Goodman Manufacturing Co.

GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 369 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 that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union, by initiating and distributing among its employees in an apropriate bargaining unit revo- cation of dues checkoff authorization slips and soliciting their signatures thereto for the admitted purpose of assisting them "to get out of the Union"; by granting them a 5-cent overall wage increase without bargaining with the Union on the subject matter; by failing and refusing to give to the Union certain wage information as regards job classifications of the employees in the appropriate unit; by failing and refusing to give to the Union a seniority list of its employees in the unit when re- quested to do so by the Union in the mode and manner provided for in a valid writ- ten agreement between it and the Union; by refusing to bargain with the Union while unfair labor practice charges were pending before the Board; terminating its collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Union and/or refusing to perform or comply with the terms thereof in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 (d) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act; and by terminating its valid written agreement with the Union and/or refusing to perform the terms thereof for the purpose of undermining the Union and/or avoiding its statutory duty to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union, it will be recommended below that the Respondent forthwith take certain affirmative action, and cease and desist from other practices found to consti- tute a refusal to bargain. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 415, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The Respondent, Hexton Furniture Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees at the employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, excluding office employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. At all times since October 17, 1953, the Union has been the exclusive repre- sentative for purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By engaging in the conduct fully described above, and particularized in section V, paragraph 1 immediately above this section of the report, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, and in contravention, and/or total disregard of the pro- visions of Section 8 (d) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION and LOCAL 1150, UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA. Case No. 13-CA-1293. January 928,1955 Decision and Order After a charge duly filed by Local 1150 in this case and a complaint issued thereon alleging that the Respondent had committed violations of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, the Respondent filed with the Board a motion to redetermine the compliance status of Local 1150's 111 NLRB No. 65. 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Union (United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America), and for dismissal of the complaint pending against it upon the ground, inter alia, that the International's trustees were offi- cers and that the individuals filling these positions had failed to file affidavits required of officers by Section 9 (h) of the Act.' Whereupon, the Board, on June 24, 1953, issued a notice to show cause, ordering the International to show cause why the Board should not administra- tively determine that the International was not in full compliance for the reason just stated. The International timely filed an answer to the notice to show cause and the Respondent filed a reply memorandum to the International's answer. Thereafter, on August 6, 1953, the Board issued its order and administrative determination of compli- ance status ordering that, good cause having been shown by the Inter- national why the Board should not determine that its trustees were and are officers, Respondent's motion in all respects be denied. On August 31, 1953, a hearing was held on the merits in this case before Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper. On January 8, 1954, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Interme- diate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions : In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the Respondent, inter alia,2 affirmatively alleges that District 11 of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America (the District with which Local 1150 and the UE International are affiliated), is a labor organi- zation not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of 1 The Respondent also raised the same issues of compliance in its answer to the com- plaint, in which it admits refusing to bargain with the International Union but defends upon the grounds of noncompliance by the Union and its affiliates and also upon the ground that the unit found by the Board in the prior representation proceeding (Case No 13-RC-2761) is inappropriate. 2 The Respondent continues to argue in its exceptions that the Board erred in its unit finding in the prior representation proceeding in this matter As this issue was fully litigated and considered by the Board in the representation proceeding, in the absence of evidence which was newly discovered or unavailable to the Respondent at the time of the representation hearing, it is clear that such issue is not properly the subject of relitigation in the instant proceeding. Clarostat Manufacturing Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 775. Ac- cordingly, we find no merit in this exception. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 371 the Act, and that for this reason the complaint should be dismissed. Because this specific contention was not considered in the above-men- tioned Board's order and administrative determination of August 6, 1953, the Board on April 12, 1954, issued a notice to show cause why it should not administratively determine that District 11 is a labor organization which should comply with the filing requirements of Sec- tion 9 of the Act for Local 1150 and the UE to be in full compliance. Both District 11 and the Respondent filed answers to the notice to show cause. This particular issue has been considered together with a similar issue in another case 3 which also involved a district (District 9) of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, and upon which issue a lengthy hearing was held. In that case, the Board found that District 9 was not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and for that reason its officers were not required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act in order for affiliated locals and the UE to be in full compliance. We take judicial notice of the fact that the character and function of District 11, here involved, are the same as that of District 9 involved in the Magnavox case. Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Magnavox case, we find that District 11 is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and therefore its officers are not required to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act in order for Local 1150 and the UE to be in full compliance. Because it appears that both Local 1150 and its affiliate, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America are in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act and that the unit involved is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, we find that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by its admitted refusal to bargain with United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America. Accord- ingly, we shall issue our usual 8 (a) (5) (1) order. Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Goodman Manufactur- ing Company, a corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America as the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in the appropriate unit. s The Magnavox Company, 111 NLRB 379. 344056-55-vol. 111-25 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America to negotiate for, or to represent, the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit as their exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1150, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. (b) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at- tached hereto and marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 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 " 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 bargain collectively upon request with Local 1150, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, and other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees including group leaders, coal passers, firemen and maintenance men, wood- workers, shellac men, laborers, factory clerical employees, timekeepers, and order pickers, but excluding patternmakers and apprentices, tracers, expediters, time-study men, drafts- GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 373 men and other technical employees, operating engineers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, foremen, assist- ant foremen, and all other supervisory employees, with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom- mend such action. WE WILL NOT engage in any act in any manner interfering with the efforts of the aforesaid Union to negotiate for or represent the employees in the bargaining unit described above. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING 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 A charge having been duly filed and served , a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been duly filed by Goodman Manufacturing Company (hereinafter called Respondent ), a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended (hereinafter called the Act), 61 Stat. 136, was held in Chicago, Illinois, on August 31, 1953, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. In substance the complaint alleges that since on or about September 20, 1952, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with Local 1150, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America ( hereinafter called the Local), and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (hereinafter called the International), as the exclusive bargaining agent of all of its employees in an ap- propriate unit. At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel , were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and pro- posed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a brief have been received from Respondent and considered. Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Illinois corporation, having its principal plant, office , and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical mining machinery. During the year 1952, it purchased raw materials val- ued at more than $7,000,000, of which approximately 65 percent was shipped in in- terstate commerce to its plant from points outside the State of Illinois. In the same period, it sold finished products valued at more than $17,000,000, of which approxi- mately 70 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. Re- spondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Local and the International are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of Respondent. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleged, the Board found in the previous representation case (13- RC-2761), and I find that all production and maintenance employees including group leaders, coal passers, firemen and maintenance men, woodworkers, shellac men, la- borers, factory clerical employees, timekeepers, and order pickers, but excluding pat- ternmakers and apprentices, tracers, expediters, time-study men, draftsmen and other technical employees, operating engineers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. 2. The International's majority representation On December 23, 1944, in an election held under the supervision of the Board's Regional Director, a majority of Respondent's employees in the aforesaid unit, ex- cludmg the timekeepers, designated the International as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Subsequently the International was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. On May 26, 1952, the International filed a petition for certification as representative of the timekeepers, requesting their inclusion in the aforesaid unit. After a hearing the Board on August 14, 1952, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 13-RC-2761, directing a self-determination election among the timekeepers and pro- viding that if a majority voting cast ballots for the International they be made a part of the aforesaid unit and the International be certified as their exclusive represent- ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Such election was conducted on September 9, 1952, and a majority of the timekeepers selected the International as their representative. On September 17, 1952, the Regional Director certified the International as the exclusive representative of the timekeepers as part of the unit of employees which the International then represented. I find that at all times ma- terial herein the International was, and now is, the duly designated exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. 3. The refusal to bargain All of the facts in this case are admitted. As previously found, the International has been representing Respondent's production and maintenance employees with the exception of its timekeepers since 1944. The timekeepers selected the International at the Board-conducted election. On September 17, 1952, the Board certified the International as the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the appropriate unit including the timekeepers. On September 20, 1952, the Local by letter re- quested Respondent to bargain. Respondent did not reply to this letter. On Novem- ber 12, 1952, the International by letter requested Respondent to bargain. Respond- ent did not reply to this letter. The only issues before me have already been decided by the Board. Respondent stipulated on the record that it refused to bargain with the International as the rep- resentative of the timekeepers, as a part of the appropriate unit certified by the Board. Respondent relies upon two legal defenses, namely, that the unit found by the Board is not appropriate, and that the International is not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act and therefore the Board's certification in the representation proceeding is invalid. It is for these reasons Respondent refused to bargain with the International as the representative of the timekeepers. On March 4, 1953, Respondent filed with the Board a motion to redetermine the compliance status of the International and to dismiss the complaint herein. On June 24, 1953, the Board issued a notice to show cause to the International why its compliance status should not be redetermined, pursuant to Section 102 13 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. On July 3, 1953, the International filed its answer to this notice to show cause. On July 13, 1953, Respondent filed a memorandum with the Board in connection with the notice to show cause why compliance should not be redetermined. On August 6, 1953, the Board issued its order and administrative determination of compliance status, finding that the International was and had been in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act and denying Respondent's motion in all respects. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 375 Respondent contends that the inclusion of the timekeepers in the unit was not ap- propriate. Respondent made this same contention and fully litigated it before the Board in the representation case referred to above. The Board determined then that the timekeepers are properly a part of the appropriate unit and accordingly this issue is not before me. There has been no change in the situation since then, and the arguments advanced before me why the timekeepers are not appropriately part of the unit are the same as those advanced to the Board in the representation case. Re- spondent also contends that it cannot be found to have refused to bargain with the International with respect to the timekeepers because certain trustees of the Inter- national are in Respondent's opinion officers of the International , and hence must file affidavits in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act . This is the same issue liti- gated before the Board in its administrative determination of the compliance status of the International after the issuance of the notice to show cause as a result of the motion filed by Respondent . All of the arguments advanced before me are those previously passed upon by the Board when it denied Respondent 's motion. For the reasons previously stated, there is nothing before me to decide which has not already been passed upon by the Board. Respondent here seeks to litigate questions of fact and law already decided by the Board. Respondent having admitted the facts alleged in the complaint and set forth herein, I find that it refused to bargain with the International in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act.' Respondent proposed 15 separate findings of fact and 9 conclusions of law. All of the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by Respondent not specifi- cally herein found or concluded are herewith specifically rejected. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of 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 thereof. 2. The Local and the International are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees , including group leaders , coal pass- ers, firemen and maintenance men, woodworkers, shellac men, labors, factory clerical employees, timekeepers, and order pickers , but excluding patternmakers and apprentices, tracers, expediters , time-study men, draftsmen and other technical em- ployees, operating engineers , office clerical employees, watchmen , guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge , discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act. 4. At all times since September 17, 1952, the International has been and now is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing at all times on and after November 12, 1952, to bargain collectively with the International as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 'The recent decision of the Board in its administrative determination of the compli- ance of Local 1421 of the UE, 107 NLRB 147, November 24, 1953, where the Board deter- mined that the said Local was not in compliance because certain trustees were officers within the meaning of the Act and had not filed the affidavits required by Section 9 (h), cannot be considered as a precedent here , because the Board, in its administrative deter- mination of the compliance of Local 1150 of the UE, 96 NLRB 1029, upon an identical fact situation determined that Local 1150 was not at that time in compliance, and In making its administrative determination in the instant case that the International is in compliance, the Board considered its determination in the Local 1150 case and found that the facts and reasoning applicable therein were inapposite to this case.