Northwest Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1136 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
queried in a general fashion as to their interest in such a plan; in no
way did the Employer commit itself to do anything further about a
plan at any time in the future. However, in a series of meetings be-
ginning on the very day that the petition was filed, and with admitted
knowledge that representation rights were being sought, the Employer
proceeded to hold out the reality of a hospitalization plan only to
withhold an actual grant of this benefit at the time, assertedly to avoid
the commission of an unfair labor practice. Poskel's hospitalization
plan remarks are not per se ground for setting aside the election, but
it was incumbent upon the Employer to come forward with a valid
reason for the timing of these references to benefits in the offing.4 It
has offered no such explanation. Indeed, all the circumstances of the
case persuade us that Poskel's remarks concerning hospitalization
during the critical period before the election were calculated to, and
did, interfere with the election. Accordingly, we shall set aside the
election and direct a second one.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
4 See Bata Shoe Company , Inc., 116 NLRB 1239 , 1241 ; International Shoe Company,
123 NLRB 682.
Northwest Engineering Company and United Steelworkers of
America , AFL-CIO
Northwest Engineering Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 30-CA-18 (formerly
13-CA-5653) and 30-RC-5, (formerly 13-RC-9227). Septem-
ber.?21, 1964 I ,
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27; 1964, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sabin issued his Deci-
sion and Report-on Objections in the above-entitled' proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent-Employer had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices as'alleged and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety and that the Board overrule the Petitioner's objections
to the election, all as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and' Report on Objections. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Petitioner-Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's*
Decision and Report on Objections and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
148 NLRB No. 112. •
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1131
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision and Report on Objections, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.
The complaint alleges in substance that during the pendency of a
petition for an election (Case No. 30-RC-5),1 the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by granting economic benefits to its em-
ployees, by unlawfully interrogating them, and by communicating
to them promises of additional benefits and threats of reprisal, which
conduct was calculated to influence the outcome of the election? The
complaint also alleges that subsequent to the election but while objec-
tions relating thereto were pending and unresolved, the Respondent
granted additional economic benefits in fulfillment of promises pre-
viously made and thereby interfered further with employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent contends that: (a) The granting of the preelection
benefits was responsive to employee demands, consistent with pre-
viously established company policy, and was motivated by valid eco-
nomic reasons; (b) the interrogation of employees was for a lawful
purpose; (c)' no promise of benefit or threat of reprisal was made to
employees; and (d) benefits granted after the election could not, a
f cWiori, have affected the outcome or interfered with employees in
the exercise of Section 7 rights.
The Trial Examiner-found-merit in the contentions of the Respond-
ent with respect to all 'complaint allegations. We do not agree with
.his recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety,
in part, because we- believe that the Trial Examiner arrived at his con-
clusions without full consideration and analysis of all the pertinent
evidence in the record.
The record shows the following facts :
The new insurance program: In December 1962, the -Respondent's
employees began circulating petitions throughout the plant in an
effort to obtain a more satisfactory group health and accident in-
surance plan., On January 10, 1963, these petitions were received
by Zephrin Libert, Respondent's vice president in charge of opera-
tions, who then arranged with Joseph Wellens, one of-five-self=
appointed members of the employees' insurance committee, for a
I The petition was filed on March 8, 1963.
2 The election was conducted on May 8, 1963, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Regional Director for Region 13 on April 11, 1963. The tally of
ballots showed that, of 739 valid votes, counted, 362 were cast for the Petitioner and
337,7 against, . -, • 1. 1 1 , , , ^
760-577-65--vol. 148-73
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
meeting to discuss the matter. This meeting took place on Janu-
ary 12. It was attended by the five committee members and by Libert
and Alan Houston, president of the Company. At this meeting, the
parties engaged in a general discussion of insurance coverage and
costs, and at its conclusion Houston stated merely that the Company
would investigate additional group insurance plans with a view to-
ward increased benefits. A second meeting, called by Alan Houston,
was held on March 16, 8 days after the petition for certification, as
bargaining, representative was filed, but before the Regional Direc-
tor's Decision and Direction of Election had issued. In attendance
were the original conferees, augmented by L. E. Houston, chairman
of the board, and Guy Odum, a company superintendent. One of
the employees present suggested adoption of an insurance plan simi-
lar to that in operation at another plant in the locality. The Re-
spondent, said it would investigate. Discussion was otherwise general
in nature, and the Respondent offered no report on its progress in
the development of a new insurance plan. No mention of further
meetings was made on that occasion.'
Of particular significance, however, are the circumstances govern-
ing the Respondent's inquiry into a new insurance program and the
progress made in this respect prior to the March 16 meeting. Accord-
ing to the uncontroverted testimony of Bernice Campbell, secretary
of the Company,4 the Respondent had, on its own initiative, begun to
make inquiries into an improved insurance program before receiving
the employees' petition. It had, moreover, reached a final decision
on the coverage of a new plan prior to meeting with the employees' in-
surance committee on March 16. Nevertheless, this information was
withheld from the employees at the aforementioned meeting and was,
not disclosed to them until more than 1 month had passed.
On the morning of April 20, the Respondent called the committee
together and announced its willingness to adopt a new and substan-
tially improved insurance plan. The committee was advised by Alan
Houston that the plan, subject to employee approval, would go inta
effect on May 1, 1963, when the old one expired. The Respondent,.
having obtained the necessary approval, adopted the new plan as:
scheduled.'
The Trial Examiner found that the new insurance plan provided
by the Respondent was in response to employee demands. He fur-
3 The record reveals no testimony to support the Trial Examiner's finding that, at the
second meeting, the parties exchanged information on the various plans they had Investi-
gated and that they agreed to decide which plan they preferred and to report their deci-
sion at a third meeting to be held on April 20
* The Trial Examiner's Decision fails to mention the testimony of this witness, who had
been inquiring into various insurance plans for the Company and who participated in the
Company's selection of the plan ultimately adopted.
5 Both the new plan and the one it replaced were purchased from the same insurance-
carrier.
NORTHWEST ' ENGINEERING COMPANY 1139
ther found that the effective date of the new plan, occurring as it
did a week before the representation election, was merely a "temporal
coincidence," occasioned by the expiration of the old plan." He there-
fore concluded that the timing of the new insurance program was not
arranged to influence the outcome of the election.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the effective date of the
new plan was not timed to influence employees as found by the Trial
Examiner, we do find that the timing of the announcement itself did
violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The announcement was withheld
for over a month following the Respondent's final decision on the
coverage of the new plan. It was made only 9 days after the Regional
Director's Decision and Direction of Election and only 21/2 weeks be-
fore the May 8 representation election. Moreover, the Respondent
made no mention of its decision at 'the March 16 meeting, which was
ostensibly convened for the purpose of bargaining for just such a
plan. It cannot be persuasively maintained that the timing of the
announcement was thus governed by factors other than the pendency
of the election. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Re-
spondent deliberately delayed announcement of the new plan until a
time when it would have the greatest impact on the election and that it
thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.'
Grievance meetings: Two days after the Respondent announced its
decision with respect to the new insurance program, Libert met with
two groups of plant employees on April 22, 1963, for the purpose of
discussing grievances. At Libert's invitation, the employees expressed
dissatisfaction on a number of issues,' including: (a) Wage rates;
(b) overtime; (c) work assignments outside of a job classification;
(d) hours of work; and (e) the availability of parts used in assembly
work. Libert promised to study these "gripes" and to advise em-
ployees on the outcome. On April 30, approximately 1 week before
the representation election, Libert called a combined meeting of both
groups and informed the employees of the steps taken by the Com-
pany to remedy their complaints."
The Trial Examiner found that these grievance meetings were initi-
ated at the request of the Respondent's employees; that the Respond-
ent had previously met with employees to discuss grievances in ac-
cordance with established company policy; that "the settlement of
these complaints appears to be too trivial to have a tendency to inter-
fere with employee rights" ; and, further, that there was no back-
9 The Respondent never claimed that it could not have instituted its new plan prior to
the expiration of the old one.
' Exchange Parts Company , 131 NLRB 806 , affd . 875 U.S. 405.
8 Libert had , in fact, already taken affirmative action to remedy the employees' griev-
ances regarding overtime, work assignments , and the availability of parts.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ground of union animus on the part of the Company 9 ' Accordingly,
the Trial Examiner concluded that by meeting with employees on
April 22 and 30 to discuss their grievances, and by having in fact
remedied many of them, the Respondent did not thereby violate Sec-
t ion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
We disagree. The findings of fact made by the Trial Examiner are
based largely on the testimony of Libert, whose testimony the Trial
Examiner found was corroborated by Brennan, an employee. When
describing the events leading to the aforementioned meetings, Libert
testified only that he was told by an employee, whose name he could
not remember, that "they" wanted to meet with him. Libert further
stated that he instructed his plant foremen to select one or two in-
dividuals from each of their respective departments to attend these
meetings as employee representatives. Maurice Brennan, an employee
who was present at both grievance meetings and whose testimony is
also credited by the Trial Examiner, stated that he was selected to at-
tend these meetings by his foreman. Brennan also stated that he had
never before attended such a meeting in the 26 years he had been with
the Company. William Burns, a 21-year employee, testified that he
had not been aware of grievance meetings prior to the events described
herein. Libert himself stated that these meetings were held infre-
quently, "maybe one or two every year," and that he could not recall
when the last one, prior to April 22, was held, acknowledging that it
was a long time ago. Under all the circumstances, we find that the
meetings of April 22, and 30 were initiated by the Respondent for the
purpose of ascertaining employees' grievances and that the adjustment
of these grievances had a substantial effect on the working conditions
of the employees involved. Moreover, we find no credible evidence in
the record to justify a conclusion that these changes in the working
conditions of employees were attributable to circumstances other than
the impending election. Indeed, we conclude that the record evidence
preponderates in favor of a finding that the questioning of employees
concerning their grievances preliminary to making such changes, and
the changes themselves, were part of a unified plan of the Respondent
which was reasonably calculated to influence employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act through granting or
holding out the promise of benefits.10 We therefore conclude that, by
O Regarding union animus , we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner and as indicated
throughout this Decision , that the Company evidenced a marked degree of hostility toward
the Union.
10 Significant , in this respect , is the speech delivered to employees by L. E Houston on
the day before the election , infra. In urging employees to vote against a union, Houston
said'
May , the recent happenings show to the management and'you men that closer open
discussion started by any of the ' team will bring out into the'open for' investigation
and correction any problems that might work to the disadvantage of the company's
or employees' welfare. [Emphasis supplied ]
NORTHWEbT ENGINEERING COMPANY 1141
all the foregoing, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act 11
Oveitame The iecord shows that approximately 26 stockroom ern-
plo3 ees woi ked overtime on tl ie two Satui days immediately pi eeeding
the election On these Saturdays, which do not constitute noimal
w oikclays, most of the employees performed custodial work to the ex-
clusion of their regular tasks This custodial work, which occuried
admittedly during one of the busiest times of the year and in the face
of an existing backlog in the stocking of parts, included, among other
things, the washing of windows which had not been washed by the
stock distributors in the pieceding 5 of 6 years By the end of the
second Saturday, only one-half of the windows in the stockroom area
had been washed The Respondent nevertheless discontinued the
Saturday work, and the rest of the windows remained unwashed up to
the time of the hearing in these cases, some 6 months latex
The Trial Exaimnet found that there was insufficient evidence that
the Respondent's employees engaged in make-work activities during
overtime hours in the 2-week period here involved 12 He therefore
concluded that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act by granting overtime to the stockroom employees prior to the
election
We do not agree At the heaimb, Libeit acknowledged the pay-
ment of overtime to employees engaged in custodial work on the 2
extraordinary workdays involved, and that this work remained un-
jinislled He explained the performance of a portion of this work,
which had not ueen undertaken by the stock distributors in the pre-
cedmg 5 or 6 years , by stating "If sometime we have too many men
on overtime basis and they are standing around, they are asked to do
this or some other chore " No further evidence was offered by the
Respondent to explain the circumstances under which employees be-
gan, but did not finish, extraordinary custodial work durin g overtime
hours in the 2-week period immediately preceding the election 13 In
all the circumstances, we infer and find that the Respondent was moti-
vated by considerations relating to the impending election to grant
extraordinary overtime to employees on the two Saturdays prior to
the election 14 Accordingly, and upon consideration of all the circum-
stances, we conclude that the Respondent, by granting such overtime,
u Union Furnnture Company, Inc, 118 NLRB 1148, see also American Furniture Com-
pany, Inc, 118 NLRB 1139
"The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent's employees did not work an
abnormal amount of overtime in the spring of 1963 prior to the election , We deem it
unnc,cessary to pass upon this finding of the Trizl Examiner in deciding the overtime iesue
iS Lrbert , when asked why these tasks remained unfinished , stated "Well , when the
week was up , the week was up, that was it"
24 See 0io88er Bros, Inc, 120 NLRB 965
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has conferred upon employees an additional economic benefit reason-
ably calculated to affect the outcome of the election, and has also vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The speech: On May 7, 1963, the day before the representation elec-
lion, L. E. Houston rented a theater in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and
there 'delivered a speech to employees and their wives in which he
urged the employees to vote against the Union.15 He pointed out the
alternatives to be faced by employees on the following day :
The great question to be answered is whether you want now to
give up a wholesome, harmonious relationship that has lasted 40
years, for a way of life, that anyone can see by looking back over
the last few years, has around the country involved continual
trouble causing loss of time, knocked heads, homes damaged, mem-
bers of families hurt, and a fear of the future brought about by
men allowing some group from outside determining their future.
[Emphasis supplied.]
After commenting on the apparent success of the recent bargaining
between the Company and groups of employees, and after reviewing a
long history of benefits previously granted by the Company, Houston
remarked on the ability of the Union to represent employees :
We know, and we understand the outsiders have admitted they
cannot do anything in the way of increasing your earnings.
One thing they might do if you vote for a union is to assure
that through continual harassment your earnings may be reduced-
unnecessarily.
Houston also informed his audience what could otherwise be envisaged
with the advent of a union :
Mr. Libert and your foreman and other supervisors have al-
ways had the welfare of you- men in their minds, and continue
to do so.
They have spent considerable time seeing that any number of
men in this plant have been taught so as to help them to better
jobs and greater earnings ... .
We could, you must know put men on jobs as is done in union
shops and if they could not do the work, let them go. We have
not done it and don't want to be forced to do it, but may, depend-
ing on how you vote, be left no alternate [sic].
He stated further :
If we are allowed to proceed as we have for the last 40 years
our relationship should further, improve and you can be sure the
3s The full text of this speech is attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision and Report
on Objections and is identified as Appendix A thereof.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1143
company has every desire to continue the reputation that presently
exists which- is one of a cooperative and a successful team con-
sisting of all of us.
s s • • w
Why should you men pay from $24.00 to $30.00 per year and
perhaps more. for what could very possibly mean nothing but
trouble for all of us, and the positive end of the 40 year coopera-
tion that has existed. [Emphasis supplied.]
The bargaining role which would be assumed by the Company, upon
the advent of a union, is made clear by Houston :
We will be forced to play a waiting game, expecting some dis-
turbance, very often because the outsiders may want to impress
you that they are doing something and very often these things
result in strikes, with lost time, and sometimes all the other
dastardly things that go with them. Think it over carefully.
[Emphasis supplied.]
• * • r • s •
Under a union collective bargaining starts fresh. What might
that mean.
Houston concluded by stating :
The question to be answered is, do you want to give up the
continuation of harmonious relations, as represented by the last
,40 years for the possibility of continuous bickering and trouble-
some strikes that may bring extreme disaster on your home and
family. You know these things have happened.
And finally he urged :
May God give you all the wisdom to decide in the best interest
of yourselves and your families so as to avoid the possibility of
you and your families being mixed up in some disturbances that
will do no one any good.
For your own protection be sure to vote for no union.
The Trial Examiner found that this speech was neither coercive
nor otherwise calculated to influence the outcome of the election. He
also found that, while the speech contained some antiunion propa-
ganda, it did not exceed the bounds of permissible electioneering.
We do not agree with these findings of the Trial Examiner. It is
.clear upon examination of Houston's speech, particularly of those
portions quoted above and especially in the context of 'the entire record
in these cases, that the Respondent sought to convince employees and
their families of four basic points: (1) The probability of strikes,
violence, and loss of jobs if employees selected a union as their
collective-bargaining representative; (2) the futility of collective bar-
gaining because of the Union's inability to negotiate changes in wages,
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, and other conditions of employment; (3) the loss of existing
economic benefits, including the withdrawal of training opportunities
then available to employees, if they voted for the Union; and (4) the
fact the Company would cooperate with employees and grant them
further benefits if they rejected the Union.
Under the circumstances, we conclude that the speech delivered to
employees and their families on the day before the election by L. E.
Houston constitutes interference with, restraint, and coercion of em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.is
Postelection day benefits: On June 20, 1963, the Company an-
nounced that employees would receive a 5-percent bonus, payable in
January 1964, on their earnings for a 6-month period beginning
July 1, 19,63. This was the first bonus granted employees in over
3 years. '
The record indicates the following history regarding bonuses
granted by the Company :
1936-The Company established a birthday bonus (approxi-
mately 8.3 percent of the employees' gross annual wages).
1941-In addition to the birthday bonus, employees began re-
ceiving, semiannually, "additional compensation" of 10 percent
of their total earnings for the preceding 6-month period.
1946-The birthday bonus and the "additional compensation"
were incorporated into employees' wage rates.
1947-The Company reinstituted the payment of the 10-percent
"additional compensation."
1948-"Additional compensation" was increased from 10 per-
cent to 15.5 percent.
1950-"Additional compensation" was increased from 15.5 per-
cent to 20 percent.
1952-"Additional•compensation" was increased from 20 per-
cent to 25.5 percent.
1960-"Additional compensation" (25.5 percent) was, incorpo-
rated into employees' wage rates.
Thereafter, no bonus was granted to employees until the one here in
question. , - , ,1 11,
16Mareh Supermarkets , Inc.,' 140 NLRB 899 ; Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137
.NLRB 1782. Chairman McCulloch would not find an independent violation , of Section
8(a)(1)' based on the foregoing speech, standing alone. He does , however, consider the
speech, which reflects the Respondent 's hostility to and determination to defeat the Union
in the forthcoming election, as relevant to the assessment of other conduct herein found
to constitute unfair labor practices More' particularly , he relies on the speech as pro-
viding cogent evidence that the ^ Respondent, lin granting and promising benefits and tak-
ing other measures to ameliorate employee grievances during the period under considera-
tion, was motivated by an unlawful purpose to coerce its employees into rejection of the
Union. ( See N .LiR.B. v. Exchange Parts Company ; 375 U S. 405.)
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1145
In the latter part of July, the Company announced an increase in
the employees' vacation pay. This increase was achieved by comput-
ing pay on the basis of a 45-hour week, whereas a standard workweek
of 40 hours had been used during the preceding 5 years.17
The Trial Examiner held that the granting of these benefits did not
violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as such grants were made in a
manner consistent with established company practice and only after
the representation election was held."'
We disagree. These additional benefits were granted to employees
while objections to the May 8 representation election were still pend-
ing and unresolved and the possibility that the Board would direct a
second election was indeed real. Moreover, the Respondent does not
show that the granting of these benefits was governed by factors other
than the election.19 Upon consideration of the entire record in these
cases, we conclude that these benefits were granted as a reward to em-
ployees for having rejected the Union and as a further inducement to
employees to vote against the Union should the opportunity again
arise. As such, the bonus and vacation pay increases constitute fur-
ther interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
We have considered the Respondent's conduct, as set forth above,
and we have found that in each instance it violated Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act. We find, moreover, that in its totality, such conduct dis-
plays a pattern which clearly has a cumulative effect of interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees, in violation of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the' Respondent has engaged in the' unfair labor
practices set forth above, we shall order that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative' action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act 20 ' '. • ` '
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent involve
conduct in derogation of the principles of good-faith collective bar-
gaining. The inference is warranted that the Respondent maintains
iv Vacation pay is computed as follows: An employee's average hourly rate is multiplied
by the number of hours fixed by the Company as the workweek, and the result is multi-
plied by the number of vacation weeks to which a given employee, is entitled.
'- The Trial Examiner finds justification for the increase in vacation pay as announced
by the Company. He bases his findings upon evidence furnished by the Company to sup,
port its contention that the plant worked more hours in 1963 than it did in 1962 because
of increased production. An examination of this evidence shows conclusively that there
were fewer hours worked in each month'during the. first half of 1963 than there were in
the same months in 1962. Moreover, the number 'of employees involved in each of these
periods is not disclosed. , + , ,
ID Glosaer Bros., Inc., 120 NLRB 965.
20 Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent to vary-of ab'aidori
the changes in conditions of'employmen t which it has made , as set forth 'aliove.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect to thee
protection of employee rights and that a potential threat of future
violations exists. Accordingly, we shall order that the Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guar-
anteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent's conduct, as set forth above,,
interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the
election, we shall set aside that election and direct a new election.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in these cases,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following
additional :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in_
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as set
forth above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section-
8 (a) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By its conduct, as, set forth above, the Respondent has inter-
fered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the elec-
tion held on May 8, 1963.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as:
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Northwest Engineering Company, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Promising or granting improved insurance plans, overtime,
pay, bonuses, increases in vacation pay, better working conditions, or
other economic favors to its employees in order to interfere with their
choice of a bargaining representative, or as an inducement to reject
and refrain from activities in support of United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of jobs, loss of existing eco-
nomic benefits, and otherwise with less favorable treatment if they
support United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,,
join, or assist United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities.
21 The Trial Examiner 's Conclusions of Law Nos. 3 and 4 are hereby deleted.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1147
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent 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 modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended :
(a) Post at its plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 30, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable 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 Region 30, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in Case No. 30-RC-5
on May 8, 1963, be, and it hereby is, set aside and that the case be
remanded to the aforementioned Regional Director for the purpose
of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
22 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
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 promise or grant improved insurance plans, over-
time pay, bonuses, increases in vacation pay, better working con-
ditions, or other economic favors to our employees in order to
interfere with their choice of a bargaining representative, or as
an inducement to reject and refrain from activities in support of
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of jobs, loss of exist-
ing economic benefits, or otherwise with less favorable treatment
if they support United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or co-
erce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other 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 modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
All of our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. We
will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment against
any employee because of membership in, or activity on behalf of, any
labor organization.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) • ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
,date of posting, .and must, not be altered, defaced, or covered by-any
other, material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Second Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Telephone No. 272-8600, Extension 3860, if
they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION. AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
'STATEMENT OF THE CASE
- Upon a charge filed on May 31, 1963 , by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board , by the Regional Director for Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois ), issued a com-
plaint , dated August 14, 1963, against Northwest Engineering Company , hereinafter
referred to as both the Company and the Respondent .. With respect to the unfair
labor practices , the complaint , as subsequently amended, charged that the Respond-
ent Company , by 'named supervisors , engaged in various violations of Section
8 (a)(1) of,,the •Act, which were alleged to consist of negotiating with groups of
employees and'individual employees during pendency of a petition for a representa-
tion election ; promised and/or granted economic benefits to' them to discourage
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1149
union membership and to influence their selection of a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, and threatened its employees with reprisals if they engaged in union
activities which had commenced on February 26, 1963, the date the Charging Union
had initiated an organizational campaign among Respondent's employees
On March 8, 1963, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board for
an election and the Board, after holding a hearing on April 4, 1963, directed an
election to be held (Case No 13-RC-9227) The Regional Director conducted
an election on May 8, 1963, to determine the employees' choice of a bargaining
agent The Union lost the election' Thereafter, on May 15, 1963, the petitioning
Union filed objections to the conduct of the election On August 15 the Regional
Director issued his report on objections On August 30, 1963, the Board issued
an order directing that the bearing in the representation case (Case No 13-RC-
9227) be consolidated with the complaint case (Case No 13-CA-5653) and di-
rected the Trial Examiner to prepare a report "containing resolutions of the
credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to
the disposition of said issues" in order to resolve the issues raised by the Union's
objections to conduct affecting the results of the representation election On Sep-
tember 4, 1963, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the bearing
on objections with the hearing on the unfair labor practice allegations and set both
cases down for bearing
The answer of the Respondent admits certain of the allegations of the complaint,
but demes that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act
On October 8 and 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Henry S Salim held a hearing with
respect to the issues in the consolidated case at Green Bay, Wisconsin Upon the
conclusion of the taking of testimony, counsel for the various parties waived oral
argument and filed briefs which have been fully considered
Issues
The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respondent, by interrogations,
granting of economic benefits, threats, and reprisals, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and by the above
and other conduct, including a speech made to employees by an official of the
Respondent Company, materially affected the result of a representation election held
on May 8, 1963, to the extent that such election should be set aside
Upon the record so made, and based upon observations of the demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying, there are hereby made the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
(a) Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin
(b) At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its principal office
and manufacturing facilities at 201-7 West Walnut Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin,
where it is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in the manufacture of
shovels and cranes
(c) During the past calendar year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations has purchased and transported directly to its Green Bay, Wiscon-
sin, establishment from places outside the State of Wisconsin material valued in
excess of $50,000
Upon the above admitted facts, it is found that Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and it is found that
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which has been
attempting since 1958 to organize the employees of the Respondent It is found that
the labor organization is a union within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
1 The tally of ballots showed there were approximately 753 eligible voters and that 743
ballots were cast, of which 362 were for the Union, 377 against the Union, 2 were chal-
lenged, and 2 were void
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Testimony
1. The insurance incident
Some of the employees desired the coverage under the Company's then existing
group health and accident insurance plan to be increased and broadened. A petition
was circulated by them among the employees, the preamble of which reads as
follows: "I am in favor of dropping our present group insurance plan and will accept
the Blue Cross or other hospitalization plan hoping to have it in effect by February 11,
1963." The employees circulated this petition throughout the plant in December
1962 and January 1963, and when a considerable number of the employees signed it,
the petition was presented to Zephrin Libert, Respondent's vice president, on Janu-
ary 10, 1963, by employee Joseph Wellens. It was agreed by Wellens and Libert that
a meeting would be held to discuss the insurance matter as soon as a committee was
selected by the employees to represent them.
The first meeting was held at the plant on January 12, 1963, and was attended by
five employees comprising the employees' insurance committee, and representing
management were Libert and Alan Houston, president of the Company. Wellens, a
member of the employees' committee, when asked how the employees were selected
who would serve on the committee, testified: "There were only five members on the
committee and they sort of offered to put themselves on the committee." Libert
testified the Company had nothing to do with selecting the employees' committee but
merely suggested through the plant foremen that a representative group from the
various departments in the plant be selected in order to get a better cross-section of
the employees' desires.
The employees' committee informed the Company's representatives at the first meet-
ing that they wanted broader insurance coverage and they were willing to pay in-
creased premiums to obtain it provided "the company would pay a part of the in-
creased cost." Discussion was had and it was agreed that both sides would look into
various insurance plans and report at a second meeting to be called at their mutual
convenience. The employees' committee investigated other insurance plans as did
the Company. The Company contacted insurance companies both by telephone and
letters and requested information with respect to group health and accident programs.
On March 16, 1963, a second meeting was held and the conferees exchanged in-
formation on the various plans they had investigated since the first meeting. It was
agreed that the parties would decide which plan they preferred and report their deci-
sion at a third meeting to be held on April 20 .2
At this third meeting, the employees' insurance committee agreed on a new plan
submitted by the Company which provided for an increase in premium costs, broader
coverage, and additional benefits over the insurance program then in effect. It was
agreed by the conferees that this new plan would be submitted to the employees for
their approval and if they voted to accept it, the new program would become effec-
tive on May 1, the date when the old insurance plan would expire. When a vote
was held among all the employees, they accepted by written ballot the new insur-
ance plan.
The General Counsel contends that this new insurance plan was put into effect on
May 1 by the Company for the purpose of influencing the employees to vote against
the Union in the May 8 representation election.
There is not the slightest evidence in the record to support such an allegation. The
insurance matter was initiated by the employees in December 1962, more than 2
months before the Union began its organizational activity on February 26, 1963. The
agreement by the Company to institute a new insurance program on May 1, 1963,
was in response to the employees dissatisfaction with the plan then in effect. The
fact that the new insurance program became effective a week prior, to the May 8 elec-
tion is merely a temporal coincidence as the old plan was due to expire on May 1.
Moreover, the General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence
there was any violation of Section 8 (a)( I) or that the timing of the new insurance
program was intentionally arranged so as to influence the outcome of the election.
2. Grievance meetings -
On April 20, 1963, various employees requested Libert, Respondent's vice presi-
dent, to discuss with them certain complaints they had regarding working conditions.
2 The first two meetings were held during nonworking time and the third meeting was
attended by some of the employees committee during their nonworking time.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1151
He agreed but suggested that the employees ' representatives select men from all vari-
ous departments in the plant in order to obtain a cross-section throughout the plant
upon which the complaints were based.
On the morning and afternoon of April 22, 1963, Libert conferred at the plant
with two different groups of employees. The employees of both groups stated their
individual and group complaints and Libert assured them he would look into these
matters, study them, and give them a definite answer at a later meeting as to what
the Company would do .3
On April 30 Libert had one meeting with combined representatives of the two
original employees' groups, told them he had investigated all these matters and in-
formed them what the Company had done already to correct many of them and was
prepared to do with respect to their other complaints. The Company's actions and
proposals were evidently acceptable to the employees' representatives as no further
meetings were held. When the April 30 meeting concluded, Libert told the em-
ployees' committee they had access to him at any time to discuss any complaints
fhey • might have in the future.
The General Counsel contends these meetings violated Section 8(a) (1) because
meetings of this type never had been held before and were agreed to by Respondent
on the occasion in question for the dual purpose of showing employees they needed
no union to represent them in order for them to air their grievances and was a benefit
granted them to influence the outcome of the upcoming election.
The record, however, does not substantiate these contentions of the General
Counsel, as Libert's testimony that similar meetings had been held "many times in
the past" at the request of employees stands not only uncontradicted but corrob-
orated by Brennan, a member of the employees' committee, who testified he had
attended meetings in the past between employees' committees and management to
discuss and adjust grievances.
It is not a violation of the Act for an employer to accede to his employees' re-
quest that he listen to, discuss, and adjust their complaints. Moreover, the record
discloses that before the advent of the Union's organizational campaign, the em-
ployees had had grievance meetings with management and it had been the Com-
pany's policy to adjust their compliants. Accordingly, as the discussion of grievances
at the employees' requests was established before the Union's current organizational
campaign, the granting of the instant request to discuss grievances with
a committee of employees did not constitute a change in terms or conditions of
employment within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). This the Company was
privileged to do under its existing policy without creating any new policy as it did
not unlawfully invade any employees' rights under the Act. Moreover, the settle-
ment of these complaints appears to be too trivial to have a tendency to interfere
with employee rights..
Furthermore, there is no background or climate of union animus or unfair labor
practices on the part of the Company. All the Respondent did was meet with these
employees groups at their request in order to dispose of their complaints. Re-
spondent's motive in meeting with them merely was to attempt to remedy their
alleged dissatisfaction with working conditions. The Employer has such a right
as a matter of employee morale and plant efficiency. There is no credible evidence
that Respondent, in agreeing to discuss its employees' complaints in order to attempt
to satisfy their grievances, did so with the ulterior purpose of influencing them with
respect to the imminent representation election. Nor may any such inference rea-
sonably be drawn from the evidence in the record? It is found, therefore, there
was no evidence adduced of interference with the pending election or any restraint
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. Bonus payments
On or about June 20, 1963, the Company announced that the employees would
receive a 5-percent bonus on their gross earnings for the next 6 months, com-
mencing July' l through December 31, 1963, which would be payable the following
year.
A Some of these individual and group complaints included that of a drill press o ;erator,
an employee who had an overtime problem, working hours, dissatisfaction with assembly
shop rates, and waiting unduly long for parts.
4 The two groups were each comprised of seven employees The General Counsel only
called 1 of these 14 employees to testify as to what occurred at these 3 meetings.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel admits that although the granting of this bonus had been
in effect for many years, that in the 1963 incident it was designed as a reward for
their rejection of the Union in the election which had been held 6 weeks before the
announcement of the bonus was made.
Generally, this record is sparse of antiunion statements or attitudes usually present
when there is a strong opposition to unions by an employer. Nor is there any
pattern of conduct which would support a finding that Respondent was hostile to
labor organizations generally or to the Charging Union in particular.
Regarding the bonus incident, going back as far as 1941, the Respondent Com-
pany had instituted a yearly bonus system payable semiannually. - The bonus in
issue was announced approximately 6 weeks after the Board-conducted representa-
tion election. Any finding that the Respondent could not continue to pay bonuses,
in keeping with its established company policy of 22 years, clearly is contrary not
only to the realities of industrial life but also to the law as such action on the
part of the Company, under the circumstances here revealed, could not have inter-
fered with, restrained, or coerced the employees within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) or have influenced them illegally in an election held 6 weeks prior to the
announcement of the bonus.
4. Rate changes
a. Toolroom
Joseph Wellens, who has worked in the toolroom for 12 years, testified that
"early in 1963" his wage rate was "lowered," but 2 or 3 weeks before the representa-
tion election the old rate was reinstituted. Upon this rate reduction in the toolroom
being brought to the attention of Vice President Libert, he immediately investigated
the matter and ascertained that, although there was no decrease in the employee's
earnings, it was a mistake on the part of one of the supervisory personnel to lower
the rate, whereupon he so informed Wellens and ordered the reinstitution of the
former rate which was done.
The General Counsel contends that the act of reducing and reinstituting Wellens'
hourly rate prior to the election was in itself an unlawful manipulation violating
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, as it was done for the purpose of inducing its employees
to reject the Union.
The uncontroverted testimony shows that this incident was due to an error on
the part of the then assistant plant superintendent who has since left Respondent's
employ. This person, who was not authorized to change wage rates, ordered an
incorrect base rate to be instituted by the toolrbom foreman. As soon as Respond-
ent's vice president discovered the error, which was at the end of April, he ordered
the assistant superintendent to countermand it and reestablish the former wage rate.
In any event, the General Counsel acknowledges and Wellens testified that this error
did not result in Wellens' earnings or "take-home" pay being reduced but it remained
the same both before and after the wage rate change. It is not an unfair labor
practice for a plant official to correct an error of a subordinate immediately upon
hearing of it, even though it occurred by happenstance during the pendency of a
petition for an election. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Respondent by this
single, isolated act has not interfered with, coerced, or restrained employee Wellens
in the exercise of his organizational rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
0 b. Structural shop
Ronald' Counard, who was an apprentice at the time the following alleged in-
cidents occurred, testified there were rate increases for the welders in the structural
shop about a month before the date of the Board-conducted representation election.
The General Counsel argues that the Company had announced increases in the
welders' hourly rates shortly before the election as part of its efforts to oppose the
Union and with an intent 'to` influence the outcome of the representation election.
When Counard was, questioned on direct examination by the General Counsel as
to what he based his testimony upon, he answered: "I heard the time study man ask-
ing how much money they need on different jobs"; and "I seen the piece work cards."
On cross-examination, he admitted that his testimony was based upon: "liear[ing]
the men talk about' it and I seen the piece work cards [when] . there was some
old cards laying around." When he was asked on cross-examination if this testimony
was based entirely on hearsay, he answered obliquely that he knew "because I talked
to the men who had,time studies on the job [and] I seen the time study sheet,"
although he admitted he never had the time studies in his possession and that his in-
formation is based upon what someone else told him. Then when Counard again
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1153:
was asked if he actually saw the time-study sheet he equivocally testified: "I seen it,
but I couldn't tell what was on it ." When asked if he knew how the rate dispute
arose in the structural shop, Counard stated that one of the welders "apparently
asked [a company official] for a time study." [Emphasis supplied.] When Counard,
testified that the rate in the structural shop was "no good" and he was asked how he
knew this, he testified: "They said so," referring to what welders had told him and
"later I heard there was a raise [in the wage rate] . [from] welders." When he
was asked why he was so interested in welder's rates, since he was not a welder him-
self, he evasively answered: "I was just interested." When pressed to answer the
question, as it was pointed out to him that welder rates did not affect him, he testified:
"It was going to. I was going on welding"-although there is no evidence he knew
this at the time. He admitted also that it is not unusual for welders to complains
about their rates and such complaints had been voiced by them for the 3 years he has
been in the Respondent's employ.
Counard's testimony is not credited because the record reveals that not only was
he not testifying from his own knowledge but it was hearsay and based upon con-
jectures and rumors he had heard. Moreover, his demeanor while testifying did not
favorably impress the trier of these facts.5
Libert, who had personal knowledge of this matter in his capacity as vice president
and whose testimony is credited, stated that some of the welders complained about
their rates, which happens all the time (as Counard admitted), and that a time study
was ordered shortly thereafter which resulted in rate adjustments being made.6 More-
over, Libert's testimony that there were no changes made in the method or policy of
setting piece-work welding rates in the structural shop in the spring of 1963 stands
uncontroverted in the record. Assuming, arguendo, this rate adjustment was made a,
month before the representation election, nevertheless, the General Counsel has not
proved by a preponderance of the creditable, probative, substantial, and proper evi-
dence that there was any causal connection between the rate adjustments and its prox-
imity to the pending election or that there was any violation of Section 8(a)(1).
c. Fixtures (piecework)
Roy Evans, who has been employed by Respondent for over,26 years, testified that
prior to March 1963, his earnings in the machine shop averaged $3 to $3.03 an hour.
On March 29 and May 6, 1963, he was given individual assignments to make two,
particular types of fixtures for which he received $3.25 and $3.38 an hour, respectively.
The General Counsel contends that the alleged rate increases given Evans to pro-
duce these two fixtures constituted unlawful benefits intended to influence Evans in.
the pending representation election.
On cross-examination, it was elicited that these two particular fixture jobs, which,
are referred to in the plant as "one-piece jobs," were isolated and unusual orders.
and the only ones of their kind in the entire plant for this 2-month period of time.
It appears that these two isolated fixture jobs were so unusual that the Company
had no set price, as time studies had never been run on them as each job is 'evaluated
independently as to the hourly rate or price. Therefore, a "temporary" rate of
$3.25 and $3.38 was assigned to them, as fixture operations are more difficult to,
perform? Moreover, and this is not only uncontradicted but admitted as well by
Evans, his hourly earnings for both March and May were no more than in previous
months. Since Evans received no additional earnings, the General Counsel's al-
legation in his complaint that Evans was granted economic benefits by Respondent
must necessarily fall for failure of proof. .
B At one point in his testimony, Counard testified without objection from notes written,
by a legal associate of counsel for the Charging Union.
O For the reason stated above, Counard's testimony is not credited that time studies
were not conducted by Respondent among the approximately 400 welders for 3 years until
a month before the election when rate adjustments were made. , Furthermore, none of
the welders who had personal knowledge of this matter and who are alleged to have been,
affected by these rate adjustments were -called by the General Counsel to testify. The.
failure to call these employees gives rise to an inference that their testimony would not
have been favorable to the General Counsel's contentions. N.L.R.B. v. Sam Wallick and
Sam K. Schwalm, d/b/a Wallick and Schwalm Company, et al., 198 F. 2d 477, 483
(CA. 3).
71t seems a fixture job cannot be assigned a "set price" as it is a maintenance opera-
tion (as distinguished from a production operation) and no two maintenance operations
are alike.
760-577-65-vol. 148-74
0
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
d. Increased rates in assembly department
Employee Labart Quigley testified that in January 1963, before union activity
began, he met with the assistant plant superintendent and requested an upward ad-_
justment in his hourly wage rate. Two weeks later he was notified, that his request
was denied. Subsequently, after a time study and about 2 weeks before the Board-
conducted representation election, he received a rate increase which raise was within
2 cents of what he asked for the previous January.
Of the approximately 60 people, working in -the assembly department, only two
employees, one of whom was Quigley, received a raise during the time material in
this proceeding. Quigley testified that he was informed by the plant's time-study
official he was being granted a raise because the particular shaft he was then working
on involved a change in parts and a- new method of operation. Based on the
totality of Respondent's conduct, the facts related above, as well as the isolated
nature of this one incident, when the size of the plant is considered and that it
affected only 2 of 60 employees in the assembly department, a finding of an 8(a) (1)
violation is not justified nor does this solitary- and picayune, isolated instance war-
rant,an order to set aside the election.
5. Overtime
Robert LeMere, a stockroom employee, working in the stockmovers section, testi-
fied that in 1961, 1962, and 1963 the average number of hours he worked each
week was 45. In the beginning of 1963, he testified, the stockroom employees were
working 45 hours until, 2 weeks before the Board-conducted representation election
when it was increased to 50 hours. The extra time he worked on Saturdays was
the same type of work he performed during the week and it was optional with the
employees whether they wished to work overtime on Saturdays. After the election,
he testified, he reverted to his original workweek of 45 hours.
On cross-examination, when LeMere was asked how he arrived at the figure of
the average hours he worked in 1961, 1962, and 1963, he admitted he did not
check any records and that it was merely an estimate, testifying: "At times it was
forty, at times it was forty-five, and at times it was fifty, so I gave you forty-five
as an average.8 He also admitted that he did not know if he worked more over-
time in 1963 than in 1962, but he did testify that he worked 50 hours in May 1963,
shortly after the May 8 election. It was also solicited from LeMere, in refutation
of the General Counsel's contention that Saturday overtime worked before the
election was "made" work, that he was kept busy on the two Saturdays he worked
overtime before the election.
Lawrence Christensen, another stockroom employee called as a witness by the Gen-
eral Counsel, testified, contrary to LeMere, that beginning in 1963 he worked 40
hours a week until April 22 when he went on overtime working 44 hours and 48
hours, respectively, for the 2 weeks before the election. After the May 8 election,
he testified, he remained on overtime working 45 hours until September when his
overtime was increased additionally to over 50 hours a week during inventory.
Libert, Respondent's vice president, testified that from time to time, due to the
physical setup of the stockroom, materials arrive- at the stockroom faster than the
stockroom employees are able to store it in bins. This requires these employees
to work overtime periodically. Libert's denial that any orders were given by him
that the stockroom employees were to be given overtime 2 weeks before the elec-
tion stands uncontradicted in the record.
The General Counsel alleges that the overtime worked in April on the two Satur-
days before the election were given employees by the Respondent•to influence their
voting in the pending election.
Conduct which serves legitimate business ends dispels a claim of illegitimate
motives. Action taken by an employer in the pursuit of legitimate business ends
and without any intent to invade employees' rights but to accomplish business ob-
jectives acceptable under the Act is the, overriding consideration in situations of this
type. As is not uncommon in the context of industrial realities, such situations
present a complex of motives and preferring one motive to another is indeed a
delicate task reflected in Board decisions in weighing the interests of employees in
concerted activity against the interest of the employer in operating and maintain-
8 As a further indication of the unreliability of the figures given by the General
Counsel's witnesses is the testimony of Christensen, infra, another stockroom employee,
who testified he did not know how many hours he had worked the week before the hear-
ing in the instant case.
i
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1155
ing the economic integrity of his business by making day-to-day decisions, even
though made during a union's organizational campaign and of balancing in the light
of the Act and its policy the consequences upon employees' rights against the busi-
ness ends to be served by the employer's conduct.
In considering these matters, it should be borne in mind that it is uncontroverted
that the plant's busy season, from a production standpoint, is around April. It is,
therefore, just as reasonable to attribute the overtime worked on the two Saturdays
before the May 8 election to the press of work requiring it and not to an intent
to make work for the employees in an effort to influence their vote in the election.,
Corroborative of this conclusion is the testimony of both LeMere and Christensen
that they were kept busy when they worked overtime and that they continued to
work overtime after the election. After the election, the employees did not work
on Saturdays but they did continue to work 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, or a
total of 45 hours, of which 5 hours was overtime. Moreover, any doubt on this
score is dispelled by Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which shows the plantwide aver-
age total amount of overtime worked in the various departments of the plant dur-
ing the first half of 1962 and the first half. of 1963 to be approximately the same.
This exhibit conclusively negates the General Counsel's contention that an abnormal
amount of overtime was worked by Respondent's employees in the spring of 1963
prior to the election.
Nor was there sufficient evidence adduced by the General Counsel to make a
finding that the Respondent had its stockroom employees engaged in "made" over-
time work such as washing windows and light bulbs on the two Saturdays immedi-
ately before the election, as Libert's testimony stands uncontradicted that stockroom
employees have been periodically assigned in the past to washing windows and light
bulbs, stating that "keeping the place clean is one of the normal operations of the
[employees of the stockroom] department."
It is found, accordingly, that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a pre-
ponderance of the credible, probative, and substantial evidence that in the period
preceding the election, Respondent granted overtime to the stockroom employees in
order to influence them unlawfully in the election or in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On the contrary, the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the overtime
granted employees was in accordance with the Respondent 's past business practices
and requirements.
6. Vacation pay
For many years the Company has had a policy of paid vacations for its employees.
In its computation of the number of weeks of vacation pay to which an employee is
entitled , the following formula has always been used : The average hourly rate times
the number of hours per week the plant worked the past year, multiplied by the num-
ber of weeks' vacation the particular employee is entitled to, which, in turn, is based
on the number of years the employee has been working for the Company. Employee
Evans testified that the computation of his vacation pay for the year 1963 was based
on a standard of 45 hours per week, whereas from 1958 to 1961, inclusive, the stand-
ard number of hours used was 40.
The General Counsel states that in July 1963, approximately 2 months subsequent
to the election , the Respondent altered its method of determining its employees' vaca-
tion pay by computing that pay on the basis of a 45-hour week, whereas in 1962, the
preceding year, a 40-hour week was used although it is "apparent that the plant
worked considerably more hours in 1962 than in 1963 . . .
This contention, however, is not supported by the record. Alan Houston, Re-
spondent's president, testified that the 40-hour standard used in 1962 was increased to
45 hours for 1963 because the plant worked more hours during 1963 because of in-
creased production, and is borne out by Respondent's tabulated Exhibit No. 9 show-
ing the hours worked for the first 6 months of 1962 and 1963. In other words, while
there was an increase in the average number of hours worked in 1963 over what the
plant worked- in 1962, there was no change in the'formula which has been used- in
previous years in computing the employees' vacation pay.
On cross-examination, Evans confirmed this when he was asked if there was any
difference in the method used in computing his vacation pay in 1963 as compared
with 1962, and, 1961 and he answered in the negative, stating that the same formula
was used for '1963 as was used for computing his vacation pay, for previous years:
It" is found,. therefore,'that there is ' no probative evidence of any violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(1) with respect to the computation of vacation pay as , the manner in
which it was computed has remained the same over the years and its change from
40 to 45 hours in 1963 was not motivated by any proscribed intention to avoid Re-
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
spondent's obligations under the Act or to illegally influence employees , but reflects
the increase in production for the first 6 months of 1963. See Respondent's Exhibit
No. 9. Accordingly, it will be recommended that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
7. Backpay
Employee Wellens testified that 2 weeks before the Board-conducted representa-
tion election, Lampeur, his foreman, told him he had some backpay coming for ex-
ceeding his quota of piece work. Wellens stated he already knew this, as there had
been an announcement to that effect posted on the toolroom bulletin board a few
days previously by one of his coworkers. The General Counsel's allegation that this
single, isolated incident constituted an unfair labor practice must fail for lack of
proof as it is without foundation or substance in the record.
Furthermore, any doubt as to whether Respondent increased employees' earnings
in an attempt to influence their voting in the May 8 representation election is dispelled
by Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, which shows the average hourly earnings of em-
ployees in several departments of the plant did not fluctuate abruptly for the period
from January 1 through September 15, 1963. This, in turn, corroborates the Re-
spondent's contention that there was no basic change in company policy with respect
to the manner of computing hourly rates or,piece-work rates .9
8. Interrogation
a. At insurance meetings
Wellens testified that at the first meeting on January 12, 1963, which was requested
by the employees' committee to discuss the insurance program,'° Houston, president
of the Company, "asked the question where this insurance thing started and how it
started and who started it."
In determining whether or not an employer's questions constitute forbidden "co-
ercion," in derogation of employees' freedom of choice as guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, it is required to not only consider what information was sought but also the
manner and context in which the questions were asked.ll Perfunctory, innocuous
queries, standing alone, and analyzed in isolation from the totality of events, are in-
sufficient to support a finding of an 8(a)(1) violation.
Assuming, arguendo, that Houston asked what might be characterized as a rhetori-
cal question, it was asked in the course of a meeting between the employees' com-
mittee and the Respondent, called for the purpose of resolving the insurance matter
grievance and thus was privileged and not unlawful within the meaning of Section,
8(a)(1). Settlement of such grievances which provide an orderly and peaceful proms
cedure for avoiding labor disputes take on many aspects of hard, serious, and intense
exchange of views. If an employer were liable to being charged with an unfair labor
practice for the type of innocuous questions Houston asked during this conference,
such meetings would become stilted and sterile, and parties to the grievance dis-
cussion would hesitate to participate in such proceedings. Such a result would be
contrary to the purpose which such grievance meetings seek to accomplish. Ques-
tions, such as those which were asked by Houston in the January 12 meeting detailed
above, are entitled to protection as part of the give-and-take of adjudicating employee
grievances and are thus privileged.
b. In Libert's office
Roy Evans, who has been employed by the Company for 26 years and is a 'mem-
ber of the Union's organization committee, testified that a few days after the April 4
Board representation hearing, at which be was one of the union representatives, that
he had a conversation with Libert, Respondent's vice president, in his office, and
Libert asked him "Why the men in the shop were so dissatisfied and why I was strong
for the union." Evans then went on to testify that Libert did not wait for an answer,
but continued on without a pause, telling Evans that he should not be dissatisfied be-
cause his hourly wage was "good." _
There were, of course, routine wage increases during this time based on factors Im-
material , to the issue Sn this particular , incident, such as routine increases based on
seniority and longevity.
10 See section 1 entitled "The insurance incident," supra.
n Reserve Supply Corporation of L.I., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 317 F. 2d 785, 787 (C:A. 2),
enfg. 140 NLRB 330.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1157
The General Counsel contends that this is unlawful interrogation within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(I).
Libert's denial that he ever mentioned the Union in this conversation with Evans
or that he asked Evans why he favored the Union is credited for the reasons expli-
cated below. Libert was involved for some years in labor relations with the Com-
pany's approximately 800 employees. It hardly seems conceivable that an executive
of his experience would compromise his company by needlessly making the blunder
of asking Evans why he favored the Union, particularly, in view of any proof of
antiunion bias. The indulgence of such an assumption would cast serious reflection
upon the intelligence and commonsense of Respondent's vice president. There is no
occasion to do so in the absence of corroborating evidence which would tend to sup-
port Evans' version of the conversation.12
In determining whether the allegations of the General Counsel that Houston's in-
quiring during the course of the insurance grievance meetings how and who initiated
the insurance matter, and Libert asking Evans why he was for the Union are coercive
interrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I), the following factors must be
considered: The background in which the conversation took place, the time and man-
ner under which it was made, and all of the surrounding circumstances necessary to
conclude whether such incidents and conversation had the coercive characteristics
proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.13
Moreover, there must be considered "the background of such inquiries, the time
and manner of their being made, and all the surrounding circumstances. . . Before
inquiries as to union' membership and statements by employers or supervisory em-
ployees can be held to be unfair labor practices, they must-be shown to have some re-
lation to the coercion or restraint of the employees in their right of self-organization."
Infrequent, isolated, and innocuous inquiries of a relatively small number of em-
ployees, standing alone, do not constitute interference, restraint, or coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Armour & Co., 213 F. 2d
625 (C.A. 5); Burke Golf Equipment Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 284 F. 2d 943 (C.A. 6).
"Interrogation of employees about membership in the union may or may not amount
to coercion, depending upon the manner in which it is done and the surrounding cir-
cumstances." United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 252 F. 2d 428, 430
(C.A. 6).14
Applying these indicia, it is found that the General Counsel's contention that
Houston's asking how and who started the insurance matter and Evans being asked
by Libert why he favored the Union is unlawful, are wholly without the support of
substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole as it has not been shown to have
been improperly or unlawfully motivated. Moreover, such questioning was not-
fol-lowed by reprisals against union adherents nor is.there any background of illegal
hostility to unions by the Company. , Furthermore, based on Evans' own testimony,
Libert's conversation with him is , no -more than innocuous conversation which is not
prohibited by the Act. The impact of Houston and Libert's alleged interrogation on
the employees in the case of both, the insurance meeting where Houston allegedly
asked "where this insurance thing started and how it started and who started it" and
Evans' individual meeting with Libert,-where the latter asked Evans why-he favored
the Union, determines its legality and there is nothing in the record to show or from
which it might be inferred ,that these two incidents were interpreted by Wellens (who
was the only one to testify as to the insurance, meetings), or Evans in his conversa-
tion with Libert, as being coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1).; These
two incidents were neither threatening nor conducted otherwise than in a friendly,
perfunctory, and casual manner. Moreover, the record-is devoid of any evidence
that it had "the slightest effect in actually preventing or discouraging membership in
the Union." is Corroborative of this conclusion is the uncontradicted evidence show-
ing that Respondent by any of its conduct evidenced animus or any other tangible
manifestations of illegal hostility toward its employees', union activities.
Then, too, in the context of Section 8(c) of the Act, these two incidents of alleged
coercive interrogation 16 contained no expression of "threat or reprisal." And in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary adduced-by,the General Counsel, no unfair
labor practice can be inferred from these two incidents as they occurred in an atmos-
19 N.L R.B. v. Kaye, et at . d/b/a Arrow Press, 272 F. 2d 112, 114 (C.A. 7).
13 United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc: y. N L.R.B., 252 F. 2d 428, 430 (C A. 6). -
14 N.L.R B. v. Elias Bros Big Boy, Inc., et at., 54 LRRM 2733 (C.A. 6).
'sSchwob Manufacturing Company v.,-N.L-RB:, 297 F.,2d 864 , 870 (C.A:j5)
16 N.L.R.B. v. Nashua Manufacturing Corporation of Temas, 218 F. 2d 886, 887 (C.A. 5),
enfg. 108 NLRB 837.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phere free from proscribed employer hostility to union organization. Accordingly,
it is found, based upon the combination of facts and circumstances present in this
case that these two incidents were not meant to discourage union support or placed
any unlawful restraints upon the employees' election choice and, therefore, did not
constitute unlawful interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.17
9. The speech
The complaint also alleges that Respondent threatened its employees with reprisals
in a speech made to them on May 7, 1963, the day before the election, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. An evaluation of the text of the speech, which is at-
tached at the end of this Decision marked "Appendix A," reveals no such threats,
express or implied, nor does it tend to engender fear of economic loss or fear of re-
prisal, and thus made it impossible for the employees to have made a rational, un-
coerced decision in the representation election. Although an examination of the
speech reveals its tone is antiunion propaganda, it is, nevertheless, not only the type
of legitimate campaign propaganda which the Board consistently refuses to censor or
police, but, also, it does not exceed the bounds of permissible electioneering. This
type of speech does not violate the voters' right of exercising a reasoned, untram-
meled choice for or against the union as it is neither misleading nor misrepresents so
as to prevent the exercise of a truly free choice by employees in selecting a bargain-
ing representative. Moreover, the speech, when viewed in its total context, was
neither coercive nor was it otherwise calculated to deprive the employees of their
freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining representative.18
An employer generally is entitled under the first amendment to the Constitution
to express his views and preference in a labor dispute, absent restraint or economic
coercion. Such right is expressly recognized also in Section 8(c) which provides
that: "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination
thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or
be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if
such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." Sec-
tion 8 (c), therefore, excepts all speeches by employers but promises and threats
from the prohibition of Section 8(a)(1). Congress intended to guarantee the
rights of the employer and the union to air their views because through the free
exchange of ideas, the individual employee's voting choice would be aided in mak-
ing his choice. The Supreme Court in speaking of Section 8(c) has stated: "The
remedial function of Section 8(c) is to protect non-coercive speech by an employer
and labor organization alike in furtherance of a lawful object." 19 And an em-
ployer has the right to speak up against unionization.20 In Thornhill v. Alabama,
310 U.S. 88, the -Supreme Court said: "The safeguarding of these rights to the
ends that. men array- speak on matters vital to them and falsehoods may be exposed
through the process of education and discussion is essential to free government."
In determining if a speech is protected by these constitutional and statutory pro-
visions, a study of the cases reveals that the Board has held the touchstone to be
whether the statement, because of its nature, tends to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights or tends to unfairly in-
fluence employees' freedom of choice in an election or is calculated to create a fear
in the employee auditors of reprisal as would render impossible a rational, un-
coerced decision by the employees, such as fear of economic loss. This concept
rejects an analysis in isolation and a narrow legalistic approach as its intent is to
protect employees' freedom of choice. In doing so, the total situation must be
considered: the employer-employee relationship and what has been said and when
it was said in all the circumstances, in order to ascertain whether the employer's
conduct constituted substantial interference with the employees' rights 2i It is
found, therefore, that the May 7 speech did not violate Section 8 (a)(1).
17 Blue Flash Express , Inc., 109 NLRP 591.
18 The Lord Baltimore Press , 145 NLRB 888.
19 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Local 501, et al. ( Samuel Langer) v.
N L R B , 341 U.S. 694 , 704.
10N L R.B. v. Virginia Electric and Power Company, 314 U.S. 469; 319 U.S. 533;
N.L.R.B. v. American Tube Bending Co ., Inc., 134 F. 2d 993 (,C.A. 2), cert . denied
320 U . S. 768.
21 Cf. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Ino., 137 NLRB 1782 , 1786-1787, and cases there cited.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1159
Concluding Findings
In determining whether an employer's conduct amounts to interference, restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) ,22 the test is not the employer's
intent or motive, but whether the conduct is reasonably calculated or tends to in-
terfere with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed employees by the Act 23 Then
too, in determining this, each of Respondent's activities need not be treated separately
and apart from all others but consideration must be given to all the attendant
circumstances.24 The test is whether the conduct charged was reasonably calculated
to interfere with the employees' free choice as to whether they desired to be
represented by the -Union for the purpose of collective bargaining.25 Interference,
restraint, or coercion is not measured by the employer's intent or the effectiveness
of his action, but rather by whether the conduct is reasonably calculated or tends
to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under the Act.26
The language and legislative history of Section 8(a)(1) show that Congress
intended in banning "interference" to proscribe any employer activity which would
tend to limit employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. The key to in-
terpretation of Section 8(a)(1) is the purpose of the Act as expressed in the pre-
amble: to preserve to employees an atmosphere in which they have full freedom
of choice with respect to collective bargaining and the designation of a bargaining
representative. Inherent in the very nature of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
is the concomitant right of full freedom from employer intermeddling. Employees
have as clear a right to organize and select their representatives for lawful purposes
as the employer has to organize its business and select its own officers and agents.
The law must now be regarded as well settled that promises of benefit are at
least as efficacious as threatened detriment when attempting to discourage union
activity One of the purposes of the Act is to insure that employees shall have a
free choice as to the question of their representation in negotiating with an em-
ployer27 This,- of course, does not preclude the employer from stating his views
as to whether or not the employees should join the Union. But employers still may
not under the guise of merely exercising their right of free speech, pursue a course
of conduct designed to restrain, coerce, and interfere with their employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by the Act. The Act does not preclude an em-
ployer from introducing benefits during an organizational period. But when the
employer uses proposed benefits as an inducement not to join the union, his activity
bears no shield of privilege. It constitutes a promise of benefits as an alternative
to union affiliation. For interference is no less interference because it is accom-
plished through allurements rather than coercion. Such action minimizes the in-
fluence of organized bargaining. It interferes with the right of self-organization by
emphasizing to the employees that there is no necessity for a collective-bargaining.
agent.28
'-'Sections 8(a) (1) and 7:
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
SEC. 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees In the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7 . . . .
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
SEC. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization to form, j oin, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own-
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective-
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to re-
frain from any or 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).
23 N L R.B. v. Illinois Tool Works , 153 F. 2d 811 , 814 (C.A. 7).
2' N L R.B. v. Popeil Brothers , Inc, 216 F 2d 66, 68 (C A. 7).
2s N.L R.B. v. Wilbur H. Ford, d/b/a Ford Brothers, 170 F. 2d 735, 738 (C.A. 6).
ze Dixie Shirt Company, Inc., 79 NLRB 127, 128.
There was no evidence produced by the General Counsel with respect to Respondent's
officers' speeches or statements to employees which can be considered a violation of Sec--
tion 8(a)(1).
28 Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v . N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732 ( C.A.D.C.), enfg. 85 NLRB 1263 , cert..
denied 341 U.S. 914. See Kohler Co., 128 NLRB 1062, 1078-1079.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the light of these principles, with respect to the various allegations of unfair
'labor practices which have been discussed above and found to be without merit, it
may be stated that as to all these alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1), involving
the insurance and grievance meetings, bonus payments, rate changes, overtime, vaca-
tion pay, and backpay, that the Act does not require an employer, pending an
election, to refrain from making economically motivated decisions involving busi-
ness matters or any changes in wage rates or other working conditions necessary
to the continued and orderly operation of his plant, absent a promise of benefit con-
ditioned upon rejection of the union'and/or any causal connection between such
changes and the rights accorded to employees by the Act. Normal business de-
,cisions must continue to be made and frequently are necessary for the efficient
operation of the plant, even though it occurs during an organizational campaign.
The proof adduced by the General Counsel in this proceeding does not indicate that
'these matters were abnormal or unusual so as to warrant an order setting aside the
,election nor the finding that the various insubstantial incidents detailed above, in-
cluding interrogation of employees, violated the Act within the meaning of Section
19
8 ( In the area of employer rights during the preelection period, the Supreme Court
sustained the Board's finding in the Exchange Parts Company case 30 that the em-
ployer had interfered with its employees prior to an election. The facts in the
Exchange Parts case, however, are inapposite to those in the instant proceeding. In
Exchange Parts, after a petition was filed and before an election, in a letter to its
oemployees to vote against the union, the employer announced a new overtime pay
policy, which the Board found was intended to influence the outcome of the elec-
tion and was therefore a violation of Section 8(a)(1). The Court in sustaining
,the Board held that the broad purpose of Section 8(a)(1) prohibits not only in-
trusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees
which is undertaken with the "express purpose" of,imposing upon their freedom of
choice for or against unionization, and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.
[Emphasis supplied.] In the case at bar, however, it has been found that there
was no such "express purpose," nor any coercive elements involved nor was any-
ing said or done on the part of the Respondent Company conditioned upon the em-
ployees' relinquishment of any rights. Nor is there present in this case, as in Ex-
,change Parts, the conferral of employee benefits while a representation petition is
pending for the "express purpose" of inducing employees to vote against the union.
On the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, there is found to be no
violation of Section 8(a)(1) as there is no objective evidence of interference, re-
straint, or coercion with respect to the insurance and grievance matters, bonus
payments, rate changes, overtime, vacation pay, and backpay because these matters
arose and were resolved in a context- of no conditions being attached, such as con-
ditioning their grant on the employees' voting against the Union or relinquishing
rights of self-organization. Moreover, the record does not show that these incidents
are a causative link related to the employees voting against the Union nor is there
any implication that these matters would be withdrawn or adversely changed in
the event the workers, voted for the Union 31 And finally, these acts were not shown
to have been arranged with the intention of inducing the employees to,vote against
the Union or influence the outcome of the election32
The burden was on the General Counsel to prove his case against Respondent
by a preponderance of the evidence 33 and the burden may be met by drawing
reasonable inferences from established' facts,34 provided it is supported by substan-
tial evidence when viewed on the record as a whole 35 However, the evidence
adduced here, at most, merely raises some speculation but speculation cannot suffice
for proof nor can such speculation be accepted as justifiable inference.36 Accord-
ingly, it is found that the'General Counsel has not proved affirmatively by substan-
tial evidence the allegations of the complaint37
° Cf. Cranston Print Works Company, 115 NLRB 537, 549
3" N L R B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S 405
31 See N L.R B v. Exchange Parts Company, supra.
3 Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, supra
a3 N.L R.B v Cleveland Trust Co, 214 F. 2d95,99 (C.A. 6). '
34 N L.R B v Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation, 316 U.S. 105, 107.
Untive# sal Camera Corporation v. N L R.B., 340 U.S. 474.
3°JN L.R B: v: Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 326 F. 2d 509 (C.A. (1).'
37 Cf American Newspaper' Publishers Association v. N.L.R.B., 193 F. 2d-782, 805
{CA. 7).
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1161
Not all improvements in conditions of employment which are instituted at or
about the time of a representation election or during an organizing campaign nec-
essarily constitute unfair labor practices. Assuming, arguendo, but not accepting,
that some or all of the matters discussed above were benefits conferred upon the
employees, nevertheless, if the Respondent Company was motivated by 'a legitimate
business purpose, it is not prohibited by Section 8(a)(1), even though its
incidental effect conceivably may be to discourage union membership. Only
if it were the Respondent's express purpose to discourage such membership is the
"claim of legitimacy . . . totally dispelled." 38 Nor 'does the evidence warrant
an inference that these various incidents were causally connected or motivated for
the purpose of influencing employees in their choice of a bargaining representative
in the coming election. Not only are many of these incidents, which are detailed
above, de minimis and isolated, but their timing and the circumstances under which
they occurred does not convince the Trial Examiner that they constitute a substantial
basis for an unfair labor practice finding or an order to set aside the election.
An employer is free during an organizational campaign and shortly before the
certification to increase wages or otherwise to institute improved conditions of em-
ployment if the changes are motivated by legitimate business considerations 38'
Moreover, the changes effected in this proceeding, if such they were, were not in-
herently discriminatory or destructive of the rights guaranteed to employees by the
Act. Section 7 guarantees the right "to self-organization" and "to form, join, or
assist labor organizations." Section 8(a) (1) implements this guarantee by prohibit-
ing interference, restraint, or coercion on the part of employers. Both of these
provisions must be considered in light of the Act's policy, set out in Section 1, to,
protect "the 'exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization,
and designation of representatives of their own choosing." Hence, it follows, as
the Supreme Court has stated, that the "dominant purpose" of Section 8(a)(1) is
to insure "the right of employees to organize for mutual aid without employer
interference" 40
In applying these principles to the facts in the instant case, it is evident that there'
was no violation of Section 8 (a) (1), as the matters complained of by the General
Counsel had little, if any, tendency to restrain or coerce the employees' free choice
when they voted in the representation election. For, if it is apparent to the em-
ployees that there is a legitimate business purpose for the employer's action, they are
not likely to consider this as something which could be gained and retained if there
were no union.
Moreover, even if the acts of the Respondent, in the circumstances detailed above,
could possibly be thought to restrain or coerce its employees, a privilege is accorded
a company, nevertheless, to, make bona fide business adjustments in' the interest of
accommodating its legitimate interest in running,its business 41 Whatever might-be
thought, as an abstract proposition, of the wisdom or business judgment of the' Re-
spondent in its timing of these economically motivated decisions, nonetheless the
.right of the Company to make just such decisions must be respected and it is not for
the trier of these facts to interfere with the unfettered right of the company to exer-
cise these bona fide business judgments.42 There is only one instance when this area
can be inquired into and that is when these judgments are motivated by antiunion
considerations: However, where, •as here, there is no credible evidence of an anti-
union motive on the part of the Respondent Company, in both its conduct and the
matters discussed, by the Company with its employees, if such actions can be justified
by the Company's interest in the normal' operation of its business, such right must
be respected. Nor is there manifest here, any evidence of minimizing the influence
of organized bargaining and interfering with the-right to self-organization "by empha-
sizing to the employees that there is no necessity for a collective bargaining agent." 43
It is found, therefore, that in the present case, there is no substantial evidence to,
sustain the General Counsel's contention that the insurance and grievance meetings,
and the incidents flowing from these meetings, as well as the bonus payments, rate
changes, overtime, vacation pay, and backpay, were intentionally timed to illegally
influence the employees in the election. The effect of these incidents cannot properly
as N L R.S. v. Erie Resistor Corp., et al., 373 U:S. 221, 228.
30 Burns Brick Company, 80 NLRB 389.
14 Republic Aviation- Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 798.
41 See Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra. '
'a Cf. N L R.B v. % New England - Web, Inc., et al.; 309 F. 2d • 696 (C.A. 1) ; N.L.R:B. v.
The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, 211 F. 2d 848,'855 (C.A: 5).
'aMay Department Stores d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U S. 376, 385_
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be evaluated by considering them in vacuo without regard to existing circumstances,
and magnifying their importance as if they stood alone. They must be viewed in the
context of prior and contemporaneous events as well as those "potent imponderables"
which permeate every case.44
In addition to the reasons explicated above, none of the actions taken or changes
made were unexplained departures from company policy not previously contem-
plated or in effect. In the instant case the various changes, some of an adjudicatory
nature, were made at the preliminary stages of an organizational campaign, and pur-
suant to company policy and pattern which had been established before the organiza-
tional campaign began. As there is no probative evidence that these changes were
made either for the purpose of "influencing its employees in their selection of a bar-
gaining agent" or "in order to discourage union membership or other activities on be-
half of the union," it is concluded there is no basis for finding that Respondent's
.actions tended to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.45
And when it is considered the record does not reveal that the actions taken by Re-
spondent were prompted by such evidence of union animus as would require the
Company's conduct to be looked upon with suspicion (rather than by legitimate busi-
ness considerations, as found herein), it follows that the allegations of the complaint
have not been proved. The most that can be said is that there is some evidence that
the Company was opposed to the unionization of its employees, a not uncommon
phenomenon, and hardly enough to indicate a strong union animus, much less enough
on which to base a conclusion that the alleged unfair labor practices were predicated
upon proscribed considerations. Nor can any inference unfavorable to Respondent
be deduced from these circumstances, as many of these matters were peculiarly within
-the prerogative of management and its reasonable business decisions thereon are of
:no legitimate concern to the trier of these facts.
Finally, if the acts of Respondent in this case were mechanically held to violate
,Section 8(a)(1) per se, employers might be inhibited from improving working con-
ditions, increasing wages, and reducing or increasing hours of labor when a repre-
sentation election is pending.46 Of course, whenever motive determines the legality
of conduct, the actor runs the risk that his motive will be subject to scrutiny; but the
'burden of proving that the employer has acted unlawfully rests upon the General
,Counsel. This burden of proof, it is found, the General Counsel has not maintained.
It will be recommended, accordingly, that the complaint in its entirety be dismissed.47
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Conduct Alleged To Have Affected the Results of'the Election
The Union filed nine objections allegedly relating to employer conduct affecting
-the results of the election. The alleged objections are as follows:
The Company: (1) unlawfully interrogated employees; (2) granted new or,im-
proved employee benefits and other terms and conditions of employment and favor-
-ably resolved employee grievances; (3) promised new or improved-employee benefits
and other terms and conditions of employment and the favorable resolution of em-
ployee grievances; (4) made false representations of material facts to employees with-
out sufficient opportunity for rebuttal on the part of the Union; (5) established an
-employer-assisted or employer-dominated labor organization within the meaning of
the Act; (6) engaged in collective bargaining with an employer-assisted or employer-
,dominated labor organization within the meaning of the Act; (7)' made threats of
reprisals; (8) engaged in name calling and made false statements with respect to the
-Union; and (9) conducted two antiunion campaign meetings within 24 hours prior to
-the commencement of the representation election which meetings the employees
-were coerced into attending through the use of various devices on the part of the
Respondent.
44 See Arch Beverage Co., 140 NLRB 1385; The Lord Baltimore Press, 142 NLRB 328;
International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35 (Serriok
,Corp ) v. N L R.B., 311 U.S. 72, 79.
45 True Temper Corporation, 127 NLRB 839, 843-844. _
46 True Temper Corporation, 127 NLRB at 843.
47 Campbell & McLean, Inc., 106 NLRB 1049; W. C. Nabors, d/b/a W. C. Nabors Com-
pany, 89 NLRB 538; N.L R.B. v. W. T. Grant Company, 208 F. 2d 710, 712 (C A 4) ;
N.L R.B. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 214. F. 2d 95, 98-100 (CA. 6) ; Bonwit-Teller, Inc. v.
N.L:R.B., 197 F. 2d 640, 644-645 (C.A. 2),,cert. denied 345 U.S. 905; NL.R.B. v. The
.Newton Company, 236 F. 2d 438, 446 (C.A. 5).
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1163
In resolving these objections to the election, it should be borne in mind that a party
to a representation case is not always entitled to a hearing on objections or chal-
lenges. Under the cases and the Rules and Regulations of the Board one is only en-
titled to a hearing if the objections or challenges raise material and substantial ques-
tions of fact, and this requirement has been held proper to prevent dilatory tactics by
,employers or unions, disappointed in the election returns 48
It is interesting to note that after the Regional Director investigated the Union's
nine objections to the election, listed above, that only two were included in the original
-unfair labor practice complaint 49 The remaining seven union objections evidently
were determined by the Regional Director not to merit being included in the com-
plaint and being made the basis for unfair labor practice allegations, although it is
incorrectly stated in the report on objections issued by him on August 15, 1963, that
"`Investigation discloses that the issues [raised by the Union's objections to the elec-
tion] are substantially the same" as those in the complaint 50 [Emphasis supplied.]
Noteworthy, also, is the fact that the Union in its charge alleged violations of Section
8(a) (1), (2), and (3), but after investigation by the General Counsel, only the
alleged 8(a)(1) violation was included in the complaint.
Although the General Counsel's motion at the hearing to amend the complaint to
include interrogation (objection No. 1) was denied, it has been discussed, in sec-
tion 8, supra, because of an appeal taken by the Union to the Board during the hear-
ing from the Trial Examiner's ruling which ruling the Board overruled51 Objections
Nos. 2 and 3 of the Union to the election have also been discussed above. No evi-
dence was introduced by the Union at the hearing with respect to its objections Nos.
5, 6, and 7. By being extremely liberal, it might be said, but with little conviction,
that smidgins of insubstantial evidence were introduced having an attenuated rela-
tionship to objections Nos. 4 and 9, supra. It appears that the "name calling" re-
ferred to in objection No. 8 has reference to Respondent during the organizing and
election campaign repeatedly referring to the Union as "outsiders." The Trial Exam-
iner is not aware of any cases, nor has any authority been cited by either the General
Counsel or Union which holds that this is grounds for ordering another election.
Apparently, the other references in objections Nos. 4, 8, and 9 pertain to the same
speech made separately, on two different occasions, to two different groups of em-
ployees in the afternoon and evening of the day before the election in which Houston,
the company president, said, "We know, and we understand the outsiders have ad-
mitted they cannot do anything in the way of increasing your earnings." 52 The only
evidence introduced at the hearing by the Union in this regard was the testimony of
William Lee, an official of the Union, who denied that he had ever said that. All he
told the employees, testified Lee, was ".. . we would see what we could do to in-
crease their wages."
The contents of the speech have been carefully scrutinized and the facts speak for
themselves as there is no substance to the contention that this picayune incident is a
sufficient basis for setting aside the election.53 This insignificant statement by the
Employer that "We'know and we understand the outsiders-have admitted they cannot
do anything in the way of increasing your earnings" was neither`coercive nor created
such an atmosphere of "fear" nor was it tainted with improper conduct as to render
a free expression of choice impossible on the part of the employees when they voted
in the representation election. Nor did it reasonably tend to interfere with the voters'
free choice so that the uncoerced desires of the individual employees could not be
expressed in the election. Therefore, in evaluating the entire content of the Respond-
49 N.L R B. v. The Joclin Manufacturing Company, 314 F. 2d 627, 630 (C A. 2) ;
N.L.R B. v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc, 322 F. 2d +89 (C A. 3) ; NLRB. v. O K. Van A
Storage, Inc., 297 F. 2d 74, 76 (C.A. 5), enfg. 127 NLRB 1537, 1539; J. R. Simplot
Company, 138 NLRB 172'; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
142 NLRB 353. Section 102.69(c), Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
40 The interrogation allegation was added at the hearing upon motion of the General
Counsel to amend the complaint Objections Nos. 2 and 3 are substantially the same.
60 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1(f).
51 The Board's telegraphic order, overruling the Trial Examiner, which has been desig-
nated Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1, is hereby made a part of the exhibit file in this
;proceeding
5z General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2 and Appendix A.
O Professor Cox, now Solicitor General, states that the real question in speech cases is
to seek out what the 'speaker intended,and the listener, understood. Cox,,,"Law, and the
National Labor Policy 43" (Monograph Series: 5, Institute of Industrial Relations, Uni-
versity of California, 1960).
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS - BOARD
ent's speech, it is concluded that it did not generate fear of economic loss or hostility
toward the Union, which destroyed the "laboratory conditions" under which the
Board must hold elections.54 It is obvious that the president of Respondent Com-
pany had an aversion to the recognition of a union in its plant. He had a right to this
opinion and a right to state it. There was no reason why he might not state his views
to the employees prior to the election. His views could be uninhibited, robust, vehe-
ment, and perhaps caustic as long as they did not restrain or engender fear of eco-
nomic loss or reprisal.55 It is so found. Accordingly, it will be recommended that
the objections to the election be overruled and the results of the election certified56,
All authorities cited by the General Counsel'and Charging ,Union in their briefs
have been carefully considered and it is not believed that holdings in those cases re-
quire a finding contrary to the conclusions' herein. However, there is no occasion
for lengthening this Decision by citing or•distinguishing them, because it is believed
that the controlling reasons for this Decision have been sufficiently discussed. More-
over, the General Counsel's and Union attorneys' contentions are based, in large part,
on an interpretation of the facts in this proceeding which are materially different
than the Trial Examiner's and since the applicability of precedent necessarily depends
on one's view of the facts, no purpose would be served by discussing all the cases
cited by them.57 -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
,1. Respondent is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act. -
2. The Union is a labor organization within ' the,meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. '
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices . within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not engaged in conduct interfering with its employees ' freedom
of choice in the election conducted by the Board - on May 8, 1963.
RECOMMENDED -ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint in Case No. 13-CA-5653 be dismissed in its
entirety and the objections in Case No. 13-RC-9227 be overruled and that the re-
sults of the election be certified.
5' See General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124.
66 Cf. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 328 F 2d 25 (C.A. 2), enfg 143 NLRB 386.
56 "Some twenty years ago when the war over unionization of industry was at the criti-
cal stage, employees might well and with good reason have feared to reveal their union,
sentiment and might well have been swayed one way or another by an employer's state,
ment as to his position on the subject. Now, labor and industry speak with equal dig-
nity and it- requires something more than suspicion to read coercion into anm employer's
speech which, upon its face, is in all respects within the proprieties." N L R B. v.
Roberts Brothers, 225 F. 2d 58, 60 (C.A 9). See also Gary Steel Products, Corporation,
144 NLRB 1160; Diamond Ginger Ale, Inc, 125 NLRB 1173, 1178.
67 See also the following Board, decisions as to employers' preelection propaganda: Oak
Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323; Storkline Corporation, 142 NLRB 875; Carl
T. Mason Co., Inc., 142 NLRB 480; Sewell Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 66.
APPENDIX A
[May 7, .19631
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank, you for coming. It shows'an interest which we believe will after 'hearing
what we have to say confirm what we are sure tis, your-present opinion, that you
men are perfectly able and willing to discuss- either individually or through com-
mittees with' the management such things as has been done for a number of years
covering such as working hours, dividing of work, which was voted on March 17th
and 20th; 1961, and as was discussed since January of this year, the revision of the
group insurance plan. • '
The great question to be answered is whether you want now to give up a whole-
some, harmonious relationship that has lasted' 40 years, for a way of life, that any-
one can see by looking back over the last few years, has, around the country in-
volved continual trouble causing loss of time, knocked heads, homes damaged',
members of families hurt, and a fear of the future -brought about' by men allowing
some group from outside determining their future.
You don't have to do it.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1165
There has been some rumors that some men feel they have received unfair
treatment from some of the company's supervisors.
The Company feels that any man should be respected and will not allow any
attempt to unnecessarily discipline him where he questions unfair treatment he feels
he received.
Most misunderstandings can be rectified by men discussing their problems but
any employee is welcome to come to any higher supervisor to discuss any problem
he has and receive a sympathetic hearing.
The manner in which any supervisor and a questioning employee handles the
problem as presented to them we hope will clear the air and result in a continuing
harmonious feeling between the parties.
We have had respect for you men and felt as a result of your respect for the
company and its open invitation to any of you men to enter the door of any super-
visor to discuss any personal problem involving your work would make you feel
free to start such discussion especially where it was felt the welfare of the company
or you men singly or as a whole was being affectediaud should be looked into by the
highest authority in the management.
May the recent happenings show to the management and you men that closer
open discussions started by any of the team will bring out into the open for in-
vestigation and correction any problems that might work to the disadvantage of
the company's or employees' welfare.
You employees have for years shown that you had no fear of individual
discussion with any supervisor but the outsiders in the last few months have ap-
parently determined that if they helped to bring about a belief in your minds that
the company was laying plans to take actions against your welfare even though they
represented mistatements [sic] of facts, and could convince a few of the men in
the plant that to follow the outsiders instructions they would be given preferment
against you men they could in that way get you under their control.
Some few of you men were apparently convinced through fear and prodding by
the outsiders that the company was going -to do something that it never did before
and that it had no thought of doing or never would do. That so the outsiders in-
dicated was to change your working conditions and reduce your rates of pay.
The outsiders are advocates and are trying to control you and your families' lives
for the benefit of themselves and their power. They have no respect for your
families, so it behooves you to be aware of the danger, showing the necessary
fortitude to drive them back in their den. Vote for no union.
During the last 5 years there were 7,965,000 men who lost 147,418,000 days, an
average of 18.51 days per man due to strikes. Are you starting on their road if
you vote for a union.
We are living in the greatest country on the face of the Earth. It is based upon
the Christian spirit of do unto others as you would that they should do unto you
and that each of us has our rights and freedom under the bill of rights. And those
freedoms must not be trampled under foot.
In a nut shell we might say our job, and this includes each and everyone of those
privileged to live in this country, is to help in every way possible, from day to day,
to raise the level of humanity, spiritually, morally, in honesty and cooperative
spirit, without outside interference.
How have we met this test.
I want to tell you that the management has been and will continue to operate on
this basic principle.
Proof that the company has operated on this principle is the esteem and respect
in which the company holds all of its employees, your cooperation, and the desire
continually expressed by people in this vicinity to work for the company. The
people of Green Bay and its vicinity hold all of us as a group in great respect, be-
cause we get along cooperatively, and are putting out a product distributed all over
the world that does credit to this community.
Proof that the buyers of our kind of products in this country and outside believe
we are fair and honest in our dealings is the fact that the company continues to get
orders for Model,180D and 190D machines that come to us because of our past and
present reputation.'
Mr. Libart and your foreman and other supervisors have always had' the welfare
of you men in their minds, and continue to do so.
They have spent considerable tithe seeing that -any number of men in this plant
have been taught so as to help them to better jobs and greater earnings. They
have taken material handlers and helped them to'get into the stockroom or helpers
on machines. Helpers and stockmen have been helped so they might work as sub-
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assemblers or helpers or machine assemblers or drill press hands and so on through-
out all departments of the plant. Unfortunately some of these groups think they
should be paid as much as groups who have greater responsibility, and have more
knowledge mechanically. In all fairness we must tell them they cannot be rated
as high because of the greater skill and responsibility needed. We feel kindly to-
wards these men and hope to advance them over a period of time so they can
earn more.
There are hundreds of you men that have been helped in earnings and we would
like to continue although it costs the company considerable to train men as we have.
We have had a great number of men come to us, and thank us for the treatment we.
have given them along this line.
You must know that we cannot put all men on the highest paid work.
We could, you must know put men on jobs as is done in union shops and if they
could not do the work, let them go. We have not done it and don't want to be forced
to do it, but may, depending on how you vote, be left no alternate.
We would like you older employees and wives to bear with us as we tell the more
recent employees and their wives what this company has done to carry out its part
of the bargain going back to the depression of the early thirties.
We were paying wages just prior to the depression higher than any in the com-
munity or in our industry.
When the man made depression come upon us, we on April 1, 1932 cut no shop,
employee more than 10% per hour or piece rate, which was a lower reduction than
was made by any company we know of. The other companies prevailing reductions,
were from 20% to 40%.,
We built up a considerable stock of machines in 1932 and 1933 so we could main-
tain employment as long as possible, and later we had to take a goodly share of the
machines built during that period and rebuild [sic] them into models which were.
in demand.
This cost-the company $50,000.00, which today might mean $500,000.00.
As soon as we possibly could we reinstated the cut of 10% which was done effec-
tive January 1, 1934. At Christmas, time in 1934 we paid a separate check for the
year 1934. In 1935 we paid by separate check the 10% cut, in July for the first
6 months, and the last 6 months at the end of 1935. At January 1st, 1936 we put
back the 10% into your earnings payable each pay day.
In other words your rates were reduced 10% for 1 year and 6 months out of about.
6 years of depression.
In May 1936 the company entered into contracts with-all shop men to pay on their
birthday an amount equal to one months pay based on their rate the previous year
with interest at 4% per annum from January 1st to the date of their birthday.
On March 4, 1937 we told the shop employees that effective May 1, 1937 we would
actually change your rates so that you would thereafter be paid in 40 hours what you
were prior to that time receiving in 50 hours , an increase of 25% in your rate and
that thereafter overtime would be paid beyond 40 hours rather than 50 hours as it
had been . In addition we paid you 4% of your 1936 earnings in a lump sum so as
to really make the 40 hours plan effective January 1, 1937.
On January 1st, 1938 we started paid vacation to shop employees.
On October 1st, 1940 we started the Employees Trust Fund which today amounts
to over $6,614.000.00 and it all belongs to the employees.
As employees reach retirement age they are currently receiving at retirement age
over $12,000.00.
On January 1, 1941 we started the plan of additional compensation and each 6
months thereafter we paid in a separate check 10 % of each shop employees total
earnings for the preceding 6 months.
On January 1, 1945 we started group accident and sickness insurance for which the
company pays the entire premium.
On January 1, 1946 we included in your hourly and piece rates the 10% we were
paying to you each 6 months since January 1, 1941 for both hourly and piece work-
ers. In addition to doing that we added another 10% into your hourly and piece
rates making a total of 20 % increased in your hourly and piece rates.
On September 16, 1946 we paid by separate check the amount due on the birthday-
bonus up to that time and added the amount of this bonus or 8'/s % to your rates
for day and piece work.
On January 1, 1947 we again started the additional compensation payment each
6 months by separate check of 10 % of your total earnings.
On January 1, 1947 we started to pay you at Christmas time for 6 holidays in^
each year.
NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY 1167
On January 1, 1948 we increased the additional compensation from 10% to 151/z %
of your total earnings payable by separate check each 6 months.
On January 1, 1949 we started a pension plan whereby any employee having 15
years service with us becomes eligible to enter the plan. The plan gives each em-
ployee a credit of 1% of his earnings each year and the company pays the entire
premium for both past and future service where it is not broken, up to his 65th
birthday.
On April 1, 1949 at the request of employees we 'arranged for Dependent Group
insurance at actual cost.
On July 1, 1950 we increased the additional compensation semi-annual payments
from 151/a % to 20% of total earnings.
On September 1, 1951 we increased the additional compensation from 20% to
251h %.
Since the depression no piece work rates have been reduced except where design
was changed or the company purchased improved -equipment, either of which re-
duced the actual machining time necessary.
If we are allowed to proceed as we have for the last 40 years our relationship
should further improve and you can be sure the company has every desire to con-
tinue the reputation that presently exists which is one of a cooperative and a success-
ful team consisting of all of us.
Why should we, and that means all of us, be harassed by outsiders when you con-
sider the progress we have made and should continue to make. The company and
we believe the vast majority of we employees cannot understand it. -
We know, and we understand the outsiders have admitted they cannot do any-
thing in the way of increasing your earnings.
One thing they might do if you vote for a union is` to asure that through con-
tinual harassment your earnings may be reduced unnecessarily. This is no theory
as you don't have to look far to see that such trouble has deprived men right in
this territory of as much as 2 months earnings each year since they joined a union.
Why should you men pay from $24.00 fo $30 00 per year and perhaps more for
what could very'possibly mean nothing but trouble for all of us, and the positive
end of the 40 year cooperation that has existed.
If you- don't believe the cost to you would be higher than the amount stated
above, make it a point to read the newspapers. where you will find Unions are ask-
ing their members to pay fairly large sums, for.r what are political funds to try to
strengthen the power of outsiders.
If you join 'a union you hand over to the'outsiders all of your right'to think or
bargain for yourself, and I am gravely concerned that no longer can the company
work together with you men as , individuals as has'been the practice for '40 years,
and such practice has been to your benefit and kept you men in practically con-
tinuance employment and in the best of wages. Remain 'as we are men and we
will have many more years of harmony and peace of mine.
In effect they are asking you to admit that you cannot take care of yourself, which
we know is just plain bunk, and incidentally. does not help in the uplift of humanity,
but may very well lower it because of tumult, worry' Lind trouble thereafter.
If you vote for a union you will quickly pay dues and perhaps to political funds
operated by some one you never knew.
If you don't know it, the first thing they desire is a union shop which would
require you to belong and pay dues, or secondly, a closed shop which`means after
30 days you become a member and thereafter pay dues and continue a member
as long as you work.
The Supreme Court of California not so long ago stated in handling a labor case
"Where a union has attained a monopoly of supply of labor by means of closed
shop agreements it affects the fundamental right to work for a living."
On June 5, 1948 there was passed out to you the outsiders' magazine "The
Machinist" in which they print, as a book review, about men working piece work
"The workers are presumed to possess less respect, less ambition, less sense of service,
and more greed than others". On September 13, 1951 in a hand bill handed out
to you they state, "Incentive workers rates will be pretested and improved."
Wouldn't the statement in "The Machinist" represent the attitude of the leaders of
the outsiders, and the last statement sounds like the local outsiders are trying to give
you some sop to get your vote.
They hope you will forget the things they print about you.
In the same pamphlet they say "There will be no teachers' pets or apple polishers
under an agreement with the I.A. of M. Does that look like they are trying to
take a slam at you men who are cooperators and can 't you be sure that they know
their only chance to get you men to vote for a union is for them to stir up enough
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
confusion and suspicion between you, so you might lost your judgment long enough
so they can get your vote.
Now look at teachers' pets in the union. Do you know that your seniority may
be knocked out by those appointed by the union such as the committee or stewards
who the union insists must have seniority above anyone else even tho they had
practically no service with the company. How do they get that way and is that the
type or kind that should look after your interest.
Why is it that where union meetings are held you hardly ever find but a small
handful of employees there and who are those that are there in the main. The
trouble makers, or those the whole group of employees respect? Remember if you
belong to a union that's where your future relations with the company are deter-
mined and there is always an outsider or outsiders present. Is it they who really
determine your future.
We have consistently hired or advanced all employees on their merit and will
continue to do so with full consideration for seniority. We have always encouraged
the employment of some or near relatives of our employees where they are qualified
as we believe such action is a compliment to our employees for long and coopera-
tive service. If a great number of our men think well enough of the treatment
they received to get their sons to work here. Doesn't that fact cry out to you that
a union is unnecessary.
If a few people are hunting for trouble they can always find it. Our rate ranges
give consideration to skill and service, but there are some among you with lesser
skill, that apparently feel they should be paid as much as the higher skilled. The
outsiders may be misleading them, making them believe they will , up to the time
they get their vote, and then will the bubble burst in their face.
Did any of you men or women invite outsiders in to help run your home.
Don't you think voting a union in is more unnecessary and a whole lot worse.
Mr. Libert's and our foremen's offices are always open so that any man can have
a hearing .and ,get an honest • answer -to. any-question or grievance.
Let's see what some of these plans adopted by the company mean to you:
Take the Trust Fund [illegible] at January 1, 1963 having been in existence for
22 years and 3 months.
The employees had put into the Fund_________________ $2,480 , 000.00
The company had put in ____________________________ 3, 887, 000.00
There were earnings against securities purchased of_____ 2, 068, 000.00
This means you received from the company 145% of what you put in or on the
average $1.45 for each $1.00 you put in.
The earnings on both what you and the company put in over the years have
averaged each year 4.15%, and so far the earnings have over the 22 years, 3 months
period amounted to 750 for each dollar you put in or a total from the company
and earnings of $2.20 for each dollar you put in.
The balance in the Employees Trust Fund at December 31, 1962 was
$6,447,464.36.
Take the Pension-When we started. it in 1949 we figured that by 1958 every em-
ployee that was then in our employ would be eligible to enter. The average cost to
the company, figured at the time the Pension plan went in, per employee was
$10,635.00. The Company willingly undertook at January 1, 1949 a Pension Plan
that will cost the company in excess of ten million dollars.
Most company pension plans today are based on $100.00 per month including
both social security and the amount paid as a pension by the company for a person
without wife or dependents.
'Our pension plan is in addition to Social Security. When you add our plan and
social security together the lowest paid employee today could receive an amount
considerably in excess of $100.00 per month, and the payments could graduate up so
that a man with wife and dependent children may reach $300.00 per month.
Take all the so-called fringe benefits received by the Employees of the company
such as Holiday Pay, Vacation 'Pay, Group Insurance, Employees Trust and Pension.
These cost the company in 1962 for just the shop employees over a million dollars
or an average of 58 cents for each hour worked by the shop employees.
If you men vote for a union -you never again will see a bulletin by the company
telling you of a new plan such as the birthday bonus, additional compensation by %,
Trust Fund or Pension Plan. . Why? Because you will say to us the union will rep-
resent us. The outsiders want you to believe they are the ones that get everything for
you and won't you be forced to believe they are determining your future.
,,We will be forced to play awaiting game, expecting some disturbance, very, often
because the outsiders may want, to. impress, you that they are doing something and
UNITED STATES PRINTING INK CORPORATION 1169
very often these things result in strikes, with lost time, and sometimes all the other
dastardly things that go with them. Think it over carefully.
Do you want to erase from your future the surprise and happiness at seeing a
bulletin announcing some new plan.
The average rate paid today in our plant not including any overtime is consider-
ably over the national average for durable good industries and more over those of
this vicinity.
You men are in a select group as far as shop workmen in this vicinity are con-
cerned as you know as well as we that there is hardly a shop man in Green Bay and
vicinity but who wants to work at Northwest Engineering Co. You know why.
Under a union collective bargaining starts fresh. What might that mean.
How much do the unions think of their own employees. Here is one instance re-
ported by a weekly Labor Review which says 15 employees of two Paducah, Ken-
tucky A F of L Unions picketed the Union offices and the union told them to accept
what the union offered, get back to work, or be fired.
The question to be answered is, do you want to give up the continuation of har-
monious relations, as represented by the last 40 years for the possibility of continuous
bickering and troublesome strikes that may bring extreme disaster on your home and
family. You know these things have happened.
Don't be fooled by some promises expressed by the outsiders before the election.
We ask you to be honest to yourselves and the management of this company and
vote for your best interest. Look around the country and see how many men lose
their earnings for considerable time, that they cannot ever get back, because some
small number of disgruntled employees are trying to gain something they are not in
fairness entitled to.
The management has great respect for you men.
May God give you the wisdom to decide in the best interest of yourselves and
your families so as to avoid the possibility of you and your families being mixed up
in some disturbances that will do no one any good.
For your own protection, be sure to vote for no union.
United States Printing Ink Corporation and Local 575, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America. Case No. 22-CA-1714. Septem-
ber :n1, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29, 1964, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to the General
Counsel's cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom,
Fanning, and Brown].
148 NLRB No. 120.
760-577-65-vol . 148-75