International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.

INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CORP., ETC. 221 bargainable issues, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Respondent's refusal to bargain in fulfillment of an obligation which "is crucial to the statutory scheme," convinces me that this Respondent has not yet accepted the basic mandates of the Act, from which it is inferred that there is a likelihood of the commission of other unfair labor practices unless the remedy be made coextensive with the threat. It therefore will be recommended that the Respondent cease land desist from yin any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All cutters, the bundlegirl and the patternmaker, including the head cutter, of Respondent employed at its Los Angeles , California, plant, excluding maintenance employees, shipping and office employees , professional employees, guards, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. The Union was on July 9, 1959, and at all times since has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the -aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on and after August 3 , 1959, to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative in the aforesaid appropriate unit , California Girl, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. By the said refusal to bargain, California Girl, Inc., interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Industrial Products Division and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-3939. October 3, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge duly filed by the International Union, United Auto mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the UAW), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, on April 25, 1960, issued against the Interna- tional Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Industrial Products Division (herein called the Respondent), a complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. 129 NLRB No. 24. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the UAW was and is the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit, and that on or about March 29, 1960, and at all times thereafter, Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain col- lectively with the UAW. The Respondent's answer admits the jurisdictional and factual al- legations of the complaint, but denies the commission of unfair labor practices. On May 24, 1960, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation of facts, and on the same date moved jointly to transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Decision and Order. The motion states that the parties have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner, and to the issuance of an Intermediate Report. The motion provides further that the charge, complaint, notice of hearing, answer, and stipulation of facts with accompanying exhibits constitute the entire record in the case. The Board granted the parties' motion to transfer the case to the Board. The Respondent filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the basis of the Parties' stipulation of facts, the brief of the Respondent, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Maryland corporation, is engaged in the man- ufacture and development of electronic and communications products at its plant in San Fernando, California, herein called the Los Angeles plant, and annually ships from said plant products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of California. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CORP., ETC. 223 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On May 18, 1959, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called the IBEW), filed with the Board a petition for certification of representatives of the production and maintenance employees of the Respondent.' On June 11, 1959, UAW filed a similar petition on its own behalf.' On August 26, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election 3 On September 2, 1959, a conference of all Parties involved was held in the office of an agent of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the Board to arrange for the date, time, and place of the election. At this meeting the representative of Respondent, through inadvertence, failed to advise the Board's agent that two eligible employees, Soucy and Pineau, worked from 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., a shift different from that of all other eligible employees in the unit, who worked from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thereafter, notices that an election would be con- ducted were posted at Respondent's Los Angeles premises for at least 3 days prior to September 17,1959. On September 17, the election was conducted from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m., at the Respondent's Los Angeles premises. Representatives of all Parties participating in the election signed a certification of conduct of election which stated inter alia, that the balloting was conducted fairly and that all eligible voters were given an opportunity to vote their ballots in secret. Of the ap- proximately 84 eligible voters, 80, including Soucy and Pineau, cast ballots. Twenty-four votes were cast for the IBEW, 31 for the UAW, and 24 against both of the participating labor organizations. There were no void ballots and one challenged ballot. The challenge was ultimately sustained, and as no choice received a majority, and as the second two choices received an equal number of votes, the election was set aside and a new election ordered. Notices that a second election would be conducted were posted at Respondent's premises for at least 3 days prior to November 4, 1959, on which date, the second election was conducted at the Respondent's premises from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. Again, representatives of all Parties participating in the second election signed a certification of conduct of election. Of the approximately 81 eligible voters, 78, in- cluding Soucy and Pineau, cast ballots; 32 votes were cast for the IBEW, 25 votes were cast for the UAW, 21 votes were cast against the I Case No. 21-RC-5'837. 2 Case No. 21-RC-5884. 8 Not published in the NLRB volumes. The unit found appropriate by the Board was as follows : All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent 's Los Angeles, Cali- fornia, plant, including shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, engineers, guards, watchmen , confidential employees, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD participating labor organizations, and there were no void or challenged ballots. As a majority of the votes counted in the second election had not been cast for any choice, a runoff election between the IBEW and the UAW was necessary. Notices that a runoff election would be conducted were posted at Respondent's premises for at least 3 days prior to November 13, 1959. On this date the runoff election between the IBEW and the UAW was conducted from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. at the Respondent's premises. Once again, representatives of all Parties participating in the runoff election signed a certification of conduct of election. Of the approx- imately 80 eligible voters, 73 cast ballots; 36 votes were cast for the IBEW ; 37 votes were cast for the UAW ; and there were no void or challenged ballots. At the conclusion of the runoff election, a tally of ballots showing the results thereof was duly furnished the Parties. Soucy and Pineau did not vote in the runoff election on November 13, 1959. Their failure to vote was the subject of objections to the conduct of the election filed by the Respondent and IBEW on November 20, 1959. In the course of investigating the objections, an agent of the Regional Director took affidavits from both Soucy and Pineau. These affidavits reveal that neither of these men voted because they did not want to take leave from their daytime jobs with companies other than the Respondent in order to vote between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m., November 13, 1959, because they had already lost 2 days' work to vote in the previous elections. On the afternoon of the day of the runoff election, Soucy called the industrial relations director of Respondent and inquired if he could vote in the election that had already been held on that date. The industrial relations director referred Soucy to the Board agent in charge of the election. There was no evidence adduced that anybody associated with the Board was made aware of Soucy's complaint until said objections were filed on November 20, 1959. On December 21, 1959, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the Board issued and duly served upon all parties his Report on Objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and that a Certification of Representatives be issued to the UAW. There- after, both the Respondent and the IBEW filed with the Board Exceptions to Report on Objections. On February 15,1960, the Board issued a Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre- sentatives,' adopting the findings and recommendations of the Re- gional Director and, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate. Thereafter, Respondent filed with the Board a motion to reconsider and vacate the certifica- tion. The Board denied this motion on March 23, 1960. A Not published in NLRB volumes INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CORP., ETC. 225 On or about March 29,1960, UAW requested Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment in the unit for which the UAW had been certified. On the following day Respondent refused, and at all times thereafter, has refused, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the said unit. The Respondent contends that it was incumbent upon the Board to give Soucy and Pineau an opportunity to vote during their own working hours as all the other employees were given such an oppor- tunity. Absent this equal treatment for all employees, the Respondent argues, the election was not properly conducted or determined, as the two employees' votes may have changed the outcome of said election. The Respondent contends it has no duty to bargain with UAW until an allegedly valid election is conducted. The Respondent made these contentions in its objections to the third election, and the Board in its Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives found these contentions to be without merit. In that decision we found that the failure of the two named employees to vote did not constitute conduct affecting the validity of the conduct or results of the election. The Respondent had knowledge of the different working hours of Soucy and Pineau, yet did not im- part this knowledge to the Regional Director until after the election. The two employees involved, with full knowledge of the time and place of the election, voluntarily absented themselves from the polls. That the two employees had to take time off from other employment to vote does not establish that they were not given an adequate oppor- tunity to vote. The Respondent has offered no reason why the Board should reach a different conclusion in this proceeding. We reaffirm our previous conclusion. Accordingly, we find that the UAW was properly certified, that the Respondent had and has a duty to bargain with the UAW as certified bargaining representative of its employees, and that its refusal to do so constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, International Telephone and Telegraph Corpora- tion, Industrial Products Division, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act: 586439-61-vol. 129 -16 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Los Angeles, California, plant, including shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding office clerial employees, engineers, guards, watchmen, confidential employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. The above-named labor organization was on November 13, 1959, and has been at all times thereafter the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit described above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid conduct, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. , 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Industrial Products Division, San Fernando, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive certified representative of all production and maintenance employees at its Los Angeles, California, plant, including shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, engineers, guards, watchmen, confidential em- ployees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of said labor organization to bargain collectively with the Respondent on behalf of the employees in the appropriate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CORP., ETC. 227 America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a .signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region, .shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are ,customarily posted. Reasonable steps 'shall be taken by the Respond- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by .any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. r' 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentatives of all our employees in the certified bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if any understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance employees at our Los Angeles, California, plant, including shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, engineers, guards, watchmen, confidential employees, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named labor organization to bargain collec- 228 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tively with us, or refuse to bargain with said Union, as the ex- clusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit, set forth above. INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE AND TELE- GRAPH CORPORATION, INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, 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. Arnoldware, Inc. and International Leather Goods, Plastics and Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-2831. October 3, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On May 25, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations, with the following modification. The Trial Examiner found that the purpose of the discontinuance of the third shift printing department was to punish employees Bernice Lyons, Nina Day, Marjorie Rice, Barbara Miller, Carol Shippee, and Dorris Malone because of their union activity and mem- bership. For the reasons given in the Intermediate Report, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by terminating these employees. However, the Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to two other third shift printing department employees, Gertrude Towne 129 NLRB No. 25.