closed-shop contract. Axthelm thereupon filed a
charge alleging that the discharge was discriminatory. On June 6,
1 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 [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
100 NLRB No. 204.