Meat Cutters, Local 530

478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 530, AFL-CIO and Du- Quoin Packing Company. Case 14-CB-2468 March 19, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On November 14, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, to which the Respondent filed an answering 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent , Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 530, AFL-CIO, DuQuoin, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ' We have considered the exception taken to the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge excluding testimony relating to the meetings of May 11 and June 14, 1972 We shall not disturb this ruling. As the Charging Party notes, Respondent is being required to sign the collective-bargaining agreement which is the primary objective of the complaint and modifying the Order would involve more a matter of form than of substance 2 We find it unnecessary to decide whether one of Respondent's representatives, Niederdeppe, believed that prelinunary agreement on the deletion of the incentive plan from the proposed collective-bargaining agreement had been reached on March 24, 1971. It is clear from the subsequent actions of the parties, as detailed by the Administrative Law Judge, that ultimately Respondent agreed to the inclusion of the original incentive plan as submitted by the Charging Party Chairman Miller would affirm the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, including his finding that no preliminary agreement regarding the incentive plan was reached on March 24, 1971 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on May 15, 1972, and amended on June 19. The complaint was issued on June 29. The hearing was held on August 21 in St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint alleges that Local 530 has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to sign a written contract with the Charging Party on which agreement has been reached. For the reasons set forth below, I find Local 530 has violated the Act as alleged. Upon the entire record and after due consideration of oral argument as well as briefs filed by all parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Charging Party, an Illinois corporation, operates a meat packing plant in DuQuoin, Illinois. During calendar year 1971, a representative period, it shipped products valued at more than $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Illinois. The Charging Party is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Local 530 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Issue This case involves three words in one sentence in a 29- page collective-bargaining agreement. One sentence in the Charging Party's proposal for an incentive plan which it wanted to insert in its contract read, "The Company will not require an employee to exceed 100 percent of production standard." The plan calls for 100 percent of contracted hourly wages for employees who turn out 80 percent of the production standard for their jobs as determined by timestudies, 101 percent wages for 81 percent production, 110.5 percent wages for 91 percent production, and so forth through a table in which production advances 1 percent at a time as wages advance I or 1 /2 percent, as the case may be, until they reach the point where 130 percent of standard production is compensated at 130 percent of contracted hourly wages. Thus, the quoted sentence permits the Charging Party to discipline employees who achieve less than 100 percent of the standard for their jobs even though they are being compensated as much as 114.5 percent of contracted hourly wages, the rate provided in the plan for 99 percent of standard production. Local 530 contends that, at a negotiating session held on March 24, 1971, the Union objected to possible discipline for employees who were earning 100 percent or more of the wage rates provided in the contract, that the Charging Party bought its argument, and that the sentence was modified by insertion of the underlined words to read, "The Company will not require an employee to exceed the 100 percent pay point of production standard." The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that, when agreement was finally reached on a new contract on February 17, 1972, Local 530 agreed to accept the Charging Party's incentive plan without any modification. 202 NLRB No. 83 MEAT CUTTERS, LOCAL 530 479 B. Facts 1. Background The contract preceding this one ran from September 15, 1968, through September 14, 1971. It contained no incentive plan. It was between the Charging Party and Local P-156. During the life of that contract, the Charging Party adopted an incentive plan. What transpired at that time is set forth in detail in DuQuoin Packing Company, 183 NLRB No. 108. In brief summary, the Charging Party announced its intentions and gave the Union some data on its plan on July 14, 1969. The Union filed a grievance. The plan was discussed again on August 13, 1969. Two days later, on August 15, Local P-156 filed an 8(aX5) and (1) charge against the Charging Party. (That case bears the number 14-CA-5236 and eventually resulted in the Board's decision at 183 NLRB No. 108.) Following the August 13 meeting, the Charging Party sent John Hyche, a representative of the International Union, a complete written draft of its plan. At a meeting on September 10, 1961, Hyche requested certain modifications. These were incorporated and the plan, as modified? was sent to Hyche on September 11, 1969. In the meantime, the Charging Party put the plan into effect in its plant. Complaint was issued in Case 14-CA-5236 on Septem- ber 26, 1969, and hearing was held on November 13. On January 21, 1970, Trial Examiner' William O. Brown, citing Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, 175 NLRB 141, recommended dismissal on the ground that the parties should be left to their voluntarily established dispute settlement procedures. On June 24, 1970,' the Board dismissed the complaint on the ground "that the Union and the Respondent fully discussed the wage incentive plan that was announced by the Respondent at the July 14, 1969, meeting . . . and that the Union unmistakably waived its interest in formal negotiation of the matter" before the plan was put into effect. The Board also found "that the Respondent bargained with the Union concern- ing the incentive plan" in view of all the events which took place between July 14, 1969, and the hearing. Left to their own voluntarily established dispute settle- ment procedures, the parties carried Local P-156 's griev- ance to arbitration. The record in this case does not reveal exactly when the arbitrator's award was handed down. As a result of that award, sometime prior to March 1971, the Charging Partydiscontinued the incentive plan. At the request of Charles Hayes, vice president of the International Union, early negotiations for a new contract to replace the one scheduled to expire in September 1971 got under way in March 1971. The parties first met on March 11. The Charging Party's incentive plan did not come up. On March 23, the parties met again. The Union presented to the Charging Party an eight-page document setting forth its proposals. It contained no mention of an incentive plan. On March 24, the parties met for the third time. The Charging Party presented to the Union a six- page document setting forth its proposals. Included was a proposal that a new article XXIII , entitled "Incentive Plan," be added to the contract. The plan set forth was substantially identical to the incentive plan contained in the document mailed to John Hyche on September 11, 1969, in that it contained the modifications requested by Hyche. It differed only in that the second sentence of the fifth paragraph now read, "The Company will not require an employee to exceed 100 percent of production stand- ard," whereas in the 1969 document it had read, "In no case is an employee compelled to do more than this requirement" (i.e., perform a "fair day's work"). 2. The March 24, 1971, meeting Among the participants at the March 24, 1971, meeting for the Union were Hayes and Robert Niederdeppe, the assistant director of the International Union's industrial engineering department . This was the only bargaining session Niederdeppe attended. Among those present for the Charging Party were J. T. English, the industrial relations director, and W. G. Brown, industrial engineer. During the course of the meeting, English stressed that obtaining an incentive plan was an important part of the negotiations from the Charging Party's point of view. He said it was imperative that productivity at the plant be increased and that the incentive plan was a fair way to do so. Hayes indicated that the Union was not opposed to the concept of increasing productivity through an incentive plan. Niederdeppe pointed to the sentence in dispute in this case and asked whether "100 percent" referred to production, pointing out that, if so, this created an anomalous situation from the Union's point of view, for it permitted the Charging Party to discipline employees who were earning a bonus. He said the Union would not want to create that kind of a precedent. The Charging Party's negotiators held a brief caucus. When they returned, Brown said Niederdeppe's interpretation of the language as written was correct and indicated his understanding of the problem it posed from the Union's point of view. Niederdeppe suggested the language be changed by inserting "the" and "pay point" in the sentence at issue. He inserted these words in his copy of the Charging Party's proposals. He added the notation after the paragraph in which the sentence appears, "Co so far in agreement (Watch this one closely)." (I do not credit Niederdeppe's testimony that Brown committed the Charging Party to the three inserted words , the crucial fact in this case, for reasons which are set forth below in the section entitled "Analysis and Conclusions.") 3. Subsequent events When he returned to his office in Chicago, Niederdeppe changed a second copy of the Charging Party's proposals by placing an asterisk at the end of the first sentence in the fifth paragraph of the Charging Party's proposed article XXIII and a note at the bottom of the page introduced by another asterisk which read "modify or delete completely." He placed brackets around the second disputed sentence and altered it to read, "The Company can not discipline an employee for failure to exceed the 100 percent pay point of 1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972. 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production standards" rather than "The Company will not require an employee to exceed 100 percent of production standard." After the closing bracket he added the notation "actually 80% by std." He placed both copies of the Charging Party's proposals in his file relating to the DuQuoin negotiations. The negotiations continued with three sessions after March 24, 1971, and before May 19 as to which there are no details, not even the dates on which they were held, in the record. At a meeting on May 19, 1971, there was some discussion about the incentive plan during which Milton Talent, the Charging Party's attorney, talked about the possibility of using discipline rather than an incentive plan to achieve the Charging Party's goal of increased pro- ductivity. There was no specific discussion about the sentence in the Charging Party's proposal at issue in this case. There was a hiatus in negotiations after May 19. Local P-156 sent the formal notice required by Section 8(d) of the Act on July 2, 1971. The first meeting thereafter was held on August 5. The Charging Party and the Union each resubmitted their proposals. There was discussion of an incentive plan much like that on March 24. Company negotiators stressed the importance of such a plan to the Charging Party. Union negotiators indicated their agree- ment in principle. There was no discussion of the sentence at issue in this case. The next negotiating session about which there is any evidence in the record was held on September 14, 1971. Presumably there were a number of sessions between August 5 and September 14, for, when the latter session ended without agreement on a new contract, a strike began as the old one expired at midnight. The parties were divided on many issues when the strike began. There was some discussion of the 'ncentive plan at the September 14 meeting but no specific discussion about the sentence at issue in this case. Hayes, the International vice president who was the Unions' principal spokesman throughout the negotiations, said the incentive plan was a good idea but the Local Union was opposed to it to the point that it was prepared to strike over it. The record is again silent on negotiations, if any, which took place between the beginning of the strike and January 11, 1972. During this period, on November 3, 1971, the International Union placed Local P-156 under a trustee- ship, appointing Raymond O'Mohundro, president of Local 530, trustee. The January 11, 1972, meeting was held in Chicago rather than in downstate Illinois where negotiations had been conducted prior to that time. The local union committee which had participated in prior negotiations was not present. O'Mohundro was there, along with officials of the International Union, including Hayes. All of the issues separating the parties were discussed. With respect to the incentive plan, the Union referred to the manner in which the Charging Party had started to institute it in 1969-70 by introducing it one department at a time. The Union proposed that the Charging Party start with those departments, permitting employees to vote in each department whether they wanted to change to incentive, and add new departments only after similar elections in each. The Union offered to urge the employees to vote for the plan. The Charging Party rejected this proposal for a voluntary, piecemeal incentive plan. There was no specific discussion about the sentence at issue in this case. The negotiators met again on January 26, 1972, in St. Louis. This time the local committee was present, along with O'Mohundro and International officials. The Union presented counterproposals on the issues which separated the parties. With respect to incentive, the Union offered to accept the Charging Party's plan if the Charging Party would agree to a reappraisal at the end of 1 year, at which time the Union would be free to strike, the contract's no- strike clause notwithstanding, in the event the parties could not agree. The Charging Party declined on the ground that it needed the incentive plan for the term of the contract. The Union then offered to accept the Charging Party's incentive plan if the Charging Party would give in on some other issues. This proposal foundered when the Charging Party would not agree to negotiate a list of new job rates the Union wanted. Finally, the Union agreed to submit the Charging Party's outstanding offer to the employees. Once again, at the January 26, 1972, meeting there was no specific discussion about the sentence at issue in this case. The employees voted on the Charging Party's outstand- ing offer. The result was a tie. Consequently, the parties returned to the bargaining table on February 15, 1972, in St. Louis. The Union offered to accept the Charging Party's incentive plan for 1 year as previously suggested or, alternatively, for the term of the contract if the Charging Party would increase some fringe benefits. The Charging Party rejected both offers. The sentence at issue in this case was not specifically discussed. The negotiators met for the last time on February 17, 1972, in Chicago. Neither O'Mohundro nor the local committee was present. The Union was represented only by Hayes and two other International officers. The Charging Party stood pat on its last offer, including its incentive plan proposal. The Union pointed out that the employees had already rejected that package and asked for some slight change in certain fringe benefits to sweeten the Charging Party's offer a little. After a caucus, the Charging Party upped its hospitalization and sickness and accident offers in the second year of the contract. The union accepted, subject to ratification by the employees. A memorandum of agreement was prepared and initialed by the parties. It read: Memorandum of Understanding Between Du Quoin Packing Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America At a meeting held at the International headquarters, 2800 N. Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois on Thursday, February 17, 1972, the following people were present: MEAT CUTTERS, LOCAL 530 481 Joseph Belsky, President;, Patrick E. Gorman, Secretary- Treasurer and Charles Hayes, International Vice President, participating for the Union. The Employer who was present was the DuQuoin Packing Company, represented by Milton O. Talent, Attorney; J. T. English and Walter Naumer, Jr. The following was agreed in settlement of the strike at the DuQuoin Packing Company. A two-year agreement effective as of the date of ratification by the Union. First year: The incentive plan as submitted to the Union. 32 cents increase in wages across the board. Five weeks vacation after 25 years. Meal allow- ance-$1.50. Hospitalization-Room and Board to $30. Sickness and Accident-benefit increased by ten dollars to $50. Second year: 31 cents increase in wages across the board. Hospitalization-Room and Board up to $35.00 if hospital rates increased. Sickness and Accident benefits increased by five dollars to $55. The Pension Committee having been advised that the present rate of contribution of .1409 cents per hour contribution will support a $6.00 per year pension and the Pension Committee having advised the Company and the Union that such $6.00 per year pension is feasible, such pension will go into effect at such time as the Pension Committee desires, with no further contribution by the Company. O'Mohundro and the local negotiating committee sent mail ballots to the employees on February 18, 1972. The letter which accompanied the ballots listed the agreement as set forth above and recommended ratification. With respect to the incentive plan, it read: 8. The incentive plan will be put into effect and the Company agrees that it shall be subject to the regular grievance and arbitration procedures if necessary. O'Mohundro informed the Charging Party on February 24, 1972, that the agreement had been ratified. The strike ended that night as the midnight shift returned to work. The Charging Party instituted the incentive plan immedi- ately. It drafted a new contract dated February 25, 1972, which incorporated the agreement reached into the old contract, including a new article XXIII, entitled "Incentive Plan." On April 21, 1972, Local P-156 was merged into Local 530, (The parties to this case stipulated that Local 530 is bound by any agreements reached between Local P-156 and the Charging Party.) Sometime between June 14 and 26, 1972, O'Mohundro picked up a copy of the new contract from the Charging Party. (A controversy had already arisen over whether O'Mohundro would sign it, and the Charging Party had already, on May 15, filed the charge in this case. I hereby reaffirm my ruling that testimony proffered by the General Counsel about incidents which took place on May 11 and June 14, 1972, relating to that controversy is inadmissible in this proceeding.) On June 19, O'Mohundro telephoned Niederdeppe at the International's office in Chicago and reported, erroneously, that the Charging Party was disci- plining employees who were achieving more than 80 percent, but less than 100 percent, of the production standards for their jobs. Niederdeppe sent O'Mohundro a copy of the notes he had made on a copy of the Charging Party's proposals after his return from the March 24, 1971, meeting. In his letter to O'Mohundro, Niederdeppe stated, erroneously, that these were notes he had made at that meeting. The last paragraph of Niederdeppe's letter read: I questioned the sentence in the brackets and it was agreed by the company in that meeting to amend it to read as follows: The company cannot discipline an employee for failure to exceed the 100% pay point of production standards. (Actually 80% by standard.) O'Mohundro and members of the local committee met with officials of the Charging Party on June 26, 1972. O'Mohundro, for the first time, checked the old contract and the memorandum of agreement against the new contract. He refused to sign the latter on the ground that it did not accurately reflect the agreement reached. He took the position that the second sentence in the fifth paragraph of article XXIII should read as stated in Niederdeppe's letter of June 19 to him. Hayes, Niederdeppe, O'Mohundro, and the vice presi- dent of Local 530 met with officials of the Charging Party, including Brown, the industrial engineer, and the Charging Party's attorney on July 3, 1972. The Union took the position that the Charging Party, in the person of Brown, had agreed on March 24, 1971, to change the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of article XXIII to the language contained in Niederdeppe's letter of June 19, 1972, to O'Mohundro. The Charging Party took the position that it had not. Niederdeppe subsequently discovered that he had sent O'Mohundro and had himself relied on the wrong notes. C. Analysis and Conclusions The first question that arises is whether the Charging Party agreed, on March 24, 1971, to Niederdeppe's proposal to insert "the" and "pay point" in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of its incentive plan proposal. The only evidence that it did so is found in the testimony of Niederdeppe. I found Niederdeppe to be an honest and intelligent man. I attach no significance to the fact that O'Mohundro on June 26, 1972, and Niederdeppe himself on July 3, 1972, took a position with the Charging Party that does not jibe with Local 530's present position, accepting without reservation his explanation that he did not realize he had sent O'Mohundro the wrong notes until after the latter meeting. Nevertheless, I find, on the basis of Niederdeppe's evidence and contrary to Local 530's present position, that the Charging Party did not agree to the insertions. I am persuaded, first, by the manner in which Nieder- deppe arrived at a specific statement that the Charging Party's industrial engineer, Brown, agreed to his proposal. There is no dispute from Brown and J. T. English, the Charging Party's industrial relations director, the two witnesses called by the General Counsel, that Niederdeppe raised the question, near the end of the March 24, 1971, meeting, whether employees could be disciplined if they made less than 100-percent production even though they 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be earning a bonus under the plan. Neither, however, remembers the caucus which, on the basis of Niederdeppe's testimony, I find occurred. Both, of course, deny that Brown said the Charging Party agreed to Niederdeppe's proposed change. I am convinced that the Charging Party's representatives did caucus briefly, but only to decide what the answer to Niederdeppe's question was and not to decide whether to agree to his proposal. Niederdeppe was, of course, called as a witness by Local 530. When he was asked on direct examination what happened on March 24, 1971, his answer did not include a direct statement that Brown had said the Charging Party agreed to his proposal. Instead, his testimony went like this: Q. (Interrupting) Did you make any specific proposals as to modifications of the language? A. I proposed at that time the addition of three words. Q. Are those three words to be found in handwrit- ing on Respondent's Exhibit 3? A. This is correct. Q. And this (indicating) is the proposed amend- ment that you made to the company? A. At that time, yes. Q. Continue. A. When the caucus was over, Mr. Brown indicat- ed that, yes, this was proper, that inasmuch as the variable allowance chart is there, that the 80 per cent would be the normal expected. Q. Did Mr. Brown indicate that the language which you had proposed was acceptable? A. This was my understanding, yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: Run that one by me again. They came back from the caucus and Mr. Brown said something. To the best of your recollection, what did he say? THE WITNESS : Mr. Brown said, yes, in this plan with the variable allowance, that the 80 percent in this plan would actually be normal, the normal work pace, what they really have done is reduced the normal, it now becomes 80 in this plan because this is where the hundred percent pay point starts. Q. (By Mr. Nichols) During the course of the 1971 negotiations, Mr.-did you address yourself to any other portion of the proposed incentive plan during that particcular meeting? A. Not that I recall. On cross-examination by counsel for the Charging Party, who was himself present at the March 24, 1971, meeting, Niederdeppe conceded that there had been much discus- sion about productivity and that, although he did not recall the figure, there could have been insistence by the Charging Party's negotiators on its need for 100 percent. He only came, reluctantly, to a specific averment that the Charging Party had agreed to his proposal in this manner when counsel pressed him on what was said: Q. According to your testimony, the only proposal that you made was the insertion of three words? A. This is correct. Q. Did you say that the company agreed to that? A. It was my feeling that day from Brother Brown that we had agreement on -it. Q. When you say it was your feeling, then there was no express agreement, you just understood- A. (Interrupting) You people came back from the caucus. J. T, English said that this is an engineering matter, the engineers discussed it, and inasmuch as the variable allowance is in this thing your 80 per cent actually becomes norm in this program, and I recall Jerry [Brown ] saying, "Yes, this is true." Q. Then nothing was said about inserting that specific language in the contract? A. I say it was. Q. When Jerry came back and allegedly agreed, was something said about putting the language in on the copies that were submitted and the copies that the company had? A. That's my recollection. Q. Then your testimony now is that there was an agreement to insert it and it was inserted in the copies? A. It was put to me that it would be inserted, and after that meeting I was never in contact with it again, Milt. I had no idea it was left out. Q. When you say it was put to you that it would be inserted, what did you mean, at some future date it would be- A. (Interrupting) Prior to the signing the agreement that you were negotiating. Second, I am persuaded by the lameness of Nieder- deppe's explanation for redrafting the disputed sentence when he returned to Chicago following the March 24, 1971, meeting. When counsel pressed Niederdeppe on this point, the cross-examination went like this: Q. When you got back to Chicago there was no need to do anything further on that language, was there? A. I assumed we'd be back into discussions further down the line somewhere. Q. But I thought you had just testified that at the March 24 meeting you submitted three words and they were accepted. A. Yes. Q. And that ended any further discussion on that. So there was no need for any further negotiations on that particular point, was there? MR. NICHOLS: Objection. It is argumentative. TRIAL EXAMINER: Overruled. Q. (By Mr. Talent) Isn't that correct? A. No; there would have been no need to mark that one up, granted. Q. Yet you came to Chicago and allegedly drafted some language which was in your words stronger than what you had submitted and what had been agreed upon? A. Yes, this is correct. Q. Now, I ask you, "Skip," isn't it perhaps the fact you went back to Chicago and drafted up that language because that was language that you were going to submit to the local union or the International to submit at some future date? A. Possibly in reference to other contracts, yes. MEAT CUTTERS, LOCAL 530 483 "Possibly in reference to other contracts, yes" is, of course, inconsistent with "I assumed we'd be back into discussions further down the line somewhere," so the cross- examination at this point trailed off into Niederdeppe's explanation that the redrafted sentence was not intended by him for use in the negotiations for a new contract with the Charging Party. Third, and most important, I am persuaded by the notes which Niederdeppe made on the incentive plan page of the Charging Party's proposal at the March 24, 1971, meet- ing-"Co so far in agreement (watch this one closely)." In my view, the significant features of those parts of Niederdeppe's testimony which I have reproduced here at some length are (1) his failure, on direct, to state that Brown spoke words of agreement; (2) his initial answer on cross that his insistence that Brown had agreed was based on a "feeling" growing out of what Brown had actually said; (3) his repetition, on cross, of words allegedly spoken by Brown which do not contain express words of agreement; (4) his failure thereafter to state precisely what words of agreement Brown allegedly spoke, falling back, instead, on such responses as "I say it was" and "That's my recollection"; and (5) his initial response, when cross- examined about the notes he made when he returned to Chicago, "I assumed we'd be back into discussions further down the line somewhere." When coupled with the revealing phrase "so far" and the admonition "watch this one closely" in the note he actually made at the March 24, 1971, meeting, they add up to an inescapable conclusion that Niederdeppe, when Brown spoke, misinterpreted the words he actually spoke as tentative agreement to the insertions proposed and is now mistaken in his recollection that other unspecified words were spoken by which the Charging Party committed itself to make them. I find, therefore, that the Charging Party did not agree, on March 24, 1971, to alter the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of its incentive plan proposal by inserting "the" and "pay point." Since I have concluded that the Charging Party did not agree to alter its incentive plan proposal, the second question that arises is whether the Union ever agreed to it in its unchanged form. When negotiations were resumed on August 5, 1971, following the formality of an 8(d) notice on July 2, the Charging Party resubmitted its proposals, including an unmodified incentive plan. At no point in the ensuing meetings did the Charging Party agree to any change in the wording. When agreement was finally reached on February 17, 1972, it was memorialized in a memorandum which states, "The following was agreed .. . The incentive plan as submitted to the Union." (Emphasis supplied.) When they voted to ratify, the employees had been informed that the incentive plan was part of the package negotiated on their behalf even though local leadership had been opposed to it. I find, therefore, that Local 530 agreed to accept the second sentence of the fifth paragraph of article XXIII in its pristine form. Since the 2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. contract which has been presented to it for execution reproduces that sentence in that form and since there is no contention by Local 530 that it has not agreed to any of the other provisions of that document, Local 530 has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to sign it. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. DuQuoin Packing Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 530, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By refusing to sign the collective-bargaining agree- ment with the Charging Party dated February 25, 1972, Local 530 has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 2 ORDER Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 530, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to sign a collective-bargaining agreement with DuQuoin Packing Company dated February 25, 1972. (b) In any like or related manner, refusing to bargain collectively with employers whose employees it represents under the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, sign the collective-bargaining agree- ment with DuQuoin Packing Company dated February 25, 1972. (b) Post at its office or union hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Local 530's authorized repre- sentative, will be posted by Local 530 immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps will be taken by Local 530 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" for posting by DuQuoin Packing Company at its place of business in DuQuoin, Illinois, in places where notices to employees are 3 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD customarily posted , if the said Employer is willing to do so. Copies of said notice to be provided by the Regional Director, after being signed by an authorized representa- tive of Local 530, will be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for said posting. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Local 530 has taken to comply herewith.4 4 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Local 530 has taken to comply herewith " provisions of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to sign collective-bargaining agreements to which we have agreed or in any like or related manner. WE WILL, upon request, sign the collective-bargain- ing agreement with DuQuoin Packing Company dated February 25, 1972. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 530, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a trial, that we violated Federal law by refusing to sign the new contract with DuQuoin Packing Company, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with employers whose employees we represent under the Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 448, 210 North 12th Boulevard , St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.