Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co.

1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent notifies the Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local Union No. 2924, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, or in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Leroy Buxton, Larry K. Deming, William Elliott, Herbert M. Majors, and Thomas H. Palmer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. SAN JUAN LUMBER COMPANY, 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 applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, 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 Subregional Office, 612 Lincoln Building, 208 SW. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, Telephone No. Capitol 2-1607, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada and Carpenters' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-3125. September 14,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 1, 1965, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had 154 NLRB No. 106. BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1169 enga^,-ed in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition. In finding, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents' refusal to furnish the requested financial data violated Section 8(a) (5) and caused the June 8 strike, we rely, in addition to the matters set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, on the uncontroverted testimony that at the June 4 union meeting the employees discussed the possibility of accepting some reduction in pay if the Respondents could prove their claimed inability to pay the wages which the Union sought. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondents, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., and Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada, Reno, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' 1 The telephone number for Region 20, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix at- tached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision, is amended to read: Telephone No. 556-0335. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the Act, was heard before Trial Examiner David F. Doyle at Reno, Nevada, on December 8 through 10, 1964, pur- suant to due notice to all parties.1 The complaint dated September 17, 1964, was based on charges filed by the Union on June 10 and amended on August 31 and 1 In this report the Respondents are referred to as the Respondents or the Employers; Carpenters' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the Union ; the General Counsel of the Board and his representatives at the hearing as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board ; and the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended , as the Act. 206-446-66-vol. 154-75 1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD September 4.2 The complaint in substance alleged that the Respondents had refused to bargain with the Union as the representative of Respondents' employees in an appropriate unit, by refusing on April 28, and thereafter, to make available certain financial data to the Union to substantiate the Respondents' claim that the Employers were unable to pay an increase in wages or benefits to the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. In its answer and at the hearing, the Respondent contended that the request for financial data was not relative to the bargaining issues between the parties; that the request for financial data was not made in good faith; that the information requested was not needed by the Union to fulfill its bargaining function; and therefore the refusal of the Employers to supply the requested financial data was not a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act. At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings. Upon the entire record of the case, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS; THE ASSOCIATION Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Associa- tion of Northern Nevada is a Nevada corporation with its principal office located at Reno, Nevada. At all times material herein the Association has been a voluntary association of employers engaged in the construction and operation of cabinet and mill shops in the Reno and Sparks, Nevada, area. The Association exists for the purpose, among others, of representing its employer-members in collective bargaining and participating in the negotiation, execution, and administration of collective- bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-members. Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, and Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co. at all times material herein have been members of the Association and are engaged in the manufacture and the distribution of mill products in the vicinity of Reno and Sparks, Nevada. The Employers, in the course and conduct of their businesses, annually sell goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Nevada and annually purchase and receive goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from places and points located outside the State of Nevada. It is undisputed, and I find, that the Association and the Employers are, and at all times material herein have been, employers engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is undisputed, and I find, that the Union is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES There are only minor conflicts in the testimony of the principal witnesses in this proceeding. These witnesses, who engaged in the various bargaining conferences which comprise this controversy, were in substantial agreement as to the subject of bargaining, the bargaining conferences held, and the various positions taken at various times by the parties. A. Undisputed facts of background; the problem of outside competition; the early negotiations It is undisputed that for many years the Union has been the bargaining represent- ative for all carpenters engaged in the trade in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area. Most of these carpenters are engaged in residential and business construction work, but a small number of men, 20 to 30, are employed by the Employers involved herein, who engage only in the business of cabinetmaking and millwork, which is conducted at their mills. In Nevada, where gambling is legal, the cabinet and mill shops construct and make many specialized items, such as gaming tables and other furniture and equipment used in the gambling casinos, in addition to the usual type of cabinets installed in homes and office buildings. 2 All dates in this Decision are in the year 1964 unless specified otherwise. BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1171 It is undisputed that for many years past the wages, hours, and working conditions of carpenters in the Reno-Sparks area were determined by successive labor agree- ments which were negotiated by a committee representing the Union and a com- mittee of the Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada. These successive contracts were of a "construction type" because most of the carpenters and the companies comprising the Association were engaged in construction work. How- ever, these contracts by their terms also covered those carpenters who were engaged in millwork and cabinetwork for the Employers. In the spring of 1964, the Master Carpenters Agreement, which was effective from June 1, 1962, until May 31, 1964, approached its terminal date. This contract had been signed individually by Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co. and by the Home Builders Association on behalf of many other employers. On March 25, 1964, John O. Morman, business representative of the Union, addressed a letter to the Employers and the Association notifying them that the membership of the Union had voted to open the expiring collective-bargaining agreements and that the Union was ready to meet with the Association at its earliest convenience to negotiate a new contract. On or about April 15, Robert Robertson, executive vice president of the Association, met Morman and told him that the Employers, who engaged in cabinet and mill operations, had formed a separate group within the Association and would like to meet with the union representatives. Morman agreed to meet with this group of cabinet mill owners. The first meeting of the parties occurred on April 28. The Union was repre- sented by a committee composed of Morman, Bertoldi, and Pruitt, all union officers. The Employers were represented by Robert Robertson, executive vice president of the Association, and by Roger Powell, owner of Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., George Sargent of Sargent Showcase and Fixture Co., and Harry Lemon of Capriotti, Lemon Associates Thereafter at all meetings, Robertson was the principal spokes- man for the Employers and Morman was the principal spokesman for the Union. At this first meeting Robertson told the conferees that the cabinet mill owners had formed a separate employers group of their own and that this group wanted to negotiate a separate agreement with the Union because the cabinet mill owners were not engaged in construction carpentry work and had some problems which were not shared by the construction companies. Robertson told the union representatives that the Employers had lost a large number of big jobs to mills outside the Reno- Sparks area, especially to the mills in Sacramento and Southern California. Robert- son explained that these so-called "foreign" mills paid their carpenters much less than the Employers and in consequence could underbid the Employers and win large contracts for work in the Reno-Sparks area. Robertson explained that the high rate of wages for carpenters under the construction type contracts prevented the Employers from being "competitive" as regards the Sacramento and southern California mills. Powell, one of the representatives of the Employers, stated that examples of jobs in the Reno area which went to foreign competition were contracts for Harrah's Club, Hawthorn Hospital, Golden Club, Union Federal Building, and the First National Bank Building. On behalf of the Union, Morman replied that he would have to consult with the Union before he could agree to negotiate a separate contract with the Employers. At a regular union meeting held on May 11, the membership granted authority to the union committee to negotiate a separate contract with the cabinet mill repre- sentatives. It should be noted that during this interval the same three representatives of the Union were conducting negotiations with Robertson and others for a new Master Carpenters Agreement for the construction carpentry employers in the area. On May 12, the committees of the Union and the Employers again met. At this meeting Morman informed the Employers that his committee had authority to nego- tiate a separate contract. At this meeting the representatives of the parties began in earnest to negotiate a contract. There is some conflict in the testimony of Morman and Robertson as to what happened at this and later bargaining conferences. How- ever, it is notable that the conflict in testimony has to do with the emphasis which each party placed upon certain statements made at these conferences. Morman testified that the Employers stated that the high wages of the carpenters contract kept the Employers from being competitive toward the foreign mills and that the wage rates paid carpenters were so high that they could not continue to pay the current wages and stay in business. Robertson testified that he told the union representative that the rate of wages prevented the Employers from being competitive in regard to the foreign mills, but that the Employers could always get a certain amount of local business which would be sufficient to keep them in business. He denied that the employers ever stated that they could not afford to pay the current wage rates. Despite this disagreement 1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the testimony, as to the accent or emphasis which was placed on the position of the Employers, it is clear from all the testimony that both parties thereafter engaged in good-faith bargaining in an effort to solve the problem of the foreign competition faced by the Employers. At this meeting it was decided that the Employers would present a "pilot proposal" at a meeting to be held on May 15. On May 15 the Employers submitted their "pilot proposal," but there was no real consideration of it until the next meeting. The "pilot proposal" submitted by the Employers provided for a wage scale with a rate of $3.90 per hour for a classifica- tion of master mechanic, which was a new designation for journeyman carpenters. The master carpenters contract which would expire on May 31, 1964, provided for a rate of pay of $4.60 per hour for journeyman carpenters; thus the proposal amounted to a reduction in wages of 70 cents per hour for journeyman carpenters. The "pilot proposal" also carried a rate of wage of $3.40 per hour for the classification of "mechanic" and a rate of $2.38 per hour for a classification of "helper." These were new classifications because under the expiring master carpenters contract there were only two classifications, journeyman and apprentice. The rate for an appren- tice under the old agreement was a percentage of the journeyman rate depending upon the length of employment as a carpenter. Under the "pilot proposal" of the Employers the apprentice classification was retained but the percentages of pay were lower than in the expiring agreement. On May 19 the representatives of the parties met again. At this meeting the con- ferees went over the "pilot proposal" paragraph by paragraph. The union commit- tee expressed dissatisfaction with the wage rates, the compulsory arbitration clause of the grievance procedure, the quality craftsmanship clause and the helper classifica- tion. At this meeting Robertson pointed out that the Sacramento mill operators had a contract with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Mill- men's Local No. 1618, which provided for classifications of journeyman mechanics and machine operators and helpers such as set up in the "pilot proposal" of the Employers and that the rate of pay for mill carpenters in Sacramento was much less than that in the expiring Master Carpenters Agreement. He stated that the Employers wished to have a mill agreement comparable to that of the Union's sister local at Sacramento, since much of the foreign competition came from the Sacramento area.3 Toward the end of the meeting Robertson stated that the Employers would under- take to prepare a second pilot proposal which would take care of some of the Union's objections. From all the evidence it is clear that the conferees devoted a great deal of time to a consideration of the problem of the Employers in meeting the inroads of foreign competition. On May 20 the representatives of the parties again met and the Employers sub- mitted a second pilot proposal which eliminated the compulsory arbitration clause and embodied the principles of an acceptable clause for the settlement of various grievances. At the meeting a seniority clause was worked out which was to be finally agreed upon at the next meeting. However, the wage rates and the job classifications and the quality craftsmanship clause, to which the Union's committee had objected, were still contained in the second pilot proposal. On May 25 the representatives of the parties again met and accepted in principle a seniority clause and the Union agreed to drop its demand for a subcontracting clause. However, the parties again could not reach agreement on the problems of wages and competition. Morman indicated that the employees and the membership of the Union were not amenable to a step backward on the subject of wages. How- ever, Morman agreed, at the request of the Employers, to present the second pilot proposal to the membership of the Union for consideration. He presented his proposal to the membership of the Union at a meeting on May 25 and the member- ship rejected the proposal, especially the wage reductions and the new job classifica- tions. On May 28, the representatives of the parties again met and Morman reported that the membership of the Union had rejected the second pilot proposal. According to Morman, the representatives of the Employers then asserted that their proposal had not been fairly presented to the membership, because the proposal had been presented to all the members of the Union and not to only those men who worked for the Employers. However, at this meeting the parties agreed to suspend nego- tiations and maintain the status quo until the committees had reached an agreement on a new Master Carpenters Agreement. Thereafter, the committees reached agree- ment on a new Master Carpenters Agreement on May 29, 1964. S A copy of the agreement between the Sacramento Planing Mill Operators Association and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Millmen's Local 1618, was received in evidence and is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1173 B. The bargaining meeting of June 1; the union meeting; the union proposal The representatives of the parties again met on June 1, and covered substantially the same ground as had been previously covered. The Employers stated that they didn't like the manner in which their second pilot proposal had been presented to the union membership. Morman agreed to call a special meeting of the men who worked in the cabinet mill shops for that evening and to present the second pi.ot proposal to those men. The Employers again reiterated that they could not afford to pay the wages which had been negotiated in the new Master Carpenters Agreement for that agreement contained a new raise in pay and some additional fringe benefits. On that evening Morman addressed a union meeting at which all the cabinet mill workers were assembled. He explained to them the claim of the Employers that they could not remain competitive when there was a large difference in the rate of wages between the Reno-Sparks area and the Sacramento and southern California areas. The men were not convinced that the business of the Employers was as represented, because several of them pointed out that the Employers were expanding their facilities and buying new equipment. Finally, a motion was made and carried, that the Union would make a counterproposal to the Employers which would be based on a retention of the rate of wages in the expiring contract, with only certain fringe benefits negotiated for the first year of the new Master Carpenters Agreement to be included in the Employers' contract. On the next day the Union's committee offered this proposal to the representatives of the Employers. The Union's offer was rejected as unsatisfactory by the representatives of the Employers; they said that the proposal, retaining the old wage rates but with some new fringe benefits, was entirely out of the question. C. The two wage offer of the Employers The representatives of the parties again met on June 4. At this meeting the Employers presented a letter to the Union which stated that the Employers would guarantee to the men then presently employed the current wage rates but proposed that in the hiring of new employees the lower wage rates and the new classifications of employees contained in the second pilot proposal of the Employers be accepted by the Union. The union representatives stated that they were skeptical of the workability of either the "guarantee" of present wages or of a "two wage" system. The Union resubmitted its proposal that the current wage rate be maintained with additional benefits of the Master Carpenters Agreement. The Employers again requested that the union committee present the "two wage" offer to the union membership, and Morman agreed to do so. At a meeting of the Union held on June 4, Morman read the "two wage" letter offer to the assembled employees and informed them that the Union's wage offer had been rejected. The employees then rejected the Employers' "two wage" letter offer. Morman testified, that at the meeting he told the men that the only step in bargaining left to the Union's committee was to request the Employers to furnish financial data to substantiate their statements that they could not afford to pay the Union's wages. After considerable discussion, a motion was made that the union committee would continue to negotiate with the Employers and that the men would work on the following day, Friday, June 5, but unless some agreement was reached the men would strike on Monday, June 8. D. The demand for financial data; the sti eke On June 5, Morman advised the Employers that the men had rejected their "two wage" proposal. Morman then stated that he wanted some financial data to prove that the Employers could not pay the wages they were asking. He told the Employers that the Union was entitled to this information because the Employers claimed that they could not pay the wages requested. According to Morman, Robert- son replied, "That isn't the law and we are not going to do it." Robertson testified that at the June 5 meeting there was a brief but angry exchange between the representatives. Robertson testified that he had no recollection of a request for financial data being made at this meeting, but on cross-examination he admitted that he could be wrong on that point. Robertson confirmed a statement in an affidavit which he had given to an agent of the Board on July 1, 1964, that the request for financial data must have been made at the meeting of June 4. However, Robertson testified that his best recollection was that the request for financial data was not made until a meeting on June 12. Robertson testified that when the request for financial data was made at the later meeting, he offered to submit job bids which the Employers had lost to support their position but refused to supply any other data. 1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is undisputed that other meetings of the parties occurred on June 8, 12 , and 17. At these meetings, a Federal mediator was present , but the position of the parties remained substantially the same. Concluding Findings A consideration of all the testimony demonstrates that there is no real conflict between the parties as to the crucial facts of this proceeding . Unon all the evidence, I find that in the course of negotiations ( 1) the Union requested that the Employers furnish to the Union certain financial data and (2) that the Employers refused to furnish the requested data, but offered to supply a list of bids lost to "foreign" competition. The question thus presented is, were the Employers justified in this refusal, or was it a violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) 9 In N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, the Supreme Court stated that good- faith bargaining required that claims made be honest claims and that all reasonable efforts be made to substantiate them; that bargaining was not in good faith where it was marked by mechanically repetitious claims of inability to pay a wage increase, without some proof to substantiate this inability when it was requested. In Truitt, supra, as here, the employer claimed that it was paying higher wages than its com- petitors and that it was losing bid jobs because of its higher labor costs , and the employer offered to supply a list of jobs so lost to competitors . The Supreme Court held that such a claim was tantamount to a plea of inability to pay wages, and that good-faith bargaining required the employer to furnish to the union , upon request, such financial data as would support or demonstrate its claimed inability to nay. In many other cases it has been held that a claimed inability "to stay competitive," or a claim that a wage increase would "affect adversely the employer's competitive position" was in fact a claim of inability to pay wages, which required supporting financial data, when requested in collective bargaining .4 If the testimony in this proceeding is viewed in the light of these cases , the so-called conflicts in the testimony appear to be without legal sienificance. Since it is admitted that the Union requested financial data and that the Employers rejected the request, it is immaterial (1) where the emphasis was placed by the parties in early bargaining sessions, or (2) as to the exact date in early June on which the Union demanded financial data. On the latter point the testimony of Morman appears to be the most reliable, so I have credited his testimony. Upon a consideration of all the evidence and the authorities cited above, I find that on June 5, 1964 , the Respondents violated Sections 8(a)(5) and ( 1) as alleged in the complaint by failing to supply to the union financial data to support their claim of inability to pay wages when requested to do so by the Union. It is also found that this refusal was the cause of the strike of employees of the Respondents which began on June 8, 1964. On February 8, 1964, counsel for the Employers , by written motion duly filed, requested that the transcript of testimony herein be corrected in eight specified instances. There being no objection, the order prayed for is hereby granted, and the motion papers are hereby made a part of said transcript of testimony. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Respondents described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. * Cincinnati Cordage and Paper Company , 141 NLRB 72; Peerless Distributing Com- pany, 144 NLRB 1510; Movie Star, Inc., et al , 145 NLRB 319; The Celotex Corporation, 146 NLRB 48 BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1175 Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co, Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., and Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Asso- ciation of Northern Nevada are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Carpenters' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union named above as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit by failing and refusing to make available to said labor organization, on request, data as to the Employers' ability to pay the wages requested by the Union, the Employers have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondents, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., and Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of their employees in the appropriate unit by failing and refusing to furnish to said labor organization on request the financial data as to their ability to pay the wages requested. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the employees' exclusive representative to bargain collectively on their behalf. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, make available to the Union the wage data requested by it on June 5, 1964. (b) Post at their place of business in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by the Employers for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Employers shall take reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Employers have taken to comply herewith.6 It is further recommended that, unless the Employers shall, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, notify said Regional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Employers to take the action aforesaid. In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order". 61n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." 1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Carpenters' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below, by failing and refusing to furnish the said Union the financial data requested by it on June 5, 1964. WE WILL furnish to the above-named Union the requested financial data detailed above in order that it may properly discharge its function as the statutory bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bargain collectively with said labor organization as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below: All employees of the following named members of Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada, namely, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, and Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., performing carpentry work at their cabinet shops and mills in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. NORTHERN NEVADA CABINET AND MILL OPERATORS COUNCIL OF HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN NEVADA, Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) BUILDERS MILL, Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) POWELL CABINET & FIXTURE CO., Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) 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, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Telephone No. 556-3197, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Shawnee Plastics, Inc. and District 153 of the International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 25-CA-2120. Sep- tember 14,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief. 154 NLRB No. 104.