National Gypsum Co.

NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY 551 National Gypsum Company and United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union. Case 28-CA-3366 September 23, 1975 All parties have been afforded full opportunity to ap- pear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Based upon the entire record, upon the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, and upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Wil- liam J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun- sel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record I and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, 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 Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, National Gypsum Com- pany, Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 Inasmuch as the record herein, as well as the briefs of the parties, ade- quately present all issues to be decided, Respondent's request to argue oral- ly before the Board is hereby denied. DECISION 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard by me in Phoenix, Arizona, on March 11, 1975. On January 31, 1975, the Director for Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing based on an unfair labor practice charge filed on November 29, 1974,' 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. Unless otherwise stated , all dates occurred in 1974. II. JURISDICTION Respondent has been at all times material a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, has maintained its principal office and place of business in Buffalo, New York, and has been engaged in the business of manufacturing home-building products in facilities located in various States of the United States, including a plant located at 1414 E. Hadley Street, Phoenix, Arizona. During the past 12-month period, which is representative of its annual operations, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from its Arizona facilities directly to States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. During this same period of time, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to its Ari- zona facilities directly from States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. Therefore, I find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. III. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers Interna- tional, Local Union No. 242, herein called the Union, has been at all times material herein a labor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IV. ISSUES A. Whether the Union has been the collective-bargain- ing representative of employees employed in Respondent's production engineering group? B. Whether Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of em- ployees employed in the production engineering group and, if so, whether Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act? V. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Respondent occupies a lot at the corner of East Hadley Street and Fourteenth Place in Phoenix, Arizona, on which are located a home building products manufacturing plant and a machine shop. Approximately 120 miles from Phoe- nix, at a location 9 miles south of Winkleman, Arizona, Respondent operates a gypsum quarry. These are the facili- ties which are significant for this proceeding. In 1959, Respondent purchased the quarry and manu- facturing plant from United Gypsum. The machine shop did not exist at that time. In 1965, a decline in work at the 220 NLRB No. 95 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manufacturing plant led Respondent to experiment by as- signing skilled maintenance personnel to manufacture cer- tain equipment for use in Respondent's Buffalo, New York, facility in lieu of laying off these skilled workers. Pleased with the results of this experiment, Respondent continued to assign this type of work to these employees who performed their work in the manufacturing plant until 1968 when, pressed for space in that structure , Respondent constructed the machine shop. Since 1968, these employ- ees, known as the production engineering group , have per- formed most of their duties in the machine shop. The distance between the two structures on the corner lot was estimated to be between 100 feet and 75 yards, with a fence separating them and with each having its own park- ing lot, locker room, washrooms, and entrances. The ad- dress of the manufacturing plant is 1414 East Hadley Street and that of the machine shop is 550 Fourteenth Place. Operations in the manufacturing plant involve re- ceipt of gypsum from the quarry followed by either the preparation and sale of ground gypsum as land plaster or the calcination and preparation of the gypsum for plasters and/or use in gypsum lath or wallboard . Operations in the machine shop involve the design , fabrication, and installa- tion of specialized equipment and machinery ; originally for Respondent's facilities, but evolving to the point where equipment is designed and fabricated for firms in other industries. Employees in the two structures perform their duties using their own tools, machinery, and equipment which differ to the extent that the operations in the two buildings differ. There is separate immediate and intermediate supervi- sion of the employees in the two buildings. Thus, the pro- duction engineering group is part of Respondent 's engi- neering operations, whereas the manufacturing plant employees are part of manufacturing operations , with the result that the lowest level of common supervision occurs at the level of Division Vice President J. B. Proctor, to whom report the vice president of engineering and the vice president of manufacturing. Shop Manager Leo Merkley appears to be the immediate supervisor of the production engineering group and he reports to Chester R. Nowick, director of engineering for the 3-year period preceding the hearing, who, in turn, reports to the vice president of engi- neering. Conversely, Plant Manager John Pitts reports to the director of manufacturing who, in turn, reports to the vice president of manufacturing. Similarly, administrative functions for the two groups of employees are handled sep- arately as shown by the existence of separate office manag- ers, payrolls, petty cash funds, pension plans, administra- tion of workmen's compensation and group insurance claims, EEOC compliance plans, and OSHA compliance schedules. As is obvious from the description of commencement of machine shop operations, the production engineering group was initially staffed by employees from the manu- facturing plant. Since commencement of operations, how- ever, there has been a separation of the hiring of employees for the two facilities and an effort has been made to avoid permanent transfers of employees between the two build- ings, similar to the arrangement whereby transfers between the manufacturing plant and the quarry are discouraged. Nonetheless, the record does disclose that two part-time employees, who were teachers working only during the summer months, did originally begin working in the manu- facturing plant and then worked in the machine shop. Be- yond this, prior to his retirement in approximately 1972, cleanup man Zenith Palmer performed his duties in both buildings. Approximately once a month, for an average to- tal of approximately 20 hours a year, production engineer- ing group employees perform work in the manufacturing plant, either installing equipment which they have designed and fabricated, or helping out when an emergency has oc- curred in the plant. When operations are slow in the manu- facturing plant and busy in the machine shop, employees from the manufacturing plant have worked in the machine shop and Nowick testified that somewhat less than 70 hours in 1973 and less than 100 hours in 1974 were spent in such temporary work by plant employees in the machine shop. When Respondent commenced operating the quarry and manufacturing plant in 1959, the Union was the represen- tative of the employees in a single overall bargaining unit encompassing both facilities. Respondent continued to rec- ognize the Union as the bargaining representative in that unit; executing successive collective-bargaining agree- ments, the latest of which were executed in 1967, 1969, 1971, and, the current agreement, in 1973, having a stated termination date of March 31, 1975, with provision for an- nual renewal absent written notice by either party of intent to alter, modify, or terminate the agreement. Article VIII, section 2, of the 1967 agreement provided for negotiations to establish wage rates for new job classifications created during the term of the agreement and, accordingly, in 1967, Respondent advised the Union of its intention to relocate the production engineering group, of its desire to staff the production engineering group with maintenance employees represented by the Union, and of its willingness to extend the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement to the production engineering group. Since a collective-bargain- ing agreement was then in existence , the parties negotiated wage rates for the classifications that would be newly cre- ated and these classifications were then included in the 1969 collective-bargaining agreement: "Clean-Up Labor (Plant and Shop)" in Bracket 2, "Mechanic Trainee (Shop)" in Bracket 6, "Mechanic 'C' (Shop)" in Bracket 11, "Mechanic 'B' (Shop)" in Bracket 13, "Mechanic 'A' (Shop)" in Bracket 17, and "Head Electrician & Mech. (Shop)" in Bracket 23. These types of classifications were listed in the two succeeding collective-bargaining agree- ments, although Nowick characterized them as "a histori- cal carry over" which continued to be listed in 1973 be- cause of an oversight. Nonetheless, Plant Manager Pitts admitted that Respondent considered the Union to be the representative of the production engineering group em- ployees in the 1969 and 1971 negotiations. Indeed, the re- cord discloses that these employees were treated as being included in the collective-bargaining unit and as being cov- ered by these two collective-bargaining agreements. Thus, in late 1969 or early 1970, the Union's then-President Da- vid B. Hart met initially with Production Superintendent Hakes and subsequently with then-Director of Engineering Sptiz concerning various trip expenses of employees in the NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY production engineering group for periods when they were on assignment installing equipment fabricated in the ma- chine shop. Although there was no written grievance con- cerning this matter, it was resolved at the first step of the grievance procedure which, under the 1969 collective-bar- gaining agreement, specified oral presentation of the griev- ance at the first-step level. A written grievance was, howev- er, filed in June 1971 concerning the discharge of "B" mechanic Michael Feist who had been discharged while on assignment installing machinery at Respondent 's Milton, Pennsylvania, facility. This matter was ultimately resolved by Feist's reinstatement. In fact, Hart testified that prior to cessation of office-holding in the Union, Respondent had always been willing to meet with him regarding the produc- tion engineering group and that prior to hiring new em- ployees for that group, Respondent had always first met with him. Another illustration of Respondent's treatment of the production engineering group as part of the overall bargaining unit occurred during negotiations for the 1971 agreement when Respondent locked out all of the employ- ees in the bargaining unit , including the production engi- neering group. The genesis of the dispute giving rise to the instant mat- ter occurred in late 1972 when, following his assignment to handle upcoming negotiations for the Union, International Representative Kent Weaver discovered that the former union members in the production engineering group had terminated their membership in the Union and that none of the new employees were joining the Union . Weaver con- tacted Pitts and, explaining the situation with respect to the absence of members among the production engineering group, secured permission to address these employees on Respondent's premises. On March 7, 1973, when negotia- tions opened for a new agreement, Weaver and Joe Cam- pagna testified that Pitts initiated the meeting by observ- ing that there were no production engineering group employees on the Union's employee -committee and by asking if this meant that the Union did not represent those employees, to which Weaver replied that this meant only that none of those employees had been elected to the com- mittee. Weaver testified that, as the day progressed, he be- gap ,to be concerned about Pitts' question, which he had originally taken only lightly, and so, both he and Campag- na testified, he asked Pitts if there was any question regard- ing the Union's status as the representative of the produc- tion engineering group employees and Pitts replied that there was no problem and that Respondent acknowledged that the Union represented these employees ; looking as he said this at Respondent's industrial relations representa- tive, Ray Grob, who made no comment. Both Pitts and Grob appeared as witnesses, with the lat- ter testifying that at this meeting Pitts initially asserted that Respondent felt that the Union did not represent the pro- duction engineering group and that Roy Thieme 3 immedi- ately retorted that the Union should not have to represent these employees since none of them were members, but that Weaver immediately interjected , "We represent all 2 Coordinator for the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, assigned to participate in these negotiations. 3 Either president or recording secretary of the Union at that time. 553 employees." Pitts, according to Grob, then inquired why there were no employees on the employee-committee from the machine shop and Weaver replied that none had been elected. Grob testified that he had no recollection of any more discussion concerning the representation of the ma- chine shop employees arose but once during the 1973 nego- tiations and that this occurred when the negotiations com- menced, as a result of the fact that this was the first time that the Union had utilized an "extended committee" (one on which a number of employees sat as members) which had led him to ask who represented the production engi- neering group. Pitts testified that Thieme responded, "We don't," but Weaver immediately said, "But, I do." Pitts testified that he made no further issue of the fact that Weaver intended to represent the machine shop employees, although he subsequently testified that during the meeting he had said that it was his position that the Union did not represent the production engineering group to which the union representatives had made no response. However, he did not specify precisely at what point he made this com- ment during the course of the meeting, nor did either Grob or he deny Weaver and Campagna's testimony that he (Pitts) had agreed that the Union represented the produc- tion engineering group in response to Weaver's specific question concerning the matter. While the agreement that was ultimately signed made no specific mention of either the production engineering group or of the machine shop in the recognition clause, article VIII, Section 1 does pro- vide: "The wage brackets, job titles and wage rates for all job classifications within the bargaining unit incorporated in Exhibit C are made a part of this Agreement." (Underscor- ing supplied) Listed among the job classifications in Exhib- it C are the following classifications which are concededly production engineering group classifications: "Temporary Labor (Plant and Shop)" in Bracket 1, "Clean Up Labor (Plant & Shop)" in Bracket 2, "Mechanic Trainee (Shop)" in Bracket 6, "Mechanic `B' (Shop)" in Bracket 13, "Me- chanic `A' (Shop)" in Bracket 17, "Mechanic `AA' (Shop)" in Bracket 21, and "Head Electrician & Mechanic (Shop)" in Bracket 25. Pitts did not deny Weaver's testimony that September 25, during a meeting concerning manufacturing plant grievances, Pitts had asked what effect layoffs in strict se- niority would have upon the employees in the machine shop, Weaver had replied that the senior employees had seniority over junior employees without regard to which building they were working in, and when Weaver then asked specifically if Pitts did not recall agreeing during the 1973 negotiations that the production engineering group was represented by the Union, the latter replied, "Yes, I did. We agreed to that." Unable to resolve the grievances at the September meet- ing, the parties met on November 18 and, during the course of this meeting, the subject of the production engi- neering group was raised. Weaver testified that Director of Engineering Nowick inquired regarding the basis for the Union's contention that these employees were covered by the contract and that he had replied that Respondent had agreed on this during the 1973 negotiations, reciting in re- sponse to Nowick's further question the substance of his conversation with Pitts during the March 7, 1973, bargain- 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing session, in which Pitts had agreed that the Union repre- sented the machine shop employees . Weaver testified that, when he completed this recitation , he turned to Pitts, ask- ing if this was not correct and that Pitts replied, "Yes, that's correct." Pitts denied specifically that he had agreed when Weaver asked him this question , testifying that he had remained silent and had not answered Weaver's ques- tion, although Pitts did concede that Weaver had correctly testified concerning the statements which he (Weaver) had made. Grob testified only that when the discussion of the grievances of the plant employees had culminated, com- ments were made relative to other grievances concerning the right of employees in the manufacturing plant to bump into the production engineering group and that there had been a general discussion during which he had told Weaver that Respondent's position was that the Union did not rep- resent the employees in the shop , to which Weaver replied that he intended to file charges with the Board. Nowick testified that when the subject arose , of manufacturing plant employees bumping less senior employees in the ma- chine shop, he had stated that he did not think that the machine shop was represented by the Union , as he under- stood that none of those employees were members of the Union. Nowick further testified that he did not "hear any member of Management that was represented at that meet- ing reiterate or agree that the employees in the Production Engineering Group were covered under the terms of the labor Agreement." The meeting ended with Nowick agreeing to notify the Union of Respondent's position on the scope of the unit. Although no such notification was forthcoming, Nowick testified that Respondent does not recognize the Union as the representative of the production engineering group. VI. ANALYSIS A. Whether the Union Has Been the Collective-Bargaining Representative of Employees Employed in Respondent's Production Engineering Group There is no dispute regarding the fact that the produc- tion engineering group was staffed initially by employees from the manufacturing plant whom the Union repre- sented. Moreover, it is admitted that, as a result of discus- sions conducted when the machine shop was being erected and the production engineering group being relocated to that structure, Respondent agreed to treat the production engineering group as part of the existing bargaining unit for which the Union was the bargaining representative. Thereafter, it is admitted, Respondent treated the Union as the representative of these employees in both the 1969 and 1971 negotiations and they were covered under the 1969 and 1971 agreements . The effect of this conduct was to merge the production engineering group into the existing unit so that by the time that negotiations commenced in 1973 the Union was the bargaining representative for a single overall unit encompassing the quarry, the manufac- turing plant, and the production engineering group located in the machine shop . See W, T. Grant Company, 179 NLRB 670 (1969). While Respondent asserts that it specifically disavowed recognition of the Union as the representative of the pro- duction engineering group at the March 7 , 1973, negotiat- ing session, I credit the testimonies of Weaver and Cam- pagna concerning what transpired at that meeting when the subject of the production engineering group was raised. Both Weaver and Campagna appeared to be honest indi- viduals who were relating to the best of their abilities the conversation that occurred at that meeting. Moreover, the 1973 agreement provides specific wage rates for production engineering group classifications and I do not credit the testimony that the inclusion of these wage rates was mere oversight. That could have happened had the provision been one which did not change from the previous contract, but it can hardly be argued that a wage provision listing changes from the preceding contract rate represents an ov- ersight. While it is true that the recognition clause of the 1973 agreement makes no mention of the production engi- neering group or of the machine shop, this is hardly diapo- sitive of the matter in light of the fact that the recognition clause of the prior agreements did not provide for this group of employees even though Respondent conceded that it had been treating the Union as the representative of these employees. Finally, the Union would have nothing to gain by acquiescing in Respondent's withdrawal of recog- nition for almost 2 years before making an issue of the matter by filing a charge . Such a delay would not benefit the Union and the Union would run the considerable risk of losing its right to act as the representative of these em- ployees by such a delay . Conversely, Respondent did have a motive for withdrawing recognition in November, for at that time the Union began asserting the right of more se- nior manufacturing plant employees to displace their less senior colleagues in the machine shop , thereby potentially disrupting an operation which was expanding and with which Respondent appears to have been most pleased. In- deed, this was the very matter discussed at the November 18 meeting which appears to have precipitated Nowick's challenge to the Union's representative status for the pro- duction engineering group. Therefore, I find that Respon- dent did agree at the March 7, 1973, negotiating session that the Union was the representative of the employees in the production engineering group and that Respondent did continue to treat those employees as included in the overall bargaining unit represented by the Union. Not until No- vember did Respondent voice an objection to the Union's representation of the employees in the machine shop. Therefore, I find that the production engineering group has been merged into the same unit as the manufacturing plant and quarry by virtue of Respondent's history of bar- gaining with the Union and, accordingly, that the Union has been the representative of all employees in that unit, including those assigned to the production engineering group. B. Whether Respondent Withdrew Recognition From the Union as the Collective -Bargaining Representative of Employees Employed in the Production Engineering Group and, if so, Whether Respondent Thereby Violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act I have found above that Respondent did not withdraw NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY 555 recognition from the Union as the representative of the production engineering group in March 1973 and, further, that these employees were covered under the collective- bargaining agreement signed as a result of those negotia- tions. The stated termination date of that agreement is March 31, 1975. While Respondent may not have been observing it in all respects insofar as applying its terms and conditions of employment to the production engineering group, it is clear that there was no clear withdrawal of recognition until November during the grievance meeting when a dispute arose concerning the right of manufactur- ing plant employees to displace less senior machine shop employees. Accordingly, Respondent withdrew recognition at a time when there was a collective -bargaining agreement in existence and the Board has stated that, "By virtue of the existence of the contract, the Union was entitled to exclusive recognition for at least the term of the contract" Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 124 NLRB 494, 496, enfd. sub nom. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 310, 280 F.2d 665 (C.A.D.C., 1969), cert. denied 364 U.S. 892. Consequently, by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the bargaining representative of the produc- tion engineering group during the term of a collective-bar- gaining agreement encompassing those employees, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Even when the contract expires, Respondent would still violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition for only the machine shop employees, for the production engineering group had become merged into the overall bargaining unit which included the employees at the quarry and in the manufacturing plant. In these cir- cumstances, a question concerning representation can only be raised in the overall bargaining unit-not in a segment of that unit, without regard to the manner in which that segment may have become a part of the overall bargaining unit. See Gem International, Inc., 202 NLRB 518 (1973). Thus, while Respondent has argued that many factors exist which might support a finding that the production engi- neering group could constitute a separate appropriate unit, such an analysis would be applicable only if a determina- tion of this question were being made de novo. Here, how- ever, there has been a history of bargaining for these em- ployees as part of an overall bargaining unit. That history arose as a result of Respondent's recognition of the Union as the representative of the production engineering group at a time when the employees in that group were in fact a part of the Union's then-existing bargaining unit, and that history has been of substantial duration; unlike the situa- tion presented in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. N.L. R.B., 506 F.2d 668, (C.A. 4, 1974), cited in Respondent's brief. Absent evidence of repugnancy to Board policy or of an effect which hampers employees in fully exercising rights guaranteed by the Act, the Board will not disturb units established by collective bargaining. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 120 NLRB 1281, 1284 (1958). In the instant case there is no contention that an overall unit of quarry, manufacturing plant, and machine shop employees is repugnant to Board policy or that it is so constituted as to hamper employees in fully exercising rights guaranteed by the Act. Nor would the record support such conten- tions, if made. Accordingly, the fact that the production engineering group might constitute a separate appropriate unit if there were to be a de novo determination of the matter does not accord Respondent a right to withdraw recognition from an incumbent representative for but a portion of an overall bargaining unit in which there has been a a history of bargaining. Similarly, the fact that em- ployees in the machine shop may not have been members of the Union or may have expressed their desire not to be represented by the Union does not accord Respondent the right to sever them from the historical bargaining unit by the device of withdrawing recognition from their bargain- ing representative. Any good-faith doubt of majority must extend to the entire unit and may not be confined to only a portion of that unit. Therefore, I find that Respondent did withdraw recogni- tion from the Union as the collective-bargaining represen- tative of the employees employed in the production engi- neering group and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. VII. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section II, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. A unit appropriate for collective bargaining is: All hourly employees employed at National Gypsum Company's quarrying operations located near Winkleman, Arizona, and at its gypsum manufacturing plant and ma- chine shop located in Phoenix, Arizona; excluding supervi- sors, office clerical employees, research and technical em- ployees, watchmen and plant protection employees, and over-the-road truckdrivers who deliver finished products. 4. At all times material, United Cement, Lime and Gyp- sum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242 has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By withdrawing recognition from United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242 as the representative of a portion of the employees in that unit during the term of a collective-bar- gaining agreement, Respondent has committed an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair la- bor practice, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent withdrew recognition during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, I shall recommend that Respondent reimburse employees in the production engineering group for the loss of any bene- fits which would have accrued to them under the collec- tive-bargaining agreement which the Respondent refused to honor, with interest to be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum thereon. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER4 Respondent, National Gypsum Company, Phoenix, Ari- zona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Withdrawing recognition from United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242 as the representative of the employees in the pro- duction engineering group. (b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242 as the collective-bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit: All hourly employees employed at National Gypsum Company's quarrying operations located near Winkle- man, Arizona, and at its gypsum manufacturing plant and machine shop located in Phoenix, Arizona; ex- cluding supervisors, office clerical employees , research and technical employees, watchmen and plant protec- tion employees, and over-the-road truckdrivers who deliver finished products. (c) Refusing to honor any collective-bargaining agree- ment in effect with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242, which applies to the employees in the aforesaid unit, in- cluding those employees assigned to the production engi- neering group. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Honor any collective-bargaining agreement in effect with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers Interna- tional Union, Local Union No. 242, for all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit; or, if no such agreement is in effect, bargain collectively upon request with that labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employ- ees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and, if an under- standing is reached, upon request, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (b) Make whole all employees in the production engi- neering group for any loss of benefits which would have accrued to them under the collective-bargaining agreement which Respondent refused to honor with regard to them, with interest to be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum thereon. (c) Post at its Winkleman, Arizona, quarry and at its Phoenix, Arizona, manufacturing plant and machine shop copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." S Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by 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 cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 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. S In the event 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives all employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or support unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activity except to the extent that the employees' bargaining represen- tative and employer have a collective-bargaining agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that employees become union members. In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from United Ce- ment, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242, as the representative of the employees in the production engineering group. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collec- NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY tively with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Work- ers International Union, Local Union No. 242, as the collective-bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit of: All hourly employees employed at National Gyp- sum Company's quarrying operations located near Winkleman, Arizona, and at its gypsum manufac- turing plant and machine shop located in Phoenix, Arizona; excluding supervisors, office clerical em- ployees, research and technical employees, watch- men and plant protection employees, and over-the- road truckdrivers who deliver finished products. WE WILL NOT refuse to honor any collective-bargain- ing agreement in effect with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242, which applies to the employees in the afore- said unit, including those employees assigned to the production engineering group. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere 557 with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under the National Labor Relations Act set forth above. WE WILL honor any collective-bargaining agreement in effect with United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, Local Union No. 242, for all employees in the aforesaid unit, or if no such agreement is currently in effect, we will bargain collec- tively upon request with that labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the afore- said unit and, if an understanding is reached, upon request, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL make whole all employees in the produc- tion engineering group for any loss of benefits which would have accrued to them under the collective-bar- gaining agreement which we refused to honor with re- gard to them, with interest to be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum thereon. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY