The Fischer Chair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of Miss OTILLIA ZUELLY, MRS. ALMA Z. EN GEL BRECHT,
MRS. LOUISE I;ROESSMAN , AND MRS. CLAUDINIA KIEFEL, D/B/A THE
FISCHER CHAIR COMPANY and UNITED FURNITURE `jTORliERS OF
AMERICA , LOCAL 335, C. I. O.
Case No. 11-R-1065.-Decided November .6,1946
Kahn, Little, Dees & Kahn, by 31r. Harry P. Dees, of Evansville,
Ind., for the Employer.
Mr. Joseph F. Zarrella, of Tell City, Ind., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lewis H. Ulmzan, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
June 12, 1946, conducted a prehearing election pursuant to Section
203.49 of the Board's Rules and Regulations among the employees in
the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally reveals that there were approximately 44 eligible
voters and that 40 valid ballots were cast, of which 11 were for the
Petitioner and 29 against.
On June 14, 1946, the Petitioner filed objections to the election.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 203.55 of the Board's Rules and regu-
lations an appropriate hearing was held at Tell City, Indiana, on July
10, 1946, before Arthur R. Donovan, hearing officer. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby aifirmed.1 All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
i Among other rulings, the hearing officer overruled the objections of counsel for the Em-
ploy er to eliciting testimony concerning a speech made by the Employer's Manager on the
moimng of the day of the election The objections are based upon the grounds that the
speech was not mentioned in the Petitioner's formal objections to the election. A proceed-
ing for the investigation and certification of representatives is not an adversary one but
is instead designed to ascertain the facts upon which the Board may act in its administia-
tire capacity The healing officer is charged by the Board's Rules and Regulations with the
duty of inquiring into all the facts which may have a bearing on the conduct or outcome
71 N L R. B, No. 133.
806
THE FISCHER CHAIR' COMPANY 807
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EDIPLOYER
The Employer is a partnership consisting of Miss Otillia Zuelly,
Mrs. Alma Z. Engelbrecht, Mrs. Louise Kroessman and Mrs. Claudinia
Kiefel, doing business as The Fischer Chair Company. The Em-
ployer manufactures chairs at its only plant in Tell City, Indiana.
During the last year it purchased raw materials valued in excess of
$50,000, approximately 66 percent of which was shipped from points
outside the State of Indiana. During the same period the Employer's
sales were in excess of $100,000, approximately 75 percent of which
represented products shipped outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees including truck
drivers, watchmen and firemen, but excluding clerical employees,
superintendent, foremen, and all or any other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
of an election of representatives Accordingly the objections, noted above, are without
merit Similarly, we find no merit in the Employer's objection to the consolidation of a
representation hearing with a hearing on objections to an election Section 203 55 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations'specifically provides that "all issues, including issues with
respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the election results and issues
raised by challenged ballots, shall be heard at such hearing "
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks to set aside the election on the ground that
the Employer interfered with the self-organization of its employees
and coerced them into giving up their union membership by granting
a substantial wage increase shortly before the conduct of the election
herein.
The record reveals that in the latter part of April 1946 the Peti-
tioner concluded contract negotiations with several other furniture
companies at Tell City, securing substantial wage increases. Early in
May 1946, the Petitioner began to organize the Employer's employees,
and on May 16, 1946, wrote to the Employer requesting recognition as
their collective bargaining representative. The Employer replied on
May 18, 1946, denying the Petitioner's request, and accordingly, the
Petitioner filed its petition herein on May 20, 1946.
On the morning of the day the petition was filed, an industrial
engineer who had been employed by the Employer to make a wage
survey arrived at the plant. Within a few hours, a notice was posted
on the plant bulletin board advising the employees that basic wages
were being adjusted so that they would be equal to or better than
wages in plants of competitive companies in the Tell City area. On
the morning of June 12, 1946, the day of the election, the Employer's
manager assembled all the employees and made a speech in which he
pointed out, among other things, that the Employer was then paying
wages equal to those paid by other employers in the same industry.
The granting of the wage increase, and the allusion thereto in the
speech made on the day of the election, raised a natural presumption
in the minds of the employees that they would fare as well, if not
better, without the Petitioner as their bargaining representative. This
Board has frequently held that the granting of a wage increase under
circumstances similar to those present in this case interferes with a
free choice of representatives.2 We shall, therefore, set the election
aside.3 We shall direct a new election at such time as the Regional
Director advises us that circumstances permit a free choice among the
employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of June 12, 1916, among the
employees of Miss Otillia Zuelly, Mrs. Alma Z. Engelbrecht, Mrs.
Louise Kroessman and Mrs. Claudinia Kiefel, d/b/a The Fischer
Chair'Company, Tell City, Indiana, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
2 See Matter of Bear Brand Hosiery, 40 N. L. R. B 323 , 334; Matter of American OR
Company, 41 N L R B. 1105, 1117 , Matter of Continental Oil Company , 58 N. L R B
169, Matter of Seneca Knitting Mills, 59 N L. R. B. 754, cf Matter of Chicago Mill and
Lumber Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 349.
3 In this posture of the case , we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the
speech of the Employer ' s manager on the day of the election was in itself coercive