Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association

ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Associa- tion and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2513 and 26-CA-2532. June 19,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On March 30, 1967, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie 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 Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. 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. 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 and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board hereby renumbers conclusion of law No. 7 as No. 8, and adds the following as conclusion of law No. 7: "7. By refusing the Union's request to furnish pertinent wage and payroll data, and by its unreasonable delay in furnishing such data, Respondent has engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, Stuttgart and Jonesboro, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Substitute a comma for the period at the end of paragraph 1(b) and add the following: "or 577 unreasonably delaying in furnishing it to the Union." 2. Substitute the word "our" for the word "my" in the last paragraph of the notice. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN H. EADIE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was held before me in Jonesboro, Arkansas, on December 6 and 7, 1966, on the consolidated complaint of the General Counsel and the answer of Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, herein called the Respondent.' The issue litigated was whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. After the hearing the General Counsel, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the Respondent filed briefs with me. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT2 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is an Arkansas corporation. It has plants at Stuttgart and Jonesboro, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the milling and marketing of rice and related products. During the 12-month period preceding the date of the complaint herein, the Respondent processed, sold, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Stuttgart and Jonesboro plants, directly to points located outside the State of Arkansas. The consolidated complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES In an election conducted by the Board on November 18, 1965, a majority of the Respondent's Stuttgart employees in an appropriate unit designated and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. In an election conducted by the Board on March 3, 1966, a majority of the Respondent's employees in a separate appropriate unit at the Jonesboro plant selected the Union as their collective-bargaining agent. The Board certified the Union on February 8, 1966, for the Stuttgart plant and on May 12, 1966, for the Jonesboro plant. The Respondent and the Union met for contract negotiations at Stuttgart starting on March 30, 1966. Thereafter, meetings covering Stuttgart were held on ' The charges in Cases 26-CA-2513 and 26-CA-2532 were filed on August 10 and September 1, 1966 , respectively. The consolidated complaint issued on September 29,1966. 2 With one exception , there are no material issues of fact in this case 165 NLRB No. 62 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD April 5, 6, and 20, May 19 and 24, June 8 and 29, July 26, August 11, September 22, and November 23. The parties met for contract negotiations at Jonesboro on July 22 and 27 and September 23. Edward Gerchak, an International representative of the Union, was the chief negotiator for the Union. Committees, composed of employees at each plant, also appeared for the Union at the meetings. Bill S. Clark, the Respondent's attorney, C. J. Guffin, its personnel manager, and James Mason, its assistant vice president and general manager, represented the Respondent. At the meeting held on March 30 the Union submitted a proposed contract. This contract provided for a checkoff of union dues and a general wage increase of 20 cents. The Union requested the Respondent to furnish it with information on job classifications and rates of pay. At the meeting held on April 6 the Respondent submitted written contract counterproposals. These proposals did not provide for a checkoff of union dues or for a general wage increase. The Respondent presented to the Union a document entitled, "Labor Classifications- Stuttgart" The document set forth various labor classifications and the wage rates applicable to the particular grades. It requested the Union to keep this information "confidential" because "it could be easily misunderstood if it is not adequately explained." The Respondent orally proposed to retain its existing policy of granting wage increases based upon merit and an annual review. Guffin explained the factors taken into consideration in this connection. At the meeting held on April 20 the Respondent proposed that its existing fringe benefits, such as vacations and holidays, as set forth in its handbook entitled, "Employment with a Purpose," be retained. In addition to the handbook it furnished the Union with copies of interpretive bulletins on these fringe benefits "that had been written through the years." The Union agreed to gd along with such fringe benefits, excepting that senior employees be permitted to exercise preference on vacations. It continued to demand a general wage increase, but agreed to the annual review and merit increases, provided that it had the right to challenge the Respondent's decisions on such increases. The Respondent refused to grant checkoff of dues, stating that it was against checkoff "as a matter of principle [since] this was doing the Union's work." The Respondent also gave as a reason for its refusal the cost of changing its "IBM machine" which printed the payroll checks. The Union requested a list of names of employees, their hiring dates, their classifications, their rates of pay, and the dates of their last wage increases. The Respondent refused to provide this information. The Union continued to propose a contract with a term of 1 year. The Respondent indicated that its proposal was for a 5-year period. On April 21 Gerchak sent the Respondent a telegram in which he renewed the Union's demand for information on individual employees. By letter dated April 29, 1966, Clark refused to supply the Union with the requested information, claiming it to be "of a confidential nature." Either at the meeting held on April 20 or May 19, the Union proposed that in lieu of checkoff it be permitted to 9 The undisputed evidence shows that for a number of years prior to the above date insurance agents regularly collected premiums and "loan sharks" collected installment payments from make in-plant collection of dues. Gerchak testified that on May 19 the Union made this proposal; it indicated that such in-plant collections could be made by "the committee or officers of the union ... on non-working time in the lunch rooms, locker rooms and other areas when the employees were not working"; and when the Respondent refused to accept this proposal, the Union pointed out that insurance agents were allowed in the plant in order to collect premiums from employees.3 During cross- examination Gerchak was questioned and testified as follows: Q. Did you make an offer that the union representative go down to the plant and collect the dues in the same manner as insurance agents and loan sharks? A. No, sir. Q. Well, what was your proposition? A. We discussed the problem of a union representative having access to the plant in relation to grievances and other union matters. But not to collect dues as such. Q. As a matter of fact, we never had any disagreement about a union agent having access to the plant to adjust grievances, did we, Mr. Gerchak? A. No, except you wanted a waiver to save, or arrange it so the company wouldn't be liable in the event that he was hurt or something else.. Q. And do you recall the reasons we gave you for that suggestion? A. Well I presume that company liability for injury was the topic of conversation. Q. Was it our insurance structure; our insurance company? A. Something like that, yes. Q. Now going back to this in-plant collection. My question was, did you suggest at that meeting that a union representative could go down to the plant much the same as an insurance collector or loan shark, and collect union dues? A. No, sir. If I remember right I told you they had other things to do besides going to the plant and collecting dues. Guffin testified that at the meeting of April 20 the Union proposed in-plant collection of dues; Gerchak stated that he would be the individual who would collect the dues; the Respondent refused to grant him access to the plant for this purpose; the question of liability for personal injury in the plant was discussed in this connection; the Respondent stated that it had no objection to "employees on their own time in non-working areas" collecting dues or conducting other union business; and at the meeting held on May 19 the Union again proposed in-plant collection of dues by a "union representative." Concerning the discussions on in-plant collection of union dues, Clark testified to the following: I will state that at Stuttgart I agree with Mr. Guffin that Mr. Gerchak was the one that was to go down there and make the collections in the plant because we specifically discussed his liability and made comparisons to insurance agents going down there and so forth. employees during working time and while supervisors were present, and that the Respondent banned the practice shortly after Gerchak made mention of it. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS Here at Jonesboro we had the discussion, it was my understanding even at Jonesboro, it would be a union representative other than one that worked in the plant that was to make these collections. That was my understanding. But we discussed both aspects of it, I do recall that, and we did discuss the possibility of an employee in the plant making the collections. I can not state definitely whether he said, "I, Mr. Gerchak would go down there." I can't state that absolutely, but I can state that it was our understanding from the suggestion he made that it would either' be Mr. Gerchak, or in the beginning there, Mr. Woodall who was working with Mr. Gerchak, or some outside union representative. Not one in the plant such as Lawson, the union president. As to the reason why the Respondent rejected the Union's proposal for collecting dues, Clark testified: Well, in Stuttgart-the same reason would apply essentially in Stuttgart as in Jonesboro-that it would amount to interference with production. And we did discuss the fact-it was directed to our attention, but I will say that we did not realize that it existed to the extent as presented here yesterday by the testimony, particularly here in Jonesboro-about insurance agents and these loan sharks and so forth coming down, but we distinguished between the insurance would apply to several employees whereas if you did that for a union dues, you would have 50 to 60 or maybe as high as 70 employees involved. And certainly with that number it would have to interfere with production. I mean, that's our feeling and our thinking on it. As noted above, Guffin testified, in substance, that the Respondent rejected the Union's proposal because Gerchak stated that he himself would collect the dues. Clark testified that it was his "understanding" that Gerchak was the one who would collect the dues, but that he could not state "definitely" that Gerchak made such a statement. He admitted that "the possibility of an employee in the plant making the collections" was discussed. Clark's testimony concerning the reason why the Respondent would not accept the Union's proposal appears to some extent to conflict with Guffin's testimony and to corroborate that of Gerchak. Accordingly, I credit the above testimony of Gerchak. At the meeting held on May 19 Gerchak again renewed the Union's demand for wage and classification information. The Union reduced its demand for a general wage increase from 20 to 15 cents. At the meeting held on May 24 the Union indicated that it was agreeable to the Respondent' s annual wage review, provided that it was subject to the grievance procedure. Mason stated that wage increases resulting from the review would be granted "solely at the company's discretion" and were "none of the union's business." On May 24, 1966, the Union sent the Respondent a letter in which it made "a continuing request" for the following information: A list of all employees in the bargaining unit. Also the date of hire. 579 Classification of each employee. Job description of each classification. Wage rate paid each employee. The date and amount of last increase in pay of each employee. Present method of evaluating each classification. How are the annual reviews conducted. What factors are considered in evaluating employees for the purpose of giving each an increase in pay. On May 26, 1966, Gerchak wrote to H. L. Parks, plant manager at Jonesboro. Gerchak requested substantially the same information as the above with respect to the Jonesboro plant. By letter dated May 30, 1966, Clark advised Gerchak that the Respondent had no objection to furnishing the Union with a list of all employees in the Stuttgart bargaining unit and their dates of hire. Clark stated that the Respondent refused to supply the remainder of the requested information for Stuttgart "in view of the experience that just occurred at Carlisle, Arkansas," and that it also refused to furnish requested information for Jonesboro because it had "serious doubts" of the legality of the certification.4 At the meeting held on June 8 Gerchak referred to Clark's letter of May 30 and requested the promised list of employees. Clark said that he did not have it and asked why the Union wanted the information, claiming that the Hazen incident showed that the Union wanted it solely for the purpose of organizing other plants of the Respondent. Gerchak denied knowledge of the distribution at Hazen. The Respondent agreed to send the Union the list of employees and their dates of hire. The parties discussed checkoff of dues. The Union stated that it did not believe the changing of the IBM machine would be as expensive as claimed. The Respondent agreed to bring Carle, its secretary-treasurer, to the next meeting to explain the cost involved. In-plant collection of dues was discussed. The Respondent's position was that it would not agree to collection of dues "on work time or off work time" as it did not want its employees "bothered while working." Guffin explained the Respondent's policies with respect to annual review and merit increases and outlined the factors taken into consideration. He advised the Union that the Respondent had no written policy on this subject and that such policy would have to be reduced to writing in order to satisfy the Union's demand for information. On June 10 the Respondent sent the Union the list of employees and their dates of hire. By letter dated June 13, 1966, the Union acknowledged receipt of the list and renewed its request for the balance of the information it had previously demanded. By letter dated June 24, 1966, Guffin advised Gerchak that the Respondent refused to supply the remaining information "upon advice from our attorney." Guffin stated, "Our approach to making wage considerations has been fully discussed in our negotiations , and we have never declined to explain the details of policy in this area." Carle was present at the meeting held on June 29. He explained that it would cost between $30,000 to $50,000 to change the IBM machine to include checkoff of dues. In " Hubert Hatfield, manager of Respondent's plant located at letter Clark mistakenly referred to Carlisle. Gerchak admitted Hazen, Arkansas, testified that during May an unknown person that he had had about 200 copies of this information reproduced left on a desk at the plant copies of the classification information and that he had distributed them to employees at a union meeting which the Respondent had supplied to the Union In the above He denied having anything to do with leaving copies at Hazen. 580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD addition the Respondent reiterated its opposition to checkoff "as a matter of principle" and still refused to permit in-plant collection of dues. Clark agreed to furnish the classification of each employee but not the individual wage rates. Guffin again explained the Respondent's method of arriving at wage increases under its annual review. In this connection the Union argued that the determinations of foremen should be subject to the grievance procedure. Mason remarked, "Why do we have to talk with the union to give a pay raise? We are going to do what we have been doing, union or not .... Who is running the Company, Arkansas Rice Growers or the Union?" Gerchak made a "continuing request" for the wage information that had not been supplied. During the early part of July Guffin met with Gerchak. He furnished Gerchak with the classification of each employee at the Stuttgart plant, his specific job title, his date of hire, and the date and percentage of his last wage increase. The parties met at Jonesboro on July 22. The Union presented the same contract proposal that it had proposed at the beginning of the Stuttgart negotiations. Gerchak suggested in the interest of saving time "what had been a matter of discussion in Stuttgart - these items could be included or accepted as being part of the negotiations in Jonesboro." The Respondent did not object to this arrangement. Clark rejected the Union's proposal for checkoff or in-plant collection of dues. At the meeting held on July 26 at Stuttgart the Respondent furnished the Union with the wage data that it previously had refused to supply.5 The Union agreed that since it was time for the annual wage review, the Respondent was free to prepare and present it at the next meeting. In a letter to Mason, dated July 27, 1966, Gerchak stated, "The Committee and I urge that however small this raise is that you complete this so called survey as speedily as possible and present it to the Union at our next bargaining meeting scheduled for August 11, 1966. We assure you that this Union will not hinder the granting of this wage increase after we have had an opportunity to study it." Parks attended the meeting held on August 11. Gerchak stated that the committee of employees for Jonesboro should be permitted to participate in the meeting in view of Parks' presence. The Respondent explained that Parks was present "because the wage data and factors in the annual review were identical to those in Jonesboro and he should be a party to these things so he would know what occurred in our negotiations when he returned to Jonesboro." The Respondent then presented lists for both Stuttgart and Jonesboro, showing the wage increases arrived at under the annual wage review which were to take effect on August 12. The Respondent also furnished the new labor classification wage scale for both Stuttgart and Jonesboro , a statement of job descriptions, and a written explanation of the policy and practice "concerning the payment of compensation to employees." The Union presented the Respondent with a document signed by Gerchak and the members of the Stuttgart committee. The document stated as follows: The Union at this time on August 11 accepts all of the company's proposals as discussed today including the wage increase that will be paid 8-12-1966 and is The same information was furnished to the Union for the Jonesboro employees at a meeting held at Jonesboro on July 27 ready to consummate into a one year contract effective today and that shall be in full force and effect ... until 8-11-1967 and shall automatically thereafter renew itself for periods of one year unless either party serves written notice on the other not less than 60 days before the initial period or any anniversary of an extension here of its desire to terminate or modify this agreement. The undersigned committee has been empowered to consummate this agreement. The Union dropped its proposals for checkoff, for a general wage increase and for the right to file grievances on the results of the annual wage review. Clark asked why the Union was "suddenly changing its position" and accepting disputed proposals of the Respondent. Gerchak replied that the Union was interested in negotiating a contract and that he thought that it was "bargaining in good faith" by accepting the Respondent's proposals. Clark stated that the Respondent's proposals were "on the basis of a five year contract" and that he had "some second thoughts" on some of the proposals such as seniority. Gerchak met with the Jonesboro committee during the night of August 11. A telegram, dated August 12 and signed by Gerchak and members of the committee, was sent to Parks. It contained a similar proposal to that presented to the Respondent at the meeting on August 11. On August 25, 1966, Gerchak sent the following letter to Mason:6 Confirming the Unions offer made on August 11, 1966, I submit for your signature two copies of an Agreement prepared by the Union which embraces all proposals submitted by you in a series of contract negotiations prior to August 11, 1966 , and these proposals were accepted by the Union without change on that date. Included also are fringe benefits contained in your booklet (employment with a purpose) and the Union now incorporated them into the agreement. The Union offered to accept these existing conditions of employment on April 20, 1966, without objection by you. In addition , the Union has added to the Agreement your submissions made to us on August 11, 1966. These items as presented are a document which lists the names of all of your employees on the payroll on that day together with his classification job title, date of hire, and his new wage rate and are made a part of the agreement. The other submissions made by you are the documents which contained job description and classification and the one which explains the factors used by you to determine the amount of pay raise an employee is entitled to in this annual review and you have indicated that you intend to maintain and continue this annual review as a condition of employment. This Agreement is for a one year period beginning August 11 , 1966, as described on the signatory page. Please return one signed copy to me promptly. Clark sent letters to Gerchak dated August 30, 1966, in which he acknowledged receipt of the proposed contracts for Stuttgart and Jonesboro and stated that they were "not 6 Also on August 25 Gerchak sent a similar letter to Parks. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS acceptable to the Company." He stated, "at our next negotiating session we will outline the Company's reasons for not accepting it." The parties met on September 22 in Stuttgart. Clark outlined the Respondent's reasons for not accepting the contract. His main objection was that "because of the factors that go into an annual review or a merit review were introduced in this proposed contract" such reviews would be subject to the grievance procedure. He pointed out that the proposed contract did not cover "working foremen, physical exams, sub-contracting and overtime."7 Clark stated that the Respondent insisted upon the right "to give merit increases at any time." He stated that "whether [the contract] was one year, two years or three years, the expiration date should be February 1st." In this connection he explained that the Respondent did not want a contract with a termination date "right in the heart of the harvest season." Clark objected to the fringe benefits set forth in the Union's proposed contract because "they merely copied, verbatim, the language out of the hand- book" without reference to "interoffice memorandums explaining the Company's policy, copies of which [had] been furnished to Mr. Gerchak." Speaking to the members of the committee, Clark "criticized" the Respondent's management rights clause, and asked them if they knew "how inclusive" the clause was and what they were accepting.8 Clark stated that he wanted to change the Respondent's proposals for seniority and grievance procedure. At the meeting the Union took the position that the only issue was "whether it is a one year contract or a five year contract." The parties met at Jonesboro on September 23. The positions of the parties on the Jonesboro contract were substantially the same as on the Union's proposed contract for Stuttgart. The final meeting was held in Stuttgart on November 23. Committee members for both Stuttgart and Jonesboro were present. When Clark stated that the negotiations for the two plants should "remain separate," Gerchak pointed out that Parks previously had attended a Stuttgart meeting. The positions of the parties did not change at this meeting. The General Counsel contends that (1) the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act "by refusing, and then delaying, the furnishing to the Union of data relating to rate of pay, wages, and related matters concerning its employees"; (2) the Respondent violated the Act "by refusing to negotiate in good faith with the Union concerning the collection of union dues and related matters"; and (3) the Respondent "negotiated with the Union in bad faith and with no intention of entering into any final or binding collective bargaining agreement." The General Counsel does not contend that the Respondent failed and refused to sign a contract which had been agreed upon, conceding that there was "no `meeting of the minds' between the parties." The undisputed evidence shows that the Respondent at first refused and then delayed the furnishing of requested information to the Union. At the meeting held on March 30, the Union requested information on the job classifications and rates of pay of the employees. On April 6 the Respondent presented to the Union a ' Guffin testified that "some" of the above items "had come up at previous meetings " Gerchak testified to the effect that these were new proposals of the Respondent. " Clark testified to the above Gerchak testified that Clark told 581 document which broke down job titles in the four labor classifications and set forth the range of pay for the job titles within those classifications, and requested the Union to keep the information confidential. This document did not list the names of any employees or their rates of pay. As related above, Gerchak had about 200 copies made of the document and during May some of these copies appeared at the Respondent's Hazen plant. Clark referred to this incident in his letter of May 30 as a reason for the Respondent's refusal to supply information to the Union. Thereafter, the Respondent supplied the requested information piecemeal, with the last of it presented on August 11. In view of the fact that at the meeting held on April 20 the Union indicated that it would agree to the Respondent's oral proposal of April 6 to retain the Respondent's policy of granting wage increases based upon merit and the annual review, there can be no question but that all of the information requested by the Union was necessary in order for it to bargain intelligently with the Respondent on the subject. By its unreasonable delay in providing the information, the Respondent put the Union in an impossible bargaining position. The Hazen incident is no defense to this delay. Especially, is this so since it is undisputed that at the meeting held on June 8 Gerchak told the Respondent's representatives that he was not involved in the distribution at Hazen and explained why he made copies of the information furnished on April 6. Accordingly, in my opinion, the Respondent's delay of about 4 months in furnishing the Union with requested information tends to show that the Respondent was engaging in delaying tactics, with no intention of consummating a collective-bargaining agreement. That this is the case is confirmed by other conduct of the Respondent, hereinafter discussed. It also is found that the Respondent's outright refusals to supply information and subsequent unreasonable delay in furnishing it constitutes separate violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The Union's original contract proposals contained a provision for checkoff of union dues. The Respondent rejected this proposal on the grounds that an expensive change in its IBM machine would be required. The Respondent also stated that it was against checkoff "as a matter of principle" since "this was doing the Union's work." The Union proposed in-plant collection of dues by a local representative of the Union during nonworking time in nonworking areas. This also was rejected by the Respondent on the grounds that it did not want its employees "bothered . . . on work time or off work time." The Respondent adhered to this position even though the Union pointed out that insurance agents were permitted in the plant in order to make collections of insurance premiums. The only counterproposal of the Respondent was that the Union could collect dues "on the street" at plant entrances. The Respondent's only proposal covering wage increases was its oral proposal that its established policy be retained. Its proposal did not provide for a wage reopener clause and in effect proposed that wage increases were subject to the complete discretion of the committee that he doubted "the integrity" of the Union when it accepted "such an inclusive management rights clause." Clark denied that he "attacked the integrity of the Union." 299-352 0-70-38 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD management , since the Respondent would not agree to have its decisions in this respect covered by the grievance procedure. In fact, Mason made it clear to the Union that the Respondent would make its wage adjustments whether "the Union liked it or didn't like it." Here again, as in the case of the delay in furnishing information, the Respondent put the Union in an impossible bargaining position. After 4 months of negotiations, the Respondent was adamant on its own proposals and would not accede to any of the Union's proposals of consequence. If from the start of the negotiations the Respondent had deliberately planned to block agreement on contract, it is difficult to see how it could have done a better job. Its position on collection of union dues and wage increases saw to that. On August 11 the Union "surprised" the Respondent. The Union "caved in" and accepted all of the Respondent's proposals with the exception of the term of the contract. If the Respondent had been bargaining in good faith, it would appear that agreement could have been arrived at quickly. Instead, it in effect attempted to undermine the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. Addressing the employee committee, Clark criticized the Respondent's own proposal on management rights as being weighted to the "advantage" of the Respondent. He also stated that he was not satisfied with, and wanted to change, the Respondent's proposals for seniority and grievance procedure. Under the circumstances, I conclude and find that the Respondent failed to bargain in good faith and that it engaged in surface bargaining with no intention of entering into final and binding collective-bargaining agreements with the Union for either the Stuttgart or the Jonesboro plants. For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate units in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union upon request as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the appropriate units concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if understandings are reached, embody such understandings in signed agreements. 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. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 3. All employees in the production and maintenance departments at the Respondent 's Stuttgart , Arkansas, facilities , but excluding guards, professional and clerical employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. All production and maintenance employees including regular part-time employees at the Respondent's Jonesboro , Arkansas , plant, excluding all guards, professional and clerical employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. The Union has been the exclusive representative of all employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in the aforesaid unit for the Stuttgart plant on and after November 18, 1965, and in the aforesaid unit for the Jonesboro plant on and after March 3, 1966, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By failing and refusing on and after March 30, 1966, to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforestated appropriate units, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (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. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate units. (b) Refusing to furnish to the Union pertinent wage and payroll data. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate units with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in signed agreements any understandings reached. (b) Upon request, furnish to the Union pertinent wage and payroll data within a reasonably prompt time. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS 583 (c) Post at its places of business in Stuttgart and Jonesboro, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken-by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 Y 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 a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is 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 " 10 In 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the following units with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if understandings are reached, embody such understandings in signed agreements. The bargaining units are: All employees in the production and maintenance departments at the Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, Stuttgart, Arkansas, facilities, but excluding all guards, professional and clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All production and maintenance employees including regular part-time employees at the Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, Jonesboro, Arkansas, plant, excluding all guards, professional and clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL, upon request, furnish to the above- named labor organization pertinent wage and payroll data within a reasonably prompt time. All my employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (Employer) 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.