Autotronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

AUTOTRONICS, INC. 705
Autotronics, Inc. and International Union , Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case
17-CA-3518
June 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 21, 1968, Trial Examiner Horace A.
Ruckel issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that they be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief, and a letter correcting an error in the brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified below.
1. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find merit
in the Charging Party's contention that Dewane
Hopkins is a supervisor and that his interrogation of
employees Hinds and Owen constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In regard to the supervisory status of Hopkins,
the unrefutted testimony of employees Hinds and
Owen reveals that Hopkins assigns work, directs the
work of some 10 to 12 employees, grants time off,
makes out appraisal sheets for employees, told
employee Hinds he was promoting him to setup
man, and thereafter Hinds was reclassified to finish
machine setup man and operator and received a
31-cent-an-hour raise. Hinds also testified that his
appraisal sheet, made out by Hopkins, described
Hinds' work as "better than average." Clearly, in
view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the entire
record, Hopkins is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.
On May 15, 1968, while in the production
manager's office, Hopkins had a conversation with
employees Hinds and Owen. According to Hinds,
Hopkins asked them what their reaction would be
"to a paper going around to get signatures to take a
176 NLRB No. 96
vote to see if the union would stay in the plant."
Hinds asked Hopkins if there was such a paper and
Hopkins said he heard there was. According to
employee Owen, during this conversation, Hopkins
also asked what they would do if such a paper came
around to sign . It further appears that although
Hopkins told the employees he made such an
inquiry for his own satisfaction, nevertheless he
informed them that if they resented it they would
never see the paper. We find that Hopkins'
questions about the reaction of employees Hinds
and Owen to a paper to obtain signatures to see if
the Union would stay in the plant constituted
coercive interrogation and violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
2. We also find merit in the Charging Party's
contention that Respondent's failure to furnish the
Union with data about the group insurance plan
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5). The record
shows that at the bargaining meeting on February
23, 1968, Curry, Respondent's representative,
brought up changes they were trying to make in the
insurance plan concerning coverage. Robbins, the
Union's representative, asked about the cost of the
plan, to which both the Company and the employees
contributed, and, according to Robbins, stated that
he was concerned over any increase in the premium
that employees might have to pay. Robbins told
Curry that he wanted information on the cost of the
insurance plan by an outside agency and requested
from Curry the employees' marital status, age, and
sex. Curry stated that he had part of this
information in his office but that it was not
complete and that he would have it compiled and
would give Robbins a copy. Again at a bargaining
meeting on February 29, Curry presented Robbins
with a copy of the company's insurance proposal.
Robbins told Curry he thought the premium was
high for the coverage and he again requested the
same data he had requested on February 23. Curry
gave the same answer he had given on February 23.
The Respondent never provided this data. We find
that the failure of the Respondent to furnish the
data relating to the insurance plan constitutes a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, we hereby adopt
the Conclusions of Law of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein . The Conclusions of Law as
amended are stated below:
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Dewane Hopkins is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By Hopkins' inquiring of employees as to their
reaction to the circulation of a paper to obtain
signatures to see if the Union would stay in the
plant , Respondent engaged in coercive interrogation
and, by such action , Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(ax 1) of the Act.
5. All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent at its Joplin , Missouri, plant , excluding
office clerical employees , engineering department
employees , professional employees , guards,
combination watchmen janitors , and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6. The said Union has been since November 29,
1966, and now is , the certified representative of all
employees in said appropriate unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment , and other terms and
conditions of employment.
7. By refusing after February 23, 1968, to furnish
the Union with requested data about the group
insurance plan, including the employees ' marital
status, age, and sex , Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(ax5) and (1) of the Act.
8. By refusing generally since March 7, 1968, to
bargain collectively in good faith with the said labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the said appropriate unit , Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The remaining allegations of the complaint
setting forth acts said to constitute specific instances
of a refusal to bargain [ing] do not constitute
individual violations of Section 8(ax5) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Autotronics, Inc., Joplin , Missouri, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their Union sentiments.
(b) Refusing to furnish International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
information requested for bargaining about the
group insurance plan, including information relating
to the marital status, age, and sex of its employees.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit, which is:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent at its Joplin, Missouri , plant,
excluding office clerical employees , engineering
department employees , professional employees,
guards, combination watchmenjanitors, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above-named
labor organization or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any or all such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section
S(aX13) of the Act, as modified by Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds is necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
(a) Furnish International Union, Allied Industrial
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the requested
information for bargaining about the group
insurance plan , including the marital status, age,
and sex , of its employees.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above -named labor organization as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Post at its plant in Joplin, Missouri , copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 17, shall , after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative , be posted
by it for a period of 60 days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insult that said
notices are pot altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
Except to the extent found herein , the allegations
of the complaint are hereby dismissed.
' In event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order."
AUTOTRONICS, INC. 707
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union sentiments.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish International Union,
Allied Workers of America, AFL-CIO, information
requested for bargaining about insurance , including
information relating to the marital status , age, and sex
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collectively
with International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO , as the exclusive
collective- bargaining representative of our employees in
the appropriate bargaining unit described below, by
failing or refusing to furnish said union, on request, the
data relating to the group insurance plan, or by failing
.or refusing to bargain with said union with respect to
rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other
terms and conditions of employment . The, appropriate
bargaining unit of our employees is as follows:
All production and maintenance employees of
Autotronics, Inc. at its Joplin , Missouri, plant,
excluding office clerical employees , engineering
department employees, professional employees,
guards , combination watchmen-janitors, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your right to
self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist International Union, Allied Industrial Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of your own choosing , or to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL furnish International Union, Allied,
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the
requested information for bargaining about the group
insurance plan, including the marital status , age, and
• 'sex of our employees.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the bargaining unit described above
with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , and, if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
AUTOTRONICS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this Notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 610 Federal
Building , 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: This case comes
before me upon an amended complaint of unfair labor
practices, issued on June 27, 1968, by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , through the
Board ' s Regional Director for Region 17 (Kansas City,
Missouri), against Autotronics , Inc., herein called the
Respondent , based upon a charge filed on March 20, 1968
by International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent from about
February 6, 1968 has failed and refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit , in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 154, herein called the Act, as the
result of which the employees on March 1 went on strike.
The Respondent filed an answer denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice I conducted a hearing'on July 23
and 24, 1968, at Joplin, Missouri, at which 'the parties
were represented by counsel. The" General Counsel and the
Respondent have filed timely briefs.'
Upon the entire record of the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Missouri corporation which
operates a plant in Joplin , Missouri, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of electromagnetic devices and related
products . During the year 1967 Respondent directly sold
and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to
customers located outside the State of Missouri. The
complaint alleges, and Respondent ' s answer admits, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting
employees of Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain'
'Subsequent to the close of the hearing the General Counsel filed a
motion to correct the transcript of testimony with respect to 29
typographical errors , most of them minor . No objection has been made by
the Respondent and the motion is granted.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The appropriate unit and the Union 's certification
therein
On November 29, 1966, the Board certified the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
Respondent 's employees in the following described unit,
approximately 50 in number:
All production and maintenance employees of
Autotronics , Inc., at its Joplin, Missouri, plant
excluding all office clerical employees , engineering
department employees , professional employees , guards,
combination watchmen-janitors, and all supervisory
employees as defined in the Act.
Thereafter on March 1 , 1967, the Union and the
Respondent executed a collective-bargaining covering the
period from March 1, 1967, to March 1 , 1968, and
renewable thereafter subject to a 90 -day notice of
termination or amendment.
2. The bargaining prior to the strike; the strike
On December 28, 1967, the Union advised Respondent
that it wished to negotiate a new contract . The first
bargaining session took place on February 6, 1968 at the
plant, where the Union was represented by Archie
Robbins, its international representative , and a committee
composed of five employees, and the Respondent by Carl
Curry, its personnel manager , and Ray Cassidy,
production manager . It was quickly agreed at this meeting
that the provisions of the current contract concerning
which neither party submitted a proposal should be part
of the new contract.
The General Counsel' s brief concedes , and the record
supports the concession , that during the period from
February 6 to 22 the parties held seven bargaining
sessions , which served to reduce substantially the issues
separating the parties . At an eighth meeting on February
23 Robbins reminded Curry that the Union , and this is
not controverted, had submitted written proposals
covering all the unresolved contract clauses excepting the
three matters of job classifications, wage increase, and
contract duration , and then handed Curry a copy of a
union proposal relating to job classifications . At the same
time Curry handed Robbins an outline of the various
skills and training needed to fill various jobs . Robbins
reminded Curry that time was pressing , since the existing
contract would expire at midnight on February 29.
At the next meeting , on February 27, the parties were
joined by Harry O'Connell, a Federal mediator. The
issues on which agreement had not been reached remained
substantially the same and included most of the
substantial provisions of the contract, including wages, a
wage progression system, job clssification structure,
insurance , nonbargaining unit personnel, and other
provisions. Respondent' s representative , questioned by
Robbins, indicated that Respondent' s position was
"flexible" on most of these issues . Before the close of the
meeting , Respondent submitted to the Union a written
proposal having to do with unit placement of quality
assurance and inspection employees , which, if adopted,
would have resulted in the exclusion of such employees
from the appropriate unit . Robbins asserted that this was
a new issue and that it was late in the day to "throw new
material on the table."
The parties next met during the afternoon of February
29 at 1 p.m. At the start of the meeting Robbins
announced that a meeting of the Union was scheduled for
5 p.m. to permit a vote on the acceptability of the
proposals advanced by the Respondent , and asked
Respondent to prepare an agreement which covered all the
issues still in dispute . Thereupon Curry submitted a
written proposal concerning job classification , establishing
maximum and minimum rates . The Union submitted a
wage increase proposal to Curry of 11 cents an hour. A
recess was taken and when Respondent 's representatives
returned Respondent withdrew its prior proposal
concerning the accumulation of unit seniority , which the
Union had found unsatisfactory, and agreed to retain the
language in the expired contract . The same action was
taken with Respondent's proposal pertaining to the
exclusion of assurance and inspection employees from the
unit . In return , Robbins withdrew the Union ' s proposal on
union membership and accepted the provision in the prior
contract , as well as the provision pertaining to job
classifications . Curry presented Robbins with a copy of
Respondent 's insurance proposal . Robbins protested that
the premium was too high and asked Curry to furnish the
Union with data concerning the marital status, age, and
sex of the employees . Curry promised to procure this
information . No meeting of minds was had on the
nonbargaining unit personnel clause . Respondent then
offered a wage increase of 2 1/2 cents an hour, and an
additional 2 1/2 cents increase each 3 months thereafter
over a 2-year period . Robbins announced he was leaving
for the union meeting and he wanted Respondent's
position on the remaining issues , which were wage
language and wage progression .' Respondent's
representative stated that he could take no position on
these subjects at that time . Robbins stated that this left
him with an incomplete proposed agreement to present to
the union meeting and that he would therefore recommend
that the membership reject it . On leaving the room
Robbins remarked to Respondent's representatives that it
was "a shame" that they did not have "more time" to
negotiate since they were "not too far apart," and
suggested that the Union would agree to extend the
expired agreement for a few days without a strike, if
Respondent would make retroactive to March 1 any wage
increase which might be agreed upon . Respondent's
representatives refused the suggestion.
At the meeting at 5 p . m. the union membership rejected
the proposed agreement and voted a strike which began
the following morning.
CONCLUSIONS
The complaint alleges that the facts above related, as to
which there is a minimum of dispute, taken as a whole
constitute a failure to bargain in good faith with the
Union in contravention of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and
that the strike which began on March 1, 1968, was caused
by this failure and was hence an unfair labor practice
strike.
I cannot agree . It was quickly decided when the parties
first met on February 6 to discuss the renewal of the
contract which was due to expire on March 1 , that the
provisions of the current contract concerning which
neither party submitted a proposal should become part of
the new contract . This removed a good part of the
contract from the area of dispute, although not the
"'Wage language" deals with an employee 's rate of pay upon recall from
layoff or transfer from one classification to another . "Wage progression"
pertains to the method by which he advances in his wage rate within a
classification.
AUTOTRONICS, INC. 709
important issues of wages, job classifications,
nonbargaining unit personnel , and other matters. The
above narration shows that the parties met regularly to
discuss these issues, and that the bargaining which resulted
was more than surface bargaining . Agreement was finally
reached on various disputed matters , although, as has
been noted , this agreement was frequently only to re-enact
provisions of the existing agreement . On the last day prior
to the expiration of the contract Respondent offered a
wage increase of 2 1/2 cents an hour, with an additional
increase in that amount every 3 months thereafter over a
2-year period; offered to accept, with certain
modifications , the Union ' s proposal on nonbargaining unit
personnel , or, in the alternative , the provisions of the
former contract . The Union insisted it was standing by its
submitted proposal.
Upon this record I am unable to conclude that the
Respondent , prior to the strike , failed or refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union . I find to the
contrary that it did so bargain and that the strike which
ensued on March 1 was economic in character and
designed to strengthen the Union ' s bargaining position.
My conclusion that the strike was not caused by any
unfair labor practices by Respondent is strengthened by
the consideration that there is in the complaint no
allegation of any independent act of interference , restraint,
or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, nor
was there any evidence whatever adduced at the hearing of
any such violation, or of any hostility to the Union on the
part of Respondent . In my view the parties did not allow
themselves enough time to compose the differences which
remained between them and the Union was determined
not to continue work without a contract.
3. Bargaining during the strike ; alleged conversion to
an unfair labor practice strike
Bargaining continued without interruption following the
strike , with the first meeting of the parties on March 7.
At a meeting on March 15, Robbins asked Curry if he
would let the striking employees return to work under the
old agreement, pending a new one . Curry refused to
answer the question . Asked by Robbins for a position on
the Union 's proposals concerning wage language and wage
progression , Curry answered that he did not have a
position on these issues, and further that Respondent was
not sure what its future relationship with the Union would
be.
At a meeting on April 1, on the subjects of
nonbargaining unit personnel and a wage progression
system , concerning which the Union had made proposals,
Curry stated that he could not commit Respondent.
Robbins, on behalf of the Union, reduced its wage
increase demand from an immediate 11 cents an hour to 6
cents and an additional 5 cents beginning September 1.
Curry replied that he had no answer at that time, but
would have to consult his superiors.
On April 16 Robbins told Curry he was withdrawing its
previous demand concerning nonbargaining unit personnel
and would accept Responent ' s last offer made the day
prior to the strike to go along with the language in the
expired agreement . Curry replied that he could not agree
to this at the time and would have to do some checking.
Robbins asked Curry Respondent 's position regarding the
Union ' s proposed wage language . Curry repeated
Respondent's position that wage language should be
separated from wage progression system . Thereupon
Robbins submitted a revised written proposal concerning
wage language from which had deleted a reference to a
wage progression system . With reference to Responent's
proposal on group hospitalization insurance , made on
February 29, Curry stated that Respondent could not
agree to it at that time, but would have to do some
checking. At the hearing he testified that a previous
quotation he had received might no longer be valid
because of the lapse of time since obtaining it. Similarly,
Robbins stated the Union' s willingness to accept
Respondent's February 29 offer on the job classification
structure, but Curry refused to sign it, stating that he
would have to do some checking.
On April 24 the parties met again . Curry presented
Respondent's proposals concerning wage progression and
wage language, the former based on merit alone. The
Union disagreed with these proposals and promised to
submit modifications thereof. The same understanding was
reached concerning the nonbargaining unit issue , which is
the time allowed nonunit employees to spend performing
work similar to that done by employees in the unit.
Curry at the April 24 meeting raised the subject of
contract duration, saying that Respondent was agreeable
to a 2-year contract instead of the 1-year period which
was the Union's proposal, and which was the duration of
the previous contract. The Union stated it wished to
consider the contract length together with the issue of a
wage increase. Curry replied by saying that Respondent
was withdrawing its offer made on February 29, the day
before the strike, of a 2 1/2-cent-an-hour wage increase.
Respondent sustituted no other offer of a wage increase.3
At the next meeting, on May 2, the Union presented
,the rewritten proposals it had made , pertaining to wage
language , wage progression , and nonbargaining unit
personnel . Curry, on behalf of Respondent, said he could
not give an answer at that time . Concerning wages,
Robbins said that if Respondent would make a "realistic"
wage offer, he thought that the union membership would
accept the agreement containing Respondent's other
proposals, which had been previously discussed. Curry
promised an answer at the next meeting.
The next meeting was held on May 8. Curry opened by
saying that Respondent was refusing the Union's
proposals of May 2 concerning wage progression, wage
language, and nonbargaining unit personnel . On Robbins'
insistence , however, Respondent signed the Union's
written, signed, proposal concerning wage progression.4 It
also signed the wage language clause , which was
Respondent's own proposal.
Prior to the adjournment of the May 8 meeting,
Robbins pointed out that the Union had by now accepted
virtually all the Respondent's counterproposals on matters
at issue, excepting wages and the duration of the contract,
and demanded proposals on these two matters, and a
recess was taken until that evening.
At the evening meeting, Curry stated that Respondent
would make no offer of a wage increase, thus withdrawing
its previous offer. As to contract duration, its proposal
was that it should be 30 months, instead of the 12-month
period the Union had demanded, and 6 months longer
than Respondent itself had originally indicated it would
accept. Curry stated that this represented Respondent's
final position . At the same time , Curry demanded that
'At the hearing , Curry testified that Respondent could not afford any
wage increase , and that the strike had worsened its financial situation.
'this was the Respondent's own proposal. The only advantage gained by
the Union was that when an employee was refused a merit increase he
should be advised of the reason for the refusal.
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inspection employees be excepted from the already
existing job classifications, and that merit increases were
to be determined solely by Respondent without recourse
to the grievance procedure. When Robbins pointed out
that this raised new issues, Curry replied that the Union
had asked for Respondent's final proposals and this was
it. Curry further advanced for the first time during the
negotiations which had begun the previous February, that
union security and checkoff provisions should be
abolished.
This was the last meeting of the parties in spite of
written requests from the Union on June 17 and 24 and
July 1 that the parties meet and resume negotiations, to
which the Respondent did not reply. Curry testified that it
did not do so because Respondent had "ample" evidence
that the Union did not represent a majority of employees
at that time. No such evidence was adduced.
On May 12 Robbins sent a telegram to Curry advising
him that the Union was terminating the strike as of that
date, and offering unconditionally to return the striking
employees to work. On May 24, Respondent replied that
reinstatement would be accomplished by May 27, with one
employee scheduled to return on June 3. Some employees
were immediately reinstated. No striking employee failed
of reinstatement.
Conclusions
Although I have found that Respondent did not refuse
to bargain in good faith prior to the strike, the same thing
cannot be said of its conduct during the strike. As has
been seen above , Respondent on several occasions
responded to proposals advanced by the Union by refusing
to give any answer to them, at times withdrew its own
previous proposals when the Union agreed to accept them,
and introduced proposals on matters which had not
previously been brought up such as union security
provisions and checkoff of dues, both of which had been
in the previous contract. Finally, after having proposed an
immediate 2 1/2 cent an hour wage raise, with an
additional increase in the same amount every 3 months,
and the Union having accepted this proposal, Respondent
promptly withdrew it. With respect to the length of the
agreement which the Union proposed be for 1 year but
which the Respondent demanded be for 2 years,
Respondent receded even from this position and
demanded a contract for 30 months. When the Union, on
June 17, 24, and July 1 wrote Respondent requesting
further meetings, Respondent failed to reply, and the
negotiations were broken off.
This stiffening of Respondent's bargaining position
after the strike represented an embarkation on a course of
action which step by step drove the Union to an
unconditional surrender. This course of action may have
been due to a misconception of the requirements of the
Act, and the belief that it was exonerated from bargaining
in good faith by the Union's rejection of the incomplete
contract proposals on February 29, and the walkout of the
employees in the unit the following day. Hence Curry,
asked on cross-examination why Respondent on April 16
rejected the Union's acceptance of Respondent's own
previous proposal on job classification, replied: " . . . I
felt that the membership had rejected the total contract, in
effect, cleared the board of those offers at that time."
Whatever Respondent's motivation, I find that
Respondent, beginning with the strike, engaged in
bad-faith bargaining generally in violation of the Act.
4. The refusal to bargain in good faith did not
convert the strike into an unfair labor practice strike
I have found that Respondent failed to bargain in good
faith during the strike, in violation of the Act. But no
evidence whatever was offered that this refusal served to
prolong the strike. The Board has consistently held' that
in the absence of such prolongation an economic strike
does not become converted into an unfair labor practice
strike. This is analogous to a situation prior to a strike
where unfair labor practices, though committed, have no
causal connection with the strike.
5. Further alleged specific instances of failing to
bargain
The complaint alleges that beginning on March 1, the
day the strike began, Respondent unilaterally, without
obtaining agreement from the Union, "conferred
additional benefits upon the employees, consisting of free
lunches , additional coffee break periods, and the
institution of recreational facilities."
The evidence in support of the last assertion consists
solely of the testimony of Jack Hinds and Alfred Owen
who stated that when they returned to work they observed
a ping-pong table and a dart board in the cafeteria which
had not been there prior to the strike. Neither testified,
nor is there any other evidence, that either was in current
use or had been used during the strike. To the contrary,
the credited testimony of Curry is that these "recreational
facilities" belonged to an employee who brought them to
the plant for a St. Patrick's Day celebration on March 17,
and had not yet removed them, and that they lay on a
bench in the lunchroom and had been used only on the
one occasion. ,
The evidence concerning "free lunches," and coffee
breaks rests likewise on the same foundation - that
Hopkins said that free lunches had been supplied the
employees during the strike, and employees had as many
coffee breaks as they wanted. There is no direct evidence
in support of this. The credited testimony of Curry is that
Respondent provided two coffee breaks previous to the
strike, during the strike, and following the strike, and no
more. As to the free lunches, Curry testified credibly that
deliveries of food with which to service the slot machines
in the cafeteria were not delivered across the picket line,
as a result of which Respondent provided food for the
technical and supervisory employees, outside the unit, who
did not go out on strike. There is no evidence as to
whether these employees paid for the food thus consumed.
These particular allegations of refusal to bargain are
unsubstantial and should be dismissed.
Hinds and Owen additionally testified that they were
asked by Hopkins the day after their return to work what
their reaction would be "to a paper going around to get
signatures to take a vote to see if the union would stay in
the plant." The two employees replied that they would not
have anything to do with it. No such paper was circulated
so far as the record shows. I find that this inquiry does
constitute coercive interrogation , as contended, and shall
recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to this
allegation.'
'For example see: Stowe- Woodward, Inc., 123 NLRB 287. The matter
here approaches the academic since no striker was refused reinstatement
upon the Union's request.
'In view of my finding on the above questions I do not consider it
necessary to resolve the question of Hopkins' supervisory capacity.
AUTOTRONICS, INC. 711
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aX5) and
(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent , at its Joplin , Missouri , plant , excluding office
clerical employees , professional employees , engineering
department employees , guards , combination
watchmen janitors, and supervisory employees as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. The said Union has been since November 29, 1966,
and now is, the certified representative of all employees in
said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment and other terms and conditions of
employment.
5. By refusing generally since March 7 , 1968, to
bargain collectively in good faith with the said labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the said appropriate unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)of the Act.
6. The strike which commenced March 1, 1968, was not
caused by any unfair labor practices of Respondent.
7. The refusal to bargain during the strike, which
constituted an unfair labor practice, did not prolong the
strike and convert it into an unfair labor practice strike.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. The remaining allegations of the complaint setting
forth acts said to constitute specific instances of a refusal
to bargain, discussed above , do not constitute individual
violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]