The Lewis Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By causing and attempting to cause the Respondent Company to discriminate
against Vincent, Welsh, Teets, Curtis, Knapp, and Valley in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment , the Respondent Union has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act.
7. By restraining and coercing the Cadillac employees of the Respondent
Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Neither of the Respondents committed any unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint except those specifically found herein to have been committed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA UAW-CIO), PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 1RC-2299
and 1-CA-1033. November 21, 1952
11
Decision and Order
On May 15, 1952, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow 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. The Trial Examiner also rec-
ommended that the Union's objections to the election held in Case No.
1-RC-2299 be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Re-
spondent, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu
sions , and recommendations, with the following modifications and
additions :
1. As set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report, during the
2-week period immediately preceding a Board-conducted election held
3 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 , Styles,
and Peterson].
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record , including
the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
101 NLRB No. 98.
THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 485
on September 17, 1952, the Respondent announced its intention, in a
notice posted on the plant bulletin board on September 5, of applying
to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to grant a 12-cent
per hour increase for all of its employees. While keeping the em-
ployees apprised of the progress of its activity to obtain such wage
increases, the Respondent utilized the fact as part of its antiunion
propaganda. In a personal letter of September 14, 1952, mailed to
all employees on the last working day before the election, the Re-
spondent explained its wage increase application as an example of
the Company's fairness, upon which the employees could depend with-
out the intervention of a union and the attendant cost of union dues.
The Union lost the election, and within the period provided in the
Board's Rules and Regulations filed objections to the election based
upon the foregoing activity of the Respondent. Simultaneously, on
the same factual allegations, the Union filed charges of unfair labor
practices against the Respondent.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the preelection
announcement of the pendency of wage increases made by the Re-
spondent at the height of the Union's organizational campaign was
a promise of benefit reasonably calculated to deter the employees from
voting for the UAW-CIO in the election. By such conduct the Re-
spondent coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from
such unlawful conduct and to post notices appropriate under the
Board's usual practice.
2. Relying on certain earlier Board decisions, the Trial Examiner
concluded that, because the Union had gone to the election with
knowledge of the foregoing illegal conduct, it had waived its right
to urge it as a ground for setting aside the results of the balloting.
Consequently, he found that the objections were without merit and
he recommended that the petition be dismissed.
We note that more than 13 months have passed since the election.
As provided by the statute, either the Union or any other labor or-
ganization is now free to request another election among the same
employees 2 As a general policy, the Board will decide the merits
of objections to an election notwithstanding the fact that the passage
of 12 months makes the issues raised by the objections moot so far as
they relate to the holding of a new election .3 A basic reason for this
policy is the over-all importance of establishing standards of conduct
for future elections. In the situation here presented, however, no
useful purpose would be served by considering and deciding the merits
2 See section 9 (c) (3) of the Act.
3 The American Thread Company , 96 NLRB 956.
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the objections. Whether the objections be sustained or overruled
in this consolidated proceeding, the Respondent will be required to
cease and desist from the conduct of which the Union complains.
Accordingly, in view of the special circumstances of this case, we do
not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions and recommendations as
to the objections. Instead, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No.
1-RC-2299 without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by the
Union, or by any other labor organization.
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, The Lewis Engi-
neering Company, Naugatuck, Connecticut, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Announcing wage increases, or proffers of wage increases, to
its employees, for the purpose of influencing its employees with respect
to their union activity, affiliation, assistance, or designation.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW-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, and to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Naugatuck, Connecticut, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive 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
* If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there all
be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY 487
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 1-RC-2299
be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.
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 announce wage increases, or proffers of wage in-
creases, to our employees for the purpose of influencing our em-
ployees with respect to their union activity, affiliation, assistance,
or designation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-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,
and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
THE LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date and must
not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CAGE
On September 21, 1951, International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the
Union , filed unfair labor practice charges in Case No. 1-CA-1033 against The
Lewis Engineering Company , herein called the Company, and also objections to a
representation election conducted by the Regional Director for the First Region