Universal Butane Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 31, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

UNIVERSAL BUTANE COMPANY, INC. 1 101 UNIVERSAL BUTANE COMPANY, INC.and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, LOCAL 231, Petitioner . Case No. 14-RC-1543 . August 31, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 24, 1952 , pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board , an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled matter under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region among the employees in the unit found to be appro- priate. Upon the completion of the election, a tally of ballots was issued and duly served upon the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 21 eligible voters, 21 cast valid ballots, of which 5 were for the Petitioner and 16 were against the Petitioner , and 2 were challenged. On January 28, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. Thereupon, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board , the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on April 7, 1952, issued and duly served a report on objections. In his report the Regional Director found that substantial and material issues with respect to the election were raised by the objections, and recommended that the election be set aside and a new election directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report. On April 25, 1952, the Board, having considered the Peti- tioner's objections, the Regional Director's report, and the Employer's exceptions, ordered a hearing upon the objections. Thereafter, a hearing was held on June 19, 1952, before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. All parties appeared and participated . In accordance with the Board ' s order , the hearing officer on August 8, 1952 , issued and caused to be served on all parties concerned a report containing his findings and recommendations. The Employer thereafter filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report on objections to election. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board having considered the hearing officer's report, the Employer's exceptions , and the entire record in the case, makes the following findings: 1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three - member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members Styles and Peterson]. 106 NLRB No. 173. 1 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner bases its objections to the election on a wage increase granted by the Employer on December 31, 1951.2 Several months earlier, on August 6, 1951, the Employer granted a 10-percent wage increase.' Thereafter, about Sep- tember 17, 1951, the Employer notified its employees that it was withdrawing the 10-percent wage increase because such increase could be granted only upon approval by the Wage Stabilization Board. However, during the week of December 24, 1951, the Employer was advised by a representative of the Wage Stabilization Board that it could grant an increase of 31, cents an hour without specific Wage Stabilization Board approval, and on December 31, 1951, the Employer notified its employees of a 34 cents an hour increase effective at the beginning of the workweek of December 24, 1951. Organizational efforts by the Petitioner began about July 31, 1951, followed by the filing of a petition in this representation proceeding on August 13, 1951. The Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election on December 29, 1951. However, Felt, president of the Employer, testified that he did not learn of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election until the day after December 31, 1951, when his attorney telephoned him, advising him of that fact. The hearing officer credited this testimony. Thus, on December 31, 1951, whenhe announced the 34 cents an hour wage increase, the Employer's president was not aware that the Board had directed an election. It also appears from the evidence that the Employer on January 11, 1952--about 2 weeks before the election=-received approval from the Wage Stabilization Board of its application for a wage increase, but withheld announcement of this approval until after the election. The Employer explains that the wage increase of December 31, being a cost-of-living increase, could not be retroactive, and that under regulation 8 of the Wage Stabilization Board was effective only from the beginning of the pay period for which it was made, i.e., the week beginning December 24, 1951; it therefore would have been unfair to the employees to withhold granting this increase. The Employer further explains that the 10-percent wage increase approved by the Wage Stabilization Board on January 11, 1952, was specifically made retroactive to August 6, 1951--the date on which the Employer originally granted it-- and therefore no loss could accrue to the employees from withholding announcement of it until after the election. On these facts, concerning which there is substantially no factual dispute, we cannot agree with the hearing officer that the granting of the December 31 wage increase constituted 2 At the outset of the hearing on objections, the Petitioner limited its objections to the conduct of the election to the wage increase of December 31, 1951, and, accordingly, the evidence at the hearing was limited to the circumstances related to such wage increase. 3 The Petitioner does not contend that this wage increase interfered with the conduct of the election. UNIVERSAL BUTANE COMPANY, INC. 1 103 interference with the conduct of the election. Over a long period of time the Employer had annually granted wage in- creases shortly after July 31 of each year. The August 6, 1951, 10-percent wage increase was granted pursuant to this practice and the Petitioner had no objection thereto. This 10-percent increase was withdrawn pending Wage Stabilization Board approval, a fact of which the employees were duly notified by letter dated September 26, 1951. The 3-1 cents an hour increase of December 31, 1951, was onlya fraction of the 10-percent increase as to which approval was pending before the Wage Stabilization Board. In its December 31, 1951, notice to employees, the Employer specifically explained that any increase granted by the Wage Stabilization Board could be used in addition to the 34 cents an hour increase then granted. Under all of the circumstances, and in view of the entire record in the case, including the history of annual wage increases; the sequence of events during the period from August 6, 1951, when a wage increase was first announced, through December 31, 1951; the fact that the Employer demon- strated a manifest intention not to influence the results of the election by carefully refraining from announcing prior to the election that it had received Wage Stabilization Board approval of its earlier affiliation for a 10-percent wage increase, retroactive to August 6, 1951; and the absence of any anti- union bias on the part of the Employer, we are persuaded that the granting of the December 31, 1951, wage increase did not interfere with the results of the election.4 Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the hearing officer's recommendations, that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise substantial or material issues. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the objections. As no collec- tive-bargaining representative was chosen in the election, we shall dismiss the petition.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4The cases relied on by the hearing officer are inopposite. In Marshaltown Trowel Company, 81 NLRB 1050, the Employer offered benefits to the employees on condition and in the event the union did not win the election. In Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 557, many acts of a coercive nature were involved, and the Board held that the wage in- crease- -particularly the way in which it was announced- -combined with other unlawful conduct, precluded a fair election. In Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 1329, no exceptions were filed, and the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendation as a matter of course. 5 At the hearing on objections, the sole factual dispute was whether or not the Petitioner's representative learned of the 3a cents an hour increase before January 21, 1952. The hearing officer found that, contrary to the testimony of the Petitioner's representative, the latter did learn of the increase at least as early as January 15, 1952, when he discussed the amount of the increase with three employees, although not the date of such increase. The hearing officer further found that, in any event, the Petitioner did not waive its right to object to the conduct of the election. As we have decided that the granting of the December 31, 1951, wage increase did not constitute interference with the results of the election, we find it unnecessary to decide in this case whether the Board's waiver rule should or should not apply.