Foster D. Snell, Inc.

In the Matter of FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. and METROPOLITAN FEDERATION OF ARCIirrECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS, AND TECHNICIANS, LOCAL 231, iJOPWA, CIO Case No. O-C--86O4.-Decided November 18, 1947 4[r. Bertram Diamond, for the Board. Mr. Carl P. Lot/zrop , of New York, N. Y., for the Respondent. MYir. Thomas R. Sullivan, of New York, N. Y., for the Union. DECISION AND ORDER1 On December 6,1946, Trial Examiner Mervin N. Bachman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent, Foster D. Snell, Inc., 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support- ing brief. The respondent requested and was granted permission to argue orally before the Board in Washington, D. C. On October 1, 1947, the Board notified the respondent that it had rescinded its action in granting oral argument, and that in lieu of oral argument, any party desiring to do so would be permitted to file, within 20 days there- after, a supplemental brief or written argument setting forth the matters which would have been covered in the oral argument. No such supplemental briefs or written arguments have been filed by any party. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and supporting brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's 1 The power of the Board to issue a Decision and Order in a case such its the instant one, where the charguie union ha, not complied pith the filing iegiurements speLnfied in section 9 (f), (g), and (11) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Naas decided by the Board in hatter of Jilai clean and B1 uce Companit , 75 N L R B 90 75 N L It R , No 31 - i 230 FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 231 findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the additions and modification of the form of order 2 noted below : At the hearing, the respondent moved that the Trial Examiner take judicial notice of the provisions of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.3 While the Trial Examiner did not specifically rule on the motion at the hearing, it is evident that, in his Intermediate Report, he.consid- ered the impact of the Clayton Act upon the merits by finding that the respondent's contention predicated upon the alleged applicability of that statute was unfounded. However, the Board will herein spe- cifically grant the motion and has taken judicial notice of the provi- sions of the Clayton Act. We have again carefully considered the respondent's contention and argument in its brief that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its operations. We see no reason to depart from our original finding that the Board does have jurisdiction.4 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Foster D. Snell, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively with Metro- politan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Techni- cians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, if and when said labor organization shall have complied, within 30 days from the date of this Order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended,5 as the exclusive representative of all technical employees of the respondent employed at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers and technicians, but excluding office and management em- ployees, service and maintenance employees, and supervisors; (b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, if and when said labor organization shall have 2 ,lir Houston and Mr . Murdock have stated their dissent fi om the conditional foi in of order in Matter of .lfarshall and Bruce Company, 75 N L R B 90 However, they now feel bound by the majority decision in that case , and, accordingly, concur in the form of order herein a 38 Stat 730 In addition to cases pieviousl } cited , see Aunerican Medical Association v United States, 317 U S 519 Borden Company v Borella , 325 U S 679 Mabee v White Plains Puhl,sh- inq Co 327 U S 178 lVall,nq v Hunt Co , ( 1) C N D 111 ) 12 Labor Cases , Par 61, 721) Batter Itrothei s v N. L R B, 124 F ( 2d) 981 ( C C A 7 ), cert denied 320 U S 789 5 As to what con,tulutes comphance in this aespeet , see Matte, of Northern F rginw Rroadcactrrs . Inc. 73 N L R I, 11 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD complied with the filing requirements of the Act, as amended, in the manner set forth above, to negotiate for or to represent the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, and upon compliance by the Union with the filing requirements of the Act, as amended, in the manner set forth above, bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWVA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, acid other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written, signed agreement; (b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plant located in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second 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 and also for an additional thirty (30) consecutive days in the event of compliance by the Union with the filing require- ments of the Act, as amended, 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 Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, and again within (10) days from the future date, if any, on which the respondent is officially notified that the Union has met the condition hereinabove set forth, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEN BEE HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. "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 National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: In the event that this Oider is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted, before the -,w ords "A Decision and 01 der ' the words "Decree of the United. States Ciicmt Couit of Appeals Enforcing" FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 233 WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement; provided said labor organi- zation complies, within thirty (30) days from the date of the aforesaid Order of the Board, With Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The bargain- ing unit is : All technical employees of Foster D. Snell, Inc., employed at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, including chemists, bac- teriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and maintenance em- ployees, and supervisors. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named Union to negotiate for or represent employees of the aforesaid bargaining unit, as their exclusive bargaining agent; provided said labor organization complies, within thirty (30) days from the date of the aforesaid Order of the Board, with Section 9 (f), (g) and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. FOSTER D. SNELL, INC., Employer. By --------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated ------------------ INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board Mr. Carl P. Lothrop, of New York, N. Y, for the Respondent. Mr. Thomas R. Sullivan, of New York, N Y., for the Union. STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on October 3, 1946, by Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York) issued its complaint against Foster D. Snell, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing where duly served, iilion the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in, subct ince : (1) all technical employees of Respondent employed at its Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; (2) on or about September 24, 1946, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused to recognize and to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees in the unit designated by the Board as appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining although a majority of said employees in such appropriate unit, by secret ballot conducted on or about August 19, 1946, selected said Union as their collective bargaining representative Thereafter, the Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted certain of the allegations of the complaint, claimed that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the operations of the Respondent and denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. In substance, the answer alleged that the Respondent is not engaged in commerce, and that its operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in New York, New York, on November 18, 1946, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its International Representative Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues was afforded all parties Since the facts were stipulated no witnesses were called. A motion made by counsel for the Board to confoim the pleadings to the proof as to such matters as dates, typographical errors and other minor variances was granted without objection Motions to dismiss the complaint made by counsel for the Respondent were taken under advisement and ruling was reserved thereon by the undersigned at the hearing. These motions and each of them are now denied for reasons appearing hereinafter in this report. Opportunity for the filing of briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law with the undersigned was extended to the parties and was waived by them. Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, with its principal office and place of business situated in Brooklyn, New York, is engaged in furnishing scientific and technical advisory services. It makes chemical and physical analyses of samples of materials and products submitted by its clients, conducts research, and renders reports thereon. During the year ending September 30, 1946, the approximate weekly number of such reports embodying results of Respondent's research and opinions derived therefrom which were transmitted by the Respondent to its clients, averaged 125. During the same period, 40 percent of such reports were sent by Respondent FOSTER D. SNELL,.INC. 235 to clients outside the State of New York In addition to this work, which is carried on in its laboratory and other facilities in Brooklyn, employees of the Respondent are sent, at times, to plants of clients to instruct the latter's personnel in the operation of new manufacturing processes About 125 of the approxi- mately 320 clients serviced by the Respondent in the year ending September 30, 1946, have plants located in States of the United States other than New York and about 10 clients have plants located in foreign countries. Approxi- mately 60 percent of the materials and products tested by the Respondent is shipped to Respondent's plant in Brooklyn by clients from their respective plants Most of such materials is retained; about 5 percent is returned Respondent's reports and opinions to its clients have been and are transmitted by mail, tele- graph, and other means of communication in and between States of the United States and foreign countries. During the year ending September 30, 1946, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, earned fees in excess of $250,000 from its clients for services rendered of which approxi- mately 39 percent was derived from services rendered to clients located outside the State of New York During the same period, the Respondent purchased and caused to be delivered to its Brooklyn plant approximately $5,000 worth of equip- ment and supplies of which approximately 15 percent was transported to said Brooklyn plant from States of the United States other than New York During the same period, Respondent spent approximately $1,700 for listings in various trade journals which are sold and distributed throughout the United States. The Respondent stipulated at the hearing in the instant case that its operations have continued to be substantially the same as those found by the Board in the i1fatter of Poster D. Snell, Inc.' The sole defense of the Respondent to the complaint herein is predicated upon its contention that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its operations In support of its contention before the undersigned, the Respondent argued, in substance, that it was not engaged in commerce and that its operations do not affect com- merce within the meaning of the Act. In rejecting the Respondent's similar contention in the representation case, the Board stated : "The facts . . . establish that a substantial portion of the products tested, reports made, and supplies and materials used by the Company are transported in interstate commerce; that the Company performs services which form an essential part of the manufacturing processes of its many clients who are directly engaged in interstate commerce ; and that the inter- ruption of performance of the Company's services by season of a labor dis- pute would interfere with the free flow in interstate commerce of its clients' products. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Company's operations meet the jurisdictional tests outlined lin the Act, and established by the courts,' and find, contrary to the Company's contention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act." ' Matter of Electrical Testing Laboratories , Inc, 65 N L R. B. 1239 ; Matter of United States Testing Co , Inc, 5 N L R B. 696, Polish National Alliance of the United States of America v N. L. R. B , 322 U. S 643 ; N L. R B v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S 1. The undersigned finds nothing in the evidence adduced and the arguments made herein which justifies a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Board in '69 N. L. It. B 764 . The above findings are based upon a stipulation of the parties which was admitted in evidence at the instant hearing 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the representation case. Consequently, the undersigned finds that the opera- tions of the Respondent are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, is a labor organization admitting employees of the Respondent to membership. Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain 1 The appropriate unit On July 22, 1946, after an appropriate hearing, the Board found that all technical employees of the Respondent at its plant in Brooklyn, New York, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 3 At the hearing in the present case, the parties stipulated to the appropriateness of said unit, and the under- signed finds that at all times material herein, the aforesaid unit has been and is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 2 Majority status of the Union On August 19, 1946, an election was conducted among the employees in the above-found unit pursuant to the direction of the Board in the above-noted representation case. At such election a majority of the employees in the afore- said appropriate unit, by secret ballot, selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative. On September 10, 1946, the Board issued its certifica- tion of the Union as the exclusive representative of such employees At the hearing in the present case the parties stipulated that the Union was, on August 19, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees in the above-found appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Respondent with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and the undersigned accordingly so finds. 3. The refusal to bargain At the hearing in the present case the Respondent stipulated that on Septem- ber 24, 1946, and at all times thereafter, it has refused to bargain with the 2 The Respondent argued herein that its operations constitute "labor" as defined in the Clayton Act , and that , since "labor" is defined therein as not being "a commodity" or "article of commerce," its operations do not constitute commerce for the purpose of con- ferring jurisdiction upon the Board The undersigned finds no merit in this position be- cause its clear implication is to the effect that the Board 's jurisdiction depends upon the tangible nature of the item manufactured or sold by an employer Both the Board and the Courts, as noted in the excerpt from the cited representation case, have rejected this view, as does the undersigned herein i See footnote 1 above. FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 237 Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-found appropriate unit The stipulation shows that the Union, on or about September 18, 1946, and again on or about October 3, 1946, requested the Respondent to bargain col- lectively with it as exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board In reply the Respondent, by letter dated September 24, 1946, stated, in substance, that it was under no duty to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union because the Board lacked jurisdiction over its operations and that therefore the Board's findings as to the appropriateness of the unit. the majority status of the Union, and its certification of the Union as exclusive representative of its employees wete not binding upon the Respondent The Respondent reiterated this position on October 7, 1946 The arguments of the Respondent adduced to support its position in this connection have been considered and rejected as untenable in an earlier section of this Report' The undersigned therefore finds that, on September 24, 1946, and at all times thereatter, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON CO1IMERCF The activities 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 Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because the Respondent's refusal to bargain is predicated solely upon its juris- dictional objection, and because there is no evidence that danger of other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent 's conduct, the under- signed will recommend only that the Respondent, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from any other acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to negotiate for or represent the employees as exclusive bargaining representative in the unit herein found appropriate. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All technical employees of the Respondent employed at its Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all 4 See Section I above. 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, was on August 19, 1946, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on September 24, 1946, and at all times thereafter to recognize and to bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5. By the above 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 has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Foster D. Snell, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively with Metropolitan Fed- eration of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all technical employees of the Respondent employed at its Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and technicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and mainte- nance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request bargain collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Archi- tects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written, signed agreement ; (b) Post at its plant located in Brooklyn, New York, copies of the notice attached to this Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, after being signed by the Respondent's representative shall be posted by the Respondent FOSTER D. SNELL, INC. 239 immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) con- secutive 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 Second Region in writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies 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. As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions and objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, 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. MERVIN N BACHMAN, Ti iat Examiner. Dated December 6, 1946. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL BARGAIN collectively with Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWA, CIO, as the ex- clusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All technical employees of Foster D. Snell, Inc., employed at its Brooklyn plant, including chemists, bacteriologists, engineers, and tech- nicians, but excluding office and management employees, service and maintenance employees, and all supervisory employees with authority 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to hire, promote discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above- named Union to bargain with us or refuse to bargain with said Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. FOSTER D. SNELL, INC., Employer. Dated --------------------- By ---- (Representative ) (Title)