General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 779 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UA`V-CIO
Case No. 7-CA-37.-Decided February 18, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 3, 1948, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's ruling and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs of the parties, and the entire record in the case,' and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the additions noted below.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that by acting uni-
laterally with regard to its group insurance program, without con-
sulting with the Union on this subject, the Respondent has refused
to bargain collectively, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.2
We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that its unilateral
promulgation of a group insurance program was not unlawful be-
cause "no union demand to bargain was made or outstanding" at times
herein material. The record shows, inter alia, that on August 26,
1947, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain about "social
security," which according to the record embraced group insurance, as
well as "Old Age Retirement." A little over a month later the Re-
1 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record and papers filed
herein adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 While Board Member Gray+ is of the view, that group insuran ,ce,programs 6hould be left
to the field of voluntary collective bargaining for the reasons set forth in his dissenting
opinions in the Cross and Inland Steel cases (footnote 5, infra), he deems himself bound
by the holdings of the majority in those cases.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 126. 779
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent, without consulting the Union, concluded its agreement with
the insurance carrier for the program here in question. We are con-
vinced that this request satisfied whatever burden the Union may have
had under the circumstances again to initiate bargaining negotiations 3
with respect to group insurance 4 However, the Union went further
and unsuccessfully again sought to engage the Respondent in bargain-
ing negotiations even after the Respondent had publicly announced
its decision to institute an insurance program. The Respondent's con-
duct in thus failing and refusing to bargain with the Union is con-
sistent with its stated position that, even if the Union had made a
proper demand for bargaining as to group insurance, "the Respondent
would not have bargained concerning the subject" because of its con-
viction that group insurance is not within the area of compulsory col-
lective bargaining.5
In any event, apart from any question concerning the alleged absence
of a demand by the Union to bargain with respect to group insurance,
we find that Respondent's unilateral action in instituting the insur-
ance plan and thus altering existing wages and conditions of em-
ployment, without consulting the Union, constituted a refusal to
bargain, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (a) (5) of
the Act.e
The Respondent also contends that the so-called "Gentlemen's Agree-
ment," 7 allegedly made contemporaneously with the Supplemental
Agreement of April 1947, as fully described in the Intermediate Re-
port, relieved the Respondent of whatever obligation it may otherwise
have had to bargain with the Union as to group insurance. In finding
no merit in this contention, we agree with the Trial Examiner's inter-
pretation of this alleged oral agreement and of its legal effect. We note
a Ritzwoller Company v. N. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 432 ( C. A. 7), 1940.
During the April 1947 negotiations and on prior occasions , the Union made it clear to
the Respondent that it desired to bargain with respect to insurance.
5 That the Respondent 's position is erroneous , as a matter of law, is now well settled.
Matter of W. W. Cross & Company, 77 N. L. R. B . 1182; Matter of Inland Steel Company,
77 N. L R. B. 1 ; enf'd 170 F. (2d) 247 (C. A. 7).
In May Department Stores v. N . L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, the Supreme Court held :
"Employer action to bring about changes in wage scales without consultation and negotia-
tion with the certified representative of the employees cannot, we think , logically or realis-
tically, be distinguished from bargaining with individuals or minorities . * * * Such
unilateral action minimizes the influence of organized bargaining . It interferes with the
right to self-organization by emphasizing to the employees that there is no necessity for a
collective bargaining agent." See also National Labor Relations Board v. Crompton-High-
land Mills, Inc., 70 N. L. R. B . 206. enf . denied 167 F . ( 2d) 662; (C. A. 5) certiorari granted,
October 11 , 1948. Matter of Andrew Jergens Co., 76 N. L. R. B. 363.
' According to the Respondent , the alleged "Gentlemen 's Agreement" is as follows :
The union will not ask for a discussion of negotiation on its social security and
old-age retirement demands unless General Motors is in open negotiation with other
unions. The union agrees that it will not make demands on its social security or its
old-age retirement program, until April 28, 1948 , and that it will not in any way
exert economic pressure to force a discussion of those demands prior to that time.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 781
'that in its brief, the Respondent argues that the purpose and effect of
the "Gentlemen's Agreement" was to render meaningless Section 4
of the Supplemental Agreement of April 24, 1947.8 But even if
Section 4 be given no legal effect, as argued by the Respondent, there
is no reasonable basis for concluding, on this record and in the face
of the Respondent's admission that the Union never agreed to have
the Respondent act unilaterally with respect to group insurance, that
the Union by its contractual arrangement with the Respondent waived
its right under the Act to bargain as to group insurance.
Finally, the Respondent contends that in no event should its con-
duct be found violative of the Act because (1) the refusal to bargain
was "made in good faith and not in bad faith," and (2) the Union
failed to use the contract's grievance procedure in connection with the
refusal to bargain. We find no merit in this contention. It is clear
that Respondent's refusal to bargain was based on the erroneous legal
premise that there was no statutory obligation to bargain as to insur-
ance. On questions of law, like the one here raised, the Respondent
acted at its peril and its asserted good faith does not excuse its other-
wise unlawful conduct .9 Nor do we believe that it would effectuate
the policies of the Act to permit the Respondent to avoid its obligation
to bargain under the Act because the Union invoked the Board's juris-
diction instead of attempting to seek some sort of relief under the per-
missible grievance procedure of the contract. Indeed, we believe that
the Board is the proper forum for adjudicating such legal issues as
are here raised by the Respondent .10
2. We find merit in the Union's exception that the Trial Examiner's
recommended order is too restrictive in that it refers only to the par-
ticular insurance plan adopted by the Respondent. As heretofore
mentioned, the Respondent's position includes a rejection of the prin-
ciple of collective bargaining as to any and all group insurance pro-
grams. We shall accordingly frame an appropriate order to cover this'
situation.
3. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had not violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by coercing its employees to participate
8 Section 4 of the Supplemental Agreement reads as follows :
The union 's demand for a social security and old-age retirement program will continue
as a subject for discussion and negotiation following the execution of this Agreement.
6 See Matter of Hearst Publications , Inc., 39 N. L. R. B . 1245, 1262, enf'd 322 U. S 111,
reversing 136 F. ( 2d) 608 ( C. A. 9). Matter of Robert S. Green, Inc ., 33 N L. R. B. 1184,
enf. 125 F. ( 2d) 485 . National Labor Relations Board V . Sunshine Minsng Co ., 110 F. (2d)
780; Polish National Alliance v. N. L. R. B, 42 N . L. R. B. 1375, enf. 136 F. ( 2d) 175,
.affirmed 322 U. S. 643.
10 In view of our disposition of the Respondent's contention with respect to the Union's
3ailure to invoke the grievance procedure , we find it unnecessary to reopen the record, as
requested by the Respondent , in order to receive further evidence on this point. The
Respondent 's motion is hereby denied.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the Respondent's group insurance program and recommended dis-
missal of this allegation of the complaint. In the absence of exceptions
to this finding, we adopt it without further comment.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent , General Motors Corpora-
tion , and its officers , agents, successors and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , UAW-CIO, with respect to any group insurance program,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees included
in the appropriate units described in the proceedings listed in
"Appendix B" of the attached Intermediate Report;
(b) Making any unilateral changes, affecting any employees in the
units represented by the Union, with respect to any group insurance
program without prior consultation with the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with respect to any group
insurance program with the Union as the exclusive representative of
all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate units;
(b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plants in all its
divisions in California , Connecticut , Delaware, Georgia , Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin , copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region , shall , after being
duly signed by the Respondent 's representative , be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
u In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 783
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent coerced its employees to participate in the Re-
spondent's group insurance program in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all of the employees in the bargaining units described
herein, with respect to any group insurance program.
WE WILL NOT make any unilateral changes in any group insur-
ance program affecting any employees in the bargaining units
without prior consultation with the Union.
The bargaining units are described in detail in the numerous
representation cases heretofore had before the National Labor
Relations Board, listed in Appendix B of the Intermediate Report
and made a part hereof by reference.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harold A. CraneJield and Mr. Jerome H. Brooks, of Detroit, Mich., for the
General Counsel.
Mr. Henry M. Hogan, by Mr. Harry S. Benpamsn, Jr., Mr. Richard E. Helms and
Mr. W. J. 0ldani, of Detroit, Mich., for the Respondent.
Mr. A. L. Zwerdlhng and Mr. Abner Brodie, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed January 22 , 1:)48, by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region ( Detroit, Michigan),'
3 The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing will be referred to herein
as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board will be called the Board.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued a complaint dated January 27, 1948, against the General Motors Corpora-
tion, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947,2 herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the
charge and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance :
(1) that the Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in numerous appropriate units, and since about
May 29, 1940, the Respondent and the Union have consolidated negotiations and
bargaining on subjects common to or effecting similarly all employees in all of
said units; that on August 18, 1945, and again on April 17, 1947, the Union re-
quested the Respondent to bargain collectively in respect to a union proposal
that the Respondent assume or contribute to the cost of securing additional
insurance benefits for the employees ; that on April 24, 1947, the Respondent and
the Union executed a supplemental collective bargaining agreement wherein it
was stated that the Union's insurance proposal should continue as a subject for
discussion and negotiation between the parties ; that on or about December 31,
1947, without prior notice to or bargaining with the Union, the Respondent of-
fered to its employees a group insurance plan providing benefits somewhat similar
to those suggested by the Union, and refused and continues to refuse to bargain
collectively concerning the Union's insurance proposals or the insurance proposed
by the Respondent. (2) Since December 31, 1947, the Respondent has engaged
in a continuous course of coercion of many of its employees in many of its plants
to compel them to participate in the Respondent's group insurance plan and to
authorize the Respondent to deduct premiums therefor from their wages. (3)
By the above acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the
Act.
The Respondent's answer filed February 6, 1948, admits that since about May
29, 1940, is has recognized, negotiated with, and bargained with the Union on
issues common to or affecting similarly all employees in numerous units wherein
the Union is the certified bargaining agent, and that it entered into collective
bargaining agreements with the Union on March 19, 1946, and again on April 24,
1947. The answer denies the commission of any of the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and affirmatively alleges that the Respondent was and
is under no obligation to bargain collectively concerning insurance proposals of
the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from February 12 to and including Feb-
ruary 23, 1948, at Detroit, Michigan, before J J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel, the Respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties.
At the time the respondent filed its answer it also moved for a Bill of Particu-
lars giving the names and dates when officials or agents of the Respondent com-
mitted the alleged acts of coercion and also the names of the employees who
claimed to have been coerced thereby. Ruling on the motion was referred to the
2 The National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended June 23, 1947 , by public
Law 101 , 80th Congress , Chapter 120 , First Session.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 785
Trial Examiner. However, prior to the hearing, the General Counsel furnished
the Respondent with the names of the officials and agents of the Respondent and
the dates upon which the allegations of coercion were based. At the opening
of the hearing the Respondent again moved that it be furnished with the names
of the coerced employees. The motion was denied on the ground that the infor-
mation previously furnished was adequate to enable the Respondent to properly
prepare its defense.'
At the conclusion of the testimony, counsel for the Respondent moved to dis-
miss the 8 (a) (1) and also the 8 (a) (5) allegations in the complaint, each on
the ground of failure of proof. The motions were taken under advisement and
are disposed of as hereafter appears. All the parties waived oral argument, but
requested and were granted time after the close of the hearing to file briefs. The
only brief received is from the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT 4
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
General Motors Corporation is a Delaware corporation with principal business
offices located in New York, New York, and in Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged
in the manufacture and assembly of automotive vehicles, parts and accessories
thereof, Diesel engines, refrigerators, and other products. It is the largest manu-
facturer of automobiles and trucks in the United States and during the calendar
year 1947 manufactured more than 1,400,000 passenger-type vehicles. It main-
tains and operates manufacturing and assembly plants in the States of California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachu-
setts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. At prac-
tically every manufacturing and assembly plant over 25 percent in value of the
materials used is obtained directly or indirectly from sources outside the State
in which the respective plant is located. Most of the products of each plant are
shipped to points outside the particular State, or are delivered to another plant
for incorporation in a subassembly, assembly, completed automobiles, trucks or
engines, which completed products are directly or ultimately shipped in substan-
tial proportions beyond the State line. The normal operations of the Respondent
cause a large and continuous movement of commodities in interstate commerce
and to a lesser extent in foreign commerce.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and chronology
In the year 1926 the Respondent arranged with the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company of New York for the issuance of a group insurance policy under which
3In denying the motion, however, the Respondent was advised that if the ruling, in any
manner, handicapped the preparation of its defense, on application and proper showing,
additional time would be granted. Later in the hearing such additional time was granted.
* Except where otherwise appears herein, findings are based upon credible and uncontro-
verted evidence.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the Respondent who subscribed thereto were given certificates enti
thing them or their beneficiaries to benefits in the event of the assureds' disability
or death. Hospital and surgical coverage was also included in the policy in the
year 1939. Under the terms of the insurance contract the Respondent paid the
total premiums each year to the insurance company, but reimbursed itself in part
at least by pay-roll deductions from subscribing employees.
In more recent years the Union has represented for purposes of collective bar-
gaining more than a majority of the Respondent's workers in numerous appropri-
ate units throughout the various plants ; and the Respondent has negotiated with
and dealt with the Union as the exclusive representative of these employees in
matters pertaining to wages, hours and working conditions. Since May 1940,
the parties have consolidated all negotiations and bargaining on subjects common
to or affecting similarly employees in all of these units and have consummated
such collective bargaining by agreements.
During negotiations in the spring of 1941 the Union requested that the Respond-
ent extend the coverage in its group insurance contract so as to include medical
care and hospitalization for the families of the insured employees under what
was known as the Blue Cross Plan.`
On April 29, 1941, the Respondent by letter to R. J. Thomas, the then president
of the Union, acknowledged receipt of this request on the part of the Union as
follows :
The Union has requested as part of the current negotiations, that the cor-
poration adopt the so-called Michigan Hospitalization Plan for its employees'
families. The Corporation has nothing against the Michigan Plan. In fact,
some of the Corporation's officials sponsored the original plan. The Corpora-
tion questions whether or not a hospitalization plan for employees' families is
possibly a bargainable issue as such a plan has nothing to do with wages,
working hours or working conditions.
To clear up the whole matter the Corporation is making the following
statement to all of its employees :
The letter then went on to state that, unless a plan to extend coverage to the
employees' wives and minor children that the Respondent was then studying with
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was put into effect within 90 days
from the date of the letter, the Respondent would make the suggested additional
hospitalization insurance available to its employees.
The record does not disclose whether the Respondent revealed to those of its
employees not represented by the Union its intentions thus to extend the insurance
benefits, but in any event, later that year the Blue Cross Plan was added to the
group coverage.
During the next 2 years the Union created a department for the purpose of
studying the various phases of social security for employees particularly in large
business concerns similar to General Motors.
On August 18, 1945, the Union, in giving the Respondent written notice of its
demand for a 30-percent wage increase, suggested that a certain percentage of the
increase in wages sought be set aside to create a Social Security Fund to provide
additional protection for the employees and their families. In the ensuing nego-
tiations this proposal was discussed, but no mention was made of social security
in the 2-year contract that was eventually executed as of March 19, 1946.
Taking adhantage of a clause in this contract permitting the reopening of uego-
tiations on wages and other economic issues, the Union on March 20, 1947, re-
" Also sometimes referred to as the Michigan Hospitalization Plan.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 787
quested negotiations for a general wage increase. The letter also specified as
subjects for negotiations group insurance and a retirement program . In the nego-
tiations that followed, the Union submitted detailed proposals for a social security
program to be adopted by the Respondent. Negotiations between the parties con-
tinued thereafter for several weeks, but no agreement was reached until April 24,
1947. On this latter date the parties executed a written supplement to the cur-
rent existing contract providing for a general across-the-board wage increase for
the employees. No disposition was made of the Union's demands relative to group
insurance or old-age retirement but a clause was inserted in the supplemental con-
tract providing that the Union's social security demands "will continue as a sub-
ject for discussion and negotiation following the execution of this agreement."
On August 26, 1947, Union President Reuther wrote to H. W. Anderson, vice
president of the Respondent in charge of labor relations, reiterating a suggestion
Reuther had previously made that the Respondent and the Union undertake a
joint study of a pension plan for General Motors workers. The letter concluded,
I am requesting an early meeting to discuss the problem of social security
and old-age retirement as provided in Section 4 of our agreement.
No written acknowledgement of this communication was received, and on October
3, 1947, Reuther sent Anderson a preliminary statement of minimum standards
the Union required in a pension program.
Whether the subject of group insurance was discussed in the numerous con-
ferences and meetings of the Union and the Respondent after April 24, 1947, and
until the fall of that year, is in dispute. Testimony in the record as to what
transpired at these meetings is limited to that of President Reuther, who headed
the union negotiating committe, and Louis G. Seaton, director of labor rela-
tions, who headed the Respondent's negotiating committee. Reuther testified
rather generally that in meetings after April 24 the question of group insurance
was raised by him during these meetings and that there was some discussion
thereon. He was unable, however, to give any specific date when this discus-
sion took place. Seaton testifying more specifically stated that, while there were
some discussions on the pension plan, in none of the meetings either before or
after August was the subject of group insurance brought up. It is unnecessary to
reconcile the variance in the testimony of the witnesses in this respect as the
record is conclusive that the Respondent during this period made no commitment
or concession to the Union relative to either an insurance or a pension plan.
Likewise the record discloses that during the spring, summer, and early fall
of 1947 the Respondent gave the Union no notice or indication of its intention
to present to the employees unilaterally a new insurance program.
Actually the Respondent had been negotiating since at least October 1947 with
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relative to a new group insurance
program providing greater protection for its employees than the old contract, but
it was not until November 21, and after arrangements for the new contract had
been completed with the insurance company, that Seaton telephoned A. John-
stone, assistant director of the Union's General Motors department, a new group
insurance plan would be effective as of February 1, 1948. Johnstone protested
and promptly issued a press release to the effect that such action constituted a
violation by the Respondent of its obligation to bargain collectively with the
Union concerning group insurance.
In December the Respondent began an intensive campaign to "sell" the advan-
tages and benefits of the new plan to its employees and secure their enrollment
therein. It extolled the virtues of the new program in issues of "Folks," a inaga-
829595-50-vol. 81-51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zine issued approximately every month by the Respondent, and by pamphlets,
press releases, letters and other means of written advertisement. Supervisors
in the numerous plants in its various Divisions located throughout the country,
acting under instructions from management, solicited each employee working
under him to enroll for the new insurance. As a result of these efforts, by the
middle of January 1948 more than 75 percent ° of the approximately 350,000 em-
ployees of the Respondent had subscribed thereto.
The new insurance contract became effective on February 1, 1948, but on Jan-
uary 19 Union President Reuther by letter to the Respondent's President C. E.
Wilson formally protested against the Respondent' s failure to bargain with the
Union on the subject as provided for under the terms of the supplemental con-
tract executed the previous April, and against coercive tactics being used by
management representatives whereby union workers "have been compelled to
enroll under this new insurance program." The letter demanded that the new
plan be held in abeyance until "the subject matter involved has been discussed
and negotiated with the Union." The Respondent did not reply to this com-
munication and on January 22 the Union filed the charge herein. January 29,
on petition of the Regional Director pursuant to Section 10 (j) of the Act,7 pro-
ceedings were had in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York resulting in an order temporarily restraining the Respondent from
putting into effect the new insurance program insofar as it covered or affected
employees represented by the Union. This restraining order is effective to
June 1, 1948.
B. The refusal to bargain relative to group insurance
1. The appropriate units and representation by the Union of a majority therein
The complaint alleges that the Board "in numerous separate proceedings"
has heretofore certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees of the Respondent in units appropriate for bargaining; that the
units described in said proceedings at all times material herein continued to con-
stitute appropriate bargaining units, the Union has continued as the exclusive
representative of the employees therein, and has been recognized as such by the
Respondent; and that since the first of such certifications in 1940 the Respondent
and the Union have consolidated all negotiations and bargaining on subjects
"common to or effecting similarly all employees in all the said units."
The answer admits that "at all times since" such certifications the Respondent
has recognized the Union as the exclusive representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining in each unit certified by the Board to be appropriate, and
has negotiated with, bargained with, and executed collective bargaining agree-
ments with the Union affecting "several or all" of the employees in the certified
4 The minimum number of contributing and participating employees required if the plan
was to go into effect.
°Section 10 (j) reads as follows:
The Board shall have power , upon issuance of the complaint as provided in sub-
section ( b) charging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor
practice , to petition any District Court of the United States ( including the District
Court of the United States for the District of Columbia), within any district wherein
the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred or wherein such person
resides or transacts business , for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order.
Upon the filing of any such petition the court shall cause notice thereof to be served
upon such persons, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to grant to the Board such
temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 789
units. The record discloses that as a result of these certifications the Union
represents a total of approximately 225,000 employees of the Respondent in
numerous units in about 100 plants of its many Divisions located in the States
of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Mary-
land, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wis-
consin During the hearing a compilation of the various representation pro-
ceedings wherein the Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees in appropriate units, up to January 29,
1947, was received in evidence without objection. Because of the multitude of
these representation cases, it would be impractical here to set forth in detail the
numerous units found to be appropriate. I therefore incorporate herein by ref-
erence the exact description of the appropriate units found in each of the repre-
sentation proceedings included in the compilation. Attached hereto as Appendix
B is a complete list by case number of said representation proceedings.
It is therefore found, in accordance with the facts as above set forth, that
the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, was on the dates of certification found
in the Board's representation proceedings listed in Appendix B hereof and at
all times thereafter has been, and now is, the duly designated representative of
the majority of the employees in the various units found appropriate in said
certifications and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act the Union at all
times material herein has been and now is the representative of all of the
Respondent's employees in all said units for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
The fundamental facts on which the allegation in the complaint of a refusal
to bargain is based are not disputed. As heretofore found, on April 24, 1947, the
Respondent and the Union entered into a written agreement supplementing a con-
tract dated March 19, 1946, wherein it was agreed that the Union's demands con-
cerning a social security and old-age retirement program should continue as sub-
jects for discussion and negotiation between the parties. Notwithstanding this
provision, the Respondent, in December 1947, without previous notice, discussion,
or negotiation thereon with the Union, offered to its employees a group insurance
plan it had unilaterally adopted. The Respondent's defense to this portion of
the complaint is twofold : first, that on April 24, 1947, at the time the written
supplemental contract was executed, the parties also entered into an oral "gentle-
men's agreement" that the Union would not ask for discussion or negotiation on
its social security and old-age retirement demands until March 19, 1948, the end
of the contract period, unless in the meanwhile the Respondent was in open
negotiation on the subjects with other unions; and secondly, that the Respondent
in any event is not under any legal obligation to bargain collectively with the
Union concerning the latter's insurance proposals and demands.
With reference to the first contention of the Respondent, the record shows
that the Union had been concerned for sometime about a social security program
including an enlarged group insurance plan, and discussed the subject with the
Respondent in the negotiations that preceded the signing of the supplemental
contract on April 24. Earlier in April 1947 the Respondent had executed a con-
tract with the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (herein
called UE), wherein it was agreed that old-age retirement and social security
would continue as subjects for discussion and negotiation between UE and
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Motors following the execution of that contract. It is Seaton's testimony
that in the instant case the union representatives insisted that UAW was entitled
to equal consideration as UE in this respect and should have a similar contract
provision ; but that the Respondent agreed to the inclusion of this clause in the
contract only after the union representatives had all orally agreed that the Union
would not in any way "exert economic pressure to force" discussion or nego-
tiation on its social security and old-age retirement demands prior to March 19,
1948, unless in the meanwhile Respondent was negotiating with other unions
on these subjects. Three other of the Respondent's representatives in the nego-
tiations corroborated Seaton's testimony. President Reuther, who was the only
one on the Union's negotiating committee who testified, stated that at the time
the social security paragraph was under discussion on April 24 the Respondent's
representatives were worried that its inclusion would be construed as a further
economic concession and that to offset this anxiety the union representatives
agreed that the paragraph did not mean "further concession economically, but it
did mean we would begin to do the ground work of getting ready to do this job"
when the 2-year contract was terminated in the spring of 1948.
The General Counsel's objection was overruled that Seaton's testimony relative
to the "gentlemen's agreement" violated the parol evidence rule. The clause in
question that had been inserted in the written supplemental agreement follows :
The Union's demand for a social security and old-age retirement program
will continue as a subject for discussion and negotiation following the exe-
cution of this agreement.
It is at least arguable that in fact and in effect the oral "gentlemen's agreement"
did alter the terms of the written provision. Assuming, however, that it was for
clarification purposes only, a reasonable reconciliation of the interpretation by
both parties of the understanding is that, while social security and old-age retire-
ment were proper subjects for continuing discussion and negotiation, the Union
would not press its demands thereon during the life of the contract, unless, during
that period, the Respondent took action on the subjects in any way. It was a
two-way street. The Union agreed not to force the issues and the Respondent,
certainly by implication, agreed to keep the questions open during the period 8
That it was understood social security problems were to remain in status quo
during the remainder of the contract period is further evidenced by the uncon-
troverted and unqualified admissions of Seaton and other representatives of the
Respondent that there was no understanding with the Union's representatives
that the Respondent was free, unilaterally and without notice to or discussion and
negotiation with the Union, to inaugurate a new group insurance program, The
evidence is undisputed and it is found that until November 21, 1947, the Union
had no notice or even suspicion that the Respondent was contemplating a new
insurance plan.
I therefore find that in the negotiations between the parties herein that cul-
minated in the happenings of April 24, 1947, the Respondent conceded that the
Union's demands for a social security and old-age retirement program were
proper subjects for discussion and negotiation, and that nothing transpired at
that time or thereafter to relieve the Respondent of the responsibility of bar-
gaining on these subjects with the Union, if such obligation otherwise existed.
8 As stated by the Union in its brief , whatever may have been the situation of the Union
as a result of the April agreement, the Respondent was without authority to disregard its
written stipulation in offering the employees a new insurance program.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 791
This brings us to the second and presumably the main contention of the Re-
spondent, that it is under no obligation in any event to bargain with the Union
in respect to the latter's proposals or demands relative to group insurance for
the employees. The applicable sections of the existing statute are as follows :
SEC. 7. Employees shall have the right to ... bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, .. .
SEC. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an Employer-(5) to
refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees,
subject to the provisions of Section 9 (a).
SEC. 9. (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate
for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees
in such units for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment:.. .
The sections of the Act above quoted are identical in language with the pro-
visions of the National Labor Relations Act under which unions as representa-
tives of employees have bargained collectively for more than 10 years last past.
During these years among the accepted subjects in the expanding field of col-
lective bargaining were social security programs including group insurance,
hospitalization, medical care, old-age pensions and other alleged subjects.' Until
very recently, however, the Board had never been called upon to pass specifically
on the question of whether an employer, on demand by a duly qualified union, was
required to bargain on problems involving social security.
The Respondent did not file a brief, so I do not have any rationalization of its
position that group insurance is not a required subject for collective bargaining
under the circumstances herein found, but from the record it seems reasonably
clear that the Respondent's attitude is that social security questions involving
the employees are matters for management to decide exclusively ; that while
management might receive and discuss suggestions relative to these subjects from
the representative of its employees, it was under no legal compulsion to bargain
collectively on them.10 I am of the opinion, as argued by the Union, that social
security programs, including group insurance, are not only appropriate, recog-
nized, and accepted subjects for collective bargaining, but that the language of
the Act and its legislative history evidence a congressional purpose to require
collective bargaining on these subjects by an employer, when so requested by
the authorized representative of his employees.
It is unnecessary here to enter into any extended analysis as to what the
Congress intended to include in the area of required collective bargaining by
the use of the language in the present Act heretofore quoted. In the Inland
Steel Company case," the Board on April 12, 1948, in deciding that the employer
was obligated to bargain collectively on a pension and retirement program, dis-
' Numerous contracts involving group insurance problems are current in such diverse
industries as Ladies Garments , Men's Clothing , Needle Trade , Steel Manufacturing and Coal
Mining
1° It appears to be the position of the Respondent also that in the fall of 1947 when it
proposed its new insurance program, it did not have before it any current demand or
request on the part of the Union to bargain on group insurance , because as a result of the
"gentlemen 's agreement " of April 24, 1947, all previous requests of the Union to bargain on
the subject had been frozen. This view is unrealistic and is rejected. As previously found
the most that can be inferred from the April understanding is that the Union agreed,
during the life of the contract, not to press social security demands it had already made,
unless the subject was revived by the Respondent during this period.
11 In the Matter of Inland Steel, etc., 77 N. L. R. B. 1.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cussed particularly the meaning of "wages" and "conditions of employment"
used in Section 9 (a), as follows :
One of the broad purposes of the Act, as set forth in Section 1 thereof,
is to encourage collective bargaining as to "wage rates and the purchasing
power of wage earners" as a means of eliminating industrial strife. To
implement this objective, the Congress, in generally defining the ambit of
obligatory collective bargaining , used, not only the specific terms "rates of
pay" and "hours of employment," but also the broad generic and widespread
phrase "wages and other conditions of employment. 2
With due regard for the aims and purposes of the Act and the evils which
it sought to correct, we are convinced and find that the term "wages" as
used in Section 9 (a) must be construed to include emoluments of value, like
pension and insurance benefits which may accrue to employees out of their
employment relationship.
In rejecting Inland's contention that "conditions of employment" meant no
more than physical "working conditions," the Board found :
A synthesis of the definitions in Section 2 (4), (5), and (9) of the Act
and the reasonable implication of the proviso to Section 8 (3), viewed in
relation to Section 8 (5), compel the conclusion, and we find, that i natters
affecting tenure of employment, like the respondent's retirement i q le, He
within the statutory scope of collective bargaining.
In the same case the Board discussed in considerable detail the legislative
history of the present act, and stated :
There is compelling evidence in the legislative history of the amended
Act that the 80th Congress recognized that pension and retirement plans
and other similar "welfare insurance" schemes fell within the meaning
of the terms "wages or other conditions of employment" as written in 1935,
and that it was willing to allow that conclusion to stand.
The logic is inescapable that, group insurance being an "emolument of
value" included in the word "wages" as used in the Act, it is also a term or
condition under which employment is offered included in the generic term
"conditions of employment" appearing in the Act. I therefore find that under
the statute group insurance is a mandatory subject for collective bargaining
by an employer when such bargaining is requested by the authorized bargain-
ing agent of his employees ; that the Union herein as the authorized and exclu-
sive bargaining agent of many of the Respondent's employees had requested
the Respondent to bargain with it on group insurance at and prior to April
24, 1947, as well as thereafter, and that in December 1947 the Respondent,
by unilaterally offering a group insurance program to its employees, without
previous notice or negotiations thereon with the Union, and by refusing the
Union's January 19, 1948, request to bargain on the issue, has failed and
refused to bargain collectively, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
C. Alleged interference, restraint and coercion
As heretofore found, the Respondent for a number of years has carried a group
insurance contract with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New
York covering many workers employed in over 100 plants of numerous Divi-
12 Emphasis in the original decision.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 793
sions 18 located in 15 States of the Union. The new group contract was also
with Metropolitan and under the arrangements it became effective February
1, 1948, provided 75 percent of the Respondent's employees by enrollment agreed
to participate therein. The old contract continued in force but, by amend-
ment also effective February 1, 1948, the policy was less attractive" than
formerly.
In December 1947, after the Respondent had announced the new insurance
program, it engaged in a vigorous campaign by advertising and personal solicita-
tion to induce its employees, including the 225,000 represented by the Union,
to enroll thereunder. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that during
this campaign the Respondent engaged in a "continuous course of coercion of
many of its employees in many plants throughout the United States to compell"
its employees to participate in the new plan.
During this campaign the Respondent prepared and distributed a 24-page
pamphlet entitled "Better Protection" under two covers, one for the salaried
employees and the other for the hourly paid employees. The pamphlet describes
in detail the benefits of life, accident, sickness, and hospital and medical coverage
in the proposed program. Articles as well as cartoons emphasizing the additional
protection afforded appeared in the December and January issues of "As A
Matter Of Fact," a printed bulletin issued periodically by the Respondent for
the information of its salaried employees. Large placards emphasizing the added
coverage were posted at various plants. Plant managers sent to each employee
in his organization a copy of a mimeographed letter detailing the advantages
of the plan to the employees.
In December, also while the above program was under way, all supervisors in
all the plants were briefed on methods of interviewing each employee under them
who had not enrolled for the new insurance as a result of the advertising
campaign. A "Supervisory Guide for New GM Insurance Plan" used by the
instructors in the briefing of the supervisors states in part in the foreword :
The new GM insurance plan is something which neither you nor anyone
under your supervision can afford to pass up. To obtain participation of
everyone who should be in the plan, however, will require an intensive
educational and enrollment program.
The goal-from the standpoint not only of your division but also of each
employee who reports to you-is 100 percent participation. This means you
will want to plan and develop an effective enrollment campaign based on
your knowledge of the Plan and of all individuals who work with you, since
all will be eligible to participate. . . . The successful enrollment of all
people in your department will result primarily from the efforts you make.
The body of the instruction book in similar vein emphasizes the benefits to the
employees of the new program and calls attention to the literature that had
been sent to the employees. It also contains questions and answers about
practical problems that the supervisor might be confronted with when talking
with employees. Among the questions and answers appear the following :
18 A Division usually includes all plants where a certain type of car is produced or
assembled in whole or in part, like the Cadillac Division , Chevrolet Division, and Buick
Division. But there are other Divisions, as for example, the Truck and Motor Division,
Delco-Remy Division and the Guide-Lamp Division, where the included plants specialize in
trucks and motors , or in accessories to motor-driven vehicles.
14 The amendment eliminated all future increases in amounts of insurance whether arising
trom changes in salary rate or from transfers from hourly to salaried classification.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Question. Can an employee continue to participate in the old plan rather
than enter the new one?
Answer. Yes, but if the employee understands the additional protection
in the New Plan it is not probable that he will wish to retain coverage in the
old plan.
There is credible testimony that in a number of instances during the first half
of January some supervisors, in their enthusiasm to enroll their departments
100 percent in the new plan, advised employees working under them who ex-
pressed an intention to keep their old insurance that the old insurance would
be dropped when the new was adopted, and in some of these instances, the em-
ployee was told that he would be compelled to take the new insurance.
Thus in the Chevrolet Motor Division" Walter Rodak, employed in Plant 1,
testified that his Department Foreman, X. Howitzer, told him on January 7 that
if the new insurance was adopted by the required percent of the employees, the
other employees would also have to enroll therein or be unprotected. Maurice
H. Comstock, employed in Plant 4, testified that his Department Foreman, Charles
Wolf, told him the first week in January that after February 1 the old insurance
contract would be "out"; that a few days later General Foreman Garland
Williams and Assistant Master Mechanic Tom Conway separately reiterated
Wolf's warning to him that the old insurance would be canceled. George Slye,
employed in the same department, testified that on January 5 Williams told him,
"This new Plan was going to supersede the old Plan." This testimony of
Rodak, Comstock and Slyde was not contradicted and is credited.
Four workers, Manailovich, Hicks, Talley and Nielsen, employed in Depart-
ment 1690, Plant 2, of the Truck and Motor Division," testified in substance that
Beatrice Kerr, a checker who performed clerical work for the department fore-
man,1' separately told them during the first half of the month of January that
the new insurance was not optional, and if adopted, it would be the only insurance
available. Talley and Nielsen also testified in addition that Kerr told them
if the new insurance went into effect, employees not participating therein by
February 1 would be compelled to take it thereafter. Kerr denied making the
above statements although she admitted talking to employees in the department
about the new plan. Manailovich, Hicks, Talley and Nielsen impressed me as
reliable witnesses, and in view of the mutually corroborative nature of their
testimony, it is credited in spite of Kerr's denials thereof.
Of the same general tenor, is the testimony of George C. Jarrett, employed
in Department 503 of the Guide-Lamp Division." According to Jarrett's credited
testimony, Department Foreman Vern Booth told him about January 5 or 6
that the employees had no option about the insurance, and if Jarrett did not
enroll in the new plan, he would be without insurance after February 1 if the
program was adopted by 75 percent of the employees.19
" Chevrolet Motor Division operates 23 plants and employs approximately 70,000 workers.
"The Truck and Motor Division employs about 15,500 workers in a number of plants in
Pontiac, Michigan.
11 Kerr's regular duties do not entitle her to be classed as a supervisor, but her own admis-
sions and other evidence in the record justifies the finding, herein made, that she was acting
for management in its efforts to interest employees in the department in the new insurance
program.
18 Guide-Lamp Division is located at Anderson, Indiana, and employs approximately 4,500
workers The record does not disclose the number of plants included in this Division.
"Booth admitted talking to Jarrett on two or three occasions about the new program.
When asked if he told Jarrett that he could not have the old insurance after February 1, he
replied, "No , I don't remember telling anyone that." Testifying further, he related (as
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 795
The testimony of Robert Gustin, employed in the toolroom of Plant 6 of the
Delco-Remy Division 20 at Anderson, Indiana, of somewhat similar import, has
been considered herein but is not credited under the circumstances. Gustin
testified that about January 6 Department Foreman Atterbury told him that he
could not have-any insurance unless he accepted the new plan ; that 2 days
later Assistant Superintendent Harold W. Campbell, informed him that he could
keep the old insurance if he desired, but warned him that if he so elected, and
drew sick benefits, he would have to submit to a physical examination and could
then be compelled to take the new insurance.
Atterbury admitted urging Gustin to enroll in the new program and testified
that when Gustin refused to do so, he told him he would have cards in a few
days for Gustin to sign to the effect that "He understood the new and to retain
the old." He denied telling Gustin that the latter would have to accept the new
plan if he wanted any insurance. Assistant Superintendent Campbell, whom
the record shows was in charge of the insurance program in the plant, gave in
detail what was said in the one conversation he had with Gustin. He testified
that he sent for Gustin on January 13, and urged him to enroll for the new
insurance as Gustin was the only one in the plant who had turned it down;
that during the discussion Gustin stated he understood from Atterbury that he
could retain the old insurance if he desired, and asked if that was correct, and
that Campbell had answered in the affirmative ; that after some further elabora-
tion by Campbell of the benefits of the new plan Gustin again refused to enroll
stating that he had planned on some outside insurance with an educational
feature,21 and that ended the conversation.
There is credible testimony indicating resentment on Gustin's part towards
Atterbury about a personal matter entirely unconnected with insurance. Be-
cause of this possible animus on Gustin's part toward one of the supervisors
and also because the versions of the two supervisors dovetail to some extent
and seem inherently more probable than the unsupported version of Gustin, the
testimony of Atterbury and Campbell is credited.
Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion
The issue is whether the misrepresentations by the supervisors above found
relative to the effect of the new insurance program on the rights of the em-
ployees constitute "a continuous course of coercion" in "many" of the plants
to "compel" the Respondent's employees to participate in the new program. In
disposing of this issue, consideration must be given not only to the statements
of these supervisors taken as a whole, but also to other factors in the record,
including management instructions to supervisors relative to the program and
Jarrett had also testified) that later in the month the Union's Shop Committeeman Parks,
in Jarrett's presence, asked him if he had told any employee that he could not keep the old
insurance if he did not sign up for the new and that he replied , "No, I didn 't remember of
telling anyone that" , that when Jarrett in Parks' presence then accused him of having made
such statement previously to Jarrett he said, "I told him no, I didn't think that I had told
anyone that That question has never come up " The record otherwise shows that the
right of the employees to retain the old insurance was in question at the time. Not only
were some employees asking their supervisors the question, but the Union, through Assistant
Director Johnstone , had sought information on the specific subject from Personnel Director
Seaton. Booth's denial is not credited.
20 Delco-Remy Division has plants at Muncie , Indiana, New Brunswick , New Jersey, and
Anderson , Indiana. The Anderson plants employ about 9,000 workers.
n Gustin testified on cross-examination that he had told Atterbury that he had been
solicited for insurance outside the plant.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what the Union and the employees knew about the program before its effective
date.
An examination of the press releases, magazine articles, pamphlets, and form
letter to employees used by the Respondent in its campaign to "sell" the new
insurance discloses that, while the emphasis is all on the additional benefits in
the new plan, nowhere in this written propaganda is it stated, or suggested,
that acceptance of the new program is compulsory, or that the old group policy
would be canceled. In fact, a letter from President C. E. Wilson appears as a
foreword in the pamphlet "Better Protection," which the Respondent took pains
to see was received and read by all of its employees. The last paragraph of
the letter definitely states that participation in the new program is optional.SII
As has been heretofore noted, in December the Respondent, anticipating that
the advertising appeals might not bring the enrollment in the new plan to the
desired 75 percent, caused all supervisors in the plants of its various Divisions
to be briefed on methods to approach employees working under them who had
not yet subscribed for certificates of the new insurance. The guide book used in
so instructing all these supervisors specifically states that an employee who so
desired could continue his old insurance. This same guide book was used at
about the same time to inform local union shop committeemen in plants of
many if not all the Divisions regarding the program and the employees' rights
thereunder." Furthermore, about the first of January Personnel Director
Seaton, in response to a request, informed Thomas Johnstone, union assistant
director for General Motors, that employees were privileged to retain the old
insurance in preference to the new.
The misinformation relative to the rights of the employees was given the first
half of January by a few supervisors in one or two of many plants of three of
the Respondent's numerous Divisions. The Respondent's organization is enor-
mous. Each Division employs thousands of workers. The false statements
were made to one or two, at the most four, employees, representing in each in-
stance, a very small minority even in the department of the particular plant
where they worked. None of the employees in these isolated instances filed any
grievance about the misstatements or in any other way protested the action of
the supervisors,24 and there is no evidence that their acts came to the attention
of top management of General Motors, or even of the particular Division"
I find that at the beginning of the campaign the Respondent informed all
of its employees that acceptance of the new insurance plan was optional with
re The paragraph reads :
This new insurance is offered to all GM men and women . Joining the new insurance
plan is your own personal decision I believe all of you will want to join when you
understand what it can mean to you and your family through the years.
22 Apparently these meetings of management with the shop committeemen of the union
locals were for the purpose of not only informing the committeemen of the advantages
of the new plan, but also to dissipate any resistance to the program from that source.
24 These employees knew, or could have known from the pamphlet , "Better Protection"
with which they had been previously provided and urged to read , that the statements of
these minor supervisors conflicted with the written commitment of the Respondent's
president.
$ Union Assistant Director Johnstone 's denied testimony is credited that about the first
of January he protested to Seaton against the "pressuring of employees into enrollment
in the Plan and told him that much misinformation was being given to the employees by
foremen and superintendents and others with reference to certain locations ." This protest
was so general and vague that it is insufficient to constitute notice of any specific mis-
representations . But in any event , the record discloses that shortly after January 15
all employees who so desired were supplied with forms to execute waiving their right to.
the new insurance and accepting the old as modified.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 797
them ; that during the campaign it instructed its supervisors and informed the
Union that employees could retain the old insurance in preference to the new
if they so desired ; that there was no ratification of the false statements of
supervisors in the isolated instances above detailed to the effect that employees
could not retain the old insurance and would have to subscribe to the new ; and
that the Respondent with reasonable promptness, and before the plan became
effective, adequately corrected any misinformation relative to the rights of the
employees under the program. I further find that the evidence will not support
the allegations of coercion, and will therefore recommend that such allegations
be dismissed.SB
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activity of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent, by acting unilaterally with regard to
its group insurance program and without consulting with the Union on this
subject, has refused to bargain collectively. In order to effectuate the policies
of the Act it will be recommended that the Respondent be required, upon request,
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the appropriate units with respect to its group insurance program,
and to refrain in the future from acting unilaterally in any matters involving
such program whereby employees in these appropriate units may be substantially
affected, without prior consultation with the Union.
Because the refusal to bargain is limited to the group insurance program
and due to the absence of any evidence that danger of other unfair labor prac-
tices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct, there is no recommenda-
tion that the Respondent cease and desist from the commission of any other
unfair labor practices. However, I will recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist from the unfair labor practice found and from in any manner inter-
fering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it. rr
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
26 The Union in its brief suggests, as an additional reason for sustaining the allegations
that the employees were coerced into participating in the new insurance plan , that the
Respondent designedly made it easy for the employees to enroll under the new plan by
requiring the execution of only one application card already prepared , but that it made it
difficult for employees to retain the old insurance by requiring their signatures to three
applications and by delaying the distribution of one of these essential cards until after
January 15 ; and that benefits under the old insurance were reduced to make it less attrac-
tive. There can be no doubt from this record that the Respondent , taking advantage of
its preferred position as an employer , sought to persuade all of its employees to accept
what it rightly regarded as an improved group insurance program . What I am concerned
with is whether the employees , or any large percentage of them, were coerced into partici-
pating therein . The points raised by the Union lend additional support to the propo-
sition heretofore discussed that group insurance is a subject for collective bargaining, but
do not in any way strengthen testimony herein found inadequate to support a finding that
the Respondent "engaged in a continuous course of coercion" In many plants "to compel"
its employees to join the new plan.
27 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is now, and during all times material herein
has been, the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of all the employes of the Respondent in all the Units heretofore found
to be appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and detailed
in the representation cases listed in Appendix B hereof.
3. By refusing in December 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with International Union, United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
its employees in the aforesaid appropriate units in matters pertaining to group
insurance for or affecting said employees the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of
the Act.
4. By said acts, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by "engaging in a continuous course of coercion
of many of its employees in many plants in the United States to compel the said
employees to participate in the" Respondent's group insurance program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case , I recommend that the Respondent, General Motors
Corporation , and its officers , agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
with respect to its group insurance policies, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all employees included in the appropriate units described in the
proceedings listed in Appendix B hereof ;
(b) Making any unilateral changes, affecting any employees in the units rep-
resented by the Union, with respect to its group insurance policies without prior
consultation with the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with respect to its group insurance
policies with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in
the aforesaid appropriate units;
(b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plants in all its Divisions in
California, Connecticut , Delaware , Georgia, Illinois , Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts , Michigan , Missouri , New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin,
copies of the notices attached to the Intermediate Report herein marked "Appen-
dix A." Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 799
Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for thirty (30) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report notify said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent engaged in a continuous course of coercion of many of its
employees in many plants throughout the United States to compel the said
employees to participate in the Respondent's group insurance program in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings
upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and
six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same
period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board
shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in
said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before
the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived
for all purposes.
J. J. FirziArRicg,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 3, 1948.
APPENDIX A
NoTicE To ALL EmrLoYEEs
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, we hereby notify our employees that :
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all of the employees
in the bargaining units described herein with respect to our group insurance
policy.
WE WILL NOT make any unilateral changes in our group insurance policy
affecting any employees in the bargaining units without prior consultation
with the Union.
The bargaining units are described in detail in the numerous representa-
tion cases heretofore had before the National Labor Relations Board, listed
in Appendix B and made a part hereof by reference.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------
(Representative (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof. and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
CASES IN WHICH THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO, HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN UNITS OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Case number Case number Case number
1-R-2266 7-R-232; R-1728 9-R-1589
1-R-2358 7-R-243; R-1721 9-R-1635
1-R-2554 7-11-318; R-2012 9-R-1646
2-R-1598; R-1777 7-R-343; R-2965 9-R-1987
2-R-1764; R-1969 7-B-365; R-2413 10-B-1488
2-R-1822; R-2078 7-R-379; R-2397 10-R-1639
2-R-1866; R-2169 7-R-380; R-2436 11-R-265; R-1805
2-R-2111; R-2454 7-R-412; R-2308 11-R-309; R-2031
2-R-3363; R-4626 7-R-415; R-2383 11-R-535; 8-3943
2,-R-3776; R-4938 7-R-485; R-2860 11-R-690; R-4937
2-R-4961, 7-R-507; R-2512 13-R-1138; R-3594
-3-R--263 ; R-2703 7-R-526; R-2841 13-R-1158; R-3596
3-11-290; R-3258 13-8-658; R-2403 13-It-2502
3-R-358; R-3766 9-R-469 ; R-2470 13-R-2607
3-R-624 9-R-521; R-2622 13-It-2830
3-R-722 9-R-536; R-2680 14-11-968
3-11-737 amended 14-R-1163
3-R-972 9-R-822; R-4368 15-R-781; 113936
4-R-519; R-2242 9-R-1019; R-5485 16-R-1228
4-R-581; R-2382 9-1-1041; R-5495 17-R-249; R-2528
9-RD-12 9-R-1067; R.-5650 17-11-484; R-4180
4-R-1163; R-5770 9-R-1072; R-5585 17-11-720
5--R-1335; R-5926 9-R-1149; 11-5816 17-R-1280
5-R-1568 9-8-1160 18-R-374; R-3084
5-R-2030 9-R-1387 18-11-477; R-3575
6-11-1278 9-R-1428 21-P-1048; R,4817
7-11-229; R-1726 9-11-1465 21-R-1761; R-4419
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Case number Case number
801
Case number
22-R-246 ; R-3767 7-R-1286; R-5139 7-R-1777
2-R-2294 ; R-2684 7-R-1356 7-8-1805
7-R-290; R-1836 7-R-1359 7-R-1821
7-R-372; R-2588 7-R-1413 ; R-5312 7-8-1915
7-R-394; R-2391 7-R-1434 7-R-1940
7-R-609; R-3470 7-R-1485 7-R-1950
7-R-568; R-3149 7-R-1519 7-R-1967
7-R-625; R-2832 7-R-1526 7-R-1968
7-R-732; R-3300 7-R-1527 7-8-1995
7-R-765 ; R-3352 7-R-1549 7-R-2041
7-R-803 ; R-3219 7-R-1562 7-R-2109
71-R-815; R-3377 7-R-1563 7-8-2126
7-R-912; R-3598 7-Rr-158d 8-R-542 ; R-3160
7-R-944; R-4135 7-R-1588 8-R-543 ; R-3447
7-R-1123; R-4136 7-8-1631 8-R-1204
7-R-1139; R-4357 7-R-1690 8-R-1214 ; R-5931
7-R-1209; R-4697 7-R-1695 amended
7-R-1256 ; R-5778 7-R-1696 8-R-1418
7-R-1621 ; R-5507 7-8-1746