Union Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO - Case No. 10-C-1785.-Decided February f35, 1,948 Mr. M. A. Prowell, for the Board. Weekes c6 Candler, by Mr. Murphy Candler, Jr., of Decatur, Ga., and Messrs. Harold Lamb, F. S. Bryan and H. L. Bryan, of Union Point, Ga., for the respondent. Mr. Kenneth Douty, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. DECISION AND ORDER On November 12, 1946, Trial Examiner Mortimer Riemer issued his Intermediate 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On October 21, 1947, oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, D. C., in which counsel for the respondent and for the Union participated. 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the respondent, the arguments advanced at the oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with this decision. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that on and after May 10, 1944, the respondent refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (5) and 8 (1) of the 76N L. R. B, No 47. 322 UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 323 National Labor Relations Act prior to the recent amendment thereof.' In support of this conclusion, we find it necessary to rely only on the following circumstances which occurred after the parties had held four bargaining conferences for the ostensible purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement: (1) The announcement by the respondent contained in the circular appended to the employees' pay checks on December 21, 1944, relative to payment of a Christmas bonus, and its expression therein of its intent to share its prosperity with the employees provided this could be done "on a voluntary basis"; (2) The respondent's declaration in the letter attached to the pay checks on March 9. 1945, of its intention to continue "going it alone'•' in requesting approval from the National War Labor Board to grant wage increases, notwithstanding the previous denial of one such request by the agency because it had not been signed by the Union ; (3) The suggestion contained in the circular which the re- spondent attached to the pay checks on March 29, 1945, that the employees "form -a committee" to consult with the respondent concerning its efforts to secure economic benefits for the employees ; (4) The announcement by the respondent in the circular at- tached to the pay checks on November 9, 1945, of the grant of a unilateral wage increase and the unilateral promulgation of a bonus plan ; (5) The statement contained in the circular issued by the respondent on November 13, 1945, that the wage increases it had offered to put into effect but which the Regional War Labor Board had refused to approve because the Union had not joined in the request Were greater than those the Union could obtain for the employees ; 2 (6) The negotiations conducted on November 16, 1945, by respondent's president with a committee of fixers relative to its request for an increase in wages for fixers and the suggestion made by the president to the committee at this meeting that the committee consult with the other employees in the plant with respect to the establishment of an employee representation plan to handle grievances; I We held in Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company , 75 N L R B 90 , also involving a complaint issued prior to August 22, 1947, that the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, does not affect liability for violations engaged in prior to its enactment. 2 We view this statement as a positive declaration by the respondent that it was willing to grant greater wage increases unilaterally than as the result of collective bargaining with the Union 781902-48-vol 76-22 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (7) The announcement by the respondent on February 7, 1946, that for each week of perfect attendance it would add 10 cents per hour to the pay, and that this was "voluntarily" given; (8) The respondent's announcement on May 17, 1946, of its 1947 vacation bonus, which was more favorable than the one pre- viously proposed to the Union; (9) The respondent's notice of the same day suggesting a profit- sharing plan and requesting that the employees write their names on the back of the notice if they accepted the plan. The conduct of the respondent noted above is a complete negation of the obligation imposed on it by the Act to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees. In- stead of making a good faith effort to bargain collectively with the Union concerning working conditions, respondent clearly manifested a wilful contempt for its collective bargaining obligation and pursued a course based on an expressed preference for "going it alone." The respondent cannot contend that it satisfied its obligation under the Act to bargain collectively in good faith, simply by meeting several times with the Union and discussing contract proposals, when its entire course of conduct compels the conclusion that it never had any inten- tion of making a good faith effort to arrive at an agreement with the Union. The Act requires more than just meeting with the collective bargaining representative, and going through the motions of dis- cussing an agreement.' In the light of the foregoing conduct we are convinced and find that the respondent failed and refused to comply with its statutory duty to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees. In addition, we find that the respondent's unilateral action, detailed above, with respect to effecting wage increases, bonuses, and vacations, making unilateral offers to employees to introduce these and other similar benefits, and dealing directly with the committee of fixers in regard to its request for a wage increase, considered separately, constituted, per se, viola- tions of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 2. On this record we do not, however, base our finding of refusal to bargain, as the Trial' Examiner apparently did in part, upon the re- spondent's refusal to recede from its position of opposition to any form of union security and check-off provisions, or upon the respond- ent's conduct in rejecting, on January 7, 1946, without making any counterproposal of its own, the Union's offer to withdraw its demand for union security and top-seniority for stewards if the respondent would agree to a check-off of dues. 3 Matter of Tomlinson of High Point, Inc, 74 N L R B 681. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 325 Nor do we agree with the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the respondent violated Section 8 (5) of the Act by inserting in its counter- proposal of March 20. 1946, a clause requiring the Union to post a per- formance bond. In the cases cited by the Trial Examiner 4 the em- ployers had insisted upon the inclusion of such a clause in any signed agreement thereby making the acceptance of the clause a condition precedent to collective bargaining. In the instant distinguishable case, the request for the clause was made for the first and last time in the respondent's counterproposal of March 20, 1946; thereafter there were no further bargaining conferences. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the respondent was adamant in insisting on a performance bond as a condition precedent to entering into a contract. 3. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, independently of its refusal to bargain. In view of the fact that the conduct upon which this conclusion is predicated in the main con- stitutes the evidence upon which the conclusion of a refusal to bar- gain is based, we do not find it necessary to determine whether or not the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (1), apart from the extent to which a violation of Section 8 (5) constitutes a derivative violation of Section 8 (1). Because we do not find the respondent guilty of any specific violation other than its refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, the broad form of cease and desist order recommended by the Trial Examiner is not warranted. 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, Union Manufac- turing Company, Union Point, Georgia, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance em- ployes exclusive of office and clerical employees and supervisors; (b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial 4 Matter of Jasper Blackburn Products Corporation, 21 N L R. B. 1240, 1254 , Matter of Scripto Manufactuo ing Company , 36 N. L R. B 411, 426-428. 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Organizations, 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, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in the above- described appropriate unit with respect to labor disputes, grievances, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement; (b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Union Point, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth 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 there- after 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 Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion 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 : WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, to negotiate for or to represent the employees of the said bargaining unit, as their ex- clusive bargaining agent. 5In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Count of Appeals, there shall be inserted, before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enfw cmg " UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 327 WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit described herein with respect to labor disputes, grievances, wages, rates of pay, 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 production and maintenance employees excluding clerical and office employees and all supervisors. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. By -------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Date------------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT llr. M. A. Prowell, for the Board. Weekes d Candler, by Mr. Murphy Candler, Ji , of Decatur, Ga., and Messrs. Harold Lamb, F. S. Bryan, and H. L. Bryan, of Union Point, Ga., for the respondent. Mr. Kenneth Douty, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed September 12, 1945 , by Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the Union , the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the Board, by its acting Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued its complaint dated June 26, 1946 , against Union Manufacturin g Company, Union Point, Georgia, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act , 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) since March 22, 1944, committed numerous acts of inter- ference, such as granting unilateral wage increases during the pendency of bargaining negotiations ; warning employees that concerted activity would re- sult in the withdrawal of financial benefits ; advising a union committee that a ballot to be conducted by the Board was not a legitimate strike vote; granting a paid vacation by unilateral action; ridiculing the Union for allowing Negro delegates to attend conventions with white delegates ; and advising employees that no advantages would aceiue from membership in the Union; and (2) on or 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about April 7, 1944. and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in in appro- priate unit. The respondent filed an answer on July 3. 1946, in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Union Point. Georgia, on July 10 and 11, 1946, before Mortimer Weiner, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board was represented by coun- sel, the respondent by counsel and representatives, the Union by its representa- tive, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the conclusion of the hearing. the P,oaid's motion to conform the pleadings to the proof was gianted An informal discussion of the issues was presented by counsel for the Board and the respondent at that time, and a date fixed for the filing of briefs Neither party submitted a brief. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS ON THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Union Manufacturing Company, a Georgia corpoiation. has its plant and principal place of business at union Point, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of fun and hosiery During the course and conduct of its business, the respondent causes and has continuously caused in excess of 30 percent of the approximately $2,50.000 worth of raw materials, supplies, and nuichi nei y replacements used in the manufacture of yarn and hosiery, to be purchased, delivered and transported in interstate commerce from and through States of the United States other than the State of Georgia and causes and has continuously caused in excess of 90 percent of the yarn and hosiery produced, valued in excess of $1.000,000 annually, to be delivered and transported in interstate commerce to and through States of the United States other than the State of Georgia from its plant at Union Point. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America. affiliated ww ith the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to ban gams collectit el y 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all production and maintenance employees, ex- cluding clerical and office employees and all supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute i unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 329 Section 9 (b) of the Act The respondent in its answer admitted the appro- priateness of this unit and at the hearing no iurthei, proof was adduced in sup- port of the allegation. The undersigned finds that the above-described unit at all times material herein constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the means ng,of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit The complaint alleged that on or about April 3, 1944, the Board issued its certification of representatives, certifying that the Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the unit above described as the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent. This allegation was likewise admitted in the answer and no further proof was adduced in support thereof. At no time following certification has the respondent contested the majority representation of the Union The undersigned finds that on April 3. 1944, and at all times thereafter, the Union was, and now is, the duly designated representative of the majority of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, by virtue of Sec- tion 9 (a) of the Act, the Union at all times was, and now is, the representative of all the respondent's employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages. hours of employment or other conditions of employment. 3. The sequence of events On May 12, 1941, a 1-year contract was entered into between the respondent and the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, hereafter called Hosiery Workers, which provided, among other things, for exclusive recognition of the Hosiery Workers and a check-off of union dues Sometime in 1943, the Union began to organize the respondent's employees and in November of that year, W. T. Ogletree, who for 3 years previous had been chairman of the Hosiery Workers local, became chairman of the Union As pant of its organizing campaign, the Union distributed a series of leaflets on various dates in January, February, and March 1944, designed to gain ad- herents by showing the advantages of union membership This record discloses that the respondent's first public reaction to this campaign was a posted notice on March 10, in which the respondent attempted to answer a previously dis- tributed leaflet'of the Union. On March 20, 1944, the respondent pinned to the employees' checks a circular which refereed to the non-discrimination policy of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, hereafter called CIO, and quoted alleged statements of CIO leaders that they were opposed to discrimination against Negio workers The circular suggested that, although Southern CIO leaders might try to sidetrack the discrimination question, national leaders would not permit them to do so Because of this the respondent suggested that the employees vote against the Union in the forthcoming Board election to choose a bargaining representative. The election was held on March 22, 1944, and on April 3, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. The panties met for their first conference on May 10, 1944, in Atlanta, Georgia. At this meeting the Union's proposed contract previously submitted, was explained section by section to the respondent. The Union asked for exclusive recognition; a grievance procedure under which the Union would participate in presenting grievances at the initial step, anbitratnon of unresolved grievances, a 11111011 shop 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD together with check-off; and various other clauses dealing with terms and con- ditions of employment. Agreement was reached on only an introductory para- graph of the proposed contract. At the conclusion of the conference, H. S Williams, the Union's acting state director, asked, in view of rationing then in effect, that future negotiations be held in Union Point, some 90 miles east of Atlanta, in order to permit the local committee of the Union to participate in the discussions. On May 11, Williams wrote the respondent's attorneys requesting that the Union be given information concerning the respondent's wage scale so that the Union might discuss wage rates for the employees. Williams was succeeded as state director for the Union by Horace White, on or about May 22, 1944. The second bargaining conference was held on May 30, 1944, at Atlanta. The Union again went over its proposed contract clause by clause, and explained the meaning of the sections to the respondent The Union asked that the respondent agree to the recognition clause and grievance pro- cedure with arbitration but the respondent refused, stating that nothing would be agreed to until the entire contract had been worked out At the conclusion of the conference, the Union asked that future conferences be held at Union Point to suit the convenience of the local committeemen. In response, the respondent suggested that the next meeting be held at Decatur, Georgia, about 87 miles from Union Point, the city in which the respondent's attorneys had their office. The next and third conference was held at Decatur, on June 13, 1944. At this conference the Union again went through its proposed contract In discussing the Union's demand for a union shop and check-off, the respondent's president, Harold Lamb, stated that if he wanted to perpetuate the Union he would grant all of its requests. The Union representatives replied that it (lid not expect this concession , that all that they asked was that the parties get together on a reasonable contract. There was no agreement on any part of the Union proposal. Then the Union asked that the respondent accept as a reasonable offer, a contract then in operation at the Mary-Leila Cotton Mills in Greensboro, Georgia. The respondent studied this contract and proposed certain changes which were not acceptable to the Union No agreement was reached on this suggestion The parties then discussed the respondent's counter-offer, which accepted the Union "as the sole collective bargaining agency in all matters pertaining to wages and hours of employment," but differed radically from the Union's proposal in the sections dealing with grievances and arbitration. There were other sections not acceptable to the Union and there was no provision for a union shop or cheek-off. Following the conference the Union again asked that the next con- feience be held as soon as possible at Union Point Lanib stated that he wanted to take up the Mary-Leila contract with his Directors and that lie would inform the Union within 48 hours whether the respondent would accept or reject the proposed Mary-Leda contract Failing to hear from Lamb within the 48-hour period, White called in the United States Conciliation Service. In addition, White telephoned the respond- ent's attorneys in :ni attempt to fix a date for a conference but was unable to do so Finally, in August 1944, the Union asked that the dispute be certified to the War Labor Board On August 31, 1944, the Regional Wai Labor Board handed down an interim diiective order, directing the parties to reenter negotiations at Union Point. Thereafter the parties met in theii fouith bargaining conference on ^'ep- teinber 14, 1944, at Union Point. A full stenographic transcript of this conference was introduced in evidence At the conference, the Union's sole rccornitiou clause was acceptable to the respondent provided the Union would add thereto the proviso that nothing therein was to prohibit any individual employee from UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 331 presenting grievances to the respondent "as guaranteed by the Wagner Act." This was not acceptable to the Union. Other clauses were taken up seriatim by the parties, and on the subject of grievances, the respondent objected to the arbitration of wages, taking the position that it could not permit its wage struc- ture to be determined by "a disinterested outsider." No agreement was reached on the sections dealing with overtime pay, the union shop and check-off and other clauses of the proposed contract. Agreement was reached on the no-strike clause, but the respondent would not accept the Union's proposal on the punishment to be meted out to supervisors for violation of the agreement. With respect to the Union's proposal that the agreement run for 2 years with an automatic renewal clause, the respondent was willing to agree to a 1-year limitation clause but this was not acceptable to the Union The Union's proposal for paid vacations for employees was rejected by the respondent. About the only thing that was agreed to in full was the section dealing with the posting of shop rules' Following the conference, the Union referred its inability to achieve a contract to the Regional War Labor Board and a hearing was held before the Regional Board on November 17, 1944, at Atlanta. From this point onward, the respondent engaged in a course of conduct which disregarded the statutory representative, of its employees and completely confused and disrupted the relations between the parties. On December 21, 1944, there was pinned to the employees' pay checks a circular letter acquainting them with the fact that the respondent had previously on November 21, 1944, asked permission of the War Labor Board to pay a Christ- mas bonus of $25. No action having been taken with respect to this request, the respondent stated that it was setting aside the sum of $15,000 to pay the bonus, when, as, and if it was approved The letter said that the respondent was willing to share its prosperity with its employees provided it could be done "on a voluntary basis," the implication being clear that any monetary demand made by the Union would be turned down. On January 19, 1945, the respondent posted on its bulletin board a notice concerning its previous application for permission to pay the bonus and stating that an application had been made to the Wage Hour Division tahave a weekly drawing for five $25 war bonds. The notice related further that the respondent had been informed by the War Labor Board that because of its dispute with the Union they could not pay the Christmas bonus but that the distribution of war bonds had been approved by the Wage Hour Division The respondent made it clear that the bonds were "given voluntarily and can be withdrawn at termination of any week." On Febiuary 2, 1945, a detailed report Ras handed down by the panel of the Regional War Labor Board With respect to all issues in dispute the panel made specific recommendations, mentioning that the parties haft "dumped be entire contract into the laps of the Panel" and making recommendations based only on the issues raised by the respondent Among other things it was recom- mended that the parties include a standard inaintenanc^ of membership provi- sion in a contract, with check-off With respect to the differences over the grievance procedure the panel recommended that in the event a grievance was presented directly to management that the said grievance should be presented at the next regularly scheduled general shop committee meeting held as pro- vided for in the section. Overtime pay at the rate of I'/., times the regular rate I When the Union submitted wage rates, the respondent took the position that it was pperating a hosiery mill and that the proposed rates were not applicable It seems to have been mutually understood that the parties would go along with the decision of the War Labor Board respecting wage rates in a case then pending before the War Labor Board and referred to as the "Twenty-three Mills case " 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for all work in excess of S hours per day or 40 hours per week was recommended and other provisions of the Union's proposed contract were ruled upon and specific recommendations made. On March 9, 1945, the respondent attached to the checks of its employees a letter setting forth that the respondent had been informed that the War Labor Board was authorized to approve wage increases up to 55 cents an hour, "WHERE EMPLOYERS VOLUNTARILY ASKED THE INCREASE OR the Union and Employer make the iequest" The respondent contended that the conjunction "OR" gave it "the option of going it alone or with the Union" and it preferred "going it alone " Accordingly, on February 28. it had requested the Wage-Hour Division to file its application for the 55-cent minimum and to add 4- to 7-cent differentials for the second and third shifts The letter announced further that the respondent was then informed on 'larch 2, 1945, by the War Labor Board that its application to pay the Christmas bonus had been denied because the application was not signed by the Union, and that the request to pay the 55- cent minimum and the shift differentials was being returned because it was "necessary that the appropriate Union officials sign the application The .11 letter concluded by stating that under the respondent's interpretation of the War Labor Board rules it had the right to establish increases independently of consultation with the collective bargaining agent and it preferred to exercise that right alone. One of the Union's requests in the contract previously submitted had been the establishment of a 60-cent hourly minimum wage together with a 7-cent shift differential for all employees on the third shift Although no agreement had been reached respecting this, it is clear from the letter above quoted, that the respondent was willing to grant a 55-cent minimum and shift differentials pro- vided it could do so on its own initiative and without the concurrence of the Union. On March 19, 194:1, Ogletree wrote the Secretary of Labor, advising that a dispute existed between the Union and respondent and requesting that, in accordance with the Smith-Connally Act, a strike vote be taken among the employees at the earliest possible date On March 22. 194.-5. the Regional War Labor Board handed down a Directive Order which in the main affirmed the previously submitted recommendations of its panel referred to above, and awarded the Union a standard maintenance of membership clause with check-off On or abort 'Iarch 29, 1945, the respondent posted on its bulletin boards a notice purporting to set forth a resolution adopted by time Regional War Labor Board dealing with the establishment of the 55-cent hourly minimum wage rate in non-dispute cases The notice pointed out that the respondent's wage rates were above average; the cost of living in Union Point was materially less than in cities and the respondent labored under the disadvantages of higher freight and express changes Following the issuance of the afore-mentioned Directive of the Regional Board, the respondent filed exceptions, and on April 27, 19-15, the said Board decided to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether the respondent should properly be regarded as a part of the cotton textile industry and referred the question to a panel for further hearing. Oil the same day the respondent sent the Union a schedule of its rates and schedules for various plant operations But before this had been done, the respondent on March 29, 1945, attached to the employees' checks another in its long series of circular letters. This latter circular referred to vicious efforts that the respondent had UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 333 made to better the working conditions of the employees including its request previously mentioned for vacations with pay, shift differentials, and the Christ- mas bonus The letter mentioned that the respondent had proposed to an em- ployee committee a profit-sharing plan but that this had been turned down. The respondent offered to make "proper amends" if it had ever wronged its em- ployees. Finally the letter concluded with this suggestion: "Why not form a committee from our different departments and ask us to prove any or all of the above: then we invite you in the office and we'll either prove it or pass a very uncomfortable half hour in attempting to explain it." On or about May 18, 1945, the panel of the Regional Board decided that the respondent's mill should be classified as a hosiery mill and not part of the cotton textile industry and handed down recommendations with respect to various other issues including: a 55-cent minimum for all hourly and piece workers ; a standard vacation plan of 1 week after 1 year of service and 2 weeks after 5 or more years of service; a 7-cent differential for the third shift; a daily guaranteed wage, and finally that wage adjustments he made retroactive to August 3, 1944, the date of the certification of the case. Shortly after the issuance of these recomanenda- tions the respondent posted another notice in which it notified its employees that due to economic, conditions it might be forced to terminate its bonus as of May 31, 1945 The notice stated in part that "Personally, the management will be very sorry if it is'found necessary to discontinue the payment of this bonus ; but its termination, we believe, will have the full concurrence of some of our employees, as the representatives of the Union at conference of May 18th, 1945, disapproved of it." On June 18, 1945, the Union accepted the panel recommendations previously mentioned and urged the War Labor Board to approve and make them effective at the earliest date. On July 11, 1945, the National War Labor Board handed down a directive order dealing with the question of penalty for violation of the contract ; the duration of the contract ; reporting pay ; and a definition of griev- ances The following clay, July 12. the Regional Board in a supplemental direc- tive order passed upon the recommendations of the panel and affirmed that the respondent was not part of the cotton textile industry ; awarded the 55-cent min- imum rate; approved the recommendation with respect to vacations; reduced shift differentials from 7 cents to U cents, denied the Union's request for a guar- anteed daily minimum wage; and fixed the retroactive date for wage adjustments as January 15, 1945 Otherwise the panel report and iecommendations were affirmed and of dei ed incorporated in a signed agi Bement between the parties All of the directiN e orders which have been mentioned above dealt with the issues which remained unsettled after the September 14, 1944, conference. No conference had been held from that date to July 12. 1945, the date of the supple- mental directive order of the Regional Board During this period the respondent had never offered the Union a wage anctease. and no agreement had been reached on the Union's request for shift differentials and vacations But as a result of the various directive orders those issues were defined, specific recommendations were made, and the parties were ordered to incorporate them in a signed contract In a letter dated August 3, 1945, attached to the pay checks of its employees on that day, the respondent pointed out that it not only wanted the employees to share its prosperity but to share its adversities as well. The letter stated that the iespondent "would he glad to put in some increases but not in the exact amount or some of the accessories as is found in the directive of the RWLB . " The letter disclosed that the respondent was asking for a further conference "with the 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proper parties." White knew of no request made of the Union for a conterence such as referred to in the letter. White was succeeded on or about August 1, 1945, by Kenneth Douty On August 13, 1945, Douty wrote the respondent's attorneys stating that the Union was in receipt of the directive order of the War Labor Board dated July 11, previ- ously refereed to, and requesting a conference at an early date for the purpose of incorporating its terms and conditions in a signed agreement. Not having received a reply, Douty, on August 21, wrote the Regional War Labor Board, asking that appropriate action be taken by the Regional Board to enforce the order of the National Board On August 25, the iespondent's attorneys wrote Douty stating that they would be glad to meet with the Union but fixing no date for a conference. On September 1, 1945, while Douty was trying to obtain a conference with the respondent's attorneys, the respondent issued another letter. In this letter the respondent asserted that an intensive drive was being made to have its employees join the Union, which they had a right to do, but the respondent stated, "The ques- tion arises, however, is it best for your interests " The letter pointed out that in 1934, a strike had cost the employees some $21,000 and that previous efforts of the Hosiery Workers to organize the plant had been unsuccessful Other excerpts from the letter are quoted below We offered you a Christmas bonus and several other raises but by reason of the Union having been certified by the NLRB the Regional War Labor Board stated that (under these circumstances) it would be necessary that the Union join us in the request. As these requests were initiated by us we hardly thought this fair We have tried to put in a plan whereby we would share our net profits 50-50 and had this been put into effect you would all have been greatly benefitted, we think beyond your greatest expectations. * * The natural inference is that a strike is contemplated (threats of which have come to our ears recently) and we ask you to calmly and dispassion- ately debate in your own minds the pros and cons of a strike, reflect on what it has cost you in the past and remember that no matter how bitterly you may be opposed to a strike when the members are called on to go out they must go. * * * * * * * Hasn't the Union promised you raises of different kinds retroactive, etc Have they materialized? In our many conferences with the union they seem to stress union recog- nition and the check-off, with its attending dues If it is correct as stated when trying to organize our nonunion workers, that they had 95% of our em- ployees then we have saved you since March 1944 (date organized) $9,77500 in Dues. If you question this, come in office and we will prove it. On September 11, 1945, Douty, still unsuccessful in 'obtaining a conference with respondent's attorneys, wrote the Regional War Labor Board, asking what action could be expected to make its order effective and notifying the said Board that charges had been filed under the Act Finally on September 17, 1945, President Lamb acknowledged receipt of a copy of Douty's letter of September 11 to the Regional War Labor Board, but made no mention of Douty's efforts to resume bargaining and nothing was said about fixing a date for a further conference. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 335 Lamb wrote that he had pleasant recollections of Douty's predecessor, Horace White, and that they had "gotten along very pleasantly together." 2 Douty made further efforts to arrange a bargaining conference with respondent's attorneys but without success. Then on September 24, the attorneys wrote Douty fixing Friday, October 5, as a date for the next conference For some reason not ex- plained in the record, this date was cancelled by the respondent's attorneys and the conference was not held. On September 26, 1945, there was attached to the pay cheeks another circular letter. This circular stated that respondent had determined to increase wages but something had arisen which questioned their right to do so and until the question , was settled the raise would be withheld 'There was reprinted in the circular a copy of a letter dated September 25, setting forth what the respondent had determined to do and would do if the question previously mentioned could be settled "without any friction." The latter document made clear that starting September 24, the respondent would establish a minimum wage of 55 cents an hour, grant a 5 cents an hour across the board wage increase, vacations with pay and a 4 cents an hour differential for employees on the third shift. The circular is difficult to understand but contained this paragraph : The main issues will doubtless be retroactive pay increases and the "check-off"; now if the Union won and received 5% retroactive pay from Oct 1, 1944 you would receive one fourth of what you would lose in wages (assuming that the strike lasted two months The one in 1942 lasted that long) and by resisting the check off we have saved you nine thousand seven hundred and seventy-five dollars; understand that this retroactive pay does not mean a continuation from month to month, it would be paid you and then it would stop. But Suppose the Union Lost? Again, any raise, (as we understand it) would be subject to 20% withholding tax and for the entire amount. On October S, Ogletree wrote Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach, advising that a dispute existed between the respondent and the Union and that in accordance wifh the Smith-Connally Act, the Union had voted to request the Secretary of Labor to order that a strike ballot be taken of the respondent's employees. On October 15, 1945, Douty informed Lamb that a strike would be called at the respondent's mill upon completion of a strike vote and that the reason for such action was the respondent's failure to comply with the directive order of the War Labor Board. On October 24, Douty requested a conference and on the 26th, Lamb replied in a long letter which set forth some of the respondent's differences with the Union Finally, as the result of efforts of the Conciliation Service, the parties got together for their fifth bargaining conference on October 31, 1945, in Atlanta. At the outset of the conference the respondent stated that they felt that they should bargain with the Hosiery Workers, since the mill had now been classified as a hosiery mill, and not with the Union The Union responded by stating that it had been certified. The respondent raised the point of the 2 There was a postscript to the letter calling attention to an enclosed birthday card which contained the following couplet BIRTHDAY GREETINGS MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY A grievance, nourished, soon will turn to hate Tell us about it , before it grows too late Whoever's wrong Should want to make it right ; Let's live, not in the dark , but in the light I WITH ALL GOOD WISHES 'This card was signed by Lamb and the other corporate officers of the respondent. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strike and said it was being forced to negotiate with a strike Vote over its head in response to which the Union said it was Willing to negotiate a no-strike con- tract The respondent further stated that it would never consent to the union demand for maintenance of membership, check-off and top seniority for union stewards, and that these provisions as recommended by the War Labor Board were not acceptable The Union offered to withdraw its demands for mainte- nance of membership or check-off, letting the respondent choose which one it pre- ferred , but respondent refused and presented no counteroffer to this suggestion There was no agreement and the conference adjourned without a date being fixed for the next meeting In November 1945, the National War Labor Board forwarded a copy of its directive order of October 19 to the parties, which directive order affirmed the Regional Board's directive of July 12, 1945. This latter directive was the one which found that the respondent operated a hosiery mill, and established a minimum of 55 cents an hour, granted paid vacations, it shift differential of 6 cents and made wage adjustments retroactive to January 15, 1945. The directive order of the National Board further ordered that the terms and conditions of employment be incorporated in a signed agreement between the parties On or about November 9. 1945, the respondent attached to the employees' pay checks another in his series of circular letters This letter is set forth in full: We have just received the following. "Atlanta, Ga . November 2nd. 1945, Mr. H. Lamb, Ti es , Union Dlanufactuung Co., Union Point, Ga Dear _Mr. Lamb: You are now permitted to increase wages without permission pro- vided the price of theprbduct is not increased on account of the higher wage paid Such raises may be made retroactive, if desired Signed, W J Carter." We stated that we would pay you 55 cts minimum. 5 cts across the board, 2% representing one week's vacation with pay, and four cents differential for 3rd shift Piece workers will of course share in this. This will be retro- active to September 24th, 1945 being a substitute for the 5% bonus This 5% bonus will be paid from June 1st, 1945 to September 24th, 1945, to those working for us on that day and who have not quit before September 24th This promise made September 25th rescinded September 26th (both on same sheet ) 'this due to dispute over War Labor Board's jurisdiction It now goes On November 14th. 1945 a strike vote will be held. The National Labor Relations Board first stated that it would be held by mail ; then rescinded, taking the position that we had no street addresses We offered to attach to each check oirFriday. November 9th "that the ballots were in the respective post office of our employees" : in the meantime at the request of the NLRB we had provided a list of all eligible to vote and with their P 0 addresses Notwithstanding this they decided to hold it elsewhere We placed the hallway leading to our shipping room (accessible to all) at their disposal : and they decided on the Union Hall. We didn't think this fair. All our enl plop/ees except Supervisors, office force can vote Anyway the Union Hall is not available as it has been rented, and the approaches thereto. The present renter of the property will gladly enter into an arrangement with the Union, and he believes on satisfactory terms, but not for the purpose of holding elections of this nature We have no fears of the result of the voting provided all, or nern 111 a11, vote It is not a Union issue, supply whether YOU do or do not want to tjo UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 337 out on strike; all ballots are secret and booths will be provided when signing so this can be done in all secrecy The Union represented by Mr. Douty, Regional Director, and Messrs. Willie Ogletree, Otho Cole and Ramp sorrow of the local committee and H. Lamb representing the mill, met in Conciliator's office in Atlanta, from 11: 00 it in. to 4' 00 p.ii November 1st. The question of seniority of the shop committee over all other employees, the check oft of union dues by the mill a dlcnarntenance of membership were discussed The mill objected to the preferential treatment of union committee as being unfair to our other employees ; to the check off because they should collect their own dues and not try and force it on the mill We had a very feeling recollection of how badly it worked 'in 1942. We objected,to the maintenance clause as it meant that had we agreed any member of the union desiring to sever his connection with it would have to be automatically discharged, no question of integrity or capability being permitted. The Railroad Brotherhoods frown down on all three propositions, taking the position that if they don't care to pay their dues voluntarily they don't want them. THE. MANAGEMENT. On November 11, 1945, the Union distributed a lettei urging the employees to vote on November 14, in favor of the strike The letter called to the attention of the employees the efforts it had made to obtain better conditions and that the respondent had opposed the Union's efforts It further stated that since March 22, 1944, Lamb had refused to bargain and had been represented by attorneys who were "anti-labor liars " The Union said it was now necessary to strike the plant and establish a picket line, "until Mr Harold Lanib awakes from the long sleep he has been enjoying through the profits of your labor " The letter quoted Lamb as having made the following statement: "Well now let's just wait and see how this vote turns out. Maybe my folks won't vote to strike, and I won't have to sign a contract " On November 12, 1945, the respondent posted on its bulletin board the following notice To Our Employees: If you do Not favor a strike vote "No" A majority of those voting carry the election; some of our people seem to think a majority of our employees must vote for it. If you do not want to vote for it strike and do Not vote you are giving the strike a half vote. We understand that you are being told (and if we are wrong we will gladly make amends) that not (sic) matter whether you do or do not want to strike, just vote "Yes" and it will assist the Union in getting you a raise; now if you want to be a party to a deception of this sort it is your privilege, but we believe that the Union wants to be in a position to justify the strike to the National Relations Board (sic) This would likewise keep some of those who would vote "No" from voting at all. But whether you want or do not want a strike please VOTE. 563 are entitled to vote; if as many as 400 vote we will distribute 13 bonds on the Friday following; only those voting will be eligible to receive a bond; included will be those who are not permitted to vote; it would not be fair exclude them [Emphasis in original 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The next day the respondent issued another circular to its employees This letter was again an attempt to meet arguments made in a letter distributed by the Union. The respondent stated that raises that it had offered and which had been turned down by the, Regional War Labor Board because of the Union, were greater than raises which the Union could get for the employees. The letter di- rected the employees' attention. to the fact that a Director of Compensation in North Carolina had ruled that strikers could not receive compensation for un- employment caused by strikes and that the same was trueclii the State of Georgia The letter asked whether the employees could sustain a loss of ap- proximately $240,000, if they stayed out of work for 4 months, since the respondent asserted, "We think it will take four months before our strikers decide to cone back to work. Any losses that we sustain in 1946 will be made up to us by Gov't. out of our profits in 1944 and 1945." On the same day Lamb wrote Ogletree objecting to the use of the Union's hall to hold the strike ballot under the Smith- Connally Act. Lamb did not object to the use of the hall for a meeting place and proposed that when the Union's treasury coal(] permit, the Union pay Lamb it rental of 331/i dollars per year. There had been posted in the respondent's plant a sample othcuil ballot notify- ing employees that the vote would be held on November 14, 1945 When this ballot was posted the respondent put up another notice stating that the sample ballot did not correctly set forth the issues between the parties and that the respondent was taking this means of advising its employees that all provisions of the "old contract" had been put into effect according to War Labor Board Directives, except ,that the respondent refused to ),N i i to into the contract a clause which would permit discharge of employees for failure to maintain membership in the Union, and the check-off It further stated that wage increases had not been secured for the employees by the Union but had been given voluntarily by the respondent and "directives regard,ng niulununi wages and increases in pay have always been made as piomptly as possible." Other charges and communi- cations followed and finally on November 14, Douty wrote Lamb that the situa- tion required less debating between him and the Union and "nioie attempts at working out a livable contract NNhich would be satisfactory to both of as " Douty continued that the turmoil and debate would go on or as an alternative the parties should try to establish a ielationship that would benefit both the com- pany and the employees, and that the decision in this matter was up to the respondent Lamb replied on November 20, quoting from the circular that had been distributed by the Union on November 11, and saying that the expressions contained in that circular did not inspire him "with a desire to tie up with" the Union. Sometime in November 1945, a group of fixers, some of whom were members of the Union, decided that they wanted a raise R J McCannon, a member of the Union, went to Owen Scott, respondent's superintendent, and asked why the fixers could not sit down and in a "brotherly way" settle their differences with the respondent. Scott spoke to Lamb about the fixers' plea and later McCannon was informed that Lamb had been impressed with the request and would be glad to talk to the fixers' committee. On or about November 16, 1945, a committee of fixers including McCannon met with Lamb and asked for a raise. Lamb stated that he could not grant a raise and then presented a proposition that all of the employees share profits with the respondent on a 50-50 basis The committee stated that they would not accept this proposition but asked Lamb to write it out "like he meant it" and that they would present it to the fixers. In all it ap- pears that there were three conferences between Lamb and the committee. The UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 339 committee made it clear that it reptesentecl the fixers only and their discussion was concet ned with the subject of it wage increase only. No other considerations entered into the committee discussions After the conferences and on or about Noveuibei 20, 1945, Lamb reduced to writing an offer which was addressed to the fixers' committee In substance, it proposed that the employees accept it profit- sharing plan on a 50-50 basis with the respondent. Lamb also proposed that the employees elect from each department a representative, together with one ap- pointed b^ the i espondent, both pledging their efforts to see "that only fair nnnded employ ees" Were chosen. and that this committee would act as a grievance com- mittee Lanib suggested that if the fixers favored his plan they would then take it up with othei departments. It is apparent from McCannon's testimony, which is credited, that Lamb's offer went further than the request of the fixers which was concerned only with a straight pay raise Lamb turned back this request with an offer to shaie profits as Well as to have the fixers find out employee opinion on the desirability of forming it grievance committee consisting of em- ployee and management repi esentatives Following receipt of Lamb's written proposal, McCannon told Scott that the fixers would not accept it. Douty had been informed of the conferences between Lamb and the fixers' committee and on November 20, 1945, lie wired Lamb that lie understood the respondent was attempting to bargain with the employees on wages He closed his telegram with the statement that the Union would be glad to meet with Lamb to discuss wages or any other matters at any time There is no record that Lamb replied to this telegram, but on November 23, Douty iequested a meeting with Lanib to discuss the contract and wage matters. Three days later Lamb informed Douty that he was sending his request to his altos ne}s asking Beni to arrange a meeting with Douty On November 28, Lamb in another letter to the fixers' committee expressed his regret tl at they had decided to turn down his sug:;estion "about the 50-50 preposition." Lanib ex- piessed the opinion therein that there could be no greater manifestation of "brotherly love" than by giving employees half of what the respondent earned as profits The balance of the letter was devoted to it refutation of the Union's arguments and cited reasons why the respondent could not increase its wages On December 3, 1945, Douty requested that a date be fixed for further discussion and the sixth bargaining conference between the parties was thereafter held, on December 17, 1945. at Union Point. At this time the strike vote had been held and it majority of the respondent's employees had voted to strike. Discussion at the conference centered around the Union's demands for maintenance of membership, check-off, and top seniority for union stewards. Douty indicated that if the dispute could be settled, the Union would withdraw its request for what the War Labor Board had directed on maintenance of membership and top seniority for the shop committee and accept only a check-off provision. The respondent at first refused this offer, made no counterproposal but finally, at the Union's insistence, stated that it would consider it and then let the Union know what its answer would be. On January 7, the respondent's attorneys wrote Douty as follows : At the last bargaining conference held in Union Point, Georgia, you stated that the Union could not consider entering into a contract which did not have in it one of three (3) sections, to-wit • union security; check-off; or super seniority of Shop Committee You finally took the position that the check-off was the section of your choice to be put into the contract. The Company took the position that it could not enter into a contract with any of these sections incorporated therein. The Company agreed, however, 751002-48-vol 76-23 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to consider the matter further and advise you bd January 10th whether or not it could incorporate any of these in the contract. After serious consideration, from every angle, and despite our desire to enter into a contract, the Company does not feel that it is in a position to enter into a contract incorporating any of these features. In response Douty wrote on January 10, in part as tollows : I would like, for the record, to make it quite clear that it was the Company which at the outset of the conferences stated it would not sign a contract which had in it maintenance of membership, check-oft. or top seniority for the shop committee. In an effort to reach an agreement, we made several counterproposals, finally concluding with a proposal for the check-off in a final attempt to work out the situation peacefully The Company, of course, made no counterproposal on these issues We regret very much that the Company has not seen ft to bargain with the Union and it is impossible for us to believe that the history of the Com- pany's actions in this case indicates other than an attempt to evade its responsibilities under the National Labor Relations Act. In addition to refusing to comply with the decision of the National War Labor Board, the Company has never made counterproposals or dealt with the Union on any matters The history of the recent wage increase bears this out. Following the conference of December 17. and the exchange of letters that came thereafter, the relations between the parties remained dormant until January 24, 1946, on which date the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin board that it expected to pay the 1945 vacation bonus to its employees in the check that would be drawn on Febtu:u•y 1, 1946 This was followed on February 7, 1946, with a circular which read as follows: 't'hese are troublous times. With rising living costs }ou naturally feel that you are entitled to higher wages With us OPA may of may not grant us higher pi ices for our goods We think the following plan would be fair to us both. For each week of perfect attendance we add 10 cts. per hour to your p ty. Effective February 4, 1940. This, like the Vacation with pay, is voluntarily given and can be witlh- drawn at will We lost our shirts in the 1930's and we don't want it to happen again. This 10 cts per hour will absorb that much of any supplement we are called upon to pay you. We wish it were so that any complaint, that the Management cannot satis- factorily adjust, be referred to a mediator or arbitrator to be mutually agreed upon between us. Think over this; we would prefer it. Irrespective of any conclusions to be drawn hereafter concerning the bargain- ing conferences that were held between the parties, it is apparent that the respondent was avoiding its responsibility to bargain with the Union by making unilateral offers to its employees. For example, in this last letter above referred to. the respondent offered, without consulting the Union, to increase the wages of its employees 10 cents an hour and held out the suggestion that the employees discuss with the respondent some form of arbitration which would be mutually acceptable, devoid of any concurrence by the Union. In the undersigned's opinion it makes no difference whether these were demands that the Union had previously made In effect, the respondent, while avoiding direct commit- UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 341 merit to the collective bargaining agent, either in conference or through counter- proposals, was, by offers to the employees asserting its willingness to grant concessions, bypassing the collective barganring agent, and dealing directly with the employees Douty, on February 12, 1946, in what appears to be a final effort to reduce the differences between the respondent and the Union to a certain degree of specificity, wrote Lamb i equestrng that the respondent submit a full proposal on all contract provisions. Douty stated that the Union stood on its original proposal and pointed out that the Union's proposal and counterproposal re- specting union security had met with no response on the respondent's part. On February 26, Lamb replied that he would consult with his attorneys and get from them a "proposal" so that Lamb might write intelligently to Douty. On March 20, Douty was sent a "complete counter-proposal contract." This counterproposal, which must be considered the respondent's final offer and statement of its ultimate position, required that the Union furnish it good and sufficient pay and performance bond, with security approved by the Company, the condition of same to be such that if the Union shall fulfill and faithfully abide by the provisions and covenants of this agreement, and shall fully indemnify and save harmless the Company from all costs and damages which the Company may suffer by reason of failure on the part of the Union so to do, and shall reimburse and repay the Company all pecuniary outlay and expenses which the Company may incur Al inakinr good any such defaults in the provisions, then said bond shall be null and void, otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. The respondent agreed to pay time and a half for all work performed in excess of 40 hours per week, but did not match the recommendations of the War Labor Board directive that time and a halt be paid for all work in excess of S hours in 1 day With respect to wages all that the respondent undertook to do was not reduce wages during the life of the contract unless there was a general i eduction in the southern hosiery industry The respondent asked the Union to bind itself not to request an increase in wages for 12 months after the execution of the agreement unless there was a general increase in wages in the southern hosiery industry. It proposed that the agreement should run for 3 years with an automatic renewal clause When the Union sought a contract for 2 years in 1944, the respondent insisted that the contract be of no longer than 1 year's duration and was successful in securing adoption of this view by the War Labor Board Now, the respondent was asking for a 3-year contract An examination of the respondent's proposed contract submitted in June 1944 with the last counter-offer discloses that the first counter-offer was much closer to the Union's demands than the latter For example, the respondent's first proposal came close to the Union's demands on seniority, arbitration and holi- days The original proposal did not seek to freeze wages for a year as did the counter-offer, nor, of course, did the original proposal suggest the posting of a perlormance bond, an item which was presented for the first time in the March 1946 counter-offer Douty summed up the issue presented by the counter-offer in tine following testimony: I will say this, that that counter-proposal, as such, would riot have meant to the people in the mill the sort of contract that the Union feels they should have, and my only point is that it is a little difficult for us to believe that the Company is bargaining seriously with us if its successive proposals take us farther apart rather than closer together 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 3, 1946. Lamb called Ogletree to his office and there told him that he had learned that employees of a hosiery mill in Gieensboro, Georgia, were "out on strike," and asked what action the Union was going to take at a special meeting which had been called Ogletree replied that he did not know. Lamb then showed Ogletree a notice and circular letter which he had prepared and which he intended to distribute to the employees on April 5, in the event the Union took strike action at its special meeting. Ogletree was informed that if the Union did not take strike action, Lamb would refrain from dis- tributing the notices. On April 5, there were pinned to the pay checks the two documents previously exhibited to Ogletree The notice purported to quote i decision of the Board to the effect that a non-union employee discharged be- cause he refused to join a union under a maintenance of membership clause, 'could be reinstated with back pay. The Union's members weie urged to attend the meeting, demand a secret ballot and vote their conviction Workers wen e asked to question the Greensboro strikers about their strike, and to watch its outcome. The other attachment called to the employees' attention the hai d- ships suffered by strikers and their families when employees went out on strike. Other portions of the letter are quoted : The Regional director of the Union and our president spent five hours in Atlanta in U. S Conciliation's office and discussed three topics only- super seniority for the committee, check off and our discharging any mein- her of the union who failed to pay clues; just before the close of the meeting lie agreed to waive either check off or the discharge He then insisted on another meeting at Union Point and finally offered to likewise waive the super seniority of committee That left but one but we could not see, why we should be called upon to act as their debt collector; the R. R. Brother- hoods don't want it ; they take the position that if their members don't feel they are getting value i eccived by voluntarily paying, then they don't want them Why shouldn't the TWUA adopt the same policy? That would demonstrate just how much benefit you derived from them We have invited you to discuss any grievance you had, whether indi- vidually or through a committee, or anybody of your choosing. You cannot have $17,000 00 weekly cut off in a little place like Union Point and it not affect everybody living here either directly or indirectly Former strikes have cost you over $100,00000 in wages and you have gained nothing On May 17, 1946, the respondent posted a notice on its bulletin board con- taining its proposed 1947 vacation bonus. It is significant that this offer was much more generous than that contained in the respondent's contract submitted in March 1946. The same day the respondent posted another notice addressed to its employees Apparently a committee of fixers had again met with Lamb and asked for a raise of 20 cents per hour. Lamb had mistakenly figured that this would increase costs approximately $15,000 When the mistake was pointed out, Lamb countered with an offer that he would ask the respondent's directoi s to share profits with the employees on a 50-50 basis, guaiauteeing a minimum of approximately $15,000 to be used as the employees' share of the profits Lamb asked the employees to indicate their acceptance of this plan by writing their names on the back of the notice stating that it would be necessary tor a ina- lcrity in each department to favor the plan, otherwise he would not bring it to the attention of the Directors The respondent also distributed another letter ual icli, aside from pointing out that union statements were in error and mislead- mug, went on to say : UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 343 We have what we believe to be conclusive evidence that representatives of the Unions reported us to the Walsh-Healy division, the National Labor Relations Board, The Wage and Hour Division: the Conciliation Service; the Quarter Master's depot and the Regional War Labor Board. It must have cost the U. S. Government over $50,000.00 to investigate us The Unions about the same added to their organization schemes. It cost us a plenty to defend ourselves ; which would have been divided with you. Should our Union employees go out on strike and induce all to join them, presumably four months will elapse before they return which, at $17,000.00 per week, will mean a little over $300,000.00 in wages ; if half go out then $150,000.00. If we have wronged you in any way we deserve to lose ; if we have not we deserve to win. Some of our fixers are committed to the "Brotherly Love" program, what greater manifestation of it on our part than our desire to share our profits with you. Sooner or later matters will be arranged on that basis and all will wonder why we didn't put it into operation when first proposed years ago. To those who want to prosper financially why not go into a pool and buy securities, not feasible when done by the individual ; come in office and we will tell you how this can be done. Every time the Union got out a letter, respondent would reply with another circular which it attached to the employees' checks. This happened again on June 7, 1946, when Lamb sought to refute arguments made by the Union in a communication This letter, in substance, stated that membership in the Union was ineffectual, and that although the Union had obtained benefits in other mills, the respondent could not match those results because of its economic position On July 2, 1946, there was handed to the employees on the second shift, a notice which set forth the efforts that the respondent had made to increase wages. It stated that the employees should consider in computation of their 1946 earnings, the paid vacations granted by the respondent, the war bonds which it had dis- tributed, and the privileges of "the nursery." But the respondent pointed out that it could not meet "city prices" because of higher freight rates, and that its wages were compensated for by the fact that living conditions were cheaper in Union Point. Conclusions respecting interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint alleged that since March 22, 1944, respondent through its ofhcers and supervisory employees engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act in 23 enumerated respects It would serve no useful purpose to point out where in each instance, in the undersigned's opinion, these allegations of the complaint have been established by either cred- ible testimony or documentary evidence. Starting on March 20, 1944, 2 clays before the Board election, the respondent in a circular addressed to its employees ridiculed the non-discrimination policy of the Union and suggested that, although Southern leaders of the Union might like to sidetrack that issue, they could not do so and that full implementation of the non-discrimination policy would result in economic loss to the workers. After the Union had been certified and initial conferences had been held, the respondent then initiated its unilateral offers to the employees disregarding the collective bargaining agent. The first action of this kind seems to have taken place on or about December 21, 1944, when the 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent made known its efforts to secure a Christmas bonus for the employees and that it had set aside some $15,000 to pay that bonus, provided it could lie done on a voluntary basis, the implication being that if the Union sought to bargain with the respondent concerning such a matter it would be refused. It is sufficient to emphasize a few of the instances mentioned in the chronology of events which indicate the respondent's attitude toward the Union. its lack of good faith, and its expressed intention to deal directly with the employees rather than the Union as their collective bargaining agent. Indicative of this attitude is a letter that was issued on March 9, 1945, wherein the respondent stated that it was willing to increase wages provided it could do so alone and not by joint application with the Union. In addition to the respondent's willingness to grant vacations with pay, shift differentials, and bonuses, provided it could be done independently of any agreement with the Union, the respondent likewise persisted in its deter- mination not to come to any agreement with the Union concerning a grievance procedure Rather, the i espondent was willing that its employ ees form a griev- ance committee from various departments to meet with it The respondent on May 29, 1945, indicated that what it would give it would take back if it saw fit; for example, that the bonus might be discontinued, if economic conditions forced the respondent into that position ; and commented that such would meet with the approval of some employees in that the Union, according to the respondent, had disapproved of the bonus The employees' de- pendence upon the respondent for any advantages that they aught obtain is emphasized by the letter of September 1, 1945, wherein the respondent stated that since it had initiated the applications to pay a bonus and wage increase it would not join with the Union in support of these requests, pieferring to go it alone. At the same time, respondent pointed out how much it had saved employees by refusing to enter into a check-off agreement with the Union On November 14, 1945, when the Union was considering its strike vote, respondent cautioned all employees to consider the possibility of lost wages in the event the mill closed down. However, the respondent boasted it could make up any losses it sustained in 1946, out of its 1944 and 1945 profits Further evidence of the respondent's determination to coerce the Union and its employees was the withdrawal of the use of the Union's meeting hall to hold the strike election. The Union had entered into a lease for the use of the hall, but when Lamb -discovered that it proposed to hold the strike election in its meeting place lie withdrew the privilege of'meeting for that purpose Another example of the respondent's unilateral efforts to undermine the Union was its offer on No- vember 9, 1945, just before the strike vote was held, of a 55-cent minni nm, vaca- tions with pay, and differentials for the thiid shift. Nor did the outcome of the election deter Lamb from further efforts to disrupt the Union's attempts to secure it contract. This is seen from a con- sideration of his course of conduct with the fixers' committee in Novembei 1945. Although it is true that the initial approach to Lamb for a wave increase was made bj the fixers nulependently of the Union, Lamb a.,ked the Iixei s to accept a profit-sharing proposition and urged them to use their efforts to create de- pal tmental committees to discuss the mattei with the respondent On Feb- ruary 7, 19-'6, Lamb took further unilateral action independently of any Union eftoits, by ginntnig the employ ees a wage increase of 10 cents an hour, and about a month later, when threat of a strike became paiaunount. Lamb cautioned Ogletree that it the Union persisted in its efforts to go out on strike he would distribute another circnlai warning the employees of the likelihood of financial loss. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 345 The undersigned is of the opinion that the allegations of the complaint con- cerning interfen ence, resttarnt, and coercion are amply supported by the evi- dence The undersigned is of the further opinion that the respondent's course of conduct set forth above and commented on only in part, sufficiently demon- strates that at no time after the Union had been certified as the collective bar- gaining agent. did the respondent, despite protestations to the contrary, intend to enter into a contract with the Union On the other hand, the respondent attempted to undermine the anthonty of the Union by a protracted campaign of ridicule and derision, combined with unilateral wage increases, vacations with pay, and other concessions, all of which it had denied the Union. The undersigned finds on the basis of all of the foregoing that the respondent has inteifered with, restiamed, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and that the respondent thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the Act. Conclusions respecting respondent's refusal to bargain The meetings between the respondent and the Union present a picture of conferring without bargaining. They cover a period of from about May 10, 1944, to December 17, 1945, the date of the sixth conference. On each occasion the conference terminated with no visible results During all of that time the Union made all of the advances and was met with constant delay and procrastination on the part of the respondent. At the same time the respondent was engaging in the conduct which has been commented upon above The principal issues that separated the parties at the first two conferences were inability to agree on a recognition clause, a grievance procedure, arbitration, the union shop, and check- off. At the third conference, held about June 13, 1944, the respondent presented its counter-offer, which for the first time recognized the Union as the collective bargaining agency. At the fourth conference on September 14, 1944, at Union Point, although the Union indicated that a contract without union security and a check-off would be worthless, it is entirely possible that the Union might have changed its position, had there been a disposition on the part of the respondent to recede from its unalterable position. That this is true is seen from the Union's conduct in later conferences when it was willing to withdraw its pro- vision for union security and top seniority for union stewards provided it could secure a check-off of union dues. The undersigned is unable to believe that the respondent was negotiating in good faith with the Union at the first conference on May 10, 1944, in view of its conduct thereafter, for the entire pattern of its conduct particularly following the September 14, 1944, conference is evidence of its desire to e'ade its respon- sibilities to the Union. It is not possible to bargain collectively in good faith with a certified bargaining agent, when at the same time an employer engages in conduct which is the very antithesis of its obligation to bargain. This is true regardless of how many conferences are actually held between the parties and how long and exhaustive may be the discussion of the various contract proposals. In this case, by the time the fifth conference was held in Atlanta in October 1945, the respondent had engaged already in a long series of acts indicating fully to its employees that it would grant none of the Union's demands but would on the other hand grant wage and other concessions to the employees provided they were given independently of union efforts. That the Union was still seriously trying to bargain with the respondent is seen from a reference to the conference which was held on December 17, 1945, 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at Union Point. In an effort to solve the difficulties, the Union offered to with- draw its demand for union security and top seniority for stewards prow ideti the respondent would accept the check-off of dues. The respondent rejected this lirolwsal on January 7, 1946, without making any counterproposal of its own. Further evidence of the respondent's intention to avoid its duty to bargain with the Union, is disclosed in the final proposal submitted to the Union on March 20, 1946. Therein the respondent demanded that the Union furnish a performance bond In Matter of Scripto Alanxfacturmg Company, the Board passed upon a requirement that a union post a bond to guarantee performance of an agreement, and considered with approval its decision in Matter of Jasper Blackbai n ri odiicts Co, poration 3 where the Board said : The Act also requires, in ordinary circumstances, a uu illingness to con- summate any understandings that may be reached in a bilateral signed agreement . . The Respondent, in refusing to execute a signed agree- ment, binding upon both parties. unless the Union posted a bond. sought to prefix the fulfillment of its statutory obligation with a condition not iiithin the provisions, and manifestly inconsistent with the policy of the Act Even assuming a bond of the kind requested to be obtainable, the emplo>er cannot lay down the blanket requirement that the Union pay a tax to a surety company before the result contemplated by the Act, a signed bilateral agreement, can come to pass' By insisting upon the execution of a bond the respondent was atteinplmg to add a condition precedent to bargaining not found in the terms of the Act. The undersigned finds that the respondent by its refusal to execute an agreement respecting terms and conditions of employment unless the Union posted a bond, refused by that act to bargain collectively with the exclusive representative of its employees within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act Following submission of its counterproposal in March 1946. the respondent persisted in its efforts to disrupt the Union On April 5. when strike action was threatened by the Union, the respondent warned its employees that such conduct would seriously affect their earnings Then, about a month later, the respondent notified its employees that it would pay the 1946 vacation bonus Although the Union's proposed contract contained a clause providing for such vacations it was neither consulted about nor credited with this concession About the same time respondent, instead of bargaining with the Union concerning wages, repeated its offer to share its profits and set aside a sum of approximately $15,000 for this purpose. It must be clear without further citation of example, that the respond- ent at no time viewed its obligation to bargain with the Union as requiring it to discuss with the Union changes in terms and conditions of employment before offering such changes to its employees or putting them into effect. Rather, it viewed its position to be that certification of the Union entitled the Union to confer with it but the respondent was free at all times to make whatever unilateral adjustment of working conditions it deemed necessary to satisfy the employees. The undersigned finds that at all times on and after May 10, 1944, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employment and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 3 21 N L R B. 1240 4 a6 N L R B. 411, 426. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 347 rile undersigned has considered the question of whether the views set forth in the various circular letters of the respondent to its employees, are protected by the Constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. The gist of these circulars constituted a warning to the employees that their security depended not upon their affiliation with the Union and the benefits that it could secure through the medium of collective bargaining but rather upon the munificence of the re- spondent. Such a warning to the employees, although couched with the expres- sions of "brotherly love" and good will, was nonetheless clearly effective notice to desist from their union activities Such threats have been held to constitute unfair labor practices and are not covered by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech' Furthermore, applying the test of the Supreme Court that any expression concerning labor organizations by all employer must be evaluated in the context in which the statements are made, the undersigned has found that the respondent was avoiding its duty to bargain with the Union, and appealing directly to its employees by holding forth the threat of economic loss as a result of continued loyalty to the Union Viewed in this light, the respondent's assertion that it would bargain with the Union and that it would be willing to sign a contract if it did not include demands for union security, check-off, and top seniority, gave no assurance to the Union that it would enter into a contract or to the employees that it would abide by their choice of the Union as the col- lective bargaining agent. It was also clear that the choice by the employees of a collective bargaining agent was meaningless, since the respondent would not grant any concessions to the Union, but would, on the contrary, independently of union demands, make such concessions as it chose directly to the employees Under these circumstances the undersigned is of the opinion that the circulars are not protected by the guaranty of freedom of speech and so finds.' IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act The undersigned has found that on March 20, 11144, and at various dates there- alter. the respondent circularized its employees with letters ridiculing and dis- l aracing the Union and warning them that the security of their employment de- pended upon loyalty to the respondent and not affiliation with or membership in the Union The undersigned has found also that on various dates subsequent to March 20, 1944, respondent addressed letters to its employees in an effort to create confusion and disrupt the attempts of the Union to achieve a collective bargain- Inc contract with the respondent by warning all union members as well as non- 5_I1atte, of A J Showalter Company, 64 N L R B 373, Matter of Goodall Company, 6S N I, It B 252 ' See N L It B i 1, a ynna E1ictric and Power Co , 314 U S 469, 479 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union employees that the efforts of the Union to achieve better terms and wv orking conditions were doomed to failure and that the respondent would grant what con- cessions it wished, independently of the Union. The Board has previously found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices of a nature similar to those present in this case' It is apparent, in i iew of previous findings of the Board and the findings made herein, that the acts of the respondent are not isolated instances but, on the contiary, indicate a gen- eral pattern of conduct designed to defeat the employees' freedom of self-organi- zation It is accordingly necessary, in the undersigned's opinion, that the respond- ent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with these iights and the undersigned will so recommend. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will reconnnend that the respondent cease and desist from distributing direct appeals to its em- ployees concerning all matters which are properly the subject of collective bar- gaining between the exclusive representative and the respondent, and upon request of the Union, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment, and finally, that the respondent cease and desist from taking any unilateral action with respect to intes of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment which are properly the sub- ject of collective bargaining between the Union and the respondent Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAN% 1 Textile Workers Union of America. affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged iii and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3 The production and maintenance employees of respondent exclusive of cler- ical and office employees and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein con- stituted and now constitute a runt appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 4. Textile Workers Union of America was on April 3. 1944, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the ap- propriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7 Matter of Union Mann factoring Company, Inc., 27 N L. R B. 1300. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY RECOMMENDATION S 349 Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that Union Manufacturing Company, Union Point, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1 Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees; (b) Interfering with or impeding collective bargaining, by issuance of let- ters, circulars and notices or otherwise, in an attempt to influence or alienate the employees from their chosen representatives; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Textile Workers Union of America as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees ; (b) Post in conspicuous places throughout its hosiery mill and yarn plant at Union Point, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately by the respondent 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 step: 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 Tenth Region in writing within (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent 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. 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 elate of serv'ce of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and Regulation. file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 2:i. I) C :in original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth su<b exceptions to the'Internuednate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as lie 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. Im• 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mediately 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 other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 20365. 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. MORTIMLR RIEMER, Trial Examiner. Dated November 12, 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 NOT interfere with or impede collective bargaining by issuances of letters or otherwise in an attempt to influence or alienate the employees from their chosen representatives. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees excluding clerical and office 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. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Evtployer. By ------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated------------------------ This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.