United Welding Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 28, 194772 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 1947) Copy Citation In the Matter Of UNITED WELDING COMPANY and UNITED STEEL- WORKERS or AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 9-C-2080.-Decided February 28, 1947 Mr. Allen Sinsheivnser, Jr., for the Board. Messrs. J. Mack Swigert and Robert T. Keeler, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Frank Donner, of Washington, D. C., Mr. Arthnu,r Bishop, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Messrs. William, Anderson and Rube Huddles- ton, of Middletown, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. Jack J. Mantel, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On July 13, 1946, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in-the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On September 17, 1946, the Board, at Washington, D. C., heard oral argu- ment in which the respondent and the Union participated. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the respondent's exceptions. The Trial Examiner concluded that, by a series of letters which the respondent sent to its employees during the pendency of bargaining negotiations with the Union,' the respondent sought to bargain di- rectly with its employees in violation of the Act, causing the employees to repudiate the Union as their bargaining representative, and that the respondent was not justified in refusing to bargain with the Union, as it did, because of such repudiation. i The letters are set forth in the Intermediate Report. 72 N. L R. B., No. 165. 954 UNITED WELDING COMPANY 955 We are of the opinion that, under the particular circumstances herein disclosed, the respondent's letters did not constitute bargaining with the employees on a basis apart from the Union, with whom the respond- ent was simultaneously conducting frequent meetings, to discuss new wage terns. In making his determination, the Trial Examiner con- ceded that the respondent made no direct offer to its employees in its letters, but inferred that the letters amounted to "an unconcealed hint" that the respondent would deal directly with the employees. We do not draw such an inference. We have examined the respond- ent's letters carefully. They contain an accurate report of the re- spondent's negotiations with the Uliion,2 and do not contain, as the Trial Examiner recognized, any coercive statement. They were not, per se, violations of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In reaching our determination in this case, we have considered events, which occurred either before or after the respondent's alleged. refusal to bargain, as context in which to evaluate the respondent's letters to the employees and its treatment of the Union on and after March 28, 1946, when the repudiation petition was presented to the respondent .3 The Union was certified by the Board as the bargain- ing representative of the respondent's employees in 1943. There- after, the respondent and the Union entered into a written contract and a supplement thereto which expired in May 1944. In May 1945, they entered into negotiations regarding new terms and conditions of employment. The respondent continued to operate its business under the terms of the expired written contract as supplemented, pending outcome of the negotiations for a new agreement, until at least January 1946. The Union then called a strike, concurrently with that in the entire steel industry. Its wage demands coincided with those requested by the United Steel Workers throughout the Nation. Respondent, who offered smaller wage increases during all negotiations, called these facts to tjue employees' attention in its let- ters telling them-as it had told the Union already-that it could not meet the industry-wide demand. Until the outbreak of the strike, the respondent checked off union dues. In its letters to the employees, the respondent repeatedly urged the employees to continue bargaining through the Union as their representative. There is no contention that the respondent did not bargain in good faith during its bargaining meetings with the Union, some of which took place during the strike. When presented with - 2 The Trial Examiner stated that the respondent, by omission of facts in its letters, placed the Union in an "unfavorable light " The record does not reveal any such substantial omission 3 The Board's attorney, the respondent, and the Union stipulated at the hearing that the respondent did not authorize or otherwise participate in the preparation or circulation of the petition. 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the employees' petition repudiating the Union, the respondent re- quested the Union to submit evidence to support its claim of majority status before refusing to continue negotiations with the Union. This the Union did not do, although it contended at the hearing herein to have had in its possession documentary proof of current majority status. Finally, after the strike terminated, the respondent rein- stated, without discrimination so far as appears, all employees who remained members of the Union. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the respondent did not induce the employees to abandon the Union or bargain, with the em- ployees apart from the Union in violation of the Act, as alleged in the amended complaint. We shall therefore dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the amended complaint issued herein against the respondent, United Welding Company, Middletown, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. JOHN M. HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Allen Sinsheimer, Jr, for the Board. Messrs J Mack Swigert and Robert T. Keeler, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the respondent. Messrs. Arthur Bishop, of Cincinnati, Ohio, William Anderson and Rube Hud- dleston , of Middletown, Ohio, for the Union. STATEMENT. OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by United Steelworkers of America, C I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its amended complaint dated May 10, 1946, against United Welding Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Copies of the amended complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged, in substance, that from November 1, 1945, the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act by (a) recognizing and dealing with a committee of employees other than the Union, which was the majority representative; ( b) seeking to undermine the Union's position as bargaining representative by directing letters and statements UNITED WELDING COMPANY 957 to its employees ; (c) offering and granting employees a greater increase in pay than that offered to the Union; (d) inducing or attempting to induce employees to abandon the Union 1 The complaint further alleged that on and after March 28, 1946, the respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit The respondent's answer duly filed, and by motion allowed to stand to the amended complaint, admitted that the respondent met with a committee of its employees other than the Union on March 28, 1946, but denied that it recognized or dealt with it, denied that the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of its employees, and denied the commission of all unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from May 22 to 25, inclusive, and on May 27, 1946, at Middletown, Ohio, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by repre- sentatives. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, Board's counsel moved to amend the complaint as heretofore indicated 2 and the motion was granted. At the close of the Board's case the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied without prejudice to- the right to make a similar motion at the close of the healing At the close of the hearing the respondent's counsel again moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling thereon was reserved. The motion is herewith denied. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Boai d moved to conform the complaint to the proof in formal matters. The motion was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board and the respondent argued orally. Opportunity was af- forded all parties to file briefs. The respondent alone filed one with the under- signed. From his observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the ease, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is an Ohio corporation with its oflice and place of business in Middletown, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture and welding of machine parts. Steel and various types of soldering materials are the prin- cipal raw materials used by the respondent In the process of manufacture, the respondent annually purchases an average of 5,000 tons of steel, approximately $0 percent of which is received from points outside the State of Ohio. Its finished products are valued annually in excess of $800,000, of which appioxi- inately 20 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The respondent -concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. 1 The phrase "or attempting to induce" was added by motion granted at the hearing. 2 See footnote 1, supra. - 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain collectively; interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The appropriate unit The Union and the respondent entered into a consent election agreement on March 24, 1943,' in which they described the appropriate unit as "all production and maintenance workers, excluding foremen. supervisors, watchmen, clerical and salaried employees, and any person having the right to hire and fire" At the hearing the parties stipulated that they used the word "supervisors" in ac- cordance with the Board's usual definition and that by the word "fire" they meant "discharge." No question was raised as to the appropriateness of this unit. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that all production and maintenance work- ers, exclusive of watchmen, clerical and salaried employees, totemen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge, promote, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, at all times material hei ern, constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment and that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit Pursuant to the afore-mentioned consent election agreement, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the auspices of the Board on March 30 and 31, 1943, among the employees in the appropriate unit. A majority of the employees voted for the Union.' On April 5, 1943, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued his Report on Consent Election, in which lie found that the Union was the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit The respondent contends that in Maich 1946, the Union lost its majority when 53 employees' (one more than half the total number then in the unit) signed a petition revoking the authority of the Union and offei ed to return from a strike then pending if granted a wage increase of 10 cents per hour' For reasons set forth hereinafter, the undersigned finds that the Union on March 31, 1943, and at all times material thereafter was the duly designated bargaining repre- sentative of a majority of the respondent's employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was, on March 31, 1943, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive rep- resentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 3 Appi owed by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region. 4 The Union received 115 votes of a total of 149 ballots cast. ' For reasons hereinafter given , three signatures have not been counted in arriving at the figure 53 6 On Januarv 20, 1946, there were 106 employees in the unit and on March 28, 1946, there were 104 Until the strike the respondent had continued to check off the union dues of members On March 28, 1946, the Union had 62 members About 34 of them signed the petition UNITED WELDING COMPANY 959 3 The refusal to bargain ; interference, restraint, and coercion a. Sequence of events On July 13, 1943, subsequent to the Union's certification, the respondent and the Union executed a contract covering all terms except those concerning wages, maintenance of membership with check-off of dues, and duration of contract, which were refereed to the War Labor Board In December 1943, the War Labor Board issued its directive order covering the first two matters but not the last, which was left to negotiation of the parties. On May 15, 1944, the parties exe- cuted a supplemental agreement embodying the terms of the War Labor Board directive' and providing for expiration of the contract on May 31, 1944. Following this expiration date, the Union presented a proposed agreement for the succeeding year calling for a 40 cent per hour increase. The parties never reached agreement thereon, but they continued to operate under the original contract' Beginning about May 22, 1945, the Union and the respondent com- menced negotiations on new proposals for a contract The Union made no definite wage proposal but wanted to leave the matter open for negotiation at any time during the term of the contract in event changes occurred in the National Wage Stabilization policy. Early in August, the matter NVsls submitted to the War Labor Board.' On November 30. 1945, the latter Board issued its recommendations.10 Since these recommendations were not mandatory and since they contained a provision for reopening the question of wages during the con- tract term, the respondent slid not accept the recommendations. Further at- tempts to negotiate were fruitless." The principal issue was wages The respondent understood that, because of the adoption by the Union's National Policy Committee in late October 1945 of a resolution fixing the Union' s wage- increase aims and anthmizing a strike vote,' the local was not in a position to compromise on the wage increase and that there was no way the respondent could be assured that its plant would not be struck when the Union's country-wide strike of the steel industry was to take place Between November 9, 1945, and March 13, 1946, the respondent sent to its employees in the collective bargaining unit a series of letters explaining the respondent's position with reference to contract negotiations, strike vote, strike, and wage increases The legal issue respecting such letters will be discussed in the succeeding subsection hereof. On` January 21, 1946, the Union went on strike at the respondent's plant con- currently with its strike in the entire steel industry. On February 12, 1946, ' This provided job classifications , rates of pay with retroactive date , maintenance of membership and check-off of dues. The question of a job evaluation and classification was referred back to the parties for negotiation, but they decided to do nothing about it during the term of this contract "The matter was referred to the W. L B which never issued any directive order thereon i On August 18, 1945, Executive Order 9599 became effective, leaving the parties free with certain limitations to negotiate wage increases without approval of the \V L B On August 22 the Union offered to take an inciease of 171 cents per hour without a reopening clause ro The W L. B had ceased to issue directive orders n Bargaining conferences were held on November 9, and December 14, 1945 and Feb- ruary 19, March 7, 11, 13, and 15. 1946 12 Such a vote was conducted at the respondent's plant on about November 29, 1945, resulting in an affirmative vote by the majority of the respondent's employees On Novem- ber 9 , 1945, the Union had increased its wage-increase demands from 17 cents to 25 cents per hour In the bargaining meeting of December 14, 1945, the Union indicated that it was not in a position to reduce its demands until the policy was set for the whole country 731242-47-vol 72-62 960 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD while the strike was still in progress, the Union wrote the respondent that its wage-increase demand was reduced trom 25 cents to 181/2 cents per hour and requested a bargaining meeting. Pursuant to agreement, the respondent met with the Union's bargaining committee and representatives on February 19, 1946. No agreement was reached at this conference nor at succeeding meetings on March 7, 11, 13, and 15. An offer of 71/ cents per hour increase which the respondent made on March 7 was rejected by the Union. The final conference consisted principally of a dispute concerning the terms of contracts which the Union had closed with other companies. The Union offered to close with the respondent on the same terms as it had with one of the respondent's competitors, but neither party had a copy of the contract, and their information as to the terms was at variance. Each sought to impose on the other the responsibility for getting copies of contracts, and the meeting terminated on that tone There were no further communications between the parties relative to bargaining until March 29. About the middle of March two employees, Andrew Stugmyer and Joe Salter, who were members of the Union, but who were acting without authority or approval of the Union, prepared a petition addressed to the respondent stating that the signers had decided "as an independent body" that they wished to return to work oil condition that the respondent would grant an hourly increase of 10 cents to all production and maintenance workers and that there would be no discrimination directed against any of the signers because of their participation in the strike. The petition, prepared in duplicate, also stated that the signers renounced and revoked the authority of the Union to bargain for them and instructed the respondent not to bargain further with the Union concerning their welfare. Between the (late of its preparation and Mai ch 28 Stugmyer and Salter circulated the petition and procured the signatures of 53 employees.18 As of March 28 there were 104 employees in the unit. On that date at about 1 or 1: 30 p. in. Stugmyer telephoned Louis T Kenney, the respondent's vice- president and general manager, at the plant, told him he had a petition to return to work signed by a majority of the employees, and requested him to meet with a few of the employees at the Hotel Manchester. Kenney agreed to come and arrived at the hotel about half an hour later. There Stugmyer, in the presence of 3 other employees, handed Kenney the petition, told hun that the signers had either read the petition or had it read to them, and requested that the increase be made retroactive to January 1. Kenney said he would have to consult with the respondent's officials and would meet them at the hotel at 4 p. in. to give them his answer. Kenney returned to the plant, and telephoned Walter Rentschler, the respond- ent's president, who suggested telephoning respondent's counsel in Cincinnati While waiting for the latter call to go through, Kenney checked the signatures on the petition against those on canceled pay-roll checks. After receiving approval from Swigert, the respondent's counsel, Kenney, wrote out an acceptance of the offer made to him, including retroactive pay to January 1 for time worked, notified 13 The name of a 54th man was put on by his sister in that man's absence. The under- signed regards the evidence as inadequate to prove ratification Two other signatures were procured after March 28 and cannot be counted Rumors of such petitions reached the respondent On March 26 it mailed to each employee a return-addressed postal card with the request that he indicate thereon whether or not he intended to ieturn to his job at the respondent's plant when the strike was over The Union also learned of the petition and procured 53 signatures ( many of them from people who signed Stugmyer's petition) to a statement that the signers would not return to work until an agreement had been reached by the Union It does not appear that the respondent was notified thereof prior to the hearing. UNITED WELDING COMPANY 961 the telegraph company that the respondent would be sending out about 100 tele- grams, and at 4 p. m. returned to the hotel and handed the group of employees the respondent's acceptance. That night the respondent sent to each of the employees in the unit a telegram stating that, at the request of a majority of the employees, work would be resumed, at 7 a. in. on Maich 29, reciting the retroactive increase, and requesting the employee to return to work. The next morning 17 of the employees in the bargaining unit returned to work. On March 29, Arthur Bishop, Field Representative for the Union, requested Kenney for a bargaining conference with the respondent. Kenney told Bishop that, because of the petition, lie would have to check with other company officials and counsel before giving a reply. On April 1, Kenney wrote the Union that, because of the petition, the respondent could not bargain further with the Union until the question concerning representation was cleared up and requested the Union to submit to the respondent's counsel evidence that the Union still repre- sented a majority of the production and maintenance employees. The Union did not reply to this letter, but on April 1 filed its charge in the instant case On March 30, 1946, before replying to Bishop's request, the respondent had placed an advertisement in the local newspaper addressed to all of its employees, setting out the language of the afore-mentioned petition and the respondent's reply thereto, stating that the plant was open, and inviting employees to return to work and join those who had already returned On Sunday, March 31, the re- spondent sent another telegram to its employees requesting them to return to work and stating that the respondent would have to start hiring new employees on Tuesday. Another letter, addressed to all employees in the units was sent by the re- spondent on April 16, again inviting the employees to return to work and en- closing a copy of an injunction which the respondent had procured ex parte on April 9, enjoining the Union from "in any manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or preventing" ingress or egress.' On May 2, 1946, the Union called off the strike, and thereafter the balance of the employees who had remained on .strike returned. b. The respondent's letters to its employees 16 Following the bargaining meeting of November 9, 1945, the respondent wrote the following letter and sent it to each of its employees : DEAR FELLow EMPLOYEE : We have been operating the plant for the past year and one-half without a Union contract. During this period we have honored the terms of the old contract even though a renewal of it has never been signed by either party. Several bargaining meetings have been held, and this morning we had hoped to complete negotiations on a contract. The Union representatives entered this meeting with a demand that we discuss no other isues but wages. There are several issues still outstanding. We told them that we would discuss wages along with the other remaining issues that the War Labor Board has informed us it will not decide. They refused to do this, and the meeting adjourned.' In our opinion this was not a reasonable attitude on the part of the Committee.0 11 The Union was served with a copy of the injunction after it was issued. 15 Copies of the letters not here quoted in full are attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 16 The Union had taken the position that all issues previously referred to the W. L. B , except wages , should await W. L. B. recommendations , but that as the W. L. B, since 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We told your Committee and we now tell you that we stand ready and are anxious to resume these negotiations at any time that your Committee wishes us to do so. Of course, we cannot compel them to negotiate with us if they are unwilling to do so. We think you men and women will realize that we cannot go out and get new business for this Company which will provide continued employ- ment for all of you until we have signed a definite labor contract governing our operations for the coming year Therefore, it is surely in the interest of all of us to continue negotiations and complete our contract as soon as possible. Sincerely, THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY, [s] Louis T. KENNEY, Vice President. In the respondent's letter of November 27, 1945, on the eve of the strike vote, it informed its employees that the strike vote was part of a program of the Union nationally, that the petition filed by the Union was illegal,' and that there was no need for a strike at its plant in support of "some demand which the Inter- national Officers of your Union may have made on some other company in some other part of the country" as the respondent stood "ready to meet with your Bargaining Committee at any time and to resume negotiations on a contract" In its letter of January 11, 1946, shortly before the beginning of the strike, the respondent told the employees that the strike had been ordered to support the Union's demands against basic steel companies, that a work stoppage at the respondent's plant was useless and unnecessary and could not possibly accomplish anything and that the employees did not need the strike to get a raise in pay from the respondent. The balance of this letter is quoted : . . . In discussing this demand, your committee told us frankly as fol- lows : "In plain woi ds, no company has offered its a quarter , and we don't expect this company to offer its a quarter at this time. We don't think that this coni,panit is large enough to set the policy for the whole United States, and we don't expect them to, and on the other hand, we couldn't agree to anything less than a quarter at this time until the policy is set for the countryi1e In the same spirit of frankness, we told your Committee that we are will- ing to give you a wage increase and that we are sure we can agree on a fair fzqure as soon as the National Officers of the Union have signed up with the August 18 , 1945, was leaving the matter of wages open in all cases , the parties should discuss that issue alone The respondent had taken the position that since the w. L. B was going to make only it recommendation and not a directive order , it would not be binding and the parties should reach their agreement independently thereof 17 The respondent contended that such a petition was not by law to be filed before a labor dispute had arisen and that no labor dispute had arisen until after the date the petition was filed, when, on November 9, the Union made its 25-cent demand As previously stated, the Union prior to November 9 had requested a contract with a wage reopening clause but had offered, as an alternative, to settle for 17 cents without a wage reopening clause 18 The quoted passage is part of Representative Bishop 's affirmative reply to a question as to whether lie was proposing that an agreement be signed covering the matters which had previously been agreed upon plus natters covered by the W. L B recommendations, leaving the question of wages open One of the clauses previously agreed on was a no -strike clause Respondent's Attorney Swigert asked Bishop if there would be no strike before May 1946 if the Union' s offer were accepted Swigert regarded Bishop's reply, "The only thing I can tell you is that we intend to live up to our agieements." as evasive Bishop did not appear too certain as to what the strike situation \rould be. No agreement was reached because Swigert felt the Union should give greater assurance against a strike. UNITED WELDING COMPANY 963 steel companies, aqi eed upon a wage policy, and givens. your local the right to bargain for a reasonable wage 2ncicase. Under these conditions, what is to be gained by a strike? The strike is not to make us pay a quarter, for we are told we are not expected to pay that At the same time we are told that you cannot accept less than a quarter at this time. Since a strike here now can settle nothing, it would surely be more sensible for all of us to continue at work until the basic steel companies have agreed on a contract. Then we feel sure we can sit down with your Committee and work out a mutually agreeable contract in a very short time. By this, we do not mean that we can necessarily pay whatever the big steel com- panies agree to pay, but we are confident that we can agree upon a reasonable increase which you will regard as fair and proper. Let us hope that before the strike begins, wise counsels,will prevail and prevent this tragic and futile work stoppage which spells idleness for its and needless hardship for you and your families. Yours truly, - THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY, [s] Louis T. KENNEY, V. Piesident. The respondent's letter of February 1, 1946, told the employees that President Truman's compromise proposal of 18i/2 cents an hour was applicable to United States Steel Corporation and not to the respondent, gave reasons why the re- spondent should not be put in a category with United States Steel Corporation and why the respondent should not be expected to give the same increase. This letter concluded with the following paragraph • These are all facts which I think you are entitled to know. This useless and unnecessary strike has already cost the average employee of this Company approximately $100.00 Perhaps it has cost you more That $10000 could have meant new clothes for your wife or your children, a nice radio, or stove, or some other necessity or luxury. Before the strike began we told you and your Committee that we were willing to give a wage increase, and your Com- mittee told us that it (lid not expect us to set the policy for the whole United States. Regardless of what U. S. Steel does it should be clear that this wage increase for you men at United Welding must be worked out through free collective bargaining on the basis of our own individual situation. The respondent's letter of March 7 is here quoted in full DEAR FLr.rOW EMPLOYEE: No doubt you have read in the newspaper the public statement which President Truman issued last Monday, reading as follows : "THE PRESIDENT SAID HIS RECOMMENDATION OF AN 18'1/ CENT AN HOUR WAGE INCREASE APPLIED ONLY TO THE BASIC STEEL INDUSTRY THE PRESIDENT STATED HE AS- SUMED OTHER SETTLEMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS "HE EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT THE MEN ON STRIKE IN THESE 700 COMPANIES WOULD ALL BE BACK AT WORK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." The United Welding Company is willing to abide by this direction of the President of the United States ; and, accordingly, invited your union bar- gaining committee to meet with us this morning for the purpose of engaging in real collective bargaining on the local plant basis and getting back into production as quickly as possible. 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At this meeting we told your committee that after a careful study of the situation wd were willing to give a general wage increase of seven and a half cents an hour to all of our production and maintenance employees, effective immediately upon return to work. This offer is conditioned upon a contract for a year from the date of signing, without a wage reopening clause and with a no strike clause. Although the future is uncertain, we believe that this offer will promote maximum production and employment. During the past few days we have received many calls from employees in the bargaining unit, telling us that they are anxious to get back to work. We suggested to the union committee that they join with us in conducting a secret ballot of the employees in the bargaining unit, so that the views of you men on this proposal could be obtained freely and accurately as soon as possible.- They would not agree to this, but said they would obtain your views on the subject and meet with us again at 10:00 o'clock Monday morning. Please be sure to let your views be known with respect to the offer which the Company has made. Yours truly, THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY, [s] Louis T. KENNEY, Vice President P. S. Remember we have to pay.$5.00 per ton more for steel. The next letter, dated March 11, 1940, told the employees that the respondent had met that morning with the Union's Bargaining Committee, that the Com- mittee had rejected the respondent's offer of 71/ cents per hour and were still demanding 181/ cents, and that the Union, following President Truman's state- ment, was making settlements "with companies all over the country for less than 181120 per hour, although most of these settlements are announced as 181120 per hour, or better," citing as an example a settlement reached by the Union with a Detroit competitor of the respondent for a 10 cent increase plus retroactive pay'9 The letter reminded the employees that a long strike "could destroy us both, and help no one," and concluded with a series of questions which are here quoted: Why must the Union Committee at our plant continue to defy President Truman and insist upon 181/_,O an hour? Why don't they make a proposal which would enable this plant to reopen? Why don't they follow the practice of this union in other cities and bargain on a basis which would permit this plant to be reopened without further waste of your savings? Will the Committee submit a proposal Wednesday, March 13? The final letter of the series dealing with negotiations, that dated March 13, 1946, referred to the bargaining meeting that morning and said that "the Union had nothing to offer but the same old 181/0 demand despite the fact that the Company has proved time and again that this strike cannot be settled on that '9 The Union, at the bargaining meeting, described this contract as calling for 10 cents per hour increase, a retroactive bonus for every hour worked in 1945 and an additional 81/ cents per hour increase in the final week of the 1-}ear contract The respondent disputed the latter provision As previously stated, neither party would assume the responsibility for procuring a copy of such contract, although the Union had indicated a willingness to settle on the same basis. UNITED WELDING, COMPANY 965 basis." The letter then mentioned settlements made elsewhere,20 comparing the rates of Class I welders under the settlement at another company with those at the respondent's plant and asked why the union insisted that the employees stay out on strike for 181/2 cents an hour while it signed up with other companies "on a basis that the company can accept " The employees were then told that each week the strike dragged on would reduce the ability of the respondent to take back its entire force. c. Conclusions No contention is made that the respondent in its bargaining meetings with the Union did not baigain in good faith. Rather, it is contended that, by its let ters appealing to its individual employees concerning matters being bargained about by the Union, and by its criticism of the Union's conduct in bargaining and in striking, the respondent has gone over the head of the Union to the member- ship, thereby disregarding its obligation to deal solely with the Union as the designated representative of the employees. No contention is made that the respondent's letters were ot a coercive character, exceeding the legitimate bounds of free speech. Rather, it is contended that, by discussing bargaining matters directly with the employ ees in a manner inimical to the Union's bargaining posi- tion, the respondent alienated or attempted to alienate the employees from the Union. The respondent did not directly make any offers to its employees in its letters which the employees could accept apart from the Union It sought, how- ever, to convince the employees of what the respondent regarded as the reason- ableness of its position and the unreasonableness of the Union's attitude. In doing so, the respondent, by omission of facts explaining the Union' s action, placed the Union in an unfavorable light. The respondent's emphasis of what it regarded as a fair wage increase, if not a direct offer, was an unconcealed hint of what it was willing to give to its employ ees. The effect of such letters would be to convince the employees that, if the employees could not persuade the Union to accept the respondent's offer, they could procure a 10 cent wage increase without the intervention of the Union, amounting, in effect, to an invi- tation to the employees to settle independently of the Union." The result is that, by its letters, the respondent has, pending negotiations with the Union, sought to deal directly with its employees to the detriment of the Union's bargain- ing position. Such conduct has been held to constitute a direct violation of Sec- tion 8 (1) of the Act, 22 and the undersigned so finds it here. Because such letters, by their nature, would tend to alienate the employees from the Union, and was violative of the Act, the undersigned believes that the 20 "We cannot understand why the Steelworker's union has accepted a settlement of 100 an hour plus retroactive bonus from one of our biggect competitors-the R C Mahone Company of Detroit-and has permitted the employees of that company to return to work, whereas the Union refuses to let you go back to work tor less than 181/20 an hour " As previously stated, the Union had contended that the Mahone contract included a retro- active bonus for each hour worked in 1945 and a further increase of 81/2 0 per hour in the final week of the one year contiact. Although salter, one of the circulators of the back-to-work petition, testified that he got his idea of the 10 cent increase from a reading of a newspaper account of settlements effected by the Union at other plants, it is worthy of note that he made statements to employees solicited by him that they would get an increase of 10 cents per hour retroactive to the first of the year and would get the other 81/, cents within a year. 21 "Interference is no less interference because it is accomplished through allurements rather than coercion . . Western Cartridge Co. v. N L. P B , 134 F. (2d) 240, 244 (C C A 7) 22 See Matter of Twin City Milk Producers Association, 61-N L. it. B. 69, N L. R. B V. Martin Brotheis Box Company , 130 F. ( 2d) 202 (C. C. A. 7 ) ; Matter of The Elyria Telephone Company, 63 N L . R B 432. 966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent may not rely on a loss of the Union's majority following their issu- ance It would be impossible to determine the precise extent to which employees who signed the March petition were consciously or subconsciously influenced by the respondent's direct appeal to its employees 23 Under the circumstances, the re- spondent must be held accountable, at least in part, for the petition. Even if the respondent's letters were responsible for only one signature on the petition, that would have destroyed the majority allegedly intending to renounce the Union But even conceding. for the sake of argument, that the respondent's series of letters did not constitute an unfair labor practice, the undersigned believes the Union's status should be regarded as unaffected by the petition to return to work Where, as here, the Union was originally certified following a secret election conducted by the Board, and there was evidence in the strike vote and dues payment (check-off) that the Union had a majority at the time it went on strike, the undersigned believes that a petition such as the respondent here relied on is not entitled to recognition, especially pending bargaining negotiations, during ° which the respondent had never questioned the Union's majority status The Board, with the sanction of the courts, has pursued a policy of disregarding such petitions, when they precede the expiration of a reasonable period of time follow-, ing certification of a union: 4 The wisdom of extending this policy to cases where the contract period has e.pired is established by the evidence in this case. Wit- nesses testified, among other things, that they believed the petition to return to work for 10 cents per hour increase was being circulated by the Union, that they did not read the petition or did not read it completely and did not know that the petition included a clause rd oking the authority of the Union to represent them. That employees may well have signed in the belief that it was a union movement is supported by evidence that many of the signers of the back-to-work petition also signed the Union's circulated pledge not to return to work until an agreement had been reached by the Union and by the evidence that only 17 employees in the unit, of the 53 , signers of the petition, actually returned to work on the first day. The effect of the petition is further weakened by the fact that -the withdrawal of authority was riot presented to the Union but only to the respondent 25 Fur- thermore, assuming that the respondent had a right to believe that a question concerning representation had arisen when it was presented with the petition, thus being faced with majority claims by 2 rivals, it, should not have, under the circumstances here disclosed, recognized and dealt with one to the detriment of the other, until the question concerning representation had been determined by the Board.24 Granting that the majority of the employees in fact intended to revoke the Union's authority, the undersigned cannot regard the revocation as unconditional, since it was coupled with bargaining terms not actually offered to the Union 23 "It would indeed be a rare case where the finders of fact could probe the precise factors of motivation which underlay each employee's choice Normally the conclusion that their choice was restrained by the employer's interference must of necessity be based on the existence of conditions or circumstances which the employer created or for which he was fairly responsible and as a result of which it may reasonably be inferred that the employees did not have that complete and unfettered freedom of choice which the Act contemplates " N. L R B v fink-Belt Co , 311 U S :584, 588 24 Matter of Sbicca, Inc, 30 N L R B 60, 70; Matter of Joe Hearin Lumber, 66 N L R B 1276 , Matter of Appalachian Elects is Power Co , 140 F (2d) 217 (C C A. 4) , Oughton v N L. R B . 118 F (2d) 486 (C C A 3) Valley Mould and Iron Corp. v N L. R B , 116 F (2d) 760, 764-5 (C C A 7) ; N. L. R B. v. Whittier Mills Company, 111 F. (2d) 474, 478 (C C A 5) , N L R B v. Century Oxford Mfg Corp,-140 F. (2d) 541 (C C. A 2). 25 Matter of Wilson & Co , 67 N L It B 662. 2e Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc, 63 N. L. R B., 1060. - UNITED WELDING COMPANY 967 while the Union was the recognized bargaining agent, and the petition was tantamount to an offer by the employees to abandon the Union if the respondent would grant a certain wage increase There is no evidence that the employees would have revoked the Union's authority without assurance of a 10 cent per hour wage increase and there is some evidence that they would not have Thus, by granting the request for a 10 cent wage increase, the iespondent made itself a party to the conditional arrangement and theieby violated the provisions of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act" Inseparably connected with the whole chain of events constituting the under- cutting of the Union's authority and the enticement of the Union's member s were the respondent's efforts to induce the strikers to abandon the stiike. No more than 17 employees who had petitioned to return to work actually showed up in response to the respondent's telegraphic invitation This in itself might have indicated to the respondent that some of the signers had reconsidered. But the respondent by letter, telegram, and newspaper advertisement, continued to ap- peal to the strikers to return to work Whether intended or not, the statement in one telegram that the respondent would have to begin hiring new employees after a certain day would reasonably be interpreted by strikers as a threat that if they did not return and protect their jobs they might find their places filled. Such messages were designed to break the solidarity of their union forces by solicitation of individuals. This practice has been heretofore found to constitute a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, ° and the undersigned so finds here. Since it has been found that the Union was, at all times material herein, the duly designated representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent's acceptance of the offer made in the March petition and its refusal thereafter to bargain with the Union was a violation of Section 8 (5) and (1) of the Act. By all the communications to employees inconsistent with the respondent's duty to recognize and deal with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of its employees and by refusing to bargain with the Union at all times after March 28, 1946, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of respondent described in Section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and cohmerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and \desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On the facts found above the undersigned believes that no danger of other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past. It will therefore be recommended that the respondent cease and desist only from the conduct herein found to be a violation of the Act and from like or related acts. It will further be recommended that, upon request, the respondent bargain with the Union. 27 Medo Photo Sapply Corporation v. N. L. R B , 321 U S 678 28 N. L R B v. Montgomery Ward & Co , 133 F (2d) 676 (C. C. A 9 968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Steel Workers of'Anierica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All the respondent's production and maintenance workers, exclusive of watchmen, clerical and salaried employees, foremen and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge, promote, 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. 3. United Steelworkers of America, C. I 0, was, on March 31, 1913, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on and after March 28, 1946, to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its em- ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section $ (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent, United Welding Company, Middletown, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance workers, exclusive of watchmen, clerical and salaried employees, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge, promote, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action ; (b) Undercutting or by-passing an exclusive bargaining representative under the Act by (1) Influencing or attempting to influence individual employees to prevail upon said bargaining representative to accept the respondent's terms, or (2) Dealing or attempting to deal with its employees, either individually or collectively, concerning wages, hours, working conditions, or other terms of employment, in disregard for the exclusive bargaining rights of such a bargaining representative, or (c) Engaging in like or related conduct interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., UNITED WELDING COMPANY 969 or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and, if an agreement is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement ; 2° (b) Post at its plant at Middletown, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director of the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), in writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Direc- tor in writing that lie has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date offthe entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing, of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per- mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writ- ing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Any party desiring to submit a brief in support of the In- termediate Report shall do so within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, by filing with the Board an original and four copies thereof, and by immediately serving a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director. JAMES R. HEMINGWAY, Trial Examiner. Dated July 13, 1946 "Nothing herein shall be construed to require the respondent to rescind any action taken in raising wages or improving working conditions between January 1, 1946, and the date hereof. 970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD i APPENDIX A THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY-LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1945 To the Employees of the United Welding Company : This strike vote election which is being held in Middletown tomorrow is part of the program adopted by the officials of the Steelworkers Union in Pittsburgh last September. We know that it did not originate with your men. As a matter of facet, the petition for this strike vote was filed with the National Labor Rela' tions Board in Washington by some official from Pittsburgh on October 29 which was more than 10 days before our first meeting with your committee on November 9, at which the Committee presented the twenty-five cents an hour wage demand to us. Under the law, a petition for a strike ballot is not supposed to be filed until after a labor dispute has arisen. The petition filed by your Union was therefore illegal, because no dispute could possibly have arisen here on October 29 when the wage demand was not presented to us until November 9. It is customary for the National Labor Relations Board to consult with the Company and the Union and to obtain agreement upon the wording of the ques- tion which is to appear on the ballot. We asked the Nation [sic] Labor Relations Board for such a conference, and they refused to meet with us. They even refused to tell us what the question would be, and we did not find out until Monday of this week, when sample ballots came to us through the mail. The reason for all of this secrecy became apparent when we got this copy of the ballot. The ballot simply doesn't state the truth It talks about a dispute here relating to a wage increase for employees covered by contract between certain Companies and in the United Steelworkers of America. The United Welding Company's name doesn't even appear on the ballot. The ballot asks you to give the Union a blank check so that they can call a sympathetic strike, here in support of their demands on Bethlehem Steel or any other company in the country. The ballot also states that the Secretary of Labor has been notified of the dispute here and is making "appropriate settlement effort". We want you to know that this statement is absolutely untrue and that no one from the Department of Labor has been up here or said a word to us about anything. According to the November 26 issues of the Cincinnati Time-Star, the Regional Director of the STEEL WORKERS UNION has called this election "idiotic". It seems that way to us too. In view of the ariogant attitude of the National Labor Relations Board in its handling of this matter, and the false and misleading statement on the ballot, we have refused to take any part in the election other than to supply the Board with an accurate list of our employees and to have a watcher at the polls. In the light of the facts set forth above, we believe you will understand and approve of our attitude in this matter. As we told you in our letter of November 9, we stand ready to meet with your Bargaining Committee at any time and to resume negotiations on a contract, including wages and all other issues. We believe that you realize that there is no need for a strike at this plant and that it would be unfair to yourselves, your families, and to us to close this place down in support of some demand which the International Officers of your Union may have made on some other company in some other part of the country. No matter how this "idiotic" election turns out, we hope that we can go on working here in an atmosphere of mutual friend- ship and fair play. THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY UNITED WELDING COMPANY 971 LETTER OF JANUARY 11, 1946 To the employees of the United Welding Company : 'The strike at this plant which the United Steelworkers of American has called for next Monday, January 14, is a useless and unnecessary work stoppage. It cannot possibly accomplish anything. The strike has been ordered by the National Wage Policy Committee of the Steelworkers' Union to support the de- niands of the Union against the United States Steel Corporation and other basic steel companies. Shutting down this plant will not hurt those big steel com- panies in the least. They own no stock in this company. We do no work for them Therefore, if this strike at United Welding is actually supposed to aid the Union's members who work for the big steel companies, it is a waste of your time and money. Some of you may think this strike is needed in order that you may get a raise in pay from United Welding Company. That is not true. In the bargaining meet- ing with the Union's Committee on December 14, the Union asked ns for a twenty-five cent an hour increase. [Balance of letter is quoted in body of report.] LErrER OF FERRUARY 1, 1946 To the employees of the United Welding Company: Some of our men are said to have been told that our employees are going to receive whatever wage increase the United States Steel Corporation finally agrees upon with the United Steelworkers of America (CIO). That is untrue. It has also been suggested that President Truman's compromise proposal of 181/20'an hour applies to the United Welding Company as well as to the United States Steel Corporation That also is untrue. These negotiations which you have been reading about in the newspapers between President Truman, Mr. Philip Murray, and Mr Benjamin Fairless, President of the United States Steel Corporation, concern only the United States Steel Corporation and its employees. Mr Fairless would have no more right to bargain for our Company than I would have to bargain for his company. President Truman's compromise wage proposal of 181/2¢ an hour applied only to United States Steel Corporation. In making this proposal to Mr. Fairless and Mr. Murray, President Truman expressly said: "I am not endeavoring to set a pattern for all industry. Each controversy should be worked out on its own merits. The agreement should be reached in every case by free collective bargaining." This fuss between your Union and the United States Steel Corporation has nothing to do with our Company. A little thought will show you why. We are in the welding business. We are not a part of the steel industry. If you had chosen the United Auto Workers (CIO) to represent you at this plant instead of the Steelworkers' Union you would certainly not contend that that fact made us a part of the automobile industry. The Auto Workers' Union has a local in a bookcase factory in Cincinnati but it has never claimed that its presence in that plant made the bookcase company a part of the Automobile industry. You might have chosen the United Electrical Workers (CIO) to rep- resent you, but that choice on your part would not have made us a part of the electrical industry. For similar reasons the mere fact that you happened to choose the Steelworkers Union to represent you here does not make us a part oof the steel industry. 1 972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Likewise, we are not in the steel industry merely because we use some steel in our work . We also use coal. That does not make us a part of the coal industry . We use electricity . That does not make us a part of the electrical industry. The plain fact is that we are in a separate and distinct industry of our own-the welding business Our coiupetition is not with steel companies or autc- mobije companies or electrical companies . Our competition is with Welding Companies , some small , and some large Some of these companies are cut-throat outfits which employ only five or six welders , and with no union contract. Some of our competitors are large companies having labor contracts with Unions other than the United Steelworkers of America . If United Welding is to stay in, bus-- ness, meet this competition , and keep you employed here in Middletown it must have a wage scale which is reasonably in line with the scale paid an the welding business in this vicinity Everyone of you is smart enough to know that, and I think that down in your hearts you do know it It is foolish for anyone to try to compare us with the United States Steel Corpo- ration, which is one of the biggest and wealthiest companies in the country. Our whole factory could be placed inside one of the washrooms in their big steel mills. They operate huge coke ovens , blast furnaces , Bessemer burners, and other equipment wholly different from the tools and machinery which we use in our operations . To try to compare your work and wage scale with that of a steel puddler makes no more sense than to try to compare you with a coal miner or a soda clerk in a drug store. There is\ no ground of comparison at all between its and ii S. Steel. For example, they have raised wages about 35%% since January , 1941 whereas we have raised our straight time average hourly earnings 53 7% during the same period and our take home pay for you men in the bargaining unit has increased 9,9 1%o during the same period. The Government has found that the cost of living increased 33% since January , 1941. Therefore , your earnings here at United Welding have increased three times as much as the i ise in the cost of Diving as proclaimed by President Truman. Your Union has already pointed out that the earnings of employees of U. S. Steel have been drastically reduced since the end of the War by down-grading and reduction of hours. When you men were called out on strike heic at United Welding you were taking liome peak wartime pay. Wages represent only 20% of the costs of making steel They represent about 50% of the cost of United Welding. For this reason , a wage increase of 181/20 an hour at United Welding would cost its almost two and one -half tames as much as the same increase would cost U. S. Steel. [Balance of letter is quoted in body of report j LETTER OF MARCH 11, 1946 Dear Fellow Employee : As you were informed in our letter of March 7, we met with the Union Com- mittee at ten o'clock this morning and resumed negotiations, looking toward a return to work at this plant. The Committee informed us that you had held a meeting and rejected our proposal of 71/,¢ an hour. We asked your Committee if they had any new proposal to present to us which would end this strike and permit you men to return to work They said they had no new prop'isal and were still demanding 181/2¢ per hour Following President Truman's statement, the United Steelworkers of America are now making settlements with companies all over the country for less than 181/2¢ per hour, although most of these settlements are announced as 181/20 per hour, or better. For example, one of our largest competitors in Detroit made UNITED WELDING COMPANY 973 a settlement with the Steelworkers' union last geeck for 100 an. hour, plus retro- active pay. We also gave your Committee the naives of several other companies which made settlements at a net cost to the companies concerned of from 40 to 110 an hour. These illustrations were merely typical of scores of settlements which have been made on a similar basis during the past few days The em- ployees of these companies are all now back at work earning good wages again. Remember, a long strike like that at General Motors could destroy us both, and help no one. [Balance of letter is quoted in body of report.] LETTER OF MARCH 13, 1946 Dear Fellow Employee: This morning Company representatives met with the Union Committee again for the purpose of hearing whether the Union had any new proposal to present which would bring about an end to this strike. The Union had nothing to offer but the same old 181/20 demand despite the fact that the Company has proved time and again that this strike cannot be settled on that basis. We cannot understand why the Steelworkers' union has accepted a settlement of 100 an hour plus retroactive bonus from one of our biggest competitors-the it. C. Mahone Company of -Detroit-and has permitted the employees of that company to return to work, whereas the Union refuses to Tet you go back to work for less than 181/_0 an hour. Of course, it would be a fine thing for our competitor and his employees if we-were put out of business, but that would not be so good for you or us. At the meeting this morning we told the Committee about additional settle- ments which the union has made during the past few days for less than 18;20 an hour. One of these companies was the Frick-Gallagher Manufacturing Comprlny of Wellston, Ohio, which settled its strike with the Steelworkers' union for an increase of 100 an hour and has a firm contract for a year with no-strike clause and no wage reopening clause. This contract has now been signed by the International, and the men are back to work. The company employs 200 production workers. The top rate for a Class I welder specified in this new contract is $1 00 an hour, whereas, as you know, our Company now pays up to $1.13 u n hour for Class I welder, and with the 7'/ 0 increase, this rate would amount to $1201/ an hour. Why does the Union insist that you stay out on strike for 181/20 an hour while it signs up other companies on it basis that the company can accept. Remember, every additional week that this strike drags on will cost you another $40 or $50, and will reduce the ability of this Company to take back its entire work force. Our next meeting with the Union Committee is set for 10: 30 A. ,M , Friday, March 15, 1946. Very truly yours, TAE UNITED WELDING COMPANY. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT undercut or by-pass an exclusive bargaining representa- tive under the Act by 974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1) Influencing or attempting to influence individual employees to prevail upon said bargaining representative to accept our terms, or (2) Dealing or attempting to deal with our employees, either indi- vidually or collectively, concerning wages, hours, working conditions, or other terms of employment, in disregard for the exclusive bargaining rights of such a bargaining representative WE WILL NOT engage in like or related conduct interfering with, re- straining, or coercing our employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA, C I. 0, or any other labor organization, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance workels, exclusive of watchmen, clerical and salaried employees, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge, promote, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. THE UNITED WELDING COMPANY, Employer By ------------------------------------- (itepresentative ) 11 (Title) Dated ------------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation