Otis Elevator Co.

7 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excluding from each group office, clerical, and professional employees, salesmen, guards, department managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act 4 Group (a) : All truck drivers. Group (b) : All meat cutters and luggers. If a majority in each of the two groups vote for the same labor organization, they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to consti- tute a single unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization so chosen for such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority in either group vote for a labor organization not also selected by the other, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represent- atives to the labor organization so chosen for a unit composed of the employees in such group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 The Petitioner desires to represent a plantwide unit including all truck driers, meat cutters, and luggers . In the alternative it is willing to represent two separate units for the outside and inside employees The Intervenor relies on the bargaining history in this plant under its contract with the Employer , contending that the present unit of the truck drivers it represents is appropriate. The Employer is opposed to separate units for its outside and inside employees. The record indicates that in the Employer's Eastern District , which includes Metropolitan New York, New Jersey , and Connecticut , it has several plants where the Petitioner or the Intervenor represent plantwide units. It also has some plants , particularly the larger plants, where its employees are represented in separate units for its outside employees and its inside employees. As the truck drivers are a group such as the Board has frequently found may constitute either a separate unit or be part of a plantwide unit, we find that either a plantwide unit or separate units for the inside and outside employees may be appropriate in this case . Armour & Co . ( Los Angeles plant ), 100 NLRB No. 125 Cf. Swift & Co., 99 NLRB 1497. OTI$ ELEVATOR COMPANY and LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO. Case No. 9-CA-2047. January 29, 1953 Decision and Order On October 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman 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 send desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union filed excepi,ions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. 102 NLRB No. 72. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 771 The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications : We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent was obligated to grant the Union's request for the original time-study data developed by the Respondent's experts in their determination of standards applicable to the job involved in grievance 1855, and to permit the Union to conduct its own time study in order intelligently to appraise the merits of the dispute. Although the Respondent refused both of these requests, the Trial Examiner found a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act only with respect to its refusal to furnish the requested time-study data. As to the refusal to permit the Union to conduct its own time study, the Trial Examiner concluded that there was no violation, because he found that the Union has effec- tive means under the contract in the next step of the grievance pro- cedure to obtain such a study by an arbitrator. The record does not support the latter finding. The contract is silent as to any right of the Union to obtain a time study at the arbitration stage, or at any other stage of the grievance procedure. The record shows only that the Respondent has permitted arbitrators, on a few occasions in the past, to obtain independent time studies. The Respondent also indi- cated at the hearing that it would permit independent time studies in the future at the request of arbitrators. However, its consistent position has been that the Union is not legally entitled to the privilege. In view of these facts, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent's refusal to permit the Union to conduct its own time study was unlawful, and that the Respondent thereby violated Sec- tion 8 (a) (5) of the Act .2 Accordingly, in addition to adopting the Trial Examiner's recommendations, we shall also order that the Respondent, upon request, permit the Union to conduct its own time study of the job involved in grievance 1855, at such stage in the griev- ance procedure as is necessary for the Union to appraise the merits of the grievance and to bargain intelligently. 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 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 2 Crompton -Highland Mills, Inc, 70 NLRB 206; 337 U. S. 217 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Otis Elevator Com- pany, Yonkers, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as exclusive bargaining representative of all production and maintenance em- ployees at its Yonkers plant, including inspectors, exclusive of execu- tive and administrative employees, guards, and all supervisors as de- fined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, by failing or refusing to furnish the Union information for its use which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determination of the production standard involved in grievance 1855, and by refusing to permit the Union to conduct an independent time study through its own experts on the job involved in grievance 1855. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it in behalf of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, furnish to the Union, as exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, information for its use which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determina- tion of the production standard involved in grievance 1855; permit the Union to conduct its own time study on the job involved in griev- ance 1855; and hereafter under like or related circumstances, upon request, furnish to the Union similar information and permit the Union, under reasonable conditions, to conduct its own time studies. (b) Post at its plant at Yonkers, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Responent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 773 Appendix NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL, upon request, furnish to LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargain- ing unit described herein, information for its use showing the basis for our determination of the production standard involved in grievance 1855, and hereafter under like or related circum- stances, upon request we will furnish the above-named union simi- lar information. WE WILL, upon request, under reasonable conditions, permit the above-named union to conduct its own time study on the job in- volved in grievance 1855, in order that the union may appraise the merits of the grievance and bargain intelligently with respect to that grievance, and hereafter under like or related circum- stances upon request we will permit the above-named union to conduct similar time studies. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees at our Yonkers plant, including inspectors, but excluding executive and administrative employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Employer. Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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 and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called, respectively, the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued his complaint dated January 22, 1952, against Otis Elevator Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge together with notice of the hearing were duly served upon the parties. 250983-vol. 102-53--50 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Re- spondent, beginning on or about February 8, 1951, refused to bargain collectively with the Union. The Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 24 and 25, 1952, at New York City before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the charging party, and the Respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded the parties. The parties did not present oral argument at the close of the testimony. The Union and the Respondent each have, but the General Counsel has not, filed a brief with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a New Jersey corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at New York City and plants at Harrison, New Jersey, and Yonkers, New York. At the Yonkers plant, the only facility involved in this proceeding, the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of escalator and elevator equipment and related products. During the year 1950, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations, caused to be purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Yonkers plant, copper, steel, pig iron, and other materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was transported to that plant from States of the United States other than the State of New York. During the same period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured at the Yonkers plant products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was transported from that plant to States of the United States other than the State of New York. The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 453, international Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Refusal to Bargain 1. The appropriate unit and the majority The parties agree and the undersigned finds that all production and mainte- nance employees of the Respondent at its Yonkers plant, including inspectors, exclusive of executive and administrative employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The parties agree and the undersigned finds that on or about November 4, 1949, a majority of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit designated or selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining with the Respondent and that at all times since that date, the Union has been and is now the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 775 bargaining of the employees in the aforesaid unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 2. The request and the refusal to bargain The dispute before the Board arises out of a difference between the Union and the Respondent as to their respective rights and obligations under the Act con- cerning the Union's obtaining certain information from the Respondent relating to wages. The issue presented arose in the course of the processing of a certain grievance known as number 1855 under a contract between the Union and the Respondent dated November 4, 1949.' The grievance involved which remains unresolved was initiated by the Union on September 25, 1950, and within a few days it progressed through the early steps provided for in the contract for settlement by negotiation first between the department steward and the department foreman, and then the building steward and the superintendent The Union described the grievance as having arisen in connection with the operation of a new coil-taping machine installed about 6 months earlier and contested the adequacy of the production standard established by the Respondent under its incentive wage system for that opera- tion. The Union contended that after a fair trial it was found impossible to earn the nonpremium wage and hence the operators were unable to earn the 25 percent minimum premium guaranteed by the contract under the Respondent's incentive system and requested that the standard be adjusted to make it fair and equitable. The Respondent, on the other hand, took the position that the opera- tors of the coil-taping machines involved were not putting forth the effort to earn the 25 percent premium and that they had not given the standards a sufficient trial. The Respondent in addition explained that an engineer was investigating the job and that if he found anything wrong appropriate action would be taken. The issue as it arose between the Union and the Respondent involves a pro- vision of the contract under which they have agreed that the average trained and experienced employee should be able in his occupation to earn at least 25 percent over standard through exerting extra effort.' The following is a de- scription of the incentive plan adopted from the Respondent's brief : Under the system there are established standards which are amounts of time for doing jobs determined upon the basis of what an average employee 'Negotiations for a new contract were commenced in August 1951 , and after a strike an agreement was reached in December 1951. During the course of these negotiations the Union requested, and the Respondent refused to disclose, information of the same nature as is here involved 2 The text of the agreement , article x, entitled "Wage Incentive System, Section 1," provides as follows : Section 1. The Wage Incentive System is designed to enable : (a) The average employee who is trained and experienced in the occupation in which engaged to increase his earnings at least 25-%Jo through incentive premium offered for extra effort. (b) The Employer to intelligently control its estimates, production, scheduling, routing and costs. Section 2 provides, in part, as follows : For this mutual purpose, the Wage Incentive System shall continue and the Employer agrees : (a) To maintain the maximum practical coverage in present measured departments by the following methods or any combination thereof : (1) Direct time study (2) Standard data (3) Use of elements from existing time studies on comparable jobs (4) Estimate 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trained and experienced in the occupation would be expected to do without extra effort over the course of an 8-hour day after making adequate allow- ance for relaxation and time for personal necessities . The amount of work that such a man would be expected to do in one minute under such circum- stances is called a "unit". Therefore an employee working under such cir- cumstances over the course of an 8-hour day would be expected to produce 480 units of work without extra effort and for that he would be paid his regular hourly wage . If he produced less his pay would not be reduced. If he produced exactly 480 units he would have worked a "60 unit hour." To the extent that the employee produces units in excess of 480 during an 8-hour day , he receives additional incentive compensation at the incentive rate for his job set forth in [the section of the agreement between the Re- spondent and the Union entitled Wage Rates]. If in a particular day, for example, instead of producing 480 units he produced 720 units, he would receive for the additional 240 units pay for 4 hours at the incentive rate set forth in [the contract]. Such an employee would have worked a "90 unit hour." Standards may be established by four different means, or any combination of them, as provided in Section 2 of the contract [quoted in part in footnote 2, above]. They are direct time study, standard data, use of elements from existing time studies on comparable jobs and estimate. • Direct time study involves a time study man observing the actual per- formance of a job or elements of a job, recording the time taken by the operator, estimating the rate of speed at which the employee worked and correcting the actual times taken to the theoretical norm of a 60 unit hour and adding an allowance for relaxation for the job. Standard data represents the synthesis of time studies previously taken. The use of elements from existing time studies on comparable jobs means the use of partial time values from other jobs in combination with other values in order to make up a new complete standard. Estimate means that time for the job or element is either computed mathematically upon the basis of machine tool speeds and feeds, is taken partly from existing studies or is pure estimate without any supporting figures. Any combination of the methods may be used in determining the standard upon a particular job. As between the Union and the Respondent the contractual issue centers upon the adequacy or fairness of the standard applied to this particular operation. No settlement was reached in the course of the first two steps of the grievance procedure and the grievance was presented at the weekly grievance procedure meetings for further discussion-the final step under the contract for negotiation between the Union and the Respondent preceding a solution of the grievance by decision as a result of submitting the matter to arbitration. Grievance 1855 along with other grievances was taken up at about 7 of these committee meetings during September and a month or two thereafter. During these meetings, each of which lasted about 3 hours, grievance 1855 was discussed for varying periods from about 15 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was also one occasion when a special meeting was devoted to this grievance. The grievance never went beyond this stage of the procedure. In the course of these meetings, as was the Respondent's custom, the Respond- ent produced its file as to the standard for the Union's inspection in an effort to explain its position. In this instance the Respondent's purpose was to show what changes had been made in the standard. Although the union people OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 777 undoubtedly had some understanding of the matters involved, as one of the Respondent's representatives who was present at the meeting described in his testimony, ". . . I don't doubt for a second that it confused rather than clarified things and when the volume of material was seen by the union , I guess they were just flabergasted." During this period of negotiation the Union requested permission to bring its own time-study man in and conduct a study of the job, and the Respondent declined the request. On another occasion the Union asked that it be furnished or be permitted to make copies of the data which the Re- spondent had already produced. The Respondent declined this request also. The Union urged to the Respondent that the information requested was neces- sary to bargaining and to a presentation of the grievance to an arbitrator. These refusals by the Respondent on February 8, 1951, as to the Union's conducting its own time study and on May 15, 1951, as to the furnishing of the information, form the test as to whether the Respondent violated the Act. There is no disagreement among the parties as to the general principle that an employer, in order to fulfill its obligation under the Act to bargain in good faith, is required upon request to furnish a labor organization with information necessary for the labor organization to bargain intelligently over in matters in issue. There is no dispute that the information here involved is peculiarly within the Respondent's control. The disagreement arises in the application of the general principle to the circumstances of the case. The Respondent urges that the documents, including copies of the time studies, are useless to the Union or to anyone else who was not present when the studies were made and who is not familiar with the workings of the plant and with the Respondent's concept of norm in which it trains its time-study men. More particularly, the Respondent urges that there is a subjective factor known as coding which underlies its ultimate conclusion and that this factor involves judg- ment in estimating the rate of performance or pace of work making adequate allowances for relaxation and time for personal necessities. Although the Union points out that some indirect examination of the coding could be made from the documents alone, the Union concedes that it might appear upon in- vestigation in this instance or in a given set of circumstances that the time studies or data alone are useless and contends that in such an event its own time study would be indicated. It pointed out further that the difficulties do not in all instances arise from the coding factor and that an examination of the time studies or data by its expert and an interview with the men might lead to its own determination of the merit or lack of merit of the grievance or give it an appreciation as to where the difficulty lies. The Union showed, for example, that it could thus learn whether the job corresponds with the elements set forth in the data, whether the elements are in conformity with the data, whether the data is representative, and whether the data is the controlling factor in the study. If it had a time study performed, the Union urges, it could learn, aside from gaining information which might be used to question the coding factor- the sequence by which the job is performed-whether the process was responsible for the dispute, whether alternate work patterns were given full reflection in the Respondent's studies, and whether important deviations were given adequate consideration. Although the Respondent is undoubtedly convinced of the accuracy of the information it has carefully collected , has complete confidence in the soundness of the conclusions it has reached in the form of standards , and believes that the information requested would not be useful to the Union for further checking, it is not for the Respondent to pass upon the relevancy of the information 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sought once it has been placed in issue and is not patently outside the bargaining area.' The Respondent's production standard and the basis for the standard have been placed in issue and are relevant to wages. The Respondent urges also that the contract with the Union fully expresses its obligation to furnish information. The Respondent relies upon certain of three notice provisions in the article concerning the wage incentive system. One, the Respondent is obligated to give written notice to the Union and the employee involved when elements are eliminated from the standard. Two, when new production standards are established it is required to make available in writing in the department affected its conclusions as to the coding (except when standard data is used), and its directions as to equipment, tooling, speeds, and feeds, and other pertinent matters. Three, when it makes new or revises old standards for labor which contributes toward but does not directly engage in production it must furnish copies of the standards to the Union. The effect of the Respondent's argument that the contract fully expresses its obligation to furnish information to the Union is that by implication the Union agreed that it was not entitled to and waived its statutory right to any additional information to process grievances under the procedure also provided for in the contract. The setting forth of these provisions does not constitute the "clear and unmistakable" showing of waiver required by the Board 4 It appears, more- over, in practice when negotiating under the contract toward the settlement of a grievance that it was customary for the Respondent to make certain disclosures as to the basis for its decision as to a standard. The Respondent urges further that as a practical matter the Union has suffi- cient information to police the incentive system. The Respondent points out that the Union has information from several sources, (1) the notice of changes provided for under the contract, (2) the information in the possession of the individual operator, and (3) disclosures and explanations of original time studies, data, graphs, and other materials at the grievance-committee meetings already referred to when under the contract the Union could have had its expert present. The Respondent also points out that it has invited union officials for training in its time-study methods but the Union declined the invitation. The information the Respondent furnishes in accordance with the contract appears to be little more than notice of changes in standards in conclusional form. The individual operator is also informed of the requirements of the job to be done. The only time that there was a disclosure to the Union of the underlying data or basis for the Respondent's decision as to the proper standard relating to grievance 1855 was at the grievance-committee meeting already re- ferred to. The Respondent's representative present at the meeting explained in his testimony that he was ". . . not quite sure as to just how much inspection was given [the Union] nor how much . . . would have been tolerated; but, at the same time, . . . [the file] was brought down to answer [the Union's] ques- tions-which would be by inspection, if necessary." There appears to be no doubt that the material here involved could not be analyzed and evaluated by an expert in the course of a half hour or so. It would appear also that the detail would thereafter have to be retained by him to effectively interview the operators. Although the actual earnings of premium by some employee or employees indicates that the premium can be achieved, there is no question that where the dispute resolves itself into an issue of the adequacy of the standard both the underlying documentation and a time study of the job are necessary for a determination of the merits of the issue. In at least one instance an arbitrator under the grievance procedure had a time study conducted to s N L. R. B. v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F. 2d 947. * General Controls Co., 88 NLRB 1841. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 779 resolve an issue as to the adequacy of a standard. It would seem that bargain- ing in good faith calls for inspection at reasonable times and places sufficient to afford a labor organization an opportunity to study and analyze the complex materials involved so that it could find the basis of the dispute and appraise it. It would follow also that in the event this method does not suffice the labor organization should be permitted under reasonable conditions to perform its own time study in order to obtain the information necessary for bargaining. To rule otherwise would put the employees' representative in a position in nego- tiating with the employer where it would be opposing the employer's conclusions arbitrarily, that is, without knowing the basis of a given dispute except that some member was complaining. This would be the antithesis of intelligent bar- gaining fostered by the Act and might affect the representative's fulfillment of its affirmative obligation to bargain in good faith. The Respondent offers two additional reasons for opposing this view of the duty to bargain in good faith. First, the Respondent points out that it has the sole right under the contract to establish production standards, that the Union has the right to attack the standards if they do not meet the minimum premium test, but that the Union is here seeking to inject itself into the formation of the standards. It does not appear to the undersigned that the Union is seeking more than to effectuate its right of review or as the Respondent puts it, attack the standards as not meeting the minimum premium test. Secondly, the Respondent objects to disclosing its internal working papers. The effect of this argument is that the material is confidential. The Board has found no merit to substan- tiate this objection to making disclosures.` It is accordingly found that beginning May 15, 1951, when the Respondent refused to disclose any information for the Union's use in a practical manner which would show the basis for the Respondent's determination as to the pro- duction standard involved in grievance 1855, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Union has effective means under the contract in the next step of the grievance procedure to obtain an independent time study by an arbitrator, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to pass upon the issue as to whether the Respondent's refusal to permit the Union to conduct its own time study of the job in question is violative of the Act. IV. THE EFFEOT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE 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 obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondent refused to bargain in violation of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with information for its use which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determination of the production standard involved in grievance 1855, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease from engaging in this conduct and upon request disclose this information to the Union. It is contemplated by the remedy recommended that the Re- spondent would upon request disclose to the Union sufficient information as to the basis for arriving at the production standard involved in the grievance 1855 so that the Union would have an opportunity for a full understanding of the 5Aluminum Ore Company, 39 NLRB 377, enforced 131 F . 2d 485. Southern Saddlery Company, 90 NLRB 1205. 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD basis of their dispute and there would be a sufficient narrowing of the issues so that the Union could make an intelligent decision as to whether it should yield, negotiate further, or invoke the arbitration provisions of the contract to obtain an independent time study. Because of the limited scope of the Re- spondent's refusal to bargain and because of the absence of any indication that danger of violation of other provisions of the Act is to be anticipated from the Respondent's past conduct, it will not be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease or desist from the commission of any other unfair labor practices. It will be, however, recommended that the Respondent be ordered not to engage in any like or related conduct. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Yonkers plant, including inspectors, exclusive of executive and administrative employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. The Union has been at all times since November 4, 1949, and is now the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with information for its use which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determination of the pro- duction standard involved in grievance 1855, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By the aforementioned conduct, the Respondent has interfered with, re- strained, coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) 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. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] FRED E. NELSON, D/B/A NELSON INDUSTRIES , NELSON STAMPING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND ELECTRO-CAP MOLD COMPANY and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 6-CA-450. January 29,1953 Decision and Order On July 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that 102 NLRB No. 88