NLRB v. Imperial-Eastman Corporation, 14097.

• Citation: 322 F.2d 679
• Decision Date: 23 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 14097.,14097.
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION, Respondent.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

322 F.2d 679 (1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 14097.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

September 23, 1963.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Joseph C. Thackery, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

John Harrington, Albert J. Smith, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before DUFFY, CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.

CASTLE, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C., § 151 et seq.), for enforcement of the Board's order issued against respondent on November 26, 1962. This Court has jurisdiction, the unfair labor practices having occurred at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, where respondent manufactures hose assemblies.

During the year 1960 the respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of Wisconsin.

The Board found that by promising benefits before a Board election respondent interfered with its employees' freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining representative and thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.

Eastman Manufacturing Company of Manitowoc and Imperial Brass Company of Chicago merged on September 20, 1960, to form the respondent company. At employee meetings in Manitowoc in September-October of 1960, and January-February, 1961, respondent described benefits it had given or would give the Manitowoc employees.

In a letter dated June 20, 1961, typical of many of those sent to the employees, Vice-President Melvin Brose listed such benefits as a "floating holiday," longer vacation periods, overtime for Saturday work and liberalized life insurance, and additional benefits were promised for the future, such as job posting, job evaluation and reclassification, an incentive program, and further improvements in insurance. Also, Brose's letter contained the following language:

"We have been told that some of you recently received a letter from the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, enclosing a card which they have requested you to fill out and return.

"I think it highly important that you should consider very carefully whether it is to your best advantage to hire an outside party to represent you. Never in the history of our Company — in either Division — has anyone had to pay one cent in order to get constantly increasing improvements in wages and other benefits, and there is no reason for you to do so in the future."

These representations were made at a time of the International Association of Mechanic's Union activities. After this union activity ceased nothing was done about the benefits until October, 1961 when the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Union), began a drive to organize respondent's employees. The Union asked respondent for...