Rockwell Register Corp.

634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer to the following 11 employees immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges: Armond Gregory Henry Kinkead Henderson Gregory Joe Songer Fount Gregory Carl Forsyth Charles Miller James Riley Buel Miller Steve Burk William Dickerson WE WILL restore to the 18 employees who have been reemployed whatever seniority and other rights and privileges, if any, that they may have lost. WE WILL make whole all 29 employees mentioned in the preceding para- graphs for any loss of pay suffered as a result of their discharge. AMERICAN ART CLAY COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis 4, Indiana, 46204, Telephone No. Melrose 3-8921 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Instrument Division, Rockwell Register Corporation and Lodge 790, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1716. May 15, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed in its en- tirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 142 NLRB No. 76. INSTRUMENT DIVISION, ROCKWELL REGISTER CORP. 635 INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was heard by Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on December 18 and 19, 1962. The General Counsel and Instrument Division, Rockwell Register Corporation, herein called the Respondent or the Company, were represented by counsel, and all parties participated fully in the hearing. Both parties submitted briefs which have been duly considered in arriving at my conclu- sions and findings. The amended complaint alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5), at its plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in that it failed and refused to provide the Union with requested job descriptions necessary to the negotiations then pending, that the Company unilaterally posted, promulgated, and changed its vacation policy without notice to and consultation with the Union, and on two separate occasions the Respondent instituted unilateral layoffs without notice to and consultation with the Union.' Reserved rulings are disposed of in accordance with the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Since the allegations of the complaint of the facts upon which the jurisdiction of the Board is predicated are admitted in the answer, I find that during the past 12 months the Respondent at its Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant purchased and received products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Oklahoma, and during the same period sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly outside the State of Oklahoma. During this same period of time, the gross volume of business was in excess of $500,000. I find, therefore, that the Respondent is engaged in "commerce" and in opera- tions "affecting commerce" as those terms are defined in Section 2(6) and (7), respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Lodge 790, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meamng of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union's exclusive representative status in said unit The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that all production and maintenance employees, including inspectors, at the Respondent's Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant, the only plant involved herein, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that on May 25, 1962, the Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the above appropriate unit. B. General background This record reveals that the Company and its predecessor voluntarily recognized the Union during the 1940's as the exclusive bargaining representative. In 1950 the Board conducted an election in which the employees of the Company herein voted for a union shop. Since 1953 until the present proceeding, the parties hereto have negotiated 2-year contracts, and the last agreement was terminated by the Union on May 31, 1961, by giving notice on March 28, 1961, to modify the cur- rent contract, which otherwise would have automatically been renewed absent any desire to modify. Further background material shows that the employees of the Company struck the plant on June 27, 1961, and on September 1, 1961, un- conditionally offered to return, and by September 8, 1961, the majority of the em- ployees were returned to work by the Respondent. I The charge was filed on August 23, 1962 , and the complaint was issued on October 12, 1962 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties stipulated that between April 12, 1961, and December 7, 1962, there were 59 negotiation sessions held between the Respondent and the Union with a total time of 143 hours and 32 minutes? Certain exhibits, as further background in this proceeding, reveal that on Octo- ber 3, 1961, the Union filed a charge against the Company in Case No. 16-CA-1554. On November 2, 1961, the Regional Office of the Board notified the Union that it had investigated this charge, and refused to issue a complaint with respect to cer- tain 8 (a)(3)'s therein. On December 14, 1961, in an appeal, from the Regional' Director, the Union was informed by the office of the Board's General Counsel that there was an insufficient basis existing for a finding of refusal to bargain against the Company in Case No. 16-CA-1554. In January 1962, a settlement agreement was made as to one of the 8(a)(3)'s, and in view of this the Regional Office refused to reissue a complaint against the Company in Case No. 16- CA-1554.3 C. As to job descriptions, and the pertinent testimony relative thereto The Company contends that all of the job descriptions in their possession bad' been sent to the Union, and that after the Union had all of the descriptions, no proposal involving the same was ever submitted by the Union .4 The General Counsel argues that during certain negotiation sessions, discrepancies arose con- cerning the job classification of an employee, and upon inspection it appeared that the job description was dated "1959," and thereupon the Union requested that they be furnished information pertaining to any changes in job descriptions since 1957. The General Counsel further maintains that the Union then made repeated demands, and that 4 months elapsed between the original request and compliance .5 Claude Jones, chief spokesman and negotiator for the Union, testified that at the session on June 23, 1962,6 the classifications as to certain employees came up, and he then informed the Company that the Union had to have job descriptions on them. Jones stated that the Company informed him that none were available but copies would be secured. Jones testified that at the session between the parties on June 28, the Company gave him the job descriptions as previously requested, but noted that they were dated "1959," and as a result he requested that the Com- pany furnish him a complete copy of job descriptions. Jones also advised the Respondent's negotiators that the only job descriptions the Union had were dated in "1957," that the Union did not have the "1959" descriptions, and, therefore, desired copies of all changes since `1957." Jones testified that the Company then agreed to get these descriptions for him. At the session on July 6, Jones stated that the parties discussed the classification of two employees, and that he again asked for a complete list of job descriptions that might have changed since 1957, and also requested job evaluation data concerning job descriptions that were in effect at the time of the certification? Jones testified that the Company refused him this information, and that at the July 24 session he again requested job descriptions and evaluations, and on this occasion was informed by the Company that the matter had been turned over to their attorney. Jones fur- ther stated that at the August 2 session, when he again asked for job descriptions, the Company informed him that they wanted the Union to be specific as to the job descriptions wanted, and that he was also then informed that the Union had all the information on this subject that the Company had. Jones testified that he then, explained the fact that there had been a change of job contents in a large number of classifications and he needed to know the exact descriptions to prepare his contract proposal, and that he had also discussed this need with the Company at prior nego- tiating sessions . At the session on August 9, Jones stated that he advised the Com- pany that they were preventing the Union from presenting a contract by not for- warding the descriptions, but testified that the company representatives then told him that the matter was being checked, and that it was "quite a job." Jones testified 2 Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. 8 See Respondent's Exhibits Nos 9 , 10, 11, 12, and 14. *The Respondent further argues that the demand for job descriptions was used by the Union as a basis for its continuously threatened unfair labor practice charge. 6 The Union admitted that they began receiving job descriptions from the Company on October 8, 1962, and by November 3, 1962, had received the total amount of 66 job descriptions. I All dates from here on are 1962 unless specifically specified otherwise. 4 Jones stated that two employees were performing work outside the scope of their job, descriptions. INSTRUMENT DIVISION, ROCKWELL REGISTER CORP. 637 that at the session on September 18, the Company inquired if the Union did not have the job descriptions sent to the Union's business representative , Harry Penrod, in 1960. Jones stated that in reply to this question he informed the Company that rather than getting into a dispute on this, "that we [the Union] would just say that we didn't have them perhaps we had lost them , or perhaps we had even thrown them in the trash . but at least, as of this time, we did not have the descriptions that were necessary in order that we may make a complete proposal." The Respondent produced testimony through its general manager, Shenkle, to the effect that in 1957 he had furnished the Union's business agent, Penrod, with job descriptions , and these were the result of work between the Company and the Union in 1955 .8 Shenkle testified that every job description added to the jobs at the time of the evaluations in 1955 were negotiated with the Union, that in 1959 and 1960 revised job descriptions were sent to the Union in accordance with the negotiations,9 and stated that the descriptions sent to the Union in 1960 are the current ones under which the plant still operates. Shenkle stated that Penrod was the spokesman for the Union at the first negotiating session here in question , and at no time thereafter did the Company get any requests from Penrod for any job descriptions. Supervisor Smith was the principal spokesman for the Company at the negotiating sessions with the Union. Smith testified that before Jones took over the union nego- tiations Penrod initially represented the Union at the sessions in question , and that Penrod never requested job descriptions. Smith further testified that the Company allowed the Union to establish the times, dates, and adjournments for the negotiating sessions , and that on occasions the Union would cancel meetings or that Jones would fail to show up . Smith also testified that the Company submitted numerous contract proposals and counterproposals in the months of January , February, and March, that at the April 7 session the parties reviewed the Respondent's proposals, but none of the items were accepted by the Union, and that on April 8 Jones demanded that he be called in on all work asign- ments-anything regarding the shifting of personnel. Smith stated that at the session on June 28 Jones inquired regarding job descrip- tions on the hobby setup classifications "A" and "B," that at the meeting on July 6 these descriptions were given to Jones, and that Jones then asked for all job descrip- tions, and again repeated this request at the meeting on July 24. At the August 2 session, Smith testified that it was primarily over certain grievances but that the subject of job descriptions came up , and that he then looked at the folders Jones had on the same, and noticed that some descriptions were obsolete and some were current. The parties again met on August 9, and Smith stated again this was primarily a grievance meeting but that descriptions came up , and he then informed Jones that the matter had been checked into and the company files indicated the Union had this information.io Smith further testified that job descriptions also were discussed in subsequent negotiating sessions as follows: That the subject came up at the meeting on September 13, and that at this time Smith asked Jones to check job descriptions against seniority lists, and that Smith informed Jones that the Company had furnished complete descriptions in February 1960, which were only different from the 1957 descriptions in minor standardizations of language used; that at the session on September 18 Smith asked Jones if he had located the job 0 This record shows that Penrod has worked as a union representative since 1957, but that prior thereto he was an employee of the Company In 1955 Penrod was a member of the Respondent's negotiating team, at which time the evaluations on all jobs in the plant were made, and thereafter job descriptions determined In 1957 the Union received copies of the descriptions ( Respondent's Exhibit No. 5) and this record also shows that in February 1960, the Union was furnished revised job descriptions ( Respondent's Exhibit No 7) See General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 20-b and 20-c 10 Smith stated that to assemble all the job descriptions entailed going back into the archives and checking records through a number of years, but that he had designated someone to work on this project. Smith also testified this request for descriptions by Jones was similar to others where he had demanded like information , and then once assembled never used it. Smith cited an illustration where Jones at one time had de- manded a comparison of work performance-he stated that office people at the plant worked on weekends and evenings to "dig" out thousands of data cost cards to supply this information-and then Jones did not see any use for it. Jones testified that this particu- lar information requested was in 1961 , and concerned the seniority of three older em- ployees who had been recalled after the strike, but states that by the time he received the comparisons the three new employees were no longer on the jobs-so it was a moot question 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD descriptions sent to Penrod in 1960-was then informed for the first time that the Union did not have the descriptions-and that Smith then informed Jones that if he would write a letter to this effect, then the Company would reproduce the job descriptions as soon as possible. Smith stated that the letter was written, and thereafter the job descriptions were furnished starting in October, as aforestated. Harry Penrod testified that relative to job descriptions in the negotiations in question, he had a brief discussion with Jones as to the job-rating tabulations which had been previously made,ti and that they discussed the jobs that were not in- cluded in the same. Penrod further stated that Jones also discussed with him the Union's intentions of making a counterproposal on the same, but that the Union did not have in their files "the key to this job description." D. As to the alleged unilateral change in the vacation policy without notice- pertinent testimony in respect thereto The record herein shows that on June 1, 1962, the Company posted a vacation announcement outlining to its employees the general vacation plans for the weeks of July 16 and 23.12 The Union does not question the propriety of the vacation, rather, it asked only for its terms and opportunity to bargain, if necessary.13 The Respondent maintains that there was an impasse in the negotiations on April 8, and the Company merely posted the statement on vacation practices that had been in effect since 1953, and that the notice was posted more than a month prior to the effective date of the vacations so that the Union had abundant opportunity to meet and confer on the subject. It is admitted by the Company that it did not consult with the Union before posting its June 1 announcement. Union Spokesman and Negotiator Jones testified that on June 23, the first session between the parties after certification, he raised the question as to this vacation procedure and requested to know in what manner the vacation schedules had been changed, and that he had become aware of the vacation announcement sometime after the announcement had been posted on June 1. Jones further stated that under normal vacation conditions the entire plant shut down and allowed all the employees to take their vacations at one time, that the 1962 arrangements varied in some respects from the former practices, and that Jones wanted to find out if these arrangements were necessary, and if the employees who worked would later be permitted a vacation. 14 Jones also stated that on June 22 Foreman Miller ap- proached employee Groden and attempted to have Groden "sign his vacation period." At the session on June 28 the Company gave to the Union a copy of the vacation announcement it had posted on June 1, and also a letter from the Company, dated June 28, setting forth the details of the 1962 vacation plans. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 36.) The Respondent produced testimony through General Manager Shenkle to the effect that the vacation notice posted on June 1 was in no way different from past announcements in prior years, and he also stated that the need for certain employees to continue working during the vacation period was due to the usual summer busi- ness relative to orders on parking meters, and that there had only been 1 year- 1958-when the entire plant was able to shut down during vacation periods. Shenkle further testified that on June 12 he informed the Union that the vacation matter and other subjects could be discussed at the next session between the parties; that at the meeting on June 23 the vacation matter was discussed with the Union; and that the Union offered no suggestion or changes. The Respondent's chief nego- tiating spokesman, Smith, testified that the vacation plans were discussed at the meeting on June 23, and that he informed Jones that there had been no change in the Respondent's posting of vacation schedules. but that Jones wanted a copy of the announcement and also a letter from the Company explaining the details. Both were subsequently provided at the June 28 meeting, and Smith stated that Jones had no objections to the arrangements. 11 Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 12 See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 33. 13 The record shows that following certification Claude Jones, on behalf of the Union, mailed several letters to the Respondent requesting bargaining on all matters pertaininc to wages, hours, working conditions, and grievances and requested certain information Gen- eral Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 2 through 5 14 The record shows that on June 8, Jones sent a letter to the Company requesting a meeting in regard to the matter of vacation. General Counsel's Exhibit No 7 INSTRUMENT DIVISION, ROCKWELL REGISTER CORP. 639 E. As to the alleged unilateral layoffs-pertinent testimony in respect thereto 1. The layoffs on September 7 This record reveals that a letter, dated September 6, was sent by the Company to the Union with notification that effective September 7-eight employees, therein listed, would be laid off due to lack of work, and the letter also stated that if the Union had any questions on this the Company would be glad to discuss the matter at a mutually convenient time.15 Jones testified that he received the above letter on September 7, that this was his first notice of the matter, and that the Company had not proposed such action in any of the prior negotiating sessions. The record shows that Jones then sent a telegram to the Company protesting the layoffs and requesting a meeting on the same, and on September 13 the meeting was held.is Jones stated that at this meet- ing he questioned the necessity of the layoffs and if they were properly made, and it was brought out that a junior employee had been retained while senior employees were laid off, but that the senior employees laid off were women and the junior employee retained was a man, and "supposedly was performing work on a job that could not have been performed by one of the women." Jones stated that he raised no specific objection to this, but stated that in the future he wanted to be consulted and that he wanted to bargain on layoffs. Jones further testified that at the meeting on September 18 he advised the Com- pany that the Union wanted to be notified in a sufficient amount of time concern- ing pending layoffs so as to have an opportunity to discuss the same, and to see whether or not such layoffs were properly made in accordance with seniority. The Company then informed Jones that they had made the layoffs in accordance with longstanding practices, and had notified the employees in sufficient time.17 Manager Shenkle testified that the past practices relative to layoffs were well established over the years, and that in three previous contracts the same provisions applied, and in past layoffs a 48-hour notice was given to employees and copies sent to the Union as a courtesy to them.18 Respondent's negotiator Smith testified that this matter of the layoffs was dis- cussed in the September 13 meeting, but that Jones indicated he was not necessarily in disagreement, and that Jones had very little to say about them. Smith stated that he then informed Jones that the notices involved were the "exact same way that they had always been." 2. The layoffs on December 13 The record herein shows that by letters dated December 11, the Company notified 13 employees each individually, that the work force was being reduced, and that these employees involved would "revert to layoff in line of seniority" effective December 12.19 11 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 25. 1e It appears that this meeting was originally scheduled for September 12, but that on request of Jones the meeting was postponed and then rescheduled for September 13. 17 Jones testified that since certification the Company had submitted a contract proposal on seniority, and that the terms of the proposal were "quite different" from the language contained in previous contracts. The proposal by the Company on September 27, Jones stated, outlined two methods of layoff-one, a permanent layoff where a 48-hour notice would be given to employees, and on temporary layoffs, 2 to 10 days, there would be no regard to seniority or to a notice and that this was not acceptable. Jones testified that under previous contracts employees could exercise their seniority, and would be given a 48-hour notice prior thereto. The record shows that the Union later submitted a pro- posal stating that the employees may exercise their rights of seniority in the department from which the employee has been transferred, and that there be a 48-hour notice. This record also shows that the previous contract-from 1959 to 1961-gave employees the right to exercise their departmental seniority rather than take the layoff, and there would be a 48-hour notice on layoffs to employees. Jones admitted that in this prior contract there was no requirement that the Union be notified. is Shenkle testified that on September 5, 1961 , a notice was posted on the bulletin board stating that even in absence of a signed agreement between the Respondent and the Union, the Company did not intend to change the longstanding policies in relation to employee benefits. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. 11 General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 37 through 49. 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jones testified that he received copies of the above letters on December 12, and stated that to some extent the Union and the Company discussed this matter at their meeting on December 13. Jones also testified that at no time prior to receiving copies of the letters to the employees had the Company informed him of these pending layoffs. Smith testified that there had been a continuous discussion "all along" that there was a strong probability of layoffs, and that the procedure on these layoffs fol- lowed past practices. Smith further stated that Jones had indicated to him in several meetings that he did not feel the Company was giving the Union sufficient time in matters of layoffs, that Smith had then inquired as to how much notice he wanted, and without receiving any suggestions Smith then informed Jones that he would continue with the same practices, and Smith testified that there were no objections then raised. F. Other pertinent factors This record contains some 83 different exhibits , and in the above sections of this report, as aforestated, I have attempted to refer to those specific exhibits which shed some light on the three main allegations of the complaint. However, in order to present a more complete picture as to all the various circumstances and contentions involved in this proceeding, I will mention very briefly here other factors reflected in numerous exhibits which were also introduced and received in this case. The Respondent introduced several exhibits showing the posting of notices by the Company for plant holidays on such days as Good Friday, New Year's, and other normal and usual holidays of this kind, and the record also contains vaca- tion notices posted by the Company for 1958 and 1961. Exhibits for both parties further show that the local offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Serv- ice was also called into the negotiations. It appears that Commissioner Hutchinson of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service attended the negotiating session between the parties on April 7, and that he was also present at several other sessions. There is some correspondence in the exhibits between the Union and the Company as to the functions the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was to perform, and what official duties this agency had, if any. (General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11-a; Respondent's Exhibit No. 28 ) The Company and the Union also exchanged several letters bearing on the gen- eral nature and purpose of their numerous meetings or sessions. The Respondent contended in some instances that they had extended themselves to consider with the Union virtually every day-to-day function of the plant, accused the Union of "generalizations" without any specific identifications of the exact problems, and that there had only been "technical harassment" by the Union at the various ses- sions. The Company also suggested separate meetings, one for the consideration of grievances and another for the exclusive consideration of contract matters.20 The exhibits also show that on or about September 27 the Company had sub- mitted a complete contract proposal to the Union.21 Smith testified that at the 45th negotiating session, Jones submitted an article on "recognition," and that in November the Union had indicated that it would sign an "old contract" if the Company would agree to a 20-cent pay raise. This record shows that in or by November the Union had submitted articles on recognition, management's rights, union shop, payroll deductions, and seniority. G. Final conclusions The law is clear that negotiations carried on in good faith, where there has been an open exchange of ideas, proposals and counterproposals, and an indication of willingness to compromise, cannot be found to have violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act simply because on some of the issues, even though they may be crucial, one or the other of the parties has been unwilling to recede from its position so as to yield to the contentions or demands of the other. The record in this proceeding of the negotiations and the proposals by the Respondent, its availability and participation on 23 different occasions since the Union was certified, and its offer and willingness to sign an agreement, clearly establishes that the Respondent's conduct in the course of these dealings was in keeping with the spirit of the Act. 20 Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 22 and 24. =Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 29 and 32. It also appears from this record , as afore- stated, that as early as April 1962, the Respondent had offered contract proposals. INSTRUMENT DIVISION, ROCKWELL REGISTER CORP. 641 It should be noted initially that the Company, in September 1961, notified its ,employees that absent a labor agreement the plant would continue its longstanding policies in relation to employee benefits. In prior contracts between the parties it appears that procedures were therein set forth for the bargaining of employee grievances. Before and since certification-and in the absence of a contract since the middle of 1961-the Company has nevertheless followed its past practices in this respect. This record shows that in at least two negotiating sessions the parties spent considerable time in discussing the paint damage to a car owner by employee Smith.22 At the July 6 meeting considerable time was spent in a discussion rela- tive to employee Groden's contention that he should be a "type A" setup man. On August 9 the parties discussed an injury to employee Mary Holcom, and which case had previously been referred to the State industrial commission. I point out the above because in my opinion it shows some basis for the Respondent's argu- ment that several negotiation sessions turned into meetings on minor grievances, but more important, it also shows that the Company was in good faith attempting to uphold its obligations under the Act, and to meet its prior announced intentions of so doing. As far as I am able to ascertain from this record the subject of job descriptions first came up at the negotiating session on June 23. At the next meeting, how- ,ever, the Company provided the Union with the particular description Jones had requested. On several occasions thereafter, the Union then asked for all changes in job descriptions since 1957, and contended that absent this information it could not negotiate a contract. The testimony and exhibits disclosed that the Com- pany was at first reluctant or hesistant in providing this material. Under the cir- cumstances here I find that the Respondent was justified in its position. In 1955 a good deal of work had been done between the parties on job evalua- tions and descriptions, as aforestated. In 1957 copies of job descriptions had been sent to the Union. In 1959 the Company supplied the Union with up-to-date job evaluations and descriptions, again in 1960 the Company provided the Union with revised job descriptions, and there is no credited testimony that the descriptions of 1960 were not the current descriptions being used by the Company. Union Negotiator Jones testified that there had been a change of job contents in a large number of classifications, but in this respect it should be noted that according to Jones the only descriptions the Union had were those dated in "1957." I am not .aware of any Board decisions directly in point as to how many times a party litigant under these circumstances must supply certain types of information, but it appears to me that once is sufficient under most situations. The Respondent also produced reliable testimony as to the extra efforts involved in assembling such material, and that upon a prior occasion, as aforestated, the information requested by the Union, once assembled with much office overtime by the Company, was then deemed "moot." 23 In the next phases of the sessions between the parties we still have the Union continuing its demand for the changes in descriptions since 1957. On September 18 Jones then specifically informed the Company that he did not have the revised job descriptions which were sent to the Union in 1959 and 1960. The Company then asked Jones to write a letter to this effect, and after receiving this letter the Respondent then started on October 8 to supply Jones with some of the descriptions, and by November 3 the Union had the total of 66 job descriptions. In the final analysis here, the Company was certainly justified in initially holding back on job description since this information had been provided in prior years, and it should also be noted that after Jones specifically and definitely informed the Company by letter that he did not have the 1959 and 1960 revised descriptions, the Union then started to receive this information 19 days later, and they had all of it within 44 days. Jones repeatedly testified that he could not negotiate a con- tract until he had the job descriptions; however, even up to the date of this hearing the Union has not submitted anything to the Company involving the subject of job descriptions, and this is a period of more than 6 weeks following the receipt of a full set of all descriptions, and admittedly the Union has not asked for any addi- tional information since then. From this fact it seems to me that there is lacking here any valid basis for the contention that the delay in supplying such material tended to impede the negotiations, or that the Company did not have an adequate reason 22 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12. -Jones testified that be mainly worked out of the office in his home, but that he fre- quents the local downtown headquarters of the Union, and in those offices he does have access to all the files. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the delays, and these factors are certainly a ready distinction from Board deci- sions wherein totally different circumstances existed. I find that under the situations existing in this proceeding there was no unreasonable delay in providing the job descriptions. Insofar as the allegations pertaining to the 1962 vacation announcement is con- cerned, I am unable to detect any change which materially varied from the same practices and procedures in prior years. I have carefully compared the vacation announcements made by the Company in 1958 and 1961,24 with the notice in ques- tion of June 1, 1962, and it appears to me that the procedures followed and the contents are substantially the same. In all three of the announcements there is a reference to the fact that possibly some employees would have to stay on and work due to certain types of customer orders which annually arise, as aforestated. I have also reviewed the holiday and vacation articles of the old 1959-1961 contract between the parties, and I find nothing therein which in any way restricts or impedes the notice in question here. Article XII, section 2, paragraph 5, of the 1959-61 contract states, "To insure orderly and efficient operation of the plant, the Company reserves the right to the final allotment of the vacation period, which includes clos- ing the entire plant at the same time if it appears advisable to do so." This record also contains numerous announcements made by the Company, without consultation, concerning special holidays-such as Good Friday, Thanksgiving, and the like- and there is no contention or testimony whatosever that the Union objected in any way to these notices, or to the posting of the vacation announcements in the prior years referred to above. However, even assuming here, arguendo, that the Company had to consult with the Union relative to its 1962 vacation plans there was still an adequate opportunity to do so before the effective date of the July vacations. As a matter of fact, the Company fully recognized the letter of June 8 from the Union requesting a meeting relative to the 1962 vacations, and as a result some discussions were had at the session on June 23 and 28, and the Company also then supplied the Union with a letter, as aforestated, setting forth its 1962 vacation plans in detail. Jones raised no objections thereafter, and never submitted any vacation proposals which were different from previous contracts. It is further noted that the parties also held a bargaining session on July 6-which date preceded the vacation periods in question- and at this meeting there was no mention whatsoever of any vacation plans by the Union, and such is true even in accordance with the testimony given by Jones as to what was discussed on this date.25 In essence the Union's argument here is that it wanted to know the terms and have an opportunity to bargain, if necessary, and both of these objectives or requests were provided by the Company before the effective date of the vacations. The fact also that the Company was willing to dis- cuss their announcement with the Union-and then did so on two occasions- is additional evidence that the vacation arrangements were not fail accompli, and had the Union been able to offer any suggestions or different arrangements, I am unwilling to conclude on the basis of this record that such effort would have been futile. On the basis of the circumstances present here, I conclude and find that the announcement by the Company of the 1962 vacation plans merely followed past practices, and in no way deviated or changed the well recognized, acceptable, and established procedures, and that the Company also afforded the Union sufficient opportunities to bargain on the same before the announced arrangements became final or operative. Relative now to the alleged unilateral layoffs. The General Counsel does not contest the fact that these layoffs were economically justified, but his position is the lack of notice to the Union, and the unilateral manner in which these layoffs occurred. The Respondent argues that the layoffs were made on the basis of past practice, that the Union failed to propose a method for layoffs different from the last contractual provision, that the Union had been informed during prior nego- tiation sessions of the pendency of layoffs weeks before they were effectuated, and as to the December incident, that there has been an impasse between the parties on the subject of layoffs since their September discussions of the same. The 1959-61 contract between the parties provided in general for departmental seniority, and in the reduction of forces under this contract, employees could exercise their rights of seniority in the departments from which employees had been trans- ferred, and in the case of a layoff at least 48 hours' notice would be given to em- 24 Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16. -There are also Board decisions which hold that where a union acquiesces in the uni- lateral employer action that such conduct does not constitute a refusal to bargain. INSTRUMENT DIVISION, ROCKWELL REGISTER CORP. 643 ployees. The 1959-61 contract provided also that the Union "shall" receive copies of all seniority lists, and "shall be kept informed of all additions, removals, changes in classification, or status of employees at all times, not to exceed 30 days." During the negotiations between the parties the Union submitted a proposal or counter- proposal relative to seniority, as aforestated.26 Jones testified, and the record shows, that in this proposal the Union did not suggest any change whatsoever in sections involving notices, and furthermore, no notices to the Union were ever required under the provisions of the old contract, or in the counterproposal submitted by Jones during the period in question here. It appears to me that the layoffs on September 7 followed the usual customs and established procedures in instances of this type, and the Union was also notified or informed. After the Company received the telegram from Jones protesting the layoffs, the Respondent then sent a reply telegram informing Jones that they would discuss the matter fully "within 24 hours of your [the Union's] request stating a specific time for a meeting." This record shows that Jones then requested the date of September 12 for the meeting, but then canceled it and postponed the meeting until September 13. It seems to me that had the Union been duly or seriously concerned with the layoffs Jones would have arranged an earlier meeting for dis- cussion, and certainly the opportunity to do so was afforded by the Company. In the discussion on September 13 there appeared to be no real difficulties or serious contentions by the Union over the layoff.27 In essence here the layoffs were conceded to be economically justified; the Company followed the well-established past practices; the Union was notified; the Company then afforded the Union an opportunity within 24 hours to discuss the layoff; the Union then postponed its original meeting to discuss the matter; at the session on September 13 there were no serious objections by Jones; a subsequent contract proposal by the Union did not alter the notice requirements of the former contract; and neither the proposal or the former contract in respect to layoffs required any notice to the Union itself. With this background, and under these particular and specific circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the Respondent was in violation of the Act 28 As to the layoffs on December 11, it appears to me that the parties had reached an impasse over this subject matter stemming from their September discussions. The credited testimony as to this incident reveals that Smith had informed Jones in prior negotiating sessions of possible pending and future layoffs, and that Smith, during the discussions over the September layoffs, had inquired as to how much time the Union wanted for layoff notices. There is certainly no indication here as to any definite or specific set period of time desired by the Union-only that it wanted to be notified in sufficient time so that it could bargain. Whether or not the time element of approximately 24 hours between the letters of termination and the actual effective date of the layoffs was a sufficient period for the Union, is of course somewhat speculative, but in view of the past practices, and in the absence of any exact period specified by the Union-coupled with the mutual disagreement between the parties in their September discussions, I find that an impasse had been reached at that time, and the Company in December merely reverted to the estab- lished and customary procedures. Certainly in this incident as in the others, we do not have an effort by the Company to change any existing or well-established agreement with respect to the layoffs, and the reliable testimony and the many exhibits in this record all indicate that at no time did the Company attempt to bypass the Union. Jones admitted on cross-examination that he reviewed the September layoffs partially in view of the "previous contract," and since the old contract was looked to by the Union then, it is certainly a reasonable deduction to find that after an impasse was reached in respect to the length of notice needed by the Union, the Company, then on the subsequent layoffs in December, looked to the same contract and then followed the provisions contained in the prior agree- ment. If one party can refer to a "previous contract" then certainly the other party on the same subject matter is likewise entitled to do the same thing under se Respondent's Exhibit No. 33. 27 Regarding the meeting on September 13, Jones was asked: Q. When you did meet on the 13th, you reviewed these layoffs in light of the prac- tices of the previous contract, is that correct? Jones answered the following: A. Well, actually, not necessarily ; but partially in view of the previous contract, we were looking for seniority, was it done by seniority in accordance with depart- mental seniority. ' H. E. Fletcher Co., 131 NLRB 474, 484. 712-548-64-vol. 142-42 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the particular circumstances that existed here 29 In the total aspects of this case it appears clear to me that the Respondent amply demonstrated all of the essential elements in establishing its good faith, and I do not find that the company procedure and behavior, when reviewed in the light of the entire record, is sufficient to estab- lish that the Respondent refused to bargain, and accordingly did not violate Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act. 1. The Respondent is and (7) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) 2. The Union is a labor the Act. organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the 3. The Respondent has not complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Also note in the 1959-61 contract between the parties-article XIX, sections 1, 2, and 3. In this case the Union gave notice in March 1961 to modify the 1959-61 contract as aforestated. As far as this record is concerned this was the only notice given. It is not clear to me how the provisions of sections 2 and 3 operate In relation to section 1 of article XIX, but as far as I can ascertain there never has been any 5 -day notice to termi- nate as provided In section 2, and certainly the negotiations in question concerned modifi- cations of the prior contract. It may be that the terms of the previous agreement con- tinued beyond the contract's terminal date on May 31, 1961, absent the invoking of the 5-day notice. However, without any specific contention or finding in this respect, never- theless, the previous contract was relied upon to some extent by the Union in discussions, and the adoption of notices for layoffs by the Company through the same contract must, therefore, be deemed valid under these circumstances. Halliburton Company I and Maritime Trades Council of Greater New Orleans and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-2579. May 15, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerry L. Gardner, Jr., hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organi- zation within the meaning of the Act, and is "fronting" for the Sea- The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. E On October 18, 1962, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region Issued a Decision and Order in which he found that the Petitioner was not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the petition in the instant case. On November 27, 1962, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Petitioner 's request for review of that deci- sion . Thereafter , on November 29, 1962, the Regional Director by order transferred the entire case to the Board . Accordingly , we have proceeded upon the record to determine all material issues raised in this proceeding . Nevertheless, we reject the Employer's con- tention that , In delegating its powers under Section 9, as amended , to Regional Directors, the Board exceeded its authority under Section 3 ( b) and that the latter section is unconstitutional. 142 NLRB No. 73.