Lifetime Door Co.

518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lifetime Door Company and Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-3678 November 7, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On August 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Abraham H. M aller issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices in the complaint and recommended the dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 Respondent, Lifetime Door Company, Denmark, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Company, herein called the Respondent. Upon said charge, the Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on September 4, 1968, issued on behalf of the General Counsel a complaint against the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq ), herein called the Act Briefly, the complaint alleged that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by interrogation and threats, that the Union was the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; that the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union by unreasonably delaying furnishing the Union information concerning the wage rates and job classifications of employees in the bargaining unit and failed and refused to furnish such information to the Union, and that such conduct caused and prolonged an unfair labor practice strike In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Orangeburg, South Carolina, on May 13, 14, and 15, 1969. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent Upon consideration of the entire record' and the briefs, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation owning and operating a plant at Denmark, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of doors Respondent's Denmark, South Carolina, plant is the only plant involved in this proceeding. During the 12 months preceding the filing of the complaint herein, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points and places outside the State of South Carolina from its Denmark, South Carolina, plant. During the same period of time, Respondent caused goods and raw materials of a value in excess of $50,000 to be shipped directly to its Denmark, South Carolina, plant from points and places outside the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction here. ABRAHAM H. MALLER, Trial Examiner On July 15, 1968, Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , filed a charge against Lifetime Door 'These findings and conclusions are based in part upon the Trial Examiner's credibility determinations to which Respondent excepts On the basis of our careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence, and we find no basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) If THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 'The General Counsel has filed a motion to correct the record in a certain particular No opposition to the motion has been filed Upon consideration of the motion, it is hereby ordered that the record be corrected as requested 179 NLRB No. 83 LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY 519 Ill. THE ISSUES I Whether Respondent interrogated and threatened employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Whether Respondent unreasonably delayed and failed and refused to furnish the Union with information concerning the wage rates and job classifications of employees in the bargaining unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act 3 Whether the strike of Respondent's employees was an unfair labor practice strike IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background On April 15, 1966, in Cases 11-CA-2638 and ll-RC-2081, the Board issued its Decision and Order finding that the Union represented a majority of the employees of the Respondent in the following appropriate unit All production, maintenance, and yard employees of Respondent employed at its Denmark, South Carolina, plant, exclusive of all office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and directed, inter alia, that Respondent bargain upon request with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. Lifetime Door Company, 158 NLRB 13. On February 1, 1968, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its Decision and Order enforcing the Decision and Order of the Board N L R B v. Lifetime Door Company, 390 F 2d 272 B Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion I By Foreman Priester Employee Minnie Bell Fishburne testified that in March 1968,2 she attended a union meeting and was given a union badge which she wore at the plant. Thereafter, she testified, she had two conversations with Foreman W A. Priester of the glueing department. She later changed her testimony and said there were four conversations, although she described only three She testified that the first conversation took place in April in Foreman Priester's office which she cleaned in the mornings No one else was present Her testimony is as follows- A He told me that I was wearing one of those things, it was a button, and I said, "Yes," so he said that we wished that we had never seen one of those things, and wished to hell, or the damn, that we had never worn them, and asked who started it, and I told him I didn't know Q Now, was anything else said, as best you recall? A. Well, let's see, he said someone would be put in our place. According to Fishburne, the second conversation took place at the glueing machine where she worked, about 2 or 3 days after the conversation in the office.' She testified as follows A. He said, "You are wearing one of those things, a button," and I told him yes, and I can't really direct remember all of it Q Do you recall anything else he said? A He asked me, you see, we didn't know what we was doing, he said if we was going to get into it, why didn't we wait until they get into the plant, that he wasn't supposed to say anything about it. Fishburne testified that a third conversation took place in the office. Again, no one else was present As to this conversation, Fishburne testified as follows THE WITNESS He said someone would be put in our place. Q Do you recall him saying anything more during this conversation? A Let's see, we would catch hell. According to Fishburne, she took the badge off and put it in her bag She testified further that she did not attend the next bargaining committee meeting, although she was a member of the bargaining committee, because she didn't want to lose her job. Employee Vonnie Guess called to corroborate Fishburne, testified that in April, he was working at the glueing machine when Foreman Priester had a conversation with Fishburne, that he was between 5 and 6 feet away from Fishburne at the time, and that Foreman Priester was standing next to Fishburne He testified further that neither he nor Fishburne were working at the time, although it was not a break period According to Guess the following occurred. A Mr Priester, he walked back there, he was passing by, and he told Minnie Bell Fishburne what was she doing with that badge on, and she told him, she didn't say nothing, so he said, that badge, she would regret that she wore that damned badge., Contrary to Fishburne's testimony, Guess testified that Fishburne continued to wear her badge thereafter. Foreman Priester specifically denied the statements attributed to him He admitted having only one conversation with Fishburne and testified as follows: Q. . . State whether or not you ever had any conversation with her about the union activities9 A. Only once, she came up to me in the office one morning, and wanted me to try and give her some advice about the union, that she didn't know what, she didn't know anything about it, she didn't know what to do, or she thought maybe I could help her Q Did you reply to her? A. I replied to her that I had nothing to do with the union, I knew nothing about the union, and I could advise her nothing Q. Why did you tell her that? A Well for two reasons, one reason, we was advised to say nothing about the union to any employees, and another reason, we knew nothing about the union to start with Q Who advised you to say nothing to the employees about the union? A Mr. Corbin and Mr. Scivally [plant managers]. Foreman Priester specifically denied having a conversation at the glueing machine. He testified that it is impossible to carry on a conversation in the area of the gluemg machine, that people have to shout to make themselves heard, because in the area there is a large 'All events referred to herein occurred during 1968 'According to Fishburne , employees Guess and Robertson were present 'Employee Robertson whom both Fishburne and Guess placed at the glueing machine during this alleged conversation , was not called as a witness 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD coreing machine which runs about 75 percent of the day, and a large suction fan which runs all day, and these two machines make a tremendous noise I credit the testimony of Foreman Priester, and do not credit that of Fishburne and Guess in this regard. Priester's testimony regarding management's admonitions to supervisors not to discuss unionism with the employees is corroborated by the testimony of Plant Manager Corbin who testified that supervisors were reminded daily of "the importance of not saying anything either way, because it could be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the individuals involved " Indeed, Respondent's efforts to prevent and neutralize any improper statements by its supervisors is demonstrated by the following testimony of Attorney Smith. Q Mr Smith, state whether or not Mr. Henderson made a remark with regard to an action by the foreman about having made remarks to employees about union activities A Yes, sir, the meeting opened on April 25, and this was actually prior to any exchanges by anyone on that date Mr Henderson said that a foreman, W. A Priester, had told some lady employee that when the Union got in, or if the Union got in, that all of the female employees would be replaced by men I asked him at that time to whom did he say it, so that we could get - and told him if he would tell us that we would go directly to that person, whether or not it had transpired, and tell her that it was not the case Mr Henderson at that time did not pursue it He said that was all that he had to say about it, . S Furthermore, Priester's statement that he could not advise her about the Union is corroborated by Fishburne, herself, who testified that he told her that "he wasn't supposed to say anything about it [the Union] " On the other hand, employee Guess, called to corroborate Fishburne, did not in fact corroborate her testimony. What he testified to was what Fishburne testified had occurred in the office while she was cleaning when no one was present, and was not what she testified had occurred at the glueing machine It is also significant that, at the time of the alleged conversations regarding the wearing of the badges, approximately 90 percent of the employees in the plant were wearing badges without incident I therefore find it difficult to believe that Foreman Priester would have singled out Fishburne to threaten her about wearing a badge In sum, I find and conclude that Foreman Priester did not interrogate or threaten Fishburne or otherwise interfere with her right to wear a union badge Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed in this regard 2. By Foreman Coleman The complaint originally alleged that on July 12, George Coleman, shipping and traffic manager, threatened employees that privileges previously enjoyed by them would be withdrawn because of their support of the Union At the hearing, the General Counsel amended this allegation to read that the threat occurred "on or about August 5, 1968." In support of this allegation, employee William Hutson testified that he returned to work about 3 weeks after the strike ended; that after his return Coleman told him that he used to go to the bathroom 4 or 5 times 'In this connection, see The Ohio Rubber Company . 152 NLRB 1121, 1125 a day, but that henceforth he would go only twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening.' Foreman Coleman denied having a conversation with Hutson individually He pointed out that "there's no such thing as having an individual conversation, unless we carry them up to the front office " He explained further that the employees under him work in groups of three because it takes three people to handle a trailer He testified further that Hutson on several occasions did go to the bathroom too much and just smoke, that he told his employees as a group that there was a limitation on how many times they could go to the bathroom, because when one man goes, it stops the work of the team of three men. There is nothing in the record which would indicate that Coleman's statement was motivated by an antiunion animus on the part of the Respondent or was as a reprisal for the strike Coleman's explanation, which I credit, demonstrates that his limitation on the use of the bathroom was a managerial decision prompted by the fact that excessive use of the bathroom for smoking or other purposes adversely affected the efficiency of his three-men teams The fact that, according to employee Hutson, Coleman's statement was made at least 3 weeks after the strike ended would seem to negate the idea that his action was taken in reprisal for the strike Accordingly, I find and conclude that Foreman Coleman's action did not constitute a violation of the Act, and I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in this regard C The Failure of the Respondent to Supply the Union with Requested Information Respondent concedes (br p 8) that, if requested, information concerning wages and related information pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit is pertinent and must be supplied Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537, 1541, Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association, 165 NLRB No 62, Cowles Communications, Inc, 172 NLRB No 204 But Respondent asks What information was requested') Was it fairly supplied? Thus, this phase of the case presents the narrow issue whether the Respondent supplied the Union with the requested information Prior to the first bargaining session, Union Business Agent Billy Henderson wrote to Respondent's attorney under date of March 14, 1968, requesting "a list of pay scale and job classifications at this plant " At the first bargaining session, on April 4, Respondent gave Business Agent Henderson a document reading, in pertinent part, as follows Our Labor Classifications are. Laborers $1.60 per hour Lead Men $1 70 per hour Maintenance $1.70 per hour & up Upon receipt of this document, Business Agent Henderson protested that the information was incomplete, that it was not what he had requested and, again, requested a list of employees by the specific jobs, the dates of employment, and rates of pay He also pointed out that Respondent's document listed the pay of maintenance men as "$170 per hour & up," and 'Employee Hutson also testified over objection, that some time in July, before the strike, Coleman pointed out the union badge which he was wearing and asked him why he didn't take it off Inasmuch as the alleged conversation concerning the wearing of the badge was not alleged in the complaint as a violation , it is not within the issues of the case, and no finding is based upon it LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY requested more specific information in that regard Respondent orally supplied the information as to the three grades of maintenance men and their hourly rates At this and the succeeding meetings, the parties bargained on various issues The General Counsel does not contend that the Respondent bargained in bad faith, except by reason of its failure and refusal to supply the requested information On April 16, Union Business Agent Henderson wrote to Attorney Smith in part as follows "You have also agreed to have available for us a list of employees, seniority date, job classifications and pay scale We respectfully request you include truckdrivers and pay rates in this list " Attorney Smith replied to Henderson's letter under date of April 17 and stated, inter a/ia "We shall try to have available a list of employees setting forth their seniority dates and job classifications at our next meeting " The next negotiating meeting was held on April 25. At this meeting, Respondent presented Henderson with a list of employees by name, clock number, pay rate, and date employed The only jobs identified were those of truckdriver, truck maintenance, maintenance, and foremen According to Business Agent Henderson, he complained that the list was incomplete and that he wanted the employees broken down by specific fobs; that Attorney Smith replied that Henderson could get this from his committee. According to Attorney Smith, Henderson placed the list among his papers and asked no questions about it' At this meeting, Plant Manager Scivally gave the Union an oral description of the operations of the plant At the next meeting of May 13, Business Agent Henderson again requested a list of job descriptions Attorney Smith replied that he told Henderson that the submissions already given him were adequate, that Henderson knew what was going on in the plant, and that "your committee can tell you " Under date of May 14, Business Agent Henderson wrote Attorney Smith, requesting that he be allowed "to study the jobs in the plant in order that we may study and evalueate (sic/ them more fully " Under date of May 20, Attorney Smith replied to Henderson's letter of May 14. In that letter, Attorney Smith stated that the general operation of the Respondent was similar to Simpson Timber Company, whose employees the Union represented The letter continued Besides the maintenance personnel, whose actual job requirements we shall be glad to discuss with you at our next meeting, there are presently seven Forklift Drivers, three employees in the Pre Hung Department, two Pressmen, one glue mix employee, two Trimmer Feedmen, two Trimmer Off Bearers and a check up man. Additionally, there are eight inspectors, nine truck-loaders and four glue spreader feeders, all of whom are considered as ordinary laborers All the balance of the employees other than truck drivers are ordinary laborers As your own Committee will undoubtedly tell you, the Company is broken up into the Receiving Department, the Lay Up Department, The Trim Department, the Machine Department, Warehouse and Shipping. It is noted that the letter listed 39 jobs in the plant (though it did not identify the persons holding those jobs), whereas according to 'I credit the testimony of Henderson whose dissatisfaction with Respondent's submission is confirmed by his repeated requests , oral and written , for job classifications 521 Respondent's submission of April 25, there were some 91 production employees in the plant. It is noted that the letter listed 39 jobs in the plant (though it did not identify the persons holding those fobs), whereas according to Respondent's submission of April 25, there were some 91 production employees in the plant At the May 23 negotiating meeting, Henderson stated that the information that he had received was inadequate and renewed his request information According to Henderson, Attorney Smith told him that he could get the information from his committee " At this meeting, Attorney Smith characterized the Union's wage proposal as being unrealistic and not in keeping with the wages in the area. Henderson replied that the proposal was the best he could do with the information which the Respondent had furnished him and asked for an opportunity to study the jobs in the plant to evaluate them. Henderson further said that he did not feel the Respondent had fulfilled its responsibility to furnish the information requested, that the people were getting restless, and that the Respondent was putting the Union into a situation where "if we did not make some improvement, that we was faced with a strike, and this was the last thing that the Union wanted " At the meeting of June 10, Business Agent Henderson told Attorney Smith that he felt that the Respondent had not bargained in good faith by failing to give the Union the requested information, that most of the proposals that the Union had accepted up to this point were those of the Respondent, that the people had become restless and that he did not want to be backed into a corner with a strike situation On June 28, Business Agent Henderson again wrote to Attorney Smith complaining , inter alia, of Respondent's "failure and refusal to furnish information requested and necessary to the bargaining agents of your employees " The parties next met on July 3 At this meeting the Union was represented by International Representative Deese in addition to Business Agent Henderson Henderson stated that he had asked for information pertaining to the names of the employees, the jobs performed in the departments and rates of pay, but had never received it. Attorney Smith replied that he didn't think that Henderson needed the information International Representative Deese then requested the same information and renewed the request before the close of the meeting 9 On July 8, Respondent's employees went on strike According to Attorney Smith, the strike was 90 percent effective The nature of the strike whether economic, or caused by an unfair labor practice, is discussed under a separate heading infra While the strike was pending, the parties met on July 16 At this meeting, Attorney Smith gave Henderson a list of 36 striking employees classified by job Henderson protested that this was not the entire list of employees at the time of the strike, when there were approximately 91 production employees in the plant.- Plant Manager 'Ernest Corbin , who succeeded Scivally as plant manager, testified that no request for information was made at that meeting and that the first time he heard such a request was at the meeting of July 23 i credit Henderson's testimony which is consistent with his written requests for information 'The credited testimony of Deese However, I do not credit Deese's testimony to the effect that Attorney Smith told Henderson that he had thrown his letters in "File 13" and would continue to do so The remark attributed to Attorney Smith is inconsistent with Attorney Smith's correspondence with Henderson Deese's request for information is corroborated by Plant Manager Corbin "At the same time, Attorney Smith gave Henderson an additional list 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Corbin admitted that this list did not contain the names of all the persons on the list submitted to the Union at the meeting of April 25, and testified that he did not know why In essence, it was Respondent's position in the negotiations and at the hearing that all of its employees, except truckdrivers, were ordinary laborers, that such designation was sufficient information to the Union, and that Respondent was not required to specify the particular functions performed by each laborer. To support this contention, Plant Manager Corbin testified that employees are transferred from one operation to another However, on cross examination, he admitted that the average number of such transfers is three per day, that some days there are no transfers, and that the employees so transferred are usually returned to their original positions the following day. It is also significant that the card of each employee bears the number of the department in which he works and such number is not changed when an employee is temporarily transferred to another department This number, Plant Manager Corbin testified, is for the purpose of determining the cost of each department. Despite Respondent's insistence that all employees, except truckdrivers, are ordinary laborers, it did on July 16 supply the Union with a list of 36 employees together with their job descriptions No reason was advanced for Respondent's failure to supply this information before the strike started Nor was any reason given for Respondent's failure to list the remaining 55 employees and their job classifications As previously noted, Plant Manager Corbin admitted that he did not know why the list was incomplete. Furthermore, employee Vonnie Doe Guess, testifying on another phase of the case, testified that his permanent job at the plant was operating the glueing machine Yet the list given by Respondent on July 16 contains no classification of operators of the glueing machine, and Guess' name does not appear on that list. It is apparent from the foregoing that the Respondent could have supplied the Union with the requested information and could have done so before the strike commenced. It is no answer, as the Respondent contends, that all of its employees, except truckdrivers, were considered by the Respondent to be ordinary laborers. The Union could have, and might have, submitted a wage proposal calling for various rates of pay based upon the difficulties and other conditions attendant each specific operation It may well be that the Respondent might have refused to accede to wage differentials for the various operations and might have insisted that all such employees were ordinary laborers and were entitled to the same rate of pay. Nevertheless, the Union was entitled to that information so that it could make whatever wage proposals it desired, even if the Respondent might ultimately reject such proposals. Significant in this context are Attorney Smith's repeated rejections of the Union's wage proposals as being "unrealistic." Without the requested information, the Union may have been bargaining in the dark. Thus, after Respondent's repeated refusal to supply the information as to job classifications, Henderson asked for permission to visit the plant to evaluate the jobs. This request was also refused. As the Board has stated "The employer's duty . . is predicated upon the need of the Union for such information in order to provide intelligent representation of the employees" (F W Woolworth Co, 109 NLRB 196, 197, enfd per curiam 352 U S 938) By failing to supply the requested information to the Union, the Respondent hampered the Union's bargaining efforts. N.L R B v Yawman & Erbe Mfg Co, 187 F 2d 947, 949 (C.A 2) " I therefore find and conclude that the information requested by the Union was relevant to the bargaining and that the Respondent failed and refused to supply the Union with the information requested until after the strike, and then supplied only part of the information By reason of such conduct, Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, 157 NLRB 496, 503, enfd. 388 F.2d 673 (C A 6); Curtiss-Wright Corp , Wright Aero Div v N L R B, 347 F.2d 61, 69 (C A. 3). D. The Nature of the Strike As previously noted, at the meeting of May 23, Attorney Smith characterized the Union's wage proposal as being unrealistic and not in keeping with the wages in the area, and Henderson replied that the proposal was the best he could do with the information which the Respondent had furnished him and asked for an opportunity to study the jobs in the plant to evaluate them Henderson further indicated that the Respondent was putting the Union into a situation where a strike might result. Again, at the meeting of June 10, Henderson told Attorney Smith that he felt that the Respondent had not bargained in good faith by failing to give the Union the requested information, and that he did not want to be backed into a corner with a strike situation On June 10, there was a meeting of the employees called by the Union According to Henderson's credited testimony, he told the employees present that the Respondent had not fulfilled its responsibility to bargain in good faith and had failed to supply the Union with requested information He explained the differences between an economic strike and an unfair labor practice strike, and the consequences of each. A strike vote was taken by secret ballot, and the employees present voted unanimously to strike at a date to be set by the elected committee and the Executive Board of the Local Union. Another meeting of the employees was held early in the morning of July 8, at which time the strike was called The Respondent contends that the strike was an economic strike. It argues that the alleged unfair labor practices involving the alleged statements to employees Hutson and Fishburne are without substance; that it had fully complied with the Union's request for information, and that a union leaflet distributed after the strike began setting forth the reasons for the strike failed to mention the Respondent's alleged failure to supply the information. With regard to the first contention, I have found supra that the alleged unfair labor practices with regard to the alleged threats made to Hutson and Fishburne are without substance and should be dismissed As to the second contention, I have found, contrary to Respondent's position, that the Respondent failed and refused to supply indicating three additions to the payroll prior to the strike, and three deletions from the payroll The list of additions and deletions did not specify the fobs performed "In its brief, Respondent no longer contends , as it did during the negotiations, that the Union could obtain the requested information from its committee Of course, an employer is not relieved of his obligation to furnish information even if it is available from the employees Dixie Corporation . 105 NLRB 390, 396 LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY 523 the requested information and supplied only part of the information after the strike began, and I have concluded that Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act If, therefore, the strike was caused by that unfair labor practice, then the strike was an unfair labor practice strike. The Respondent relies upon a leaflet put out by the Union on July 24, entitled "WHY WE THE EMPLOYEES OF LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY, INC. OF DENMARK, SOUTH CAROLINA ARE ON STRIKE " The leaflet accuses the Respondent of a refusal to bargain in good faith and specifically refers to the following items. Seniority, checkoff of dues, hours of work, paid holidays, vacations, and wages Nowhere in the leaflet did the Union explicitly refer to the Respondent's refusal to supply requested information Considered alone, the leaflet would appear to derogate from the General Counsel's contention that the strike was caused by Respondent's failure to meet the Union's request for information. However, the leaflet cannot be considered in vacuo Business Agent Henderson had made it clear to the Respondent that its failure to supply the requested information could lead to a strike which the Union sought to avoid Also, the Union's strike vote came after Henderson had informed the employees of Respondent's refusal to supply the information. Furthermore, the leaflet, published 16 days after the strike had commenced, was an appeal for public sympathy and urged "no one go to work for Lifetime Door Company in Denmark, S.C , until they bargain in good faith with our Committee " In such an appeal, it was only natural that the Union would emphasize the economic issues involved in the negotiations, rather than Respondent's failure to supply job classifications of the employees - an issue which might appear to be of little, if any, significance to the general public. Of course, there were unresolved economic issues between the parties As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has said No doubt the Company's refusal to bargain was not the only cause of the strike . . But if an unfair labor practice had anything to do with causing the strike, it was an unfair labor practice strike (General Drivers and Helpers, Local 662 v. N L R B., 302 F.2d 908, 911, cert. denied 371 U.S. 827) See also N L R.B v. West Coast Casket Co., 205 F.2d 902, 907 (C A. 9), N L R B v Fitzgerald Mills Corp., 313 F.2d 260, 269 (C.A. 2), and cases cited. I find and conclude that the strike was caused in substantial part by Respondent's unfair labor practice and was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception. Even if the strike had been an economic strike at its inception, Respondent's conduct in supplying some, but not all, of the information on July 16, after the strike had been in progress, was an unfair labor practice which prolonged the strike, for it demonstrated Respondent's ability to supply the requested information and emphasized its refusal to supply all of it. In this context, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said There is no question but that where a strike is initially undertaken for economic reasons but is prolonged by reason of the employer's intervening unfair labor practices, the employer is in the same position he would have been in had his unfair labor practice cause the strike in the first place . (N.L.R.B. v. Crosby Chemicals, Inc , 188 F.2d 91, 95). To the same effect, see N L R B v. Remington Rand, Inc , 130 F.2d 919, 928, fn . 8 (C.A 2); General Drivers and Helpers . Local 662 v. N L R B, supra Shortly after the strike began, the Respondent hired replacements and was operating at full capacity . On July 30, Business Agent Henderson wired Attorney Smith as follows Your employees voted this date to terminate the current strike against Lifetime Door Company Inc , Denmark South Carolina and return to work unconditionally at regular starting time 7 AM Wednesday July 31, 1968. This will also confirm our meeting of August 1, 1968 at 2 PM.12 When the parties met on August 1, Attorney Smith offered to discuss with the Union the "orderly return" of the strikers . International Representative Deese replied that the Union stood upon the telegram By letter dated August 2, Attorney Smith informed Henderson that 38 named strikers should report to work on Monday morning, August 5. By a second letter dated August 12, Attorney Smith specified another 33 employees who were to return to work on Monday , August 12. Inasmuch, as I have found , the strike was an unfair labor practice strike, and the Union's request for reinstatement was unconditional , the strikers were entitled to reinstatement 5 days after the unconditional offer to return The 33 strikers who were not restored to their jobs at that time are entitled to backpay from August 5, less the net earnings of each during such period. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Lifetime Door Company set forth in section IV, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, 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 strike was an unfair labor practice strike, that on July 30, the Union made on behalf of the striking employees an unconditional offer to return to work on July 31, and that some of the strikers were not reinstated by Respondent 5 days thereafter, I shall recommend that the Respondent make whole all strikers named in Appendix A for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's failure to reinstate them on August 5, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which each normally would have earned as wages from August 5, 1968, to the date of their reinstatement or the effective date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such period. The backpay provided herein shall be computed in "It is well settled that a union representing strikers may make a valid application for reinstatement of strikers Pecheur Lozenge Co , Inc . 98 NLRB 496, enfd 209 F 2d 393 (C A 2), cert denied, 347 US 953, Brown and Root , Inc, 99 NLRB 1031, 1042, Elmira Machine and Specialty Works , Inc , etc, 148 NLRB 1695, 1696, 1703 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accordance with the formula stated in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest shall be added at the rate of 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 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 following appropriate unit: All production, maintenance, and yard employees of Respondent employed at its Denmark, South Carolina, plant, exclusive of all office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to furnish the Union pertinent wage and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job classification and pay scale of each employee by name, or unreasonably delaying in furnishing such data to the Union (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to 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 unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Upon request, furnish to the Union pertinent wage and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job classification and pay scale of each employee by name, within a reasonably prompt time (c) Make whole all strikers whose names are listed in Appendix A attached hereto, for any loss of pay each may have suffered because of the Respondent's failure to reinstate them on August 5, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due. (e) Post at its Denmark, South Carolina, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B "" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." "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 the 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 " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A Willie Rice, Jr. Phillip Rice Charles W Lee Nurlin Dowling Glenn Smith Harry Johnson, Jr Neatha Barnwell Bryant Henderson Leola Greene Mose Moore Jeremiah Graham Annie Jamison Eddie James Ernell Hartwell James Rogers Andrew Lingard Edgar Tuten Stanley Breeland Earleen Rice Linda Riley Robert Edwards Jannie Tyler Elmo Campbell Rufus Jamison Richard Tyler Mary Lee Leroy Odom William Hutson Abe Williams Frank Hughes Willie Mae Wade Abbie Belle Tyler Harold Moseley APPENDIX B 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 NOT refuse, upon request, to bargain collectively with Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit All production , maintenance , and yard employees employed by us at our Denmark , South Carolina, plant , exclusive of all office clerical employees, professional and technical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union pertinent wage and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job classification and payroll scale of each employee by name, nor will we unreasonably delay in furnishing such data to the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join , or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement WE WILL upon request, furnish to the Union pertinent wage and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job classification and pay scale of each employee by name, within a reasonably prompt time. WE WILL make whole all strikers whose names are listed in Appendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, for any loss of pay each may have suffered because of our failure to reinstate them on August 5, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 525 All employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. Dated By LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY (Employer) (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, 1624 Wachovia Building , 301 North Main Street , Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone A.C. 919, 723-9211