Extract
Pandel-Bradford, Inc., 736 (1974)
Styletek, Division of Pandel-Bradford, Inc., and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local No. 437 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 1-CA-9148, 1CA-9266, and 1-RC-12848
November 7, 1974DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTIONBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING ANDJENKINSOn April 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent-Employer filed exceptions and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.Part of the Administrative Law Judge's 8(a)(1) findings, which serve as the basis for setting aside the election of September 6, 1973,1 and from which our colleague dissents, is based on the Respondent's August 20, 1973, announcement of (1) a plan for a restructuring of its wage rates and job classifications, (2) implementation of the plan, and (3) the possibility of the establishment of an incentive program.Concerning its conduct of August 20, the Respondent contends that it would have been guilty of an unfair labor practice if it had not granted the aforementioned wage increases, and notes that a wage increase had been promised to the employees before the advent of the Union. However, the wage increase which the Respondent had promised was a cost-ofliving raise which had been granted in the past to all employees. Instead of merely continuing its policy by granting such a raise, the Respondent departed from the practice it had adhered to before the advent of the Union and announced and implemented a restructuring of its job classifications and wage rates which, in turn, resulted in varying wage increases being granted to various employees during the critical preelection period. In these circumstances, we reject the Respondent's argument that it would have All dates hereinafter refer to 1973 been guilty of an unfair labor practice if it had not granted the wage increases.The Respondent also contends that if it had given the raises to buy votes it would have given a general increase across the board in equal amounts and would not have omitted 25 to 30 maintenance and machine shop employees. We reject this contention since, from the timing and the overall effect of the increases, it can be inferred that the Respondent's conduct was designed to impress upon all employees that the wage increases were forthcoming from the Respondent without the necessity for union representation. In this regard we note that, as a result of the implementation of the announced plan, the Respondent's labor costs were increased by about 5 percent and that all employees, with the possible exception of one, either received wage increases or maintained their existing salary under the new plan.We further note that the Respondent's August 20 announcement and grant of wage increases occurred during the critical preelection period between July 24 (when the Union filed its petition) and September 6 (when the election was held).The Respondent further contends that it has come forward with affirmative evidence of proper business justification for its conduct of August 20, so that the burden of proving union animus on the part of the Respondent shifts to the General Counsel. Assuming that job inequities and company growth are the 'business justifications' to which the Respondent is referring, it should be noted that the Respondent did not seek to remedy these 'problems' until April 1973, when a new general manager was hired. By this time, the Union's organizational effort at the Respondent's plant had been in existence for 3 months. Employees were not notified of the fact that the Respondent was working on the plan until a month later, on June 29. Most importantly, the plan was not formally announced or implemented until August 20 (effective as of the pay period ending August 25), so that the employees were promised and were granted benefits by the Respondent during the critical preelection period be...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
