Uarco Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 1153 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

UARCOINCORPORATED
Uarco Incorporated and International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 38-RC-316
February 29, 1968
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND BROWN
On October 25, 1967, the Regional Director for
Region 13 issued a Supplemental Decision and
Direction of Rerun Election in the above-entitled
proceeding in which he set aside the first election
and directed a new election on the basis of his deci-
sion to sustain the Petitioner's Objection 4.1
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's Supplemental Decision on the ground
that he erred in sustaining Objection 4.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated November
28, 1967, granted the request for review and stayed
the election pending decision on review. Sub-
sequent thereto, the Employer filed a statement in
support of its request.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the Regional Director's
determination under review, including the state-
ment filed in support of the request for review, and
makes the following findings:
The facts are undisputed. For the past 7 years,
the Employer has made an annual wage survey and
based thereon, put into effect, between April 1 and
6 of each year, a wage increase for all employees at
its Watseka plants.2 The petition herein was filed on
December 8, 1966, and, as above indicated, the
election was conducted on May 26, 1967. During
February and March 1967, the Employer con-
ducted its wage survey and, between April 2 and 4,
put into effect the annual wage increases for only
3 The instant case was consolidated with two other cases for purposes
of hearing , and the Regional Director 's Decision , Order, and Direction of
Elections , issued April 27, 1967 Pursuant to that decision self-determina- I
tion elections were conducted on May 26 , in the instant case and in Case
38-RC-326, in two voting groups The tally of ballots for voting group 2,
which comprised all maintenance employees at the Employer 's Watseka,
Illinois , plants , showed that a majority wished to be represented by Lodge
1122, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, the petitioner in Case 38-RC-326, and the Regional Director
issued a certification of representation to it for such group as a separate
appropriate unit, The tally of ballots in voting group 1, which comprised
the unrepresented production employees at the Watseka plants (already
1153
those departments not involved in the pending
Board proceedings. The increases ranged from 8 to
12 cents an hour. The preparatory employees al-
ready represented by the Petitioner received an in-
crease of 12 cents an hour, effective April 2, 1967,
pursuant to its existing contract with the Employer.
On April 3, the Employer posted a notice signed
by the plant manager on employee bulletin boards,
distributed it to employees through their foremen,
and attached it to their checks. The notice read:
I regret to notify you that the April 1 adjust-
ments in wage rates and benefits will have to be
postponed for all employees involved in the
pending NLRB cases which do not concern of-
fice and preparatory department employees.
This delay is required to avoid the appearance
of vote-buying by the company in view of the
possibility that the NLRB will hold elections.
Our counsel has advised us that wage increases
at this time might be considered to be an Unfair
Labor Practice, and that the Company should
not take this risk.
I hope that the problems caused by the NLRB
cases will be resolved soon, and I will advise
you promptly about new developments.
/s/ Bill Fesselmeyer
As part of a prepared campaign speech made to
all employees at meetings held on May 18 and 19,
Fesselmeyer stated as follows:
A number of you have asked questions during
the past several weeks about a number of vari-
ous matters. In answering your questions, I
want you to have in mind that any remarks, as
well as the talks by union agents, should
comply with Labor Board rules. These rules,
very briefly, prohibit bribes or threats - direct
or indirect- so that, legally, I cannot make any
promises. This is the same type of situation we
were in at the time of the area increase. The
rules of the N.L.R.B. read: "The following
may result in setting aside the results of an
election-An employer making promises of
promotions, pay raises, or other benefits to in-
fluence an employee vote."
represented by the Petitioner were preparatory employees in the press de-
partment) showed that of approximately 195 eligible voters, 180 cast valid
ballots, of which 35 were for the Petitioner, 15 were for the Intervenor,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Local 438, and 130 were against the participating
labor organizations. The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election in voting group 1.
2 Even prior to 1961, beginning in 1952, the Employer usually gave in-
creases based on annual wage surveys. Since 1953 the date of granting of
the annual wage increases has varied between February 9 and April 6.
The amount of the increase has varied from 2 to 35 cents an hour for dif-
ferent employees and has averaged 5-1/2 to 11-1/2 cents an hour.
169 NLRB No. 162
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Although not excerpted by the Regional
Director, in an earlier part of the speech, Fessel-
meyer stated:
As you know, UARCO is paying and always
has paid the going rates for this area. With or
without a union, we intend to follow this policy.
There has never been a need for any person
from the outside to put pressure on us to pay
the going rates.
Later in the speech, addressing himself to "typi-
cal questions" as they relate to employees in the
various departments involved, he remarked that in
the Employer's contract with the Petitioner, cover-
ing press department employees, the area rates in
Danville were being followed and that the un-
represented employees were enjoying the same
benefits as those now represented, adding, with
reference to finishing department employees, that:
Without a union, we are in a position to adjust
rates as conditions require. For example, a
recent adjustment in December 1966 in the in-
direct rate of $.22 per hour-under contract,
we would not be permitted to do this.
Taking up the question of possible retroactive
pay, Fesselmeyer said:
Sorry we can't answer, since the N.L.R.B.
prohibits promises of this type. We will, how-
ever, be in a position to make a proper answer
after the election.
On May 24, in a campaign letter sent to all eligi-
bles, considered by the Regional Director in con-
nection with Objection 2 but not Objection 4, Fes-
selmeyer reiterated:
. We are now paying and have always paid
the going wage rates in the area, with or
without a union. This is what we did in the
Press Union Contract and what we are doing
in all the other departments in the plant. We
feel our present policy of paying area rates is
fair, and this is the policy we intend to follow,
with or without a union ....
On June 8, after the election, Fesselmeyer issued
the following statement:
As you know, the vote of the Pressmen's and
Teamsters' Union was heavily against the
Union; however, the Union has filed objec-
tions to the election, which will delay closing
the case.
At this time, we feel the annual rate adjustment
retroactive to 4/3/67 should be put into effect.
3 We view as inapposite the cases of The Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118; McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co.,
Inc., 158 NLRB 1237; American Paper and Supply Company, 159
NLRB 1243; and The Paymaster Corporation , 162 NLRB 123, which
were cited by the Regional Director as support for his decision to sustain
the objection.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It will be necessary for us to compute your
retroactive pay, and individual checks will be
made available before the end of the month.
You will be informed of your new rate, and
other benefits , by your immediate supervisor.
Thereafter , on June 30, the Employer put the wage
increase into effect retroactively for the employees
in voting group 1.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case,
we do not agree with the Regional Director's con-
clusion that the Employer 's announcement con-
cerning the withholding of its annual wage rate in-
creases was coercive in nature or created an at-
mosphere which prevented the exercise of free cho-
ice in the election. We are unable to conclude that
the Employer , by its announcement of April 3 and
its subsequent campaign statements , sought to shift
to the Petitioner the onus for the postponement of
adjustments in wages and benefits for employees it
sought to represent , or to disparage and undermine
the Petitioner by creating the impression that it
stood in the way of t elr getting planned wage in-
creases and benefits . The Employer made clear in
its campaign statements , as set forth above, that
whether or not its employees were represented by
a union , it planned to continue its established prac-
tice of adjusting wage rates in early April of each
year , pursuant to its annual wage survey, to bring
them into conformity with prevailing rates in the
area ; and that the sole purpose of its announcement
postponing the expected adjustments in wage rates
and benefits for the employees involved was to
avoid the appearance that it sought to interfere with
their free choice in any elections which might be
directed . In the circumstances , we do not believe
that the employees could reasonably have con-
cluded , nor do we conclude, that the Employer's
postponement of adjustments in their rates and
benefits was intended to influence their decision in
the question concerning their representation for
purposes of collective bargaining.3 We therefore
find that the Objection 4 raises no substantial and
material issues affecting the election , and it is
hereby overruled.4
Accordingly , as the tally of ballots shows that a
majority of the valid votes cast in voting group 1
have not been cast in favor of a labor organization,
we shall certify the results of that election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the
valid votes has not been cast for International Print-
s In overruling the objection we do not suggest that a decision by the
Employer to put into effect its annual adjustments at the usual time would
necessarily have been objectionable.
UARCO INCORPORATED 1155
ing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North herein in voting group 1, comprised of un-
America, AFL-CIO, or for International Brother- represented production employees , and that neither
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & of said Unions is the exclusive representative of the
Helpers of America, Local 438 , in the election held employees in the said voting group.
350-212 0-70-74