Opinion ID: 355175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Labor Organization Involved

Text: 9 The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 373 is a labor organization within the 10 meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. The Alleged Unfair 11 Labor Practices and the Objections to the Election
12 (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by withholding implementation of a wage adjustment plan pending the outcome of the election. 13 (2) Whether the objections to the election filed by the Union should be 14 sustained and the election set aside. B. Company Practice 15 Regarding Wage Increases, and its Application to 16 the Fort Smith Plant 17 It had been the company for at least 15 months prior to the hearing that a formal wage survey be undertaken at all its plants at least once each year. The procedure required the personnel manager of each plant to make a local wage survey and to present recommendations to the plant manager. After reviewing the survey, the plant manager presents his recommendations to Ronald K. Finley, the Respondent's vice president of manufacturing. After consideration of the survey and recommendations, Finley gives final approval to any change in wage scales. 18 This procedure was first applied at the Fort Smith plant in September 1975. Although production had not yet begun, the plant employed 23 persons used in various cleanup and maintenance capacities. The personnel manager, Sidney Perceful, prepared a wage survey and made recommendations for wage adjustments directly to Finley, because the plant manager had left. Finley did not accept her recommendations, but approved various wage changes effective October 6, 1975. 19 Production began in January 1976 under Morris E. Boren, the new plant manager. In April 1976, it came to the attention of Boren that the Teamsters, as well as several other unions, were engaged in organizing Respondent's plant. 20 C. Preliminary Movements Toward a Wage Increase 21 In May 1976, Boren responded to a question at an employee meeting that a new wage survey would be undertaken and that when it was completed he would announce what wage adjustments, if any, would be made. The wage survey was not begun until late July 1976, because Personnel Manager Perceful had undergone major surgery, followed by a vacation. 22 In June 1976, Plant Manager Boren attended a corporation budget meeting at Suffolk, Virginia, which included a discussion about projected wages and wage adjustments for the Forth Smith employees in the last part of 1976. As a result of the discussion, a 10 percent wage adjustment figure, 8 percent salary and 2 percent fringe was projected for budget purposes only. 23 Thereafter, on August 13, 1976, Boren posted a notice informing the employees that We are planning to have a general meeting the last week of August to announce the wage adjustment resulting from our wage survey. 1 On August 16, 1976, Personnel Director Perceful concluded the wage survey by submitting the wage survey report to Plant Manager Boren. 24 1. Boren was unaware at the time that a petition had been filed. He knew though that Finley was due at the plant on August 18 to finalize a wage adjustment. 25 D. The Decision Not to Implement the Wage Increase 26 Vice President Finley had planned a trip to the Fort Smith plant for August 18, 1976, for the purpose of considering the wage survey, the recommendations of plant management, and then finalizing the wage adjustment. But Finley learned on August 13 from Respondent's counsel that a petition for an election had been filed by the Union, and thus he requested counsel to accompany him on the August 18 trip to Fort Smith. 27 At 9 a.m. on August 18, before meeting with Finley, Boren held a meeting attended by seven employees. Boren informed them that when Finley arrived he would discuss the wage survey and that Boren expected to have a decision by the end of Finley's visit. 28 The Respondent's representatives then met at the plant on August 18 to review the events described above. On the advice of counsel, Finley decided to stop consideration of the anticipated wage adjustment. He based his decision on several factors, such as a union handbill circulated at Respondent's plant stating that the Company would violate Federal law by granting wage increases to keep the Union out, and a posted Notice to Employees from the National Labor Relations Board where given as an example of conduct which may result in setting aside of an election was, Promising or granting promotions, pay raises, or other benefits, to influence an employee's vote by a party capable of carrying out such promises. In addition, the Union had already filed two unfair labor practice charges against the Company. Therefore, in order to avoid the possibility of further unfair labor practice charges, as well as possible objections to the election, the Respondent decided to withhold any contemplated wage increases until after the election. 29 Following this decision, Boren posted a Notice to Employees on August 20 stating: 30 We have been instructed by our legal counsel that because of the union's petition we cannot legally proceed to put a new wage schedule into effect at this time. The union has already filed two unfair labor practices against the company. Neither of these has any merit because we have acted legally and fairly and we will continue to do so. 31 Again, let me say that the union's action means that we have to hold up the new wage plan until the election is over and the company is legally able to put it into effect. We will do our best to see that the vote is held quickly so 32 that we can continue with our program of progress. Events Subsequent to the Decision Not to Implement the Wage Increase 33 By August 23 the parties had agreed to an election to be held September 10, and the employees were so informed. Boren addressed all the employees on August 25 from a prepared text 2 and then responded to questions. In the prepared text, he stated, inter alia, Should any union be approved by you to represent you in dealings with the company, your wages and benefits will have to be negotiated. No existing wage or benefit establishes a precident (sic). Boren told the employees the wage survey was completed but because of the petition for an election, nothing would be done about it until after the election. He stated that if the Respondent followed up on its wage survey, the Union would file unfair labor practice charges alleging the company was attempting to buy the employees' votes. He told the employees if the Respondent was the winner in the election, it would proceed with its programs, the wage survey being one of them. He also told the employees that if the Union won the 34 election, the Company was going to negotiations with the Union based on wages and all other facets of our business. 35 2. Respondent's Exhibit 8. 36 On September 13, Boren posted a notice containing the results of the election, which the Union lost by a substantial margin. The notice pointed out that the results were unofficial, and then stated: 37 We have not forgotten about the wage survey which was frozen when the Union filed its petition for election. As soon as the official certification that the Company won is issued, we will let you know. In the meantime, we thank you for your vote of confidence. 38 After the Respondent received notice of the charge and the objection filed by the Union, it notified the employees on September 20 that Everything must be put on hold until the Board issued its certification. 39 On October 6, 1976, a story appeared on the first page of a local newspaper that a spokesman for the Board refused to comment on how long the NLRB will take before deciding whether to certify a Union Election that had been conducted at the plant. Following the appearance of the article and because of the restlessness of the employees about the status of the certification and wage increase, Boren urged Finley to take some action regarding wages. With Finley's permission, Boren posted a notice informing the employees that the wage review would be completed and all wage increases would go into effect as of September 13, 1976. 40 Following 2 working days' deliberation between Finley and Boren, Finley decided to grant the Fort Smith employees an across-the-Board increase of 34 cents per hour. Boren had recommended not to follow Perceful's recommendations. The final figure was a compromise between Boren and Finley.