Aluminum Ore Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 1286 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY and ALU1rnJINUM ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 20661, AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
ti
Case No. C-2026.Decided March 31, 19.12
Jurisdiction : aluminum processing industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Collective Bargaining: union's majority stipulated and supported by prior Board
certification-refusal to bargain collectively by ; refusal to discuss proposed
widespread wage increases before their announcement, unilateral establish-
ment of wage increases, limitation of discussions thereof to subsequent con-
sideration of individual grievances, and refusal of job-classification and pay-
roll information necessary to an understanding of respondent's position as to
the controversial wage revision. '
Remedial Orders : respondent ordered to bargain collectively.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : office and clerical workers, nieter-
men, leadmen, routine chemists, chemists' assistants, and dust, gas, and labora-
tory technicians, excluding executives and department heads, foremen, shift
foremen and assistant foremen, the yard master and assistant yard master,
research chemists, secretaries to all executives or department heads, employees
in the cost department, and the personal chauffeur to the president.
Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Bruce A. Campbell, of East St. Louis, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. M. S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. E. P. Theirs, of
St. Louis, Mo., for the Union.
Mr. Wm. F. Scharnileow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 6,-1941,1 by
Aluminum Administrative Workers' Union, Local No. 20661, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Act-
ing Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri),
issued its complaint dated September 8, 1941, against Aluminum Ore
Company, East St. Louis, Illinois, herein called the respondent, al-
leging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
' The original eL„i ge Sias filed on Api ii 29, 1941
ej'39 N. L. It B, No. 236.
1286
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1287
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) in([ (Ti) of the National.Labor Rela-
tions Act , 49 Stat. 449 , herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that the Union, at all times material hereto, has represented
a majority of the employees of the respondent in a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining; that on March 20, 1941, and
on various dates thereafter down to and: including the time of the filing
of the complaint , the Union has requested the respondent to bargain
collectively with it with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the unit, but that on said dates and at all
times thereafter the respondent refused and has continued to refuse
to bargain collectively with the Union ; that it has refused to make any
counterproposal , has taken unilateral action as to wage increases al-
though the Union has requested collective bargaining concerning this
matter and has withheld from the Union, notwithstanding the Union's
request therefor , information ' as to pay rates which was necessary and
basic to collective bargaining , and that by such refusal to bargain col-
lectively , the respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
In its answer , which is contained in and is a part of a written
stipulation as to certain uncontroverted facts filed at the hearing,
the respondent admitted its corporate existence , the nature and scope
of the business done by it, and that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. It further admitted certain facts pertaining
to the allegations in the complaint but denied that it had engaged in
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at St. Louis , Missouri, on
September 22 and 24, 1941 ,-before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties appeared
and participated , either by their respective counsel or official repre-
sentatives , and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the conclusion of the hearing , the motion of counsel for
the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without,
objection . Oral argument was heard by the Trial Examiner from
counsel and representatives of all parties . All parties waived the
right to file briefs with the Trial Examiner. During the course of
the hearing , the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 10, 1941; the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, in which
he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He
recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
On January 7, 1942, the respondent filed with the Board its excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, and also its brief in support of the
exceptions. Thereafter, pursuant to notice duly served on the parties,
a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on Febru-
ary 3, 1942, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and
the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing.
The Board has considered the exceptions and brief submitted by the
respondent, and hereby finds the exceptions to be without merit in-
sofar as they are inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
, FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT -
The respondent, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Aluminum Company of America, operates a plant, in East
St. Louis, Illinois, for the production of alumina (aluminum oxide)
and miscellaneous other products by the processing of natural. bauxite.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent, aggregating
over 100,000 tons per year, are bauxite, soda ash, limestone, fluorspar,
sulphuric acid, and coal; all the bauxite and soda ash, which con-
stitute about 80 percent of the raw materials used, are purchased
outside the State of Illinois and shipped to the East St. Louis plant.
Most of the other raw materials used, comprising about 20 percent
of the total, are purchased within the State of Illinois.
The total volume of products manufactured at the East St. Louis
plant aggregates over 100,000 tons per year. Ninety-five percent
of this amount consists of alumina (aluminum oxide), and the re
maining five percent is made up of aluminum hydrate, electrolyte,
dry sodium aluminate, and other miscellaneous products. Approxi-
mately 95 percent of the said alumina is shipped outside the State
of Illinois.2
2 By stipulation of the parties, certain findings, including the above, are based upon
findings of the Board in a prior proceeding involving the respondent and the Union , Matter
of Aluminiam Company of America and Aluminum, Administrative Workers, Unnon, Local
20661, affiliated aoitle A F of L, 9 N. L R B. 141.
I
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1289
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Aluminum Administrative Workers' Union, Local No. 20661 is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
It admits to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of the
entployee.s therein -
It was stipulated by the parties, and we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that office and clerical workers, metermen, leadmen,
routine chemists, chemists' assistants, and dust, gas, and laboratory
technicians employed by the respondent, excluding executives and
department heads, foremen, shift foremen and assistant foremen, the
yard master and assistant yard master, research chemists, secretaries
to all executives or department heads, employees in the cost depart-
ment, and the personal chauffeur to the president,'at all times herein
material constituted, and they now constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.'
It was further stipulated by the parties, and we find, as (lid the
Trial Examiner, that on and since October 11, 1938,4 the Union was
and has been recognized by the respondent as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees within the appropriate unit described above,
and that the Union has been, at all times since October It, 1938, and is
now, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said "unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
B. The 7e fusel to bargain
On September, 11, 1939, the respondent and the Union entered into
a formal written contract in which the respondent recognized the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all the em-
ployees in the unit above described and which dealt with matters
pertaining to seniority, vacations, holidays, leaves of absence, and
the handling of individual grievances. By this contract, the re-
spondent also agreed to conferences between the representatives of
the Union and the local plant management, specifically accepted the
principles of collective bargaining, and professed a willingness to
meet union representatives for discussion of matters of mutual inter-
Y
R Accoi ding to the stipulation mentioned in tootnote 2, above
'On this date the Board certified the Union in the proceeding mentioned in footnote 2,
above.
I
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
est in an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory understanding.
Aside from an agreement to observe State and Federal regulations
of hours of work and overtime pay, there were no provisions govern-
ing wages, rates of pay, or hours of employment. This contract was
still in effect without modification at the time of the hearing.
Since the execution of this contract, numerous conferences have
been held between the Union's representatives and representatives
of management concerning 12 or 15 individual grievances all but
approximately 5 of which had been disposed of at the time of the
hearing in accordance with grievance procedure set out in the contract.
Long before the passage of the Act, it became, and has since been
the policy and practice of the respondent to gauge the pay of the
employees in the unit on an individual or related group basis whereby
the work done by each such individual or related group is evaluated
by his or their superiors and the pay of such individual or related
group fixed by the respondent without previous conferences with the
employees or their representatives. -Since the contract of September
11, 1939, the only, reconsideration given by the respondent to such
predetermined adjustments has been upon the presentation of griev-
ances by' individual employees.
In December 1939 and January 1940 conferences were held by
the Union and the respondent concerning pay increases within the
unit. At these conferences, which resulted in numerous individual
pay raises, the Union contended for flat or basic increases, but the
respondent refused to depart from its policy above outlined. In each
instance, it fixed the wage adjustment by its unilateral action and
then followed the practice of considering individual grievances.
On March 20, 1941, the executive committee of the Union wrote
the respondent requesting a general increase of 10 percent for all
employees in the unit. On April 4, 1941, C. B. Fox, president of the
respondent, replied, stating that the respondent was then paying the
top rate in the class of jobs within the unit, that the salaries were
above the prevailing rate in the district, and that the respondent
could see no justification fora general increase.
On or about April 21, 1941, Frank E. Morton, the vice chairman
of the Union and chairman of its grievance committee, learned from
a committeeman of the union representing the production workers at
the respondent's East St. Louis plant that they had been negotiating
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with officials of the Aluminum Company
of America and that grant of a general wage increase .for the admin-
istrative workers represented by the Union herein, as well as for the
production workers, seemed probable. The union committee then
arranged for a conference with Ian Marsh, the respondent's super-
intendent of 'personnel relations. At this meeting, held in Marsh's
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1291
office in 'the East St. Louis plant on April 25, 1941, the union com-
mittee, after stating that it represented all the employees in the
unit, requested Marsh to explain the position of the respondent on
the proposed wage adjustments and asked what increases might be
expected within the unit. Marsh, denying any knowledge on the
subject, except by hearsay, emphasized the policy of the respondent
to "negotiate" raises on an individual and not on an over-all basis,
but admitted that he understood the respondent offered the produc-
tion workers a flat basic raise of 3 cents per hour. The Union then
took the position that the administrative workers were entitled to
the same type of consideration. The conference ended when Marsh
agreed to confer with Fox, find out what position the respondent
would take relative to the amount of the increases, and meet with the
committee again on the following day, April 26.
At the meeting of April 26, 1941, the union committee inquired
whether Marsh had any definite information concerning the increase
and how it would be handled, to which Marsh replied, "Your guess
is as good as mine." He said, however, that the respondent, through
the personnel department, the department heads, and certain of the
executives, would determine what they thought would be fair wages
for the various employees involved and would notify the individuals
when that determination was made. Morton, on behalf of the com-
mittee, protested that this procedure was not collective bargaining
as the Union understood it. Marsh replied that the respondent was
not bound to negotiate wages by any certain pattern, and that the
respondent, following the same procedure for 40 years, had found
its very successful.
Marsh stated further that the increases would be widespread,
that employees regarded as underpaid would receive increases to
rates thought by the respondent to be fair, but that some employees
were overpaid and would receive no raises. The committee protested
that only a general increase and not merely the miscellaneous adjust-
ments contemplated by_ the respondent would meet increased living
costs and so serve the purpose of the Union's demand. Although
the respondent neither submitted a wage proposal to the Union nor
agreed to do so at a future time, arrangements were made to meet
again on the following Monday. April 28.
The meeting of April 28, 1941, was held in Marsh's office and at-
tended by the same parties as had been present at the previous
meetings. The union representatives inquired of Marsh whether
there had been any change in the position taken by the respondent.
They were advised by Marsh that no change was contemplated. The
Union again protested and requested some definite information which
they could report at a special meeting of the union membership that
had been called for that evening. Marsh told them he could not give
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them any specific information and that the amounts and recipients
of the increases were still to be determined by the department, heads
and the executives of the company. After several further protests
from the committee that the Union could not accept the respondent's
method of handling the situation as collective bargaining, the meeting
adjourned, with no arrangement -for further meetings in the
immediate future.
On May 5, 1941, as a result of a night letter sent by the Union
to-the Office of Production Management at Washington, a further
conference was held at the respondent's office. This meeting was
attended by Fox, Marsh, one Rucker, who was general plant superin-
tendent, the Union's committee, William White of the Conciliation
Service of the Department of Labor, and one Quick of the Office of
Production Management. The Union reasserted its demand for a
general 10-percent increase and its expectation that the administra-
tive workers whom it represented would receive treatment equivalent
to that accorded the production workers. Fox assured the committee
that there would be no discrimination but that the respondent would,
however, take into consideration the increases given the adininistra-
tive workers iii, December 1939 and January 1940. He also stated
that a general 10-percent increase would not be a fair adjustment on
the basis of job evaluation and cited several jobs in which sub-
stantial overpayment would result. The Union agreed that in two
or three jobs such an overpayment might result and offered to con-
sider, in the course of general negotiations, which of the jobs might
fairly be regarded as overpaid. Fox then announced that since they
appeared to be in agreement on the principle of the wage increases,
he would turn the matter over to Marsh who would, with the as-
sistance of the various department heads, complete negotiations as
to the increases in 'each department. At the request of the Union
for a suggestion as to how this should be handled, Fox proposed
that they start with the laboratory groups, consisting of the plant
laboratory, commonly referred to as the old laboratory, the main
laboratory, and the research laboratory. He stated that if they
could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these groups, it should
be easy to dispose of the wage status of the remaining employees
in the unit. With the understanding that this procedure would be
followed, the meeting was adjourned with an arrangement that the
Union's representatives should meet with Marsh and ' the head of
the old laboratory on the following Wednesday, May 7.
By May 7, 1941, the respondent, without conferring with the
Union, had already arrived at its decision concerning the increases
or "adjustments" it -intended to put in effect among the employees
within the unit, had sent the information to the Pittsburgh office,
and had received the approval of that office. Nevertheless, on May 7
f
ALUMINUM ORE-COMPANY 1293
the respondent, represented by Marsh, Mulconnery, its employment
agent, the-chief of the respondent's main laboratory, and the head of
the old laboratory, met with the union committee to discuss the wage
adjustments to be made applicable in the old laboratory. At the
opening of the meeting. Marsh announced the increases that the re-
spondent proposed as to each of the employees in. that laboratory.
The complete pay-roll record of the old laboratory, showing the
job and rate of pay of each employee, was made available, after
which the proposed increases were individually discussed but with-
out reaching an accord on any item. During the course of this
discussion, the union ,committee expressed its general willingness
first to consider the wage increases upon a departmental basis ac-
cording to their understanding of Fox's suggestion and then, if
necessary to arrive at an amicable settlement on any basis.
On the next day, May 8, 1941, the discussion concerning the old
laboratory employees was resumed. Early in the meeting, Marsh
announced that lie, could see no reason for spending further time
discussing any of the proposed increases, since they had already
been established by the Pittsburgh office for all the departments and
would be announced and put into effect the next day. Morton, as the
spokesman for the, committee, protested that this was not collective
bargaining and demanded that the Union be allowed to complete
negotiations with the respondent with reference to all the proposed
rates before they were put into effect. Disregarding this protest,
Marsh read a list of the recipients and the monthly amounts of the'
raises in the unit without giving the resulting total of each salary.
The Union was refused a list of the increases at this meeting, but
was permitter) to make a copy of the list on the next day, May 9, 1941,
after those who were to receive increases had been individually'
advised. This information was not furnished, however, until after
White and Quick had again been called on by the Union to exercise
their influence with the respondent.
At 9 o'clock in the morning, May 9, 1941, approximately 100 of
the 130 employees in the unit represented by the Union were indi-
vidually informed that they had been granted raises and the amounts
thereof. Marsh testified at the hearing that this revision of wages
also effected a change in some of the basic beginning. rates and the
existing progression of rates.
On May 10, 1941, the union committee again met with Marsh to
protest concerning :3 number of individual cases in which the em-
ployees involved felt aggrieved by the schedule of increases and to
renew its protest against the respondent's procedure as ' to all the
increases. At this time. although the Union reiterated its request
for a flat increase, it offered to settle the controversy if the respond-
ent would amend its schedule of increases so that the minimum in-
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
crease to any employee would be $10 . The proposal was rejected,
whereupon the union committee announced that the increases granted
would be accepted under protest . Again it demanded that the entire
list of increases be reviewed and negotiated with the Union, and
requested Marsh to supply information as to the rate of pay of all
the employees in the unit , together with their pay history since 1939.
In making this request, Morton explained that the information would
be necessary in order to allow intelligent discussion of the wage
adjustments and to determine whether all the rates were fair. Marsh
refused to supply this information . He stated that it was confi-
dential and that the Union could and should get the information
from its membership . To this the union committee replied that it
could not get complete and accurate information in this way espe-
cially in the cases of employees who had left the respondent 's employ.
On special inquiry- by Morton, Marsh told the committee that the
respondent 's position on all the matters under discussion was final
and that it represented the answers of both Fox ' and the Pittsburgh
office to all the Union's demands.
On May 17, 1941 ,. still another meeting was held at which sub-
stantially the same ground was covered except that Marsh then
reported that he had presented the Union 's proposal of a $10 mini-
mum increase . to Fox and that Fox not only had rejected the pro-
posal but had authorized him to state that the raises would stand
as they had been published and that there would be no changes in
them. When the Union - again raised the subject of furnishing pay-
roll information , Marsh agreed to arrange a meeting for May 19, to
be attended by Fox and E. P. Theiss , a representative of the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, as well as by the other persons who had
been present at the previous meetings.
At the meeting of May 19, 1941 , Theiss requested Fox to supply
the Union with a complete job classification list containing the names
of the employees in the unit , the duties performed by each, and the
rates of pay and history of the pay structure , claiming that this in-
formation was pertinent and essential to collective bargaining. Fox
agreed to refer the question to the Pittsburgh office. Some days later,
Theiss received a telephone message from Marsh who said that Fox
was out of the city, but that he had been advised by the Pittsburgh
office that the information could not be supplied. It has not as yet
been made available.
On August 27, 1941, Marsh, Mulconnery; the union committee. and
White of the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor met
once more. The Union requested an increase for the employees who
had received less than a $10 raise in May. Although the record is not
clear, this request was apparently refused.
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1295
Throughout the entire course of the conferences, the respondent's
professions of willingness to discuss wage increases on an individual
or related group basis were coupled (1) with summary rejections of
the Union's justifiable request for collective bargaining on behalf of
all the employees concerning an over all increase and (2) with an
insistence that negotiations and discussion in advance of the an-
nouncement of the new wage rates were unnecessary since the re-
spondent, in accordance with the procedure provided by its contract
with the Union,5 would consider particular grievances after the wage
increases were effected. Having thus defined its general position,
the respondent proceeded unilaterally to determine the increases it
would grant, announced them to the employees involved, rejected
the Union's later request for a minimum flat raise of $10 a month as
distinguished .from the 10-percent increase originally sought, and
finally refused to supply wage histories and job classifications within
the Unit for the Union's consideration.
By thus insisting that discussions be, limited to consideration of
particular grievances after the increases had already been put into
effect, the respondent sought to substitute individual grievance pro-
cedure for the processes of collective bargaining. Moreover, we find_
no support for respondent's contention that the Union insisted
throughout the conferences upon discussions of the wage increases on
an I over-all basis. On the contrary, according to uncontradicted
testimony, the Union expressed a willingness at the meeting on May
7, 1941, first, to negotiate on a departmental basis, and then, on 'any
basis. On that day, it actually began discussions with the respondent
of the individual raises which the latter proposed in the old labora-
tory. On May 8, 1941, when the proposed individual raises in the
unit generally were first read to the Union committee, it requested a
copy and postponement of announcement until negotiations could be
completed. We find, therefore, that in contrast with the respond-
ent's refusal to modify its position as to the basis for bargaining,
the Union abandoned its original contention for over-all rather than
individual raises or raises in related groups, and thus removed even
this alleged obstacle to negotiations.
After the Union had thus agreed and sought to discuss the pro-
posed increases on the only basis which the respondent would accept
and had thereby eliminated its original demand for an over-all 10-
Paragraph 11 of the coati act provides in part • I '
Grievances which an individual employee cannot adjust satisfactorily with his
immediate supra visor may be referred . in writing, to his representative or representa-
tives. If the guevance cannot be satisfactorily settled within the department, it
may be referred to the 'Personal ( sic) Relations Department If the grievance
remains unsettled it may be turiher referred to the highest local authority and may
further be reterred , in writing , to the president or the general executive of the
Aluminum Company of America If still failing of settlement, and if mutually
agreed upon , the grievance may be submitted to arbitration
448105-42-vol 39--83
1296 DECISIONS Or, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
percent increase, the respondent foreclosed any such prediscussion of
the increases by unilaterally establishing the individual raises and
announcing them to the employees involved. This was the first
clear indication of the determination of the respondent not to bar-
gain With the Union concerning wages. The respondent contends,
however, that the grievance procedure provided by its contract with
the Union afforded the Union a satisfactory opportunity to bargain
collectively as to these increases after they were established. With
this we cannot agree. The respondent could not avoid its' duty to
bargain collectively with reference to, and in 'advance of, the grant
of the proposed increases by offering to consider individual griev-
uices after the increases were established. By insisting that the
Union resort to the grievance procedure, ' the respondent not only
postponed discussion of the increases, but also sought to substitute
series of narrow, individual controversies of remote interest to
the employees not directly involved, for broad collective bargaining
with the Union on behalf of, and with the interested support of,
all the employees in the- unit. Moreover, the contract, in its pro-
vision for collective bargaining as well • as for the consideration of
grievances, does not justify such a postponement or substitution.
Nor could it. Inconsistency with the policy and provisions of the
Act would render such a limitation upon bargaining ineffective..
Upon these considerations, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the respondent's postponement of discussions with the Union, its
unilateral action in the interim, and its limitation of subsequent
discussion to the consideration of individual grievances were incon-
sistent with, and constituted a denial of, collective bargaining within
the meaning of the Act.e ,
We turn now to a consideration of the respondent's refusal to
supply the Union with a complete job-classification list for the unit
of approximately 130 employees, the names of the employees, the
nature of the jobs, and the wage rates since 1939. The respondent
refused this information on the grounds that it was confidential,
that only the employees involved could authorize its release, and
that the Union, as the representative of all the employees in the
unit, might secure it directly from the employees. To this the union
committee replied generally that it could not get complete and ac-
curate information in this way, and particularly, that recent em-
ployees had no knowledge of the wage rates of their 1939 and 1940
predecessors.
It will be recalled that this information was first requested by
6 See Al L R I3 v Westinghouse Air Brake Co ., 120 F (2d) 1004 (C C A 3), enforcing
Matter of Westinghouse Air hale Company and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America , Local No tic, 2:, N L It B 1312 ; see also Singer Mfg. Co V
N. L. R B, 119 F. (2d) 131 (C C A 7), cert den., 313 U. S 595
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1297
the Union on May 10, 1941, the day after the respondent's announce-
ment of the wage increases; that the respondent justified these raises
as adjustments of wages on a "related group" basis; and that the,
respondent had stated its willingness to reconsider its schedule
of raises under the grievance procedure. Under the circumstances,
the information sought by the Union was necessary to an under-
standing of the respondent's division of its employees among "re-
lated groups" and also for a comparison of wage rates in the light
of such division. Without this information, the respondent's state-
ment to the Union of its reasons for allocating the raises as it did,
was incomplete and without meaning. As a result, the Union could
not intelligently discuss the very matters raised by the respondent
in their conferences. Furthermore, the respondent was obviously
the only possible source of information as to what it meant by the
"related groups" which it alleged to be the basis of the wage ad-
justments. Even if it were conceded, as the respondent contends,
that the Union could actually have secured the wage history of all
the jobs in the unit from the employees themselves, such a prospect
at the time of the respondent's refusal of that information must
have seemed doubtful and certainly attended with great difficulty
and loss of time. In this situation, an employer bargaining in good
faith would not have withheld the information requested, nor would
the employees be privileged against its disclosure since the informa-
tion is essential to the intelligent bargaining on their behalf required
by the Act. Upon these considerations, we- are of they opinion, as
was the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's refusal to disclose
the information- sought by the Union, and its failure thereby to
clarify its incomplete statement of position as to. the wage matters
under discussion, were. inconsistent with the principle of collective
bargaining and served to promote controversy rather than to en-
courage agreement.'
In conclusion, it appears clear from the course of conduct which
it has followed since May 8, 1941, that the respondent has con-
sistently avoided collective bargaining with the Union within the
meaning and according to the policy of the Act. It has thereby
refused to bargain collectively with the Union since May 8, 1941,
when it rejected the Union's request to discuss the proposed wide-
spread wage increases before their announcement, and has continued
in such refusal by unilaterally establishing the raises, limiting dis-
cussion thereof to the subsequent consideration of individual griev-
ances, and refusing the job-classification and pay-roll information
' See Matter of 1'ioneei Pearl Button Company'and Button TVo?kers ' Union, Federal Local
20026, 1 N. L. R B. 837; Matter of Sherwin Williams Company and Paint, Varnish and
Allied Products Local Union No 1310 , Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paper-
hangers of America, affiliated with the American Fede,ation of Labor, 34 N L R. B, 651.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary to an understanding of its position as to the controversial
wage revision and therefore essential to intelligent bargaining by
the Union.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that-on May 8, 1941, anal
at all times thereafter , the respondent refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, and,that the respondent thereby interfered with,
restrained ,' and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAnt LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , we shall order that it cease and desist there-
from acid that it take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent refused to bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appro-
priate unit . We shall , therefore , order the respondent to bargain
collectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. Aluminum Administrative Workers' Union, Local No. 20661,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All office and clerical workers; metermen , leadmen, routine chem-
ists, chemists ' assistants . and dust, gas , and laboratory technicians
employed by the respondent , excluding executives and department
heads, foremen , shift foremen and assistant foremen, the yard master
and assistant yard master, research chemists , secretaries to all execu-
tives or department heads, employees in the cost department , and the
personal chauffeur to the president , at all times material herein con-
stituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Aluminum Administrative Workers' Union, Local No. 20661,
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1299
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is and at all times
since October 11, 1938, has been the exclusive representative of all the
respondent's employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on May 8, 1941, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with Aluminum Administrative Workers' Union, Local
No. 20661, as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's em-
ployees in such unit, the respondent, has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 9 (5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices.
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations, Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Aluminum Ore Company, East St. Louis, Illinois, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Aluminum Administrative
Workers' Union,,Local 20661, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the
unit heretofore found to be appropriate; i
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the,
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Aluminium Adminis-
trative Workers' Union, Local No. 20661, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all office and
clerical workers, metermen, leadmen, routine chemists, chemists' assist-
ants, and dust, gas, and laboratory technicians employed by the re-
spondent, excluding executives and department heads, foremen, shift
foremen and assistant foremen, the yard master and assistant yard
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
master, research chemists, secretaries to all executives or department
heads, employees in the cost department , and the personal chauffeur to
the president , with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant , offices,
and laboratories at East St . Louis, Illinois, and maintain for a period
of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of said posting,
notices to its employees stating ( 1) that the respondent will not engage
in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in para-
graphs 1 ( a) and ( b) of this Order, and ( 2) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c)' Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
k