The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tenance employees, we find that aunitconfinedto billposters is inappropriate.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2See Montgomery Ward and Company, 99 NLRB 1490; Arnold Hoffman R, Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 1371; cf National Transitads, Inc., 67 NLRB 511. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. O. Case No. 16-CA-435. July 6, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On January 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, as alleged in the amended complaint, and recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the charging Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The charging Union duly filed a brief in support of its exceptions, and the Respondent duly filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.' The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. With the exception noted below, the rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in 'The Respondent requested special leave to file additionally a reply brief in answer to the charging Union's exceptions and brief, and submitted copies thereof together with its request. The Union opposed the request. As the Respondent has failed to give sufficient reason for granting such special leave, its request is refused and its reply brief is hereby rejected. IDuring the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, acting upon the Respondent's motion, dismissed paragraph 8, A, of the amended complaint without considering the merits thereof The Trial Examiner's ruling was based upon the fact that the unfair labor practice alleged in the said paragraph had not been brought to the Respondent's attention within 6 months after its occurrence. The event in question occurred on or about November 30. 1951, some 2 months after the filing of the charge. The Board has frequently pointed out, however. that Section 10 (b) does not preclude inclusion in the complaint of acts believed violative of the Act where they occur subsequent to the filing of the charge. Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, affirmed on this point in 185 F. 2d 1021 (C.A. 5), reversed on other grounds in 189 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 5); Shen Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated, 105 NLRB 491 We have accordingly reinstated this allegation of the amended complaint and have considered it on the merits. The record shows that the conduct complained of in paragraph 8, A, of the amended com- plaint involved the Respondent's reprimand of a number of employees who left their work to discuss the progress of the bargaining negotiations in which the Respondent and the charging Union were then engaged There is no evidence that the Respondent's reprimand was either improperly motivated or reflected any interference with the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees under the Act. Stibbs Transportation Lines, Inc., et al., 98 NLRB 422. Accord- ingly, in adopting the Trial Examiner's ultimate determination dismissing this portion of the amended complaint, we do so for the above reasons, rather than for those motivating the Trial Examiner. 106 NLRB No. 5 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 3 the case, and hereby adopts, with minor corrections' and modifications,4 the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] Member Peterson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 3 In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner made the inadvertent statement that the amended complaint alleged violations of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act The amended com- plaint, in fact, alleged the acts described therein as violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) were unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby correct the Intermediate Report in this respect. With respect to the number of the charging Union's proposals, the Intermediate Report states at page 11 that there were 30 such proposals and then enumerates the actions taken thereon which relate to 37 proposals. Obviously the figure 30 is a typographical error, and it is hereby corrected to read 37. We also make the following corrections of misstatements of fact appearing in the Inter- mediate Report which do not, however, affect the ultimate conclusions: (1) Page 6: At the August 27 meeting, with respect to vacations, the parties reached agree- ment only as to the time of taking vacations. (2) Page 7: At the August 29 meeting, with respect to the duration of agreement clause, the charging Union's proposal provided for termination upon 60 days' notice any time after the contract had been in effect for a year, rather than 60 days prior to anniversary dates sub- sequent to the first one. With respect to the no-strike or lockout and termination clauses, the charging Union's agreement was dependent upon agreements reached on other contract clauses, rather than being conclusive. (3) Page 8: At the October 24 meeting, the Respondent took under consideration the charging Union's request for a list of merit increases and the dates thereof for the past 12 months, it did not agree to supply such list. (4) Page 9: At the October 25 meeting, with respect to the subject to laws clauses, the Respondent proposed changing the word "direction" to "directive," it did not agree to the change. (5) Page 10: At the May 8 meeting, the charging Union did not propose to reduce the num- ber of plants surveyed under the wage survey plan (6) Page 10: At the June 5 meeting, with respect to the holiday clause, the proposal was that of the charging Union and was taken under consideration by the Respondent, rather than vice versa. Also the Respondent took under advisement the charging Union's suggested change as to bidding on temporary jobs, rather than changes as to job headings. (7) Page 11: There were 28 bargaining conferences rather than 50. (8) Page 15: Fulkerson and Douglas did not deny the rumors relating to the Respondent's economic concessions at other plants whenever such rumors were called to their attention 4 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's view that, in filing the initial charge, the charging Union was not acting in good faith, nor do we adopt his conclusion that, in the negotiations, "the Union was acting 'for the record' while destroying the process of orderly collective bargaining and then putting the blame of refusing to bargain 'in good faith' upon Respondent." Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on September 28, 1951, by Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board, issued his amended complaint on September 2, 1952, against The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Dallas, Texas, herein called Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge and the amended complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged in substance that: (1) Respondent, since August 7, 1951, refused to bargain collectively with the Union although 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union had been designated and selected as the collective -bargaining representative by Respondent 's employees in a certain appropriate unit, and was certified as such representa- tive by the Board on July 9, 1951, and (2) engaged in certain stated conduct and made various statements which interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer to the amended complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the undersigned , the duly designated Trial Examiner , at Dallas, Texas , from September 16 through September 29, 1952. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented at the hearing by counsel and the Union by an official thereof. Full opportunity was granted the parties to be heard , to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues . At the conclusion of the General Counsel 's case-in-chief, Respondent 's counsel made various motions to dismiss the complaint , or, in the alternative , certain portions thereof. The motions were denied except the motion relating to the so-called laboratory incident , which was granted . The under- signed also granted Respondent 's motion to strike the testimony of witness N. P. Carter with respect to his May 29, 1952 , conversation with F . F. Merrett. At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence , the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor inaccuracies . The motion was granted without objection . Respondent's counsel then renewed his motions to dismiss the complaint. Decision thereon was reserved. The motion is disposed of in accordance with the findings , conclusions , and recommendations hereinafter set forth . Oral argument was waived. The parties were given until October 201 to file briefs or findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, with the undersigned. The briefs received from the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses , the under- signed makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENT The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation , is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Procter & Gamble Company , and has its principal place of business and offices in Cincinnati , Ohio. Respondent operates plants at 10 locations throughout the United States, including 1 at Dallas , Texas , the employees of which are the only ones involved in this proceeding. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of soap products and edible oils . The parent corporation , The Procter & Gamble Company , operates a soap and edible oil plant at Ivorydale , Ohio. In addition , the parent corporation , through its wholly owned subsidiary Hewitt Soap Company , operates a soap plant at Dayton , Ohio, and through another wholly owned subsidiary , Buckeye Cotton Oil Company , operates 19 plants throughout the United States . The parent corporation together with some of its wholly owned subsidiaries have operated in England , Canada, the Philippines , and other foreign countries. The out-of-State annual purchases of Respondent 's Dallas, Texas , plant, exceed $ 100,000 and its annual out-of-State shipments of finished products exceed $100,000. Respondent concedes , and the undersigned finds, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership persons employed at Respondent 's Dallas, Texas, plant. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In 1937, Respondent entered into the first of a series of contracts with the duly designated collective -bargaining representative of its Dallas , Texas, employees in a certain appropriate 'At the request of counsel for Respondent the time was extended until November 10. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 5 unit. The 1937 contract was with an unaffiliated labor organization whose membership was confined to the Dallas plant employees. Subsequently, this organization affiliated with In- dependent Soap and Edible Oil Workers Union (ISEOWU) whose membership was not con- fined to the Dallas plant employees but was extended to include employees of other soap and edible oil plants of Respondent. In 1950 ISEOWU was replaced as the representative of the Dallas plant employees by Independent Soap and Oil Workers Union (ISOWU) whose mem- bership was confined to employees of said plant. That year a collective-bargaining agreement, dated May 3, 1950, was entered into by and between Respondent and ISOWU covering em- ployees in the same unit whom ISEOWU had represented. In April 1951 Respondent and ISOWU entered in negotiations looking toward a new contract. In these negotiations ISOWU demanded that Respondent's wage-survey plan and its merit wage-increase system be eliminated . Because Respondent refused to bow to said demands and because no agreement on the "right to waive agreement" could be reached negotiations were broken off sometime in April or May 1951. On May 10, after receipt of a written notice from the Union stating that it represented a majority of the Dallas plant employees, and demanding recognition as such representative, Respondent filed a petition with the Board requesting that the Board resolve the question whether the Union or ISOWU represented the employees involved. At about the same time, the Union filed a similar petition with the Board. Subsequently, these petitions were consoli- dated. Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election," an election by secret ballot was conducted under the auspices of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. No objections to the conduct of the election having been filed and it appearing from the tally of ballots that the Union had been selected as the collective representative of the persons permitted to vote, the Board , on July 9, certified the Union as the collective-bar- gaining representative of all the persons employed at Respondent's Dallas, Texas, plant, exclusive of superintendent , superintendent's secretary , general supervisor 's secretary, industrial relations supervisor 's secretary , cashier, other staff employees performing work of a confidential nature , guards and watchmen, professional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.2 B. The alleged refusal to bargain 1. The contentions of the parties At the hearing and in his brief, the General Counsel contended , among other things, (1) that the totality of Respondent 's conduct from August 7, 1951 , the date of the initial bargaining conference , shows that Respondent did not approach the bargaining table with an open mind or with a sincere purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties but, instead, Respondent attempted to destroy the standing and the certification of the Union and attempted to persuade its employees to withdraw from the Union and to return to an independent union as their bargaining representative ; and (2) that the lack of Respondent's good-faith bargaining is reflected by the disparity of treatment meted out to the Union at the Dallas plant in contrast to Respondent 's dealings with independent unions at certain other of its plants. On the other hand, Respondent not only denied that it failed to bargain in good faith but contended that the Union failed to carry out its statutory duty of bargaining in good faith for 2 The amended complaint alleged, Respondent 's answer admitted , and the undersigned finds that the aforesaid unit found by the Board at all times material herein constituted, and now constitutes, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The amended complaint further alleged, Respondent's answer admitted, and the undersigned finds, that at all times since June 26, 1951 (the day of the aforementioned Board-conducted election), the Union was, and still is, the duly desig- nated and selected collective- bargaining representative of the majority of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. Accordingly , the undersigned finds that , pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was at all such times material herein, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to pay, wages, hours of employment , or other conditions of employment. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it was the Union's tactics and unreasonable demands which prevented an agreement from being reached. 2. The negotiations 3 On August 6. the day before the date set for the initial bargaining conference, Respondent submitted to the Union a proposed wage increase for certain classified employees. The Union stated that it would advise Respondent whether it would accept or reject the offer when the parties met the following day. At the August 7 meeting, the Union rejected the proffered wage increase. The Union proposed that its 12 committee members be paid for time lost in negotiating meetings. Respondent replied that it was willing to pay for time lost to 4 members. After further discussion, Respondent agreed to compensate 8 members for time lost. This offer was not acceptable to the Union. Discussion then was had with respect to the Union's proposal that the negotiations be conducted at night or on weekends. In response to the Union's request to use the plant's bulletin boards, Respondent stated it would consider the request as a bargaining point, adding that in the past it had been unwilling to allow the bargaining repre- sentative permission to use the bulletin boards until a bargaining contract had been executed. Respondent, although requested to do so, refused to supply the Union with a prepaid copy of the minutes of the negotiating conferences, stating that the Union was at liberty to make whatever arrangements it desired with the reporter. The Union's request for a dues-deduction provision in the contract was refused on the ground that such deductions having been stopped with the expiration of the ISOWU contract, Respondent was unwilling to add or substitute to the 9 payroll deductions already in effect. The next meeting was held on August 9. There, Respondent agreed to pay the 12 members of the Union's committee for time lost in negotiations. Respondent again refused to grant the Union permission to use the bulletin boards until an agreement was executed. No agree- ment was reached on the Union's proposal on recall of terminated employees in accordance with seniority; or its proposal to eliminate the wage survey plan and the merit system; or its proposal for a 15-cent across-the-board wage increase; or its proposal to reword the higher rated job clause which appeared in the ISOWU contract; or its proposal to have Respondent train a union representative in job evaluation and time study; or its proposal to eliminate the provision in the ISOWU contract which provided for equal pay for women working on men's jobs; or its proposal for an increase in night shift differential; or its proposal to change the ISOWU call-in-pay clause; or its proposal to increase the overtime lunch money allowance from 75 cents to $1. No agreement was reached on Respondent's proposed management function clause. Agreement, however, was reached on the Union's proposal that the overtime provision in the ISOWU contract be retained. The next day, August 10, the parties again met. The Union proposed changing the following in the ISOWU contract: (1) Work clause; (2) overtime distribution clause; (3) pyramiding overtime clause; (4) holiday clause; (5) the vacation clause; and (6) liberalizing the funeral pay clause. No agreement was reached with respect to said proposals. Nor was agreement reached on Respondent's proposal to clarify the meaning of the vacation clause. Agreement, however, was reached with respect to the Union's request that the authorized absence from the job clause, the jury-service clause, and the union-membership clause be retained. At the August 27 meeting, agreement was reached on the Union's proposals to retain the vacation and the computation of vacation pay clauses. No agreement was reached on the Union's proposal to change the vacation clause relative to employees terminated prior to vacation time. The Union and Respondent each proposed certain changes in the grievance procedure. No agreement was reached with respect to these proposals. At the August 28 meeting, discussion was had respecting changes in the clauses relative to seniority, leave of absence for union business, company rules and regulations, and sever- ance pay. No agreement, however, was reached. Respondent agreed to the Union's suggestion that the clauses of the ISOWU contract relative to (1) safety and first aid; (2) supervisory list; (3) employee identification tags; and (4) work performed by foremen be retained. Suggestions were offered by Respondent and by the Union regarding types of union notices which may be posted on the bulletin boards but no suggestion was acceptable. 3 The procedure followed in the bargaining was to work from the ISOWU contract which had expired in the spring of 1951, and the parties proposed either retention or change of said contract provisions. In addition, each party also proposed entirely new provisions. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 7 At the meeting held on August 29, no agreement was reached on the Union's proposal to change the subject to law clause, and the duration of agreement clause (Union proposed that the contract renew itself from year to year unless notice of termination was given by either party 60 days prior to the anniversary date and that the contract may be opened for wages by either party on 30 days' notice). Respondent rejected, after discussion , the Union's proposed sick leave and group hospitalization plans. Respondent also refused to grant a 20-cent per hour across -the-board increase. The parties did agree to retain the no-strike or lockout and the termination clauses of the ISOWU contract. The next meeting between the parties took place on September 12. Respondent deferred decision on the Union 's proposal to include its watchmen under the contract pending receipt of a letter from the watchmen authorizing the Union to represent them. No agreement was reached relative to the respective proposals of the Union and of Respondent regarding the presence of department stewards at grievance discussions nor was agreement reached on the Union's and Respondent's proposals respecting an employee 's right to waive the agree- ment in case of an emergency. Respondent rejected , after considerable discussion, the Union's demand for a dues checkoff clause. Discussion was then had relative to the Union's demand for a 20-cent per hour general wage increase and Respondent 's proposal that the wage-survey plan and merit-rating system be retained. The Union requested that its proposal for change in the higher rated job clauses be deferred until the question of wages be settled. The Union proposed that it be permitted to select an individual to be trained by Respondent in job evaluation and time study and that said individual be permitted to represent the Union in disputes with management over time study and job evaluation. Respondent countered that the clause of the ISOWU contract with respect to that subject be retained. No agree- ment was reached. Respondent accepted the Union 's proposal to eliminate the provision for equal pay for women performing men's jobs. No agreement was reached with respect to the Union 's proposal to the night shift differen- tial clause and Respondent's proposal that no change be made. Respondent deferred decision on the Union's proposal that the call-in-pay clause provide for the giving of breakfast, under certain circumstances , to persons working on the job. At the September 13 meeting, the Union stood on its proposal to increase the lunch money allowance from 75 cents to $1 and Respondent countered by proposing to retain the 75-cent allowance. Respondent stood on its proposal for a management function clause which would spell out management responsibilities ; the Union deferred decision. The Union stood on its proposal to change the hours -of-work clause to provide for the Union 's approval before a change of shift is made at the employee 's request and for the payment of overtime on the first day of a change of shift if the change is made at the end of the employee 's regular workweek ; Respondent rejected the proposal and proposed that the clause of ISOWU contract respecting such shift changes be retained subject to slight rewording for purposes of clarity. No agreement was reached regarding the Union's proposal to change the ISOWU clause regarding the distribution of overtime and Respondent 's proposal for its retention. Nor was agreement reached regarding the Union 's proposal to change and Respondent's proposal to retain the pyramiding overtime clause, holiday clause, funeral pay clause , and three sections of the vacation clause of the ISOWU contract . No agreement was reached regarding the changes proposed by the Union and by Respondent in the grievance procedure of the ISOWU contract. The parties met again on September 14, at which time discussion was had on the Union's proposal to change the seniority clause; Respondent countered by submitting a written pro- posed new clause. Decision on this clause was deferred . Decision also was deferred on the Union's revised change of the clause respecting the provision for obedience to Respondent's published rules and regulations . The Union again proposed to change the clause relative to leaves of absence for union business ; Respondent countered by proposing the retention of the clause. No agreement was reached with regard to the Union 's proposal that the bulle- tin board notice clause be retained and Respondent's proposal that the clause be revised to restrict the type of notice the Union may post thereon. Respondent proposed that a provision be included in the new contract to the effect that terminations of employment be not subject to arbitration; the Union countered by proposing that the contract provide for arbitration of terminations . Respondent's proposal to eliminate the size of the union negotiating committee to 12 was rejected by the Union. The Union's proposal to change the severance pay clause was rejected by Respondent . No agreement was reached with respect to the Union 's proposal to change the subject to laws clause nor was agreement reached with respect to the Union 's request to change the duration of con- tract clause. Respondent rejected the Union's proposal that Respondent pay the premiums for group hospitalization and the proposal to change the sick leave pay clause. 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The next meeting between the parties took place on October 1.4 This meeting was attended, at the request of the Union , by a conciliator of the United States Mediation and Conciliation Service. In response to the Union 's inquiry whether Respondent had any further proposals on the call-in-pay clause, Respondent replied that it still thought the ISOWU clause should be retained. The Union then offered a new proposal , which Respondent rejected on the grounds that the parties should retain the old clause . The Union 's proposal that it be permitted to bring into the plant an international representative to sit in at grievance meetings which took place before the grievance went to arbitration was not acceptable to Respondent. The Union then proposed the superintendent or his representative clause be modified . Respondent accepted this proposal. Discussion was then had about the watchmen being included in the bargaining unit. Re- spondent agreed to include them upon presentation of a letter signed by the watchmen stating that they desired the Union to represent them . No agreement was reached on the Union's proposal to change the distribution of overtime clause. On October 2 the parties and the conciliator again met. Respondent agreed to the Union's request for a list of the names of the employees in the bargaining unit. Discussion was then had to the various proposals relative overtime distribution , use of bulletin boards, and payroll dues deductions , but no agreement was reached on any item. At the October 4 meeting Respondent announced that it had not as yet completed its survey respecting the Union's request that hot lunches be supplied . Respondent agreed to give further consideration to the Union 's proposal that an international representative sit in on grievance meetings held in the plant. The Union rejected Respondent 's proposal that ter- minated employees who have grievances concerning their termination may submit such grievance within 10 days of their termination , but such grievances were not subject to arbi- tration. Respondent then supplied the Union with a list of the names of the employees in the bargaining unit, their job titles , and their rates of pay. At the October 17 meeting Respondent furnished the Union , without cost, a copy of the minutes of all the bargaining conferences to date and then stated that copies of all future minutes would be supplied to the Union free of charge . The Union took no action on Re- spondent's proposal to include in the grievance procedure a step whereby a grievance may -be taken, after it had been passed upon by the factory superintendent , to Respondent's presi- dent for decision , prior to the matter going to arbitration. Agreement was reached on the proposal that no employee may waive any right under the bargaining agreement without the approval of his department steward or a union officer. No agreement was reached regarding the Union 's new night shift differential proposal. Nor was any agreement arrived at regarding the Union 's new proposal for revocable dues checkoff. On October 24 the parties met again . Respondent agreed to supply the Union with "a weekly gross earnings figure for the Dallas factory comparable to that reported by the Department of Labor" and to furnish the Union with an up -to-date wage survey for the Dallas factory. Respondent took under consideration the Union 's request for a list of the names of persons in the bargaining unit including job names . It also agreed to supply the names of the persons who in the past 12 months had received merit increases and the dates thereof. Respondent rejected, after explaining its reasons , the Union 's request that its representative accompany Respondent's representative when the latter visits plants of other employers for the purpose of complying the next wage survey. At the October 25 meeting, the Union proposed that the Union's deputy poll tax collectors be permitted to collect poll taxes once a week at the credit union booth. Respondent took the request under, advisement . Respondent agreed to the Union's proposal that Respondent present to the Union a proposed contract. 40n September 28 the Union filed with the Board a charge alleging that Respondent has, and was, violating 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act in that Respondent "has since July 9, 1951, and continuously to date ... discriminated against the employees in regard to terms and conditions of employment to discourage membership in Oil Workers International Union, CIO The Company has taken away and is attempting to limit rights and benefits formerly enjoyed by the employees, all for the sole purpose of discouraging membership in the Union (2) The Company has, since July 9, 1951, . . refused to bargain collectively in good faith with [the Union] . in that, through devious means, it has attempted to circumvent the negotiating committee; to remove from the area of collective bargaining many matters dealing with conditions of employment and has refused to incorporate in the proposed contract benefits favorable as those formerly enjoyed by the employees, all for the sole purpose of undermin- ing the bargaining ability of the bargaining agent and to avoid good faith bargaining . . THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 9 Respondent, proposed that whenever an employee worked 10 or more consecutive hours it furnish free lunch to said employee or, if he desired, it would pay him 75 cents as lunch money. The Union countered with a request for the payment of one dollar as lunch money. This demand Respondent rejected. The Union then took Respondent's proposal under advise- ment. The Union agreed to accept Respondent's proposed subject to laws provision if the word "direction" was changed to "directive." Respondent agreed to the suggested change. The Union agreed to withdraw its proposed severance pay clause provided Respondent agreed to give an employee discharged for any reason other than just cause and who had been in Respondent's employ for at least 60 days, 1 week's termination notice, compensa- tion for vacation due, and 1 week's severance pay. Respondent agreed to compensate such employee for vacation due and give him either 1 week's notice of termination or, in lieu thereof, 1 week's pay, provided said employee was discharged for reasons other than in- fraction of Respondent's rules and regulations or for insubordination. No agreement was reached regarding said clause. Nor was agreement reached regarding the Union's proposal that the ISOWU rules and regulations clause be changed Respondent agreed to supply the Union with a list of names of the persons in its employ for the past 12 months, their respective job names, and the names of the persons who had received merit increases during said period, and the dates of such increases. The Union took under advisement Respondent's proposed changes of the ISOWU subject of laws clause. It also took under advisement Respondent's proposal that a clause.be inserted in the con- tract permitting the parties to bargain during contract negotiations on any and all matters not prohibited by law and agree not to request bargaining about any matter, during the life of the contract, on subjects not covered by the contract. Sometime prior to the next bargaining conference, held on November 12, Respondent submitted to the Union (1) a list containing the names of all persons in its employ for the past 12 months, their respective job names, the names of persons who had received merit increases during said period, and the dates said increases were given; and (2) the requested weekly gross earning figures for the Dallas plant. At the meeting of November 12, Respondent presented to the Union a proposed contract, stating that It was willing to bargain with respect to any item therein not acceptable to the Union. Respondent also presented to the Union the requested current wage survey and then proposed that certain increases be immediately granted to employees in certain named classified jobs. The Union accepted the proposed increases. Discussion was had, but no agreement reached, with respect to Respondent's wage-survey plan. The Union presented certain proposals regarding such plan. Discussion was then had on the changes proposed by the Union and the proposals in Respondent's contract. Re- spondent took under consideration 4 changes suggested by the Union, agreed to 1, and rejected 1. The November 29 conference was devoted mainly to a discussion regarding the wage- survey plan. Each party accepted certain changes suggested by the other. No agreement, however, was reached regarding the Union's proposal that the entire plan be discarded. The Union accepted Respondent's proposed subject to laws clause. The Union rejected Respondent's proposed clause regarding bargaining with respect to any and all matters not prohibited by law and to prohibit the reopening of the contract to bargain about matters not covered by the contract. At the November 30 meeting, discussion was had with respect to the Union's demand for a dues checkoff clause, its demand for a higher differential in pay for employees on the night shift, and its call-in-pay demand. Respondent made certain counteroffers with respect to the last two items but no agreement was reached with regard to them. Respondent rejected, for reasons it had already given, the proposed dues checkoff clause. On December 14, the parties held a special meeting at which Respondent proposed, and the Union accepted, a wage increase for the firemen. At the January 9, 1952, meeting Respondent presented a new wage survey and then proposed a'wage increase for hourly paid females. The Union accepted the wage increase. Respondent rejected the Union's proposal that, for the purpose of the wage survey, the firemen's classi- fication be eliminated and their rates of pay be pegged at 10 cents per hour below the sta- tionary engineers. In reply to the Union's suggestion, which it had proposed at the November 29 meeting, that the presence of the reporter in the bargaining conferences be dispensed with, Respondent replied that it preferred to have a reporter present. No agreement was reached with regard to increasing the paid holidays from 7 to 8; or on the Union's proposal to add a new provision to the rules and regulations clause, or the Union's proposal to elimi- nate the word "sole" from the phrase "the Company shall be the sole judge of merit and ability" in the seniority clause, or the Union's proposal that the seniority clause eliminate the provision that Respondent's decision regarding merit increases is not subject to arbi- 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tration. Respondent rejected the Union's proposal that its representative be permitted to accompany Respondent's agent when visiting other plants for wage-survey purposes and the Union's proposal about bidding for job in the cost department. No agreement was reached at the January 10 meeting regarding any changes suggested by the Union in the contract presented by Respondent at the November 12 conference. The Union advised Respondent that it was not in a position to sign a joint petition to the WSB requesting approval of the wage increases suggested by Respondent. At the February 7 meeting, Respondent took under advisement the Union's counterproposal regarding overtime distribution. No agreement was reached regarding the use of bulletin boards and the nature of notices to be posted thereon or the clause regarding call-in-pay. Respondent refused the Union's proposal regarding the report -in-pay clause. The February 8 conference was confined mainly to a discussion of the overtime distribu- tion clause. The April 9 conference was devoted mainly to a discussion of the wage increases proposed by Respondent which the Union accepted and to the presentation , without discussion, of certain proposals of the union. At the April 10 meeting, a detail discussion was had regarding the contract submitted by Respondent and the Union's counterproposals. Respondent accepted the Union's overtime distribution proposal. The parties were unable to agree on other proposals . Respondent took under advisement .a great many of the Union's proposals and only rejected the Union's dues checkoff proposal. At a special meeting held by the parties on April 29, the Union accepted certain wage increases proposed by Respondent. The next regular bargaining meeting was held on May 7. The Union withdrew its request that the contract cover the watchmen, even though Respondent 's proposed contract included them. Respondent agreed to the Union 's proposed preference-in-reemployment clause, the Union's proposed funeral clause, and the Union's proposal to eliminate the fifth step in the grievance procedure. No agreement was reached on the proposed call-in-pay clause, the lunch-money clause, or the "definition" of a grievance. The Union agreed to Respondent's proposal that any differences concerning the interpretation of Respondent's rules and regu- lations clause shall be subject to the grievance procedure. Respondent took under consideration the proposals made by the Union at the May 8 meeting regarding the number of classifications used in obtaining the wage-survey classification average, the proposal to reduce the number of plants surveyed, and the proposal that Re- spondent pav one-half of the hospitalization premiums. The Union also proposed that the number of paid holidays be increased from 7 to 8. Respondent countered by suggesting that the number remain at 7. At the May 9 meeting, Respondent proposed to increase the hourly pay of the maintenance mechanics and the Union agreed to the proposal. Likewise, on May 28, the Union accepted Respondent's proposed wage increase for certain employees. At the June 5 meeting, the Union, after some discussion, took under further advisement Respondent's proposed grievance procedure and holiday clauses and Respondent took under further advisement the change in job headings suggested by the Union. The June 6 meeting was devoted almost entirely to discussion ofoperation and administra- tion of the wage-survey plan and the merit-rating system. On June 9 Respondent proposed a wage increase for the stationary engineers. On July 15 and on August 6 Respondent proposed pay increases for certain other employees. The three proposed increases were accepted by the Union. 3. Concluding findings The record as a whole convinces the undersigned, and he finds, that Respondent honestly explored the possibility of reaching agreement on all proposals and counterproposals sub- mitted by the respective parties. The bargaining negotiations covered a 10-month period during which about 50 conferences were held at which the parties were afforded'an opportunity for full and complete discussion on all matters in issue. As a result, substantial agreement was reached on a good many issues. It was evident shortly after negotiations were opened that there was littlechanceof agreement on certain issues. For as soon as the Union demanded that Respondent's wage-survey plan and its merit-increase system be eliminated and an across- the-board wage increase be given, Respondent, after stating at length its reasons, rejected the demand. The Union, likewise, took an equally adamant position with respect to said demand. While neither party was willing during the ensuing negotiations to alter substantially their original basic economic positions, it cannot be said that the negotiations as a whole were not carried on by Respondent in the spirit of honesty and good faith as required by THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 11 the Act. It is significant that while the parties regarded the wage-survery plan, the merit- increase system, the demand for a checkoff, for a general wage increase, and for immediate use of the plant bulletin boards, as paramount issues and as matters which would have to be resolved before consummation of a written agreement, bargaining nonetheless proceeded and, as a result of concessions made by both sides, agreement was reached on many matters. At the same time, the aforesaid economic and other issues raised by the Union were con- sidered repeatedly and each party unsuccessfully sought to persuade the other, by honest and sincere discussions, to capitulate. The record leaves no doubt that Respondent was definitely opposed to granting certain demands the Union considered essential in an agreement and just as definitely the Union was determined to enforce these demands. However, the some 3,200 pages of stenographic transcript of the minutes of the approximate 50 bargaining conferences disclose that Re- spondent , as was its duty, approached the bargaining table with a sincere desire to arrive at a mutually acceptable contract and that it did not, as the court said of the employer in N.L.R.B. v. Athens Mfg. Co., 161 F. 2d 8 (C. A. 5), give the Union " a run-around while pur- porting to be meeting with the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining." On the con- trary, those minutes clearly show thatRespondent,as the Board and the courts have uniformly held an employer was dutybound to do, entered into the bargaining conferences "with an open and fair mind, and with a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement touching wages and hours and conditions of employment...." 5Illustrative of Respondent' s good- faith bargaining and its honest endeavor to enter into a contract with the Union is the fact that of 30 union proposals, 22 were accepted, 4 were withdrawn, 2 were rejected, and 9 were still under consideration by Respondent, with near agreement, when negotiations were broken off. Furthermore, in contrast with the Union's numerous demands, Respondent limited its proposals to a few issues which it deemed of primary importance. These pro- posals, moreover, were not intended to be unalterable but were initial requests which Re- spondent desired incorporated in any agreement reached, provided they were acceptable to the Union. In fact, when Respondent submitted its proposed contract at the November 12 conference it did so with the statement that it was willing to bargain with respect to any provision with which the Union was not in accord. The minutes of the bargaining conferences further disclose that the Union was going through the motions of collective bargaining by meeting with Respondent although at the same time entering the conferences with its mind hermetically sealed against even the thought of entering into an agreement unless :.sppondent agreed to a contract containing the most favorable terms existing in the contracts which Respondent had with its employees at all its other plants . This finding becomes inescapable when consideration is given to the statement in the March 10, 1952, issue of "The Wheel Horse," a publication of the Union. Therein it stated, "Although your Negotiating Committee would like nothing better than to sign a contract for the Dallas people of P & G, they will NOT sign one UNTIL the Company gives the Dallas people all the benefits they have given their other employees in other plants...." Such conduct, which is bottomed on the theory that the Union was entitled to a contract which incorporated every maximum benefit which other unions had negotiated at other locations over a period of years before it would enter into a contract covering the Dallas employees, manifests the Union's lack of good faith in its dealings with Respondent. Furthermore, the intent behind the Union's action in filing the charge, which is the basis for the present proceeding, after only about 6 weeks of negotiations and at a time when Respondent was making many concessions of substantial nature and was endeavoring to find a basis for a mutually satisfactory contract, alleging that Respondent was not only refusing to bargain but that its conduct was independently violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, is transparent when the aforesaid conduct is considered with the repeated accusa- tions made by the Union at the bargaining conferences that Respondent was per se violating the Act by submitting certain proposals it deemed of importance, even though the union was advised, at the time of their submissions, that Respondent would gladly bargain about them. It is thus clear that the Union was acting "for the record" while destroying the process of orderly collective bargaining and then putting the blame of refusing to bargain "in good faith" upon Respondent. The General Counsel's contention that Respondent, for the purpose of destroying the Union's standing and its certification and in order to induce the employees to forsake the Union for some other form of labor organization, refused to incorporate in a contract with the Union certain benefits which the employees here involved had previously enjoyed and also refused to grant the Union the various benefits enjoyed by persons employed at other plants of Respondent, is not supported by the record. 5 Globe Cotton Mills v. N.I. R B , 103 F 2d 91 (C. A 5). 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As far as this record discloses , the negotiations between Respondent and ISOWU broke down prior to any organizational activities by the Union among the Dallas plant employees; that said negotiations broke down because Respondent refused to abandon its wage-survey plan and its merit-increase system , coupled with the fact that no agreement could be reached "on the right to waive agreement"; that the parties to the present controversy came to an impasse in their negotiations over six issues , including the wage -survey plan and a dues checkoff; and that the item of any prime importance which the ISOWU contract contained and which Respondent refused to grant the Union was a dues checkoff clause . With respect to its refusal to check off the dues of the union members , Respondent repeatedly stated at the bargaining conferences that when the ISOWU contract expired it ceased to deduct dues; that thereafter it had nine payroll deduction items; and that it did not care to add any new deductions to the already nine , or to ,substitute the proposed checkoff deduction in place of any existing deduction, because of the trouble and expense involved . Clearly, by taking such a position, Respondent did not violate either the spirit or the letter of the Act. In an effort to prove Respondent 's treatment of the Union was not comparable to that which it accorded the independent unions and the affiliates of American Federation of Labor (the bargaining representatives of some of its employees at some of its other plants), the General Counsel introduced in evidence contracts between Respondent and some of these unions . Granted that these contracts contain clauses which Respondent refused to incorpo- rate in a contract with the Union , that fact does not warrant a finding that Respondent, by executing contracts with unions covering employees other than its Dallas plant employees containing benefits it was unwilling to grant its Dallas plant employees , thereby engaged in conduct violative of the Act. In May Department Stores , 59 NLRB 976 , the employer in an attempt to prove that its demand during bargaining negotiations for a certain con- tractual provision was not unreasonable nor violative of the Act , introduced in evidence contracts which the union in that case had with other department stores containing the very clauses which said employer was seeking to obtain. Regarding such evidence the Board said in footnote 17, "Such an agreement by the Union , arising, as it does, out of the 'give and take' of collective bargaining , may, for aught that appears here, represent a concession made by it in exchange for the employers ' agreement on other vital terms of the contract." So in this case, except in regard to Respondent's Kansas City plant , there is no evidence that Respondent did not receive some concession of "vital terms " from the unions at the other plants In return for granting said unions certain contractual provisions which it refused the Union. In fact, at the Kansas City plant , the contract which was executed during the period the Union and Respondent were engaged in negotiations and which contract the General Counsel relies on heavily in order to prove his claimed disparity of treatment, Respondent actually secured certain concessions from the union there involved which it deemed of importance to itself in return for granting that union certain benefits. True, certain of those concessions were refused the Union. The fact remains, however, the Re- spondent first sought and obtained certain concessions from the Kansas City union before it made any concession. For example, Respondent at the outset of said negotiations announced that it would grant certain additional benefits to the employees of the Kansas City plant provided , however , the union agreed to extend the then existing contract another year. Thus, is it clear that Respondent only gave the union these additional concessions upon receiving in return some concession from the union which Respondent deemed of importance to itself. As further evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain collectively with the Union , the General Counsel lays great stress upon certain incidents which occurred at the Dallas plant in May and June 1952 . Regarding one of these incidents, employee F. F. Merrett , a union steward , testified that sometime in May , he, C. W. Rogers, a member of the Union's negotiating committee, and C. D. Huddle , the Union's secretary and treasurer , called at Douglas ' 6 home to inquire whether there was any truth to the rumors prevalent in the plant to the effect that some of the employees "were on the spot and might lose their job about this union activity"; that Douglas assured them that no one was "on the spot" nor would any employee lose his job for engaging in union activity ; that he then told Douglas , after Huddle had gone to the telephone to call his wife and while Rogers sat on a divan located about 10 feet from him and Douglas , that he had heard rumors to the effect that the employees "would get a better contract " if they "went back to [an] independent union"; that Douglas replied the employees "would get a better contract as an independent union or as good a contract as any other plant" of Respondent ; and that Douglas then said some of the benefits the employees would thus receive were "half of hospitalization, another holiday and arbitration of discharges " in addition to 2 or 3 benefits 6Robert Douglas, Jr , the Dallas plant industrial relations supervisor. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 13 Douglas testified that the aforesaid conversation at his home with Merrett, Huddle, and Rogers was confined solely to their discussions of the rumors that some employees might be discriminated against for engaging in union activities and his assurances that no such action would occur. He denied that he ever told Merrett that the employees would fare better or receive a more favorable contract if they should select an independent union as their bargaining representative. the undersigned was favorably impressed with the forth- right and sincere manner with which Douglas testified . Merrett, on the other hand, did not so impress the undersigned . Accordingly , the undersigned finds that Douglas did not make the statements Merrett attributed to him. This finding is buttressed by the testimony of Mike W. Ray and Edward A. Miller. Each credibly testified that when Ray, a few days before Merrett testified , confronted Merrett with the fact that a witness in the instant proceeding had testified that Respondent had promised Merrett concessions provided Merrett quit the Union and ) joined an independent union, Merrett replied that such information was "news" to him for no such promise had been made to him. The finding is further reinforced by Merrett's admission that, even though he spoke to Huddle and Rogers "almost every day" about what transpired at Douglas' home on the occasion of their visit, Huddle told him, in response to his inquiry whether Huddle heard Douglas rrkake the purported promises, to quote Merrett, "he didn't remember; he [was] distracted in his mind. He didn't want to hear it" and that Rogers , in response to a similar question replied, to further quote Merrett , "He didn't want to hear anything; that he tried not to hear anything." It is inconceivable that either Huddle or Rogers, two officials of the Union, would have announced such indifference to another union official, had Douglas made the promises Merrett attributed to him. Regarding another incident, similar to the one set forth immediately above , N. P. Carter, a union steward and a member of its negotiating committee , testified that on May 29, he had a conversation with Merrett and about a week later a conversation with employees Harvey Baker and John Cantrell, two union officials, wherein they discussed the rumors that Douglas and others had promised the employees a more advantageous contract if the employees affiliated with an independent union; that on June 6 , he asked Max A. Cox, a supervisor of several departments of which Carter 's was one, and whether the rumors about the em- ployees receiving certain favorable concessions if they left the Union and joined an uide- pendent Union were true; that Cox replied , to quote Carter , "He couldn 't answer me, that he felt personally that if [the employees] got out of the CIO and went back to the independent union that [they] would get along a lot better " and then suggested that he discuss the matter with Douglas ; that on June 9, after being informed by Cantrell that Douglas would see him, he telephoned Douglas for an appointment ; that when he saw Douglas on the afternoon of June 9, he informed Douglas of the above -mentioned rumors; that in response to Douglas' ques- tion of how he felt about the rumors , he replied that if the majority of the employees favored switching to an independent union, "I wasn't trying to run the union by myself, I would do what the majority of the people wanted done"; that Douglas then said, "You know what we are apart on now, Paul, if you got those things in [a contract ] would you be willing to go back to the independent union, would it make any difference to you which union you are in if you get your [concessions]. Is that all you are interested in or do you still want to be in the Union"; that be replied that he knew that the issues of wage survey, hospitalization, lunch money, extra holiday , checkoff, use of bulletin board, and arbitration of discharges were still unsettled ; that after Douglas stated, " I am sure that if you went back to your independent union that you could get these" benefits, he inquired whether Douglas' remarks were "offi- cial" and whether he could inform the employees what Douglas had said, to which Douglas replied, "Well, not quite that bold, you just can't go back and tell them that. We have had a round table discussion with 'five named top officials of Respondent' and 'it is official that you can get these things if you get out of the CIO and go back to your independent union."' Carter also testified that during his talk with Douglas, the latter questioned him regarding the number and identity of persons who had signed the charge filed with the Board; that he replied that he had signed the charge together with several other employees whom he named; that Douglas then asked if he and the president of the Union's local would go to the Board's Regional Office, located in Fort Worth, Texas, and attempt to get the charge with- drawn; that he said if the majority of the employees wanted "the charges dropped" he would go to the Regional Office "and try to get my name withdrawn." Carter further testified that on or about June 16, he had another talk with Douglas wherein he inquired about compensation for the time lost in going to the Regional Office; that Douglas replied that Respondent could not compensate him but that he could make up the time lost some other day; that when he informed Douglas that Baker had said the independent union would pay his expenses and transportation (a distance of some 35 miles), Douglas said, "The independent union wouldn't be involved, that they didn't want an unfair labor practice 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [charge involving] them and that they wouldn 't pay our expenses over there"; that on or about June 23 , he, Baker, Huddle, Cantrell, and another employer went to the Regional Office; and that when Cantrell, the group's spokesman , informed the Regional Director, "The majority of the people now wanted to go back to the independent union, and we would like to get our names withdrawn from the charges ," the Regional Director replied that the matter had passed the investigatory stage, the charge was being processed, and therefore the Regional Director declined the request. Cox testified that when Carter asked whether the rumors were true that the employees could obtain a better contract if they joined an independent union, he replied that he had not heard of any such rumors and that if such rumors were being circulated they were false. Douglas testified that Carter opened the first of the above-mentioned two conversations by inquiring if he thought the charge pending with the Board could be withdrawn if Carter requested the Board's permission to have his name removed from the charge; that he replied that he did not know; that Carter then said that rumors were afloat in the plant to the effect that the employees would obtain "such concessions as five high in the wage survey, the eighth holiday , that the company would pay half the hospitalization premiums"; that he replied, "those subjects which we were presently bargaining about with [the Union] and the only way those concessions could be gotten would be through bargaining, regardless of who the group was, and as to which group could do the most for him or how he might gain these concessions , the easiest, it would just be up to him to use his own judgment . He [had been] in the previous negotiations, he had seen contracts at other factories , and I said it was entirely up to him to make up his own mind as to how he could best gain these conces- sions which he wanted , but they would have to be gotten through bargaining." Douglas denied that he made the statements attributed to him by Carter and he further denied that he re- quested that Carter attempt to withdraw the charge. As found above, Douglas was a credible witness. The undersigned also finds that Cox was a credible witness. On the other hand, Carter's demeanor while he was on the witness stand, coupled with the implausibility of his testimony, evidenced to the undersigned that Carter was not testifying truthfully. It is inconceivable, furthermore, that Douglas, a man of con- siderable industrial relations acumen and whose duties with Respondent included innumer- able personal talks with the employees concerning their personal as well as their work problems, would have made the statements to Carter, a disgruntled employee who, during the 1951-52 negotiations, announced that he felt that Respondent discriminated against him several times, which Carter said he had made. Under the circumstances, the undersigned credits Cox's and Douglas' versions of their respective conversations with Carter. Samuel W, Wycough, an employee of some 51 years service with Respondent and a union steward, testified that on or about June 11, he had a conversation with Cantrell wherein Cantrell stated that Respondent would grant a better contract if the employees got out of the Union and joined an independent union; that he informed Cantrell that he had heard some such rumors and inquired of Cantrell what Respondent had offered, that Cantrell replied that Douglas had stated Respondent would grant "five in the community survey, check-off on dues, half of the hospitalization, extra holiday"; that Cantrell suggested that he inform the female employees in his department about the offer; that the following day he asked Baker whether Baker could arrange for him to see Douglas; that pursuant to Baker's inter- vention and a call he personally made to Douglas, he saw Douglas on or about June 13; that he advised Douglas of the statements Cantrell had made to him and asked Douglas whether the statements were true; that Douglas asked whether he "trusted" Cantrell; that when he replied that he "didn't know" because he had no previous "dealings with Cantrell," Douglas stated, "Well, you can depend on anything [Cantrell] tells you as true", and that then there was some discussion between him and Douglas regarding the rumors that the female employees were to be given a 10-cent per hour wage increase. Wycough further testified that about 1 hour after his interview with Douglas, Baker came to where he was working and inquired what Douglas had said and he replied that Douglas "hadn't told me anything that I had heard"; that Baker said that he "couldn't understand that" unless Douglas was "scared," adding that he would arrange another meeting for him with Douglas; and that Carter, who was present while he was talking to Baker, made no comment at all about the fact that Douglas had not confirmed the truth of the rumors. According to Wycough's further testimony, Baker returned 4 hours later and said that Douglas would gladly talk to him any time he wanted; that on or about June 17, he again called at Douglas' office and told Douglas, "I wasn't satisfied with the rumors I had been hearing, that I hadn't got the correct answer yet and I wanted to know if it was true that if we'd get out of the CIO and go back to the independent union, would the company give us those things"; that Douglas replied in the affirmative and then inquired whether he would ask the third floor female employees to THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 15 switch to an independent union; that he replied, "I don't know, that I was a steward, that I had to carry my job out; I would ask them and see what they said"; and that Douglas then stated, to quote Wycough, "he wishes I would, because the independent union would be better for them than the CIO." Douglas admitted that he had two conversations with Wycough in June. He denied that either was arranged by Baker. He testified that Wycough told him during their first conversation that it had been rumored that Respondent would grant certain concessions provided the employees dissociated themselves from the Union and joined an independent union; that he told Wycough, "the things he was talking about were subjects which we were bargaining on and that the only way those concessions could be gotten was through bargaining, and he just would have to use his own judgment as to the best way to get those things"; that on the second occasion when Wycough called on him, Wycough said, "I came down to see you the other day and talked about some of these things and I am afraid I didn't understand what you were telling me and I would like to talk about it some more"; and that when he inquired what Wycough wanted to know, Wycough said, "I would like to talk some more about these concessions if we go into the independent union." He replied, "Wayne, anything you get you are going to have [to] get through bargaining and as to the best way to get that, you will have to just make up your own mind. I can't tell you how to do it." The undersigned was not favorably impressed with Wycough's witness stand demeanor nor with the plausibility of his testimony when it is considered in conjunction with the record as a whole. It is incredible that Carter would not have made some comment when Wycough stated, after his first interview with Douglas, that Douglas had not confirmed the rumors of purported concessions if the employees switched their union affiliations. This is especially so since Carter and Wycough were personal friends coupled with the fact that neither Cantrell nor Baker testified even though, as far as the undersigned can ascertain from the record, they seem to be among the first to have been informed by Douglas of the purported con- cessions. Accordingly, the undersigned credits Douglas' denials and finds that he did not make the statements attributed to him by Wycough. Geneva Rich, a union steward, testified that on June 15, she and employee Ida Crain called on Douglas to ascertain whether there was any truth to the rumor that the female employees were about to receive a wage increase if they got out of the CIO and that Douglas replied, "The Company could not guarantee that." Douglas denied he made the reply which Rich attributed to him. He testified, and the undersigned finds his version of the conversation with Rich to be substantially in accord with the facts, that when confronted with Rich's inquiry he explained to her what the approximate increase would be if Respondent's wage survey was based on a 5-highest basis or if another company, with a higher wage scale, was substi- tuted for the low company of present wage survey. C. W. Sudderth, the president of the Union's local and a former president of ISOWU, testified that on June 16 he went to Superintendent Fulkerson's office because he had heard rumors that the employees would receive a more beneficial contract if they deserted the Union and joined an independent union; that when he inquired of Fulkerson if the rumors were coming from management and if they were true, Fulkerson replied that he "did not know what another committee at another time could accomplish"; that Fulkerson also said that Respondent preferred dealing with its employees directly rather than with someone from the outside; and that he could ascertain Respondent's policy of bargaining by examining the contracts Respondent had at its other plants. Fulkerson, whom the undersigned finds to be a credible witness, testified that in response to Sudderth's inquiry whether the rumors about better concessions being offered to the employees if they switched to an independent were true he replied "there was no truth in the rumors." He further testified that no other topic was discussed. Fulkerson specifically denied, and the undersigned credits his denial, that he told Sudderth that Respondent would rather deal with the employees directly than deal with someone from the outside or that he told Sudderth that Sudderth could ascertain Respondent's bargaining pattern by examining the contracts Respondent had at its other plants. The General Counsel further contended that it was incumbent upon Respondent to publicly disavow the above-mentioned rumors on the ground that Fulkerson, Douglas, and other managerial officials personally knew that such rumors were being circulated in the plant. The contention is without merit. Whenever the rumors were called to Fulkerson's and Douglas' attention, both told the reporting employee that the rumors were false. Moreover, these rumors, as far as the record shows, were circulated by nonsupervisory employees and there is no evidence that they were inspired, circulated, or adopted by Respondent. Upon the entire record, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the allegations of the amended complaint that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act are not 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sustained by credible evidence. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the amended complaint, in its entirety, be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, at its Dallas , Texas , plant, is engaged in, and at all times material herein has been engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Oil Workers International Union , affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The allegations of the amended complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] R. H. OSBRINK, M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS TRUSTEE, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O. (UAW-CIO) R. H. OSBRINK, M. E. OSBRINK AND BERTON W. BEALS AS TRUSTEE, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF R. H. OSBRINK MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE- MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O. (UAW-CIO), Peti- tioner. Cases Nos. 21-CA-1319 and 21-RC-2262 . July 7, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On April 13, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding.' Thereafter, on April 23, 1953, the Respondent filed a "Motion for Peconsideration , Motion for Rehearing , and Motion to Dismiss ." The General Counsel and the Union filed memoranda in opposition to the Respond- ent's motion. The Respondent filed a reply to these memo- randa. Having duly considered the matter , the Board finds as follows: The Respondent alleges four grounds in support of its motion. They are: (1) The charging labor organization was never in full com- pliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. (2) The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations 1 104 NLRB 42. 106 NLRB No. 7