Memo to all WCIRA consultants with 102 LRRM 1079-1080 attached discussing Arrow Molded Plastics Inc. and employee participation in illegal and unauthorized work slowdowns

Ogden, Warren C

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Leonard Scott Union-Prevention and Counter-
Union Campaign Consulting Files, 1966-2013 
Kheel Center for Labor-Management 
Documentation & Archives 
10-10-1979 
Memorandum on Bargaining Tactics, 1979 
Warren C. Ogden 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/leonardscott 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Warren Ogden Memos is brought to you for free and open access by the Kheel Center for Labor-Management 
Documentation & Archives at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leonard Scott Union-
Prevention and Counter-Union Campaign Consulting Files, 1966-2013 by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Memorandum on Bargaining Tactics, 1979 
Abstract 
Memo to all WCIRA consultants with 102 LRRM 1079-1080 attached discussing Arrow Molded Plastics 
Inc. and employee participation in illegal and unauthorized work slowdowns. 
This warren ogden memos is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/leonardscott/
11 
WARREN C. OGDEN 
FRANKLIN L. DENNIS 
l, MARTIN SMITH 
TO: 
FRCM: 
RE: 
DA.TE: 
LAW OFll'ICES OP 
1/6,,eA- <ef: f!Jt./e/t 
JOHN HANOOOK BLDG. 
tall S.S. 11TB ST. 
KERCD ISLAND 
WASHINGTON tl040 
All WCIRA Consultants 
Warren C. ~den 
Bargaining Tactics 
October 10, 1979 
( ( ~ 
~ 
This rray be our swan song on m?mos to consultants, depending 
up::m how things go. 
Regardless, we will continue to keep abreast of changes in 
the la,.,. Access to that information is, of course, 
available on an as-needed basis. We hope to keep up strong 
personal contacts with our friends in WCIRA. 
You might note Arr<:Jil Molded Plastics. It seems to describe 
a typical WCIRA campaign, b.lt by a "consultant" in the East. 
Note that the employer ended up holding a bargaining order. 
We will keep track of this type of case 
wco 
. 
Jr£/rnn ~ 
AREA OODE ZOS 
Tl:LBPHONJI 111-7250 
OR 
,15-1100 
I 
I 
,,. 
1l?-1e,.' 
ARROW MOLDED PLASTICS 
reiterate the fears I expressed ln Gould re-
eardine the effect of the position of my col-
leagues ln the majority: 
"In my view, nothing Is more repugnant to 
the purposes and policies of the National 
Labor Relations Act than to sec t he sincere 
efforts of manaaement and labor, In seeking 
a peaceful resolution of their disputes, wast• 
ed because of the unwillingness of employee 
representatives to assume the burdens which 
10 hand-in-hand with the benefits of union 
representation. When management and 
labor are forced to settle their disputes 
throuah disruptions at the workplace rather 
than throuah the orderly process of collec• 
live bargaining, we clearly fall ln the goals 
declared by Congress when lt enacted the 
National Labor Relations Act 43 years ago." 
TRUESDALE, Member, concurring: 
[ Te.rt] In agreement with my colleagues, I 
find that the Respondent dld not violate the 
Act when it disciplined Union Stewud Pick• 
er for urging a fellow employee to slow down 
in violation of a contractual no-strike, no-
slowdown commitment. Accordingly, I con-
cur In the dismissal of the charges. However , 
my decision rests on somewhat different 
erounds from those relied on by my col• 
leagues. 
Unlike my colleagues, I find no relevant 
distinction between Picker's conduct In this 
case and the conduct in Gould Corpora-
tion,24 in which I dissented In part. In both 
cases. the employees had already begun a 
course of action contrary to the contractual 
commitment when the steward became In• 
volved - a work stoppage in Gould and a 
slowdown In the Instant ca.~e. In both ca.~es, 
the steward encouraged employees to take 
actions contrary to the contractual commit-
ment. And , In both cases, the employecs 
acted ln accordance with the stewards' sug-
1estion. I would have dismissed the 8(a)(3 ) 
allegations In Gould and, for the reasons 
stated in my partial dissent>~ In that case, I 
agree with my colleagues' conclusions that 
the charges In this case also should be dis-
missed. 
ARROW MOLDED PLASTICS-
ARROW MOLDED · PLASTICS, 
INC., Napoleon , Ohio and FOOD AND 
pn•c lsdy the oppoalle lrom whal Chalrrn"n F11n • 
11i11K. a. " nwmb<·r of Lhr majority , said In Goulcl. 
Member Jt' nklns now finds ltJ>crmlssiblc !or an Nil · 
ploye r lo sln11le out a stewar lor greater discipline 
wlwre lhr st.t•wud mrre ly ··ur~rs support ol And 
seeks lo Indu ce employee parllc lpallon In an lllt-11111, 
unauLhori,.ed work slowdown," wh ic h is pn•cisely 
th,• fa ctual slluall o n In Gould . M1'mb1•r Murphy 
simply finds 11 0 viola lion In the lnsl anl c,u;,• because 
" Lhe stew•nrd h ere w&S disci&S~ rd for enKaKlng In lrn-
prol){•r rondurt In d irrct violation of a contractual 
c lause:· whll-h nMain I• prrclscl y th e l:u·tu nl sl l1111-
lion I:, bo th Gould and Precision Castings. In h er 
viPw. it Is " urua~ces.sary to e xtend or rel y on or 
dis I lnguish Go uld ... : · 
" 237 NLHB No. 124 , 99 LRRM I059 (1978 >. 
" I concurred In llw find ing In Gould lhnl th<' r,•. 
spondent llw rr had vloll\lt' d S t>c. R<a )( 4 l ol Lhc Ac-t 
by rclyi nR In part on the steward"s l'arii<'r l illng ol 
char11cs with va r ious J\Kenc lcs. l11c ludin¥ the Board , 
when Liu • decision was made l o discharge the slew• 
ard. 
Rf?~ ~ 
102 LRRM 1079 
COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 
146, AFL-CIO, Case Nos. 8-CA-11476 
and 8-RC-11096, August 8, 1979, 243 
NLRB No. 181 
Frank Motil, Cleveland, Ohio, for 
General Counsel; Jeffrey Julius <Gal-
lon, Kalniz & Iorio,), Toledo, Ohio, for 
union; Roger W . Denko <Thornburg, 
McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Mur-
ray), Elkhart, Ind., for employer; Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Joel A. Har-
matz. 
Before NLRB: Jenkins, Murphy, and 
Truesdale, Members. 
INTERFERENCE Sec. 8(a)(l) 
-Soliciting grievances ► 50.695 
Employer violated LMRA when, dur-
ing series of four meetings within 10-
day period before election. < 1 > its out-
side consultant told employees that 
their thoughts " will be cranked Into the 
planning process," It intended to draw 
up recommendations on what it had 
learned from employees. and it would 
install "hot box" in which employees 
should place notes containing their 
questions or suggestions, and <2> its 
vice president told worker, who com-
plained about hav ing been improperly 
rep rimanded, that he ,;would look into 
It." Statements support compelling in-
ference that grievances solicited would 
be corrected. 
l'fextl Member Murphy would no t find 
that Respondent violated Sec. 8<aH I l or the 
Act by statina to an employee who com-
plalncd that silt' l11\d bc~ n Improper ly "'writ• 
ten up" that it would look into it. The Ad · 
mlnlstrative Law Judge found that Respond -
ent's statement Implied a promise to act fa. 
vorably on the employee's complaint. Mem• 
bcr Murphy believes the evidt•nce is insuffi -
cient to support the Adm inistrative Law 
Judge 's conclusion that Respondent was 
promising to resolve a grievance. At best the 
facts show that all Respondent did was to 
promise to correct a mistake lf one had bee n 
made by It. Absent some showing that Re-
spondent be fore the advent of the Union 
would not have corrected Its own mistakes, 
Member Murphy would not find this viola-
tion. 
We• agre,i thl\l H!'sl)ondcnt"s solicitation of 
grievances was unlawful. as the circum-
stances support a "'compelling infe rence" 
that the 1<rirvanc<'S e llcltcid would be cor-
rected. Thus. for example, Hcspondcnt·s 
statements to employees that their thoughts 
"' will be cranked into the planning process" 
and that it Intended to draw up recommen-
dations on what It had learned from employ-
ees admit of no other plausibl e conclusion. 
See Ralev's Inc .. 236 NLRB No. 97, 98 LRRM 
1381 < 1978l. 
INTERFERENCE St•c. 8(a)( I) 
-Anti-union activity ► 50.240 
► 50.778 ► 50.601 ► 50.187 ► 50.57 
Employer violated LMRA by < 1 > in -
terrogating employees concerning the ir 
,. 
102 LRRM 1080 
conditions o! work, Including adversi-
ties that may have given Initial Impetus 
to union, <2> Impliedly promising em-
ployees that their wage levels would In-
crease If they rejected union,< 3 l stating 
that employees would receive raise in 
about 10 working days If union failed to 
win election, but raise would take from 
six months to one year If union won, (4) 
suggesting that Improvements would be 
made In lunchroom, and actually mak-
ing such Improvements after election, 
<5> suggesting to employees that em-
ployer would finance their education no 
matter how unrelated to their employ-
ment, <6> stating that employer was wil-
ling to reinstate "shift representative" 
system If union were rejected, <7> main-
taining overly broad no-distribution 
rule, <8> denying worker more desirable 
position to which she was entitled 
under established promotion policy, 
and Insinuating In presence of at least 
six employees that It was union activity 
that prejudiced her status, and (9) hold-
Ing out possibility of wage Increase to 
worker and then Indicating that her 
participation In increase might be de-
ferred Ir she Invoked Board remedies. 
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN Sec. 8(a)(5) 
ORDER Sec. lO(c) 
-Eroding or majority status - Bar-
gaining order ► 54.9198 ► 56.501 
Employer violated LMRA by refusing 
to bargain with union having authoriza-
tion cards from majority of employees, 
and bargajnipg order js warrantedJ 
~':f 5mg1o*rf} lair fabor pracUces 
___ P _ u_ ig __ 4 tabllshediriaJorlty. 
No exceptions were filed to the ad-
ministrative Jaw judge's dismissal o! 
other allegations of unlawful Interfer-
ence or his overruling of certain allega-
tions of interference with the election. 
BURNS INT'L SECURITY SVCS.-
BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECU-
RITY SERVICES, INC., Limerick, Pa. 
and PLANT GUARD WORKERS 
<UPGWAl, Case No. 4- RC-13457, Au-
gust 21, 1979. 244 NLRB No. 77 
Before NLRB: Fanning, Chairman; 
Penello and Truesdale, Members. 
ELECTION Sec. 9(c) 
-Election interference ► 62.5598 
Employer that provides guard serv-
ices to another company under contract 
BURNS INT'L SECURITY SVCS. 
with this company and publlc utility 
did not Interfere with election when, six 
days before election, employer distrib-
uted to employees paychecks represent-
in·g retroactive wage increases that It 
and other company had agreed on. < 1) 
Paychecks were distributed after public 
utility had approved wage increases as 
required by contract; <2> it Is Immateri-
al that paychecks were handwritten, 
since purpose was to get them out to 
employees as quickly as possible and be-
fore Christmas, a procedure that em-
ployees were familiar with; (3) If em-
ployer had delayed payment or wage In-
creases, union might well have accused 
employer of unlawfully demonstrating 
to employees that It was source of all 
employee benefits and that It had 
power to punish employees for union 
activity. 
The vote was 17 for the union and 35 
against It; there were no challenged or 
void ballots. The union filed objections 
to the election, and a hearing officer 
subsequently recommended that Ob-jections 1 and 2 be overruled but that 
Objection 4 be sustained and the elec-
tion be set aside . Objection 3 was with-
drawn. 
[TexLJ The Petitioner's Objection 4 con-
tains general language contendin1 that the 
Employer · Improperly Interfered with the 
election by other unspecified conduct. 
The Employer provides 1uard services to 
the Bechtel Power co·rporatlon under a con, 
tract with Bechtel and the Philadelphia 
Electric Corporation <PECO>. Each year the 
Employer and Bechtel negotiate an amend• 
ment to the contract covering charges for 
employee wages and benefits. etc., which is 
subject to final approval by PECO. The ex-
istence of this arrangement Is common 
knowledge among the employees. 
On November 3, 1978, the new contract 
proposals, Including a wage raise, were sub-
milled by the Employer to Bechtel. The pe• 
tllion herein was filed November 22, 1978, 
and the election was scheduled for Decem-
ber 21. 1978. PECO's final approval of the 
new contract amendment was not secured 
until December Hi, 1978, and the new agree-
ment, with a term commencing November 
24. 1978, and the retroactive wage lncrea.,e, 
was signed by the parties on that date. 
On December 15, 1978, six days before the 
election, the employees were Informed of the 
terms of the new contract and the Increases 
In their wages and benefits. Also on that day 
Branch Manager McKay distributed checks 
representing the retroactive increase to all 
employees. McKay had the checks prepared 
by hand and some employees were tele-
phoned at home and told to come back to the 
site to receive their checks. He testiried that 
it. was not unusual for negotiations such as 
these to extend beyond the expiration date 
of the contract. He stated that in all such 
cases It was the Employer's practice to give 
employees lump sum checks for retroactive 
wage increases. However. McKay testified 
that the normal procedure was to run all 
such relroaclive paychecks through the pay-


Memorandum on Bargaining Tactics, 1979

Memo to all WCIRA consultants with 102 LRRM 1079-1080 attached discussing Arrow Molded Plastics Inc. and employee participation in illegal and unauthorized work slowdowns.6474b1f06_11.pdf: 10 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Ogden, Warren C.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&amp;context=leonardscott

Memorandum on Bargaining Tactics, 1979

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)