St. Cloud Tool & Die Co.

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Cloud Tool & Die Company and District Lodge No. 165, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2806 May 20, 1970 i DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN AND JENKINS On January 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohl- baum issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, 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 of its excep- tions. The General Counsel filed a letter opposing the consideration by the Board of certain letters attached to the Respondent's exceptions. 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 con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner 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, brief, the General Counsel's opposition,' and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent , St. Cloud ' Tool & Die Company , St. Cloud, Minnesota , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. ' The Respondent attached to his exceptions and brief copies of eight letters allegedly mailed to the Respondent by the Union and/ or his employees and three letters allegedly mailed by the Respondent to certain of its former employees The General Counsel objects to consideration by the Board of these attached letters since they were not offered in evidence at the hearing and there is no showing and no contention that the letters are newly discovered evidence We agree with the General Counsel that these letters should not be considered for the above-stated reasons Moreover, even if we were to consider these attached letters, we conclude that they would not alter our determination herein The letters do not affect nor relate to the status of any of Respondent's employees during the critical period involved in this case TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES STANLEY N. OHLBAUM: Trial Examiner: This pro- ceeding under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.; "Act"), on com- plaint of the Board's Regional Director for Region 18 (Minneapolis, Minnesota) dated October 22, 1969, based upon a charge filed with him July 11, 1969, by the above Union, was tried before me in St. Cloud, Minneso- ta, on November 18, 1969. The basic issue is whether Respondent, St. Cloud Tool & Die Company,' has since about March 31, 1969, refused to bargain collectively with the above Union as the exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative of an appropriate production and main- tenance bargaining unit of Respondent's employees. All parties participated throughout the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence and contentions , examine and cross -examine witnesses, pro- pose findings and conclusions, and file briefs or other written communications expressing their positions. Sub- sequent to the trial, a memorandum was received from counsel for General Counsel, and a written communica- tion in letter form was received from Respondent. These, together with the record as made at the hearing,2 having been carefully considered, together with my observations of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following- FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS II. PARTIES; JURISDICTION At all material times, Respondent St. Cloud Tool & Die Company has been and is a Minnesota corporation operating a tool and die shop in St. Cloud, Minnesota. In the course and conduct of its said business, during the representative 12-month period ending December 31, 1968, Respondent sold and shipped from its said shop, directly in interstate commerce to places outside the State of Minnesota, finished products valued at $1,600; and , during said period , in said business, Respondent sold and distributed products manufactured at its said plant valued at $210,000, of which products valued at $94,265 were furnished to Franklin Manufactur- ing Company (a manufacturing business in St. Cloud, Minnesota), which during said period sold and shipped more than $50,000 worth of said merchandise directly in interstate commerce to customers in places outside of Minnesota. I find that at all material times Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; the above Union has been and is a labor organization as Secretary' treasurer and general manager of Respondent corporation. s Trial transcript corrected in respect to obvious and typographical errors set forth in attached "Appendix A " [Appendix A omitted from publication ] 182 NLRB No. 81 ST. CLOUD TOOL & DIE defined by Section 2(5) of the Act; and that assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper. Ill. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts as Found Respondent operates a tool and die shop with about t -dozen employees, in St. Cloud (1960 U.S. census population about 34,000), approximately 65 miles north- west of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The National Labor Relations Board, through its Regional Director for Region 18, on March 9, 1953, certified the Union as the statutory bargaining representa- tive of Respondent's production and maintenance employees. The Union has had a collective agreement with Respondent every year since then. In the latest, May 1, 1968-May 1, 1969, union shop collective agree- ment, a final provision (numbered "3" on p. 11, G C. Exh. 3) states: This contract shall be null and void should it become necessary for the Company to compete with non- union shops, with any customer having an agree- ment with the Machinist Union. On February 26, 1969,3 the Union sent Respondent a 60-day contract reopener letter proposing to modify the existing collective agreement upon its expiration on May 1. On March 31, Respondent wrote the Union declaring the existing collective agreement (May 1, 1968-May 1, 1969) void under proviso "3" quoted above, stating as the reason: We regret very deeply the need for this action. However, we cannot" compete with the unorganized shops, which is a situation that evidently is beyond the capability of the Union. Bids of $2000.00 less than our employees can prod- uce for, is less than fair competition. No question is here raised as to the propriety or validity of Respondent's action in thus cancelling the May 1968-May 1969 collective agreement. On April 30, the Union wrote Respondent requesting a meeting for negotiation. No reply being received, on May 27 the Union filed with the Federal and state mediation and conciliation ^ services a notification that a subsisting collective agreement would expire on June 1. At an ensuing meeting between the Union and the Employer before a state conciliator on June 10, Respond- ent took the position (for the first time, according to credited testimony of Union Business Representative Juaire) that the Union must "show us that you represent a majority and go through an election and we will sit down and bargain." On June 18, at a second meeting with the conciliator, Respondent formally stated its posi- tion to be:4 Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, all dates are 1969 ° The evidence establishes that Respondent has at all times since June 18 maintained the same position, and that all of the Union's bargaining endeavors and requests have continued to be unavailing 599 1. Agreed the Working Agreement [i.e., collective agreement May 1, 1968-May 1, 1969] between the Union and the Company is null and void. 2. Union recognition is part of the contract, and is therefore no longer binding. 3. An election of the shop employees is necessary to determine representation. 4. Contract negotiations will proceed after determi- nation of representation. According to Union Business Representative Juaire, to and including at least June 18, 1969, the Union represented, and pointed out to Respondent that it repre- sented, all of Respondent's unit employees. The Union's records establish that almost without exception these were current in their union dues payments. Tables I and II [Appendix C] recapitulate the union membership and representation status of the unit employees. As is apparent from Appendix C, at all of the critical dates here involved, commencing with the Union's con- tract reopener negotiation request (February 26) through the date of the parties' final abortive meeting with the official conciliator (June 18), the Union represented an overwhelming majority of Respondent's unit employees. As has been shown, at all of those times Respondent has nevertheless refused to bargain with the Union B. Concluding Findings and Rationale Respondent seeks to justify its conceded refusal to bargain with the Union upon the ground that its March 31 cancellation of its May 1968-May 1969 collective agreement with the Union terminated its obligation to bargain with the Union since, in Respondent's words, "Union recognition is part of the contract, and is there- fore no longer binding." In this, Respondent is entirely in error, since its obligation to bargain with the Union existed by reason of the Union's Board-certified status as bargaining representative of the unit employees. Respondent's duty to bargain with the Union is statutory, not contractual. Thus, its cancellation of the contract- which is not here questioned-did not erase its statutory obligation to bargain.' Whether or not Respondent was or would have been obligated to bargain with the Union on the subject matter of the provision (i e., right to cancel contract in event of competition from ununionized shops)" is likewise beside the point here, since Respond- ent has concededly consistently refused to bargain with the Union on any subject at all since its March 31 cancellation of the contract. Respondent's remaining alleged justification for refus- ing to bargain with the Union since its March 31 cancella- tion of the contract, is that the-Unidn no longer represent- ed the unit employees and that a new representation election was necessary to ascertain the representation Indeed, according to uncontradicted testimony of the Union's bar- gaining representative who negotiated the collective agreement first containing the cancellation provision in question (1967-1968), it was expressly explained to Respondent at that time that any cancellation of the agreement would leave the bargaining obligation ,ummpaired '' Cf., e.g., N.L.R.B. v Davison et al, dlbla Arlington Asphalt Company, 318 F 2d 550 (C A. 4) , 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD desires of those employees. In this contention Respond- ent is likewise in total error. To begin with, the status of the Union as exclusive collective-bargaining represent- ative'of Respondent's unit employees was conferred by the Board's certification in 1953, and has apparently been unquestibned since that time' There is, for example, no evidence of any petition to the Board by Respondent or, otherwise to decertify the Union or for an election. There is here an uninterrupted history of collective agreements between the, parties since the Board's,certi- fication in 1953. Under these circumstances, as has many times been pointed out, there exists a presumption of the continuance of the Union's representative status. See Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96; N.L.R.B. v. Gu'Ifmont Hotel Co., 362 F.2d 588 (C.A. 5); New England Lead Burning 'Company, Inc., 133 NLRB 863, 867. Although the Union could here well have rested upon that presumption, since it was not effectively rebutted by Respondent, nevertheless the Union saw fit affirma- tively to establish its continued representative status through'its records. The Union thus established by sub- stantial credible proof, as shown in the data tabulated in Tables I and II, its continuing majority, which is overwhelming.' Under the circumstances shown, involving a previous- ly established bargaining relationship, there is neither right nor need for an election to establish the clearly demonstrated fact of the Union's continuing representa- tional status, as to which Respondent in fact entertained no good-faith doubt"' and had no privilege to withdraw recognition without valid objective cause. See, e.g., Celanese Corporation of America, 95 NLRB 664, 671-3; Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 151 NLRB 1482, 1484, enforcement denied on other grounds, 359 F.2d 799 (C.A. 7); Terrell Machine Co., 173 NLRB No. 230; N.L.R.B. v. Gulfmont Hotel Co., 362 F.2d 588 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. The Little Rock Downtowner, Inc., 7 It will have been noted that in 1969 until June, of the unit employees in Respondent's active employ it was unanimous As of the end of June, the only such exception was Wayne Visneski, the son of Respond- ent corporation 's Vern N Visneski , who seemingly is its guiding spirit and principal While ordinarily (Marriello Fabrics, Inc , 149 NLRB 333, 345, Bridgeton Transit, 123 NLRB 1196, 1197; The Colonial Craft, Inc, 118 NLRB 913, 914, P A Mueller and Sons, Inc., 105 NLRB 552, 553),' although perhaps not inevitably (Chernn Corporation v N L R B , 349 F 2d 1001 (C A 6), cert denied 382 U S 981), a sole corporate stockholding principal's or partner's child falls within the exception of" "any individual employed by his parent" in Section 2(3) of the Act's definition of "employee," there is an absence of evidentiary showing in the record here as to the share ownership of Respondent Nor is there evidentiary warrant for finding that Wayne Visneski enjoys special status because of the family. (i e , not necessarily parent-child) relationship (cf Uyeda v Brooks, 365 F 2d 326 (C A 6), Kern County Broadcasters, Inc , d/b/a KERO Radio-TV, 116 NLRB 194, International Metal Products Company, 107 NLRB 65, 67, with which, cf Dan Howard Mfg. Co., 158 NLRB 805, 807, 814, modified on other grounds 390 F 2d 304 (C A 7) and Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc , 152 NLRB 132, 155), or has supervisory functions " In this connection, it may also be observed that by its, May 1968 collective agreement Respondent had recognized the Union for the ensuing year, but that, when it cancelled that contract in March 1969, Respondent did so fora reason unrelated ' to any claim on its part that the Union no longer represented its employees It was not until the following June 10 that Respondent for the first time assigned that as a reason for its refusal to bargain with the Union 414 F.2d 1084 (C.A..8); and cf. United States Gypsum Company, 157 NLRB 652.1 Respondent has failed to sustain the Employer's burden (ibid.) of proving such cause. In this situation, it is apparent that Respondent's failure and refusal since February 26 to bargain with the Union as the statutory bargaining representative of its unit employees, has been and continues to be in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."' I so find. Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. St. Cloud Tool & Die Company„ Respondent here- in, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. District Lodge No. 165, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Charging Party herein , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Assertion of jurisdiction herein is proper. 4. On and at all times since February 26, 1969, as well as prior thereto , the following was, has been, and, is a unit of Respondent 's employees appropriate for collective bargaining purposes: All production and maintenance employees employed by St. Cloud Tool & Die Company; excluding office clerical employees, professional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act as amended. 5: On and at all times since March 9 , 1953, the Charging Party (Union) herein has been and is the Nation- " With regard to the principles governing initial, as distinguished from previously established, bargaining relationships, cf N L R B v Gissell Packing Company, 395 U S 575 Whatever may be said to be the rule concerning the necessity for recognition in an attempted initial bargaining relationship (cf Gissell, supra, fn n), mere absence of independent unfair labor practice in an existing bargaining relationship does not gain for an employer the right to an election to allay his professed doubt as to the incumbent union 's continued representational status unless the doubt is real, convincingly established by the Employer to rest 'upon an objective basis in fact and to be reasonable See Celanese and other cases cited in text, supra "' According to the Union, Respondent gave as its reason for refusing to bargain, following its March 31 cancellation of the collective agree- ment, that the Union had failed to organize some of Respondent's competitors This is of course no justification for refusing to bargain with a statutory representative as required by the Act Finally, Respond- ent now also urges that at the present time the Union does not represent a,majority of the unit employees since, among other things , Respondent has recently hired three new employees who have not been shown to belong to the Union Whatever the situation may be at the present instant, it is clear that the Union represented the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the unit employees at the times shown when , in clear violation of the Act, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union Although Respondent has failed to rebut the showing and presumption of continued union representational status, even assuming, arguendo, that the Union at the present time no longer commands a majority, Respondent's unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with the Union as shown require that it bargain now See, e g , Franks Bros Co v- N L R B , 321 U S 702, 704-6, Laystrom Manufacturing Co , 151 NLRB 1482, 1484-85, enforcement denied on other grounds 359 F 2d 799 (C A 7), and cf NLRB v Gissell Packing Company, 395 U S 575 ST CLOUD TOOL & DIE al Labor Relations Board-certified exclusive collective- bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the said unit described in Conclusion of Law numbered "4," supra 6 By its failures and refusals, and each of them, since February 26, 1969, to meet with and bargain collec- tively with the above Union, as such representative of said unit employees, as requested by said Union, with regard to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employment of said unit employees, Respondent has been engaged and is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended 7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of said Act 8 Respondent has failed to establish, in fact or in law, any defense to the violations of the Act alleged in the complaint THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged and is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to repair those violations so as to effectuate the policies of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the National Labor Relations Board issue the following ORDER Respondent St Cloud Tool & Die Company, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to meet and bargain collectively in good faith with District Lodge No 165 , International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the statutory bargaining representative of Respond- ent's production and maintenance employees, with regard to their rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the rights of Respondent's employees to bargain collec- tively with Respondent through said Union as their statutory bargaining representative 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request , meet and bargain collectively in good faith with District Lodge No 165, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the statutory bargaining representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees, with regard to their rates of pay , wages , hours of employ- ment , and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed writing any agreement reached 601 (b) Post at Respondent's shop in St Cloud, Minneso- ta, copies of the notice to employees hereto attached marked "Appendix B "" Copies of said Notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 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 (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision and recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith 12 " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and recommended Order shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the Notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 12 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 as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the chance to present evidence and arguments, a decision has been announced by the National Labor Relations Board that we, St Cloud Tool & Die Company, have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Rela- tions Act We are posting this notice to our employees in accordance with the Order of the National Labor Relations Board The National Labor Relations Act, among other things, guarantees to employees the right to bargain with their employer collectively through a representative of the employees' own choice WE WILL respect this rightlof yours WE WILL, upon request of your Union, District Lodge No 165, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO bar- gain with that Union as your designated bargaining representative, concerning your rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi- tions of employment, and we will sign any agree- ment reached (This Notice applies to the bargaining unit consisting of our production and maintenance workers ) 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dated By ST. CLOUD TOOL & DIE This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive COMPANY days from the date of posting and must not be altered, (Employer)' defaced, or covered by any other material. (Representative) (Title) Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , may be directed to the Board's This is an official notice and must not be defaced Office, 316 Federal Building , 110 South Fourth Street, by anyone. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2611 APPENDIX C Table I Employment Dates and Union Dues Payment Status of Unit Employees z ameb Date or Approx. Date Hirede Date or Approx. Date Termin- Latest Union Dues Payment In Resp. Employ as of Date of Hearing?I emarksg h atedc,' Datee Yes No 1 Apgar, Ed 1965 10/1/69 9/2/69 x Retired 2 Beauchamp, John 1967 "Around" 3/68 (9/27/68, Quit while in to 6/68 reinstated layoff status'' 8/2/69) 12/26/69 x 3 Fisher, Joe 4/29/55 9/16/69 x 4 Grosser, Ray 1962 or 1963 "Around" 10/68 x Quit 5 Hoffman, Larry 1963 "Around" 5/68 4/30/69 x Quit while in or 6/68 layoff status' 6 Leeseberg, Harley 9/20/69 x 7 Novak, Herb 8/30/55 7/25/69 x 8 Oman, Rod 1965 ' 6/69 110/28/69 x Allegedly fired for cause 9 Philippi, John 11/18/69 x (Continued) ST CLOUD TOOL & DIE Table I (Concluded) Employment Dates and Union Dues Payment Status of Unit Employees 1 602 A z Nameb Date or Approx Date Hiredc Date or Approx Date Termin- Latest Union Dues Payment In Resp Employ as of H Date r ng^t emarksg " atede d Date° Yes No 10 Prom, Syl 1966 "Around" 6/68 9/27/68 x Quit while in layoff statush 11 Ruhoff, Dennis 1965 "Around" 8/69 6/30/69 x Quit while in 6/69, or 5/69 layoff status'' 12 Schlomer, Jerry 1966 "Around" 7/68 3/21/69 x Quit while in layoff statush 13 Statema, Jim 1967 "Around" 2/68 7/15/68 x Quit while in layoff statush 14 Stuck, Robert 8/14/69 x 15 Thole, George 4/22/63 9/30/69 x 16 Visneski, Wayne 4/20/66 2/28/69 x Son of possible principal, 21 years old, full-time employee' 17 Wachman, Norm 1966 "Around" 5/68 x Quit while in layoff statush & For reference purposes only b From Appendix to 1968-69 collective agreement (G C Exh 3) except for later hires (Leeseberg Philippi and Stuck) From testimony of Respondent s witness Vern N Visneski Some different employment termination dates are mentioned by Visneski in an unsworn posthearing letter intended to serve the function of a brief While those divergences may be considered to affect Visneski s credibility they are without effect on the result d No contention is here made that any employment was terminated contrary to the Act I From Umon s records as of date of hearing ( 11118169) Union dues are payable monthly directly to the Union (there being no checkoff under the collective agreement) Union membership extends for at least 3 months after the dues payment date with seniority rights for an additional 20 days beyond the 3 months I e November 18 1969 Based on uncontradicted testimony of Respondent s witness Vern N Visneski h It was conceded at the hearing that under the parties collective agreement laid off employees have recall rights for 12 months and that none of the employees in layoff status was recalled or notified in accordance with the contract terms as to job reavailability ' See fn 7 infra 602 B I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Table II Union Representation Status of Unit Employees in Respondent's Employ on Various Dates] Date Paid-Up Union Members0 Not Union Unit Employees Over 50% Union Members? (969) Members4 Total Union Non- Yes No Union Feb 26k Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%) Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski Mar 31' Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%) Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski Apr 30"' Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%) Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski May 20° Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%) Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski Jun 100 Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman,r W Visneski 7 6 1 x(86%) Ruhoff, Thole Jun 18P Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman,r W Visneski 7 6 1 x(86%)S Ruhoff , Thole Based upon data contained in Table I supra I e date of Union s contract reopener negotiation request letter I e date of Respondent s letter voiding subsisting (May 1 1968-May 1 1969) collective agreement " I e date of union bargaining request letter n I e date of union bargaining request letter ° I e date of parties first meeting with Conciliator I e date of parties second meeting with Conciliator Includes Wayne Visneski son of possible principal inclusion or exclusion does not affect result See Table I fn I supra and fn 7 r Allegedly discharged for cause in June 1969 Included as employed since Respondent failed to establish date of discharge However inclusion does not affect result in view of (1) arithmetic involved (2) Franks Bros Company v N L R B , 321 U S 702 q v that such fluctuations do not aviod the requirement for continued recognition under the circumstances shown ' Inclusion of all 14 original unit employees shown in the Appendix to the 1968-69 collective agreement (G C Exh 3) some of whom according to Respondent quit while in layoff status would not disestablish a Union majority on any of the dates here shown or at any of the times here involved