International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1038 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Harvester Company and Julius
Howard . Case 9-CA-5137
January 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On September 24, 1969, Trial Examiner Arthur
M. Goldberg issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety , as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner ' s Decision . Thereafter , the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board 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 Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Based upon a
charge tiled on April 17, 1969,' by Julius Howard (herein
called Howard or the Charging Party), the complaint
herein issued on June 6 alleging that International
Harvester Company (herein called the Company or
Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act) Respondent's alleged violations of the Act
consisted of a threat by a company general foreman to
eliminate Howard's job assignment because he had filed
and processed grievances under the existing
collective-bargaining agreement and the elimination of
Howard's job on February 27 Respondent denied all
material allegations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Springfield,
Ohio, on August 12, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and
'Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1969
cross-examine witnesses, and to present oral argument
Oral argument was waived and briefs were filed by
General Counsel and the Respondent.
Based upon the entire record in the case, my reading of
the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The International Harvester Company, a Delaware
corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of motor
trucks at its Springfield, Ohio, plant. During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the complaint Respondent
purchased and caused to be shipped to its plant in
Springfield, Ohio, goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period,
Respondent sold and shipped in interstate commerce
products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Springfield,
Ohio, facility to customers located outside the State of
Ohio.
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find
that Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and(7) of the Act and meets the
Board 's jurisdictional standards for the asse tion of its
jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No 402 of the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (herein called the Union), is and has
been at all times material herein a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
At its Springfield, Ohio, plant the Company
manufactures trucks, some under contract with the United
States Government and others for civilian use. The events
herein concern the operations of the final inspection
department (department 72). Prior to February 27 the
Company employed two road test drivers in the yard, Roy
Weekley and Howard. Of the two, Howard was the less
senior employee. In addition there are two employees in
the yard who perform reinspection operations. One of the
remspectors stands higher in seniority than does Howard,
and the other, Long, carries a medical disability which
under the collective-bargaining agreement limits the
Company in the jobs to which Long can be assigned.
In the early part of the year, the Company's orders for
Government trucks were running out . About the same
time Respondent determined that since it was not by
contract obligated to road-test all Government vehicles it
would eliminate that inspection process for Government
trucks On or about February 10 Thomas Grady,
superintendent of inspection for the Company, instructed
Howard Dersch, general foreman of the inspection
department, to discontinue road testing the Government
vehicles unless prior in-plant inspection disclosed that a
road test was necessary. Grady instructed Dersch to
curtail the road test job as soon as he had taken care of
trucks awaiting road test. Other than Government vehicles
the Company road-tested only those trucks with automatic
180 NLRB No. 158
INTL. HARVESTER CO.
transmissions where an in-plant inspection discloses a
malfunction in the transmission.'
On January 31 Howard filed a request for transfer
from his road testing job in department 72 to one in the
repair department (department 55), an in-plant job.
Howard testified, that prior' to filing that request for
transfer on January 31, the Company had stopped road
testing heavy trucks and he had asked his immediate
foreman to ascertain from Dorsch whether Howard's job
would be eliminated. Howard was advised that his road
test job would be curtailed' and he requested transfer to
the repair department. From that time to the end of
February Howard road-tested only trucks with automatic
transmissions
B. The Facts Surrounding the Job Curtailment
On February 25 Howard complained to Donald G.
Mowery, his departmental steward, that he was being
transferred into the plant from the yard while less senior
employees were remaining at work on the outside. The
following day, February 26, Mowery contacted Russell
Thornsberry, the Union's committeeman responsible for
department 72, among others. Early that morning
Howard, Thornsberry, and Mowery were discussing
Howard's grievance when they were approached by
Dersch Thornsberry complained to Dersch that
Respondent was not following established procedure in
bringing Howard from the yard to in-plant jobs. Dersch
stated that if the Company had been wrong in the past
they would follow proper procedure in the future,
concluding his answer by stating to Howard- "If you don't
quit bitching about it, I'll eliminate the job."
That same afternoon Howard was again brought in
from the yard to fill a vacancy on an inside job. He again
complained to Mowery, who took the grievance to
Dersch. Dersch replied to this grievance by assuring the
union steward that Howard had been brought in in line
with seniority and "I was not going to argue about it any
more, because we was going to eliminate the [road test
job]." The following morning February 27, at the start of
his shift, Howard was advised that his road test job had
been eliminated and he was given an inside inspection
assignment. Three hours later Howard filed a new request
for transfer asking for reassignment to road-test or any
job other than the one on which he had been placed
Following the February 27 curtailment of Howard's
road test job a series of meetings was held between
company and union representatives. As a result thereof,
Howard's inside assignment was changed but the Union
filed no grievance concerning the job elimination.
C. Conclusions and Findings
The complaint alleged "Respondent terminated and
eliminated the job assignment of the Charging Party
The foregoing account of the Company's road testing requirements is
based on Grady's uncontradicted and credited testimony
'In the parlance of company-union relations job eliminations are referred
to as curtailments.
'Based upon the date of this request for transfer , which Howard testified
was filed the day of the job curtailment , I find that the events of February
25, 26, and 27 occurred on the dates specified
1039
because he filed and processed grievances relating to work
assignments." I shall recommend dismissal of this
allegation of the complaint. The undisputed testimony
establishes that the Company's need for road testing
vehicles declined about February I as a result of lessened
production of Government trucks and the decision to end
road testing of Government vehicles produced.' Dersch
received instructions from Grady on February 10 to
curtail the road testing job as soon as he had road-tested
trucks in the yard warranting such attention. Howard was
the less senior of the two road testers in the inspection
department. As early as January 31, when he requested a
job transfer, Howard had learned that his job would be
curtailed and from that time until the end of February he
was road-testing only trucks with automatic transmissions.
On this set of facts I cannot find that the elimination of
Howard's road testing job was occasioned or accelerated
by his filing of grievances or that, but for his complaints
about transfers to inside jobs, he would have stayed on
road testing work.
While I find that in the course of his discussion with
Thornsberry, Mowery, and Howard on February 26
Company Foreman Dersch threatened the elimination of
Howard's job if he did not "quit bitching," I "find that it
would not serve any useful purpose of the Act to issue a
remedial order for such an isolated incident in the
circumstances of this case." Stop & Shop, Inc., 161
NLRB 75, 80, affd. sub nom. Gary Machabv v. N L R B.,
377 F 2d 59 (C.A. 1) Thornsberry testified that he and
Dersch exchanged words when they discussed employee
grievances. Dersch agreed that he "may" have spoken to
Thornsberry in a similar fashion on previous occasions.
The record indicates a long and harmonious relationship
between the Company and Union. Further, the free
exchange of views by company and union representatives
in the processing of grievances would be severely limited if
the refinements of diplomatic exchange were required of
factory personnel concerned with the day-to-day
operations of a collgctive-bargaining agreement. Thor
Power Tool Co , 148 NLRB 1379, enfd. 351 F.2d 584
(C.A. 7). Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint in toto
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Harvester Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 402 of the International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint herein be
dismissed.
'In January the Company road-tested 311 vehicles , in February 230, and
in March the figure fell to 194. The total road- tested in March was less
that Weekley alone road - tested in February (209) or in January (251).