Frontier Homes Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 450 Golden.
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Telephone No. 556-6724, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions
APPENDIX B
TO THE LOCAL 6 EMPLOYEES AT ENCINAL TERMINAL
We have called you together to advise you that an injunction has been issued by
the Federal Court, and tell you what that injunction says and what it means. The
injunction is directed to the union . The injunction instructs the union to do certain
things. The injunction is not directed at you. The injunction does not tell you to do
anything , or not to do anything.
You are, of course, aware that the union placed a picket at Encinal Terminal, and
made it clear to you that it was union policy that you should not handle or work on
Hershey products . The injunction tells the union not to place any more pickets at
Encinal , and not to encourage you to refuse to handle Hershey products Following
the injunction , the union is now telling you that it is withdrawing and taking back any
instructions , or orders , or directions , or solicitations , or requests , which it has made
to you not to handle Hershey products. The union wishes to make it clear that if you
handle Hershey products , you will not be violating any union rules, or instructions, or
advice, and you will not be penalized in any way if you handle Hershey products.
We hope we have made it clear to you that the union policy is now, as required by
the injunction , to keep hands off. This means the union is not even suggesting to you
what you should or should not do on the handling of Hershey products
However, we do want you to understand that if you act on your own, without any
kind of pressure from the union , you have the legal right to refuse to handle Hershey
products. We hope we have made it clear that you have the right, but be sure you
understand that the union is not telling you to handle or not to handle , Hershey
products.
We have stated that you have the right , on your own , to refuse to handle Hershey
products . You may wonder whether, if you refuse to handle these products on your
own, the union will back you up and defend you. The answer is, "We will". We
will take whatever steps are required to back you up if you should decide to refuse to
handle Hershey products.
Because we want to be sure that the union complies with the injunction , and also be
sure that you understand this question clearly, we will repeat our statement once more,
in a different way-
Under the injunction , the union has the duty to undo what it has done. It must
make clear to you that you are not under any kind of union pressure at all to refuse
to handle Hershey products. At the same time, we have the obligation to make it
clear to you that under the injunction , and under the decisions of the Labor Board,
and under the agreement, you have the complete right to refuse to handle these prod-
ucts if your refusal is completely voluntary and is not based upon any pressure from
the union , or fear on your part that you might be penalized.
Frontier Homes Corporation and United Steel Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO . Case No. 17-CA-2361. July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging 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
153 NLRB No. 39.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1071
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision, and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent that they are con-
sistent with the Decision herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (5) by (1) canceling its April 28, 1964, meeting with the Union
because the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge against
it and (2) intentionally disregarding the bargaining representative
in the setting of group incentive rates. We disagree. Since 1957, the
Respondent and the Union have been parties to a collective-bargain-
ing relationship. Their latest contract expired on December 31, 1963.
Between early December and April 29, 1964, the parties held 14 bar-
gaining meetings. After the April 6, 1964, meeting the parties
agreed to meet again on April 28, 1964. The Union, which had orig-
inally filed charges on January 8, and February 11, 1964, filed addi-
tional amended charges on April 22, 1964. Respondent Vice Presi-
dent Zipurski, learning of this action no April 27, called the Federal
mediator, with whose assistance the April 28 meeting had been sched-
uled, and told him that there was not much sense in having the
April 28 meeting until after the May 12 Board hearing and the settle-
ment of the case in the courts. Later that day Zipurski informed the
union representative that Respondent would not negotiate until the
case had been settled in court. The next day Zipurski suggested that
the next meeting be held on May 5, the Union agreed, and the meet-
ing was held on that date. In view of the extensive prior bargaining,
and the Union's agreement to the substitute meeting date, we find,
in the circumstances of this case, that the cancellation of the April 28
meeting does not warrant finding a violation of Section 8 (a) (5).
For approximately 4 years there has been in existence a group in-
centive plan called a production bonus plan. Under this, a labor cost
allowance is set for each type of mobile home model product. The
allowances in effect at the beginning of a contract term are set forth
in the contract. Allowance rates for new models and changes during
the term of the contract are set by Respondent subject to review
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the grievance procedure. During the instant contract negotia-
tions, the Union raised the issue of the operation of the plan. On
December 31, 1963, the contract expired. During the hiatus between
the expiration of the old contract and the Board hearing, Respondent
set and changed the allowance rates on various models without dis-
cussing or consulting with the Union. The Trial Examiner found
that by such conduct Respondent refused to bargain in good faith
with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5). Under the circum-
stances here, we disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions and
find merit in Respondent's contentions that it was not obligated to
notify and bargain with the Union before setting or changing a rate.
For a unilateral action to be violative of Section 8(a) (5) during a
contract hiatus, it must involve a departure from previously estab-
lished operating practices or result in a significant impairment of job
tenure, employment security, or work. opportunities for those in the
bargaining unit.'
In view of the facts that the setting and changing of allowance
rates on various models were motivated solely by economic considera-
tions, did not during the period in question vary significantly in kind
or degree from what had been customary under past established prac-
tice, had no demonstrable adverse impact on employees in the unit,
and that the Union had the opportunity to bargain about changes in
existing practices at the negotiating meetings, we conclude that the
Respondent did not violate its statutory bargaining obligation under
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) by failing to invite union participation in
the allowance rate decisions.
2. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent, by unilaterally
changing its past practice of layoff from strict seniority to ability
after the expiration of the contract, violated Section 8(a) (5), (3),
and (1). Prior to January 3, 1964, Respondent, pursuant to its con-
tract, had maintained a seniority list of line production employees
for the purpose of layoff and recall. On the occasion of general lay-
offs, the Respondent followed a strict numerical seniority policy in
laying off the line production employees. However, the layoff of
January 3, 1964, was made not in accordance with the practice, but
on the basis of ability. Respondent concedes that this action was a
deviation from past practice but contends that it is not a change in
working conditions because the contract granted the right to use
ability as a criterion, with seniority prevailing only when ability was
substantially equal. However, whatever meaning this clause might
have in the abstract need not be considered by us. Here, the Re-
spondent has consistently interpreted and administered this clause to
mean that strict seniority and only strict seniority will govern in lay-
offs. Here, there was significant departure from past practice and
1Westinghouse Electric Corporation ( Mansfield Plant ), 150 NLRB 1574.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1073
a significant impact on unit employees. We therefore agree with the
Trial Examiner that the unilateral change in the system of layoff
constituted a refusal to bargain in good faith. To remedy that con-
duct, we shall order that the Respondent make whole the 22 em-
ployees who were laid off as a result of the change in layoff policy 2
The Trial Examiner also found that the above conduct violated
Section 8(a) (3). To support his finding that Respondent was dis-
criminatorily motivated in changing the system of layoff, the Trial
Examiner stated that he was convinced that the layoff as handled
was in retribution for the employees' support of the Union's contract
position and was meant to undermine the Union in the eyes of the
employees. Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that
the selection of employees for layoff on the basis of ability was de-
signed to punish employees for their support of the Union, we can-
not share the Trial Examiner's conviction. So far as Section 8(a) (3)
is concerned, the Employer may adopt any system of seniority it
desires so long as that system of seniority does not encourage or dis-
courage union membership through discrimination. Therefore, we
believe that facts adduced by the General Counsel and relied upon
by the Trial Examiner, viewed separately or considered as a whole,
are insufficient to warrant the finding that the General Counsel has
sustained the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent discriminatorily changed its system of layoff. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the Section 8(a) (3) violation.
3. On May 11, 1964, Davidson, now vice president of the Respond-
ent, was informed by employee Doyle Ramer that he might attend
the Board hearing the next day. Davidson told Ramer that he could
not see any sense in everyone going to the hearing. Later that day
Davidson was informed that the members of the bargaining com-
mittee were planning to be at the hearing. Davidson then checked
with Vice President Zipurski who in turn inquired of Respondent's
attorney whether it was necessary to excuse the committee from work
to attend the hearing. Davidson was advised that the committee
need not be excused from work unless they were still under subpena
to testify. Davidson then called four members of the union commit-
tee into his office and informed them that they were to report to work
the next day or be disciplined. On the evening of May 11, Zipurski
informed Davidson that the union committee was still under subpena
2 Our dissenting colleague , unlike the parties themselves , gives literal effect to the words
of the cont.- t, and therefore , while conceding that there was a significant change in the
way the layoff was effectuated , finds no violation . We cannot agree. Where in fact, as
here, a practice has developed , that practice is, in substance , a change in the contract
Drovisions , and a change in practice is a change in the terms and conditions of employment.
It is not excused by arguing that an expired contract , had it been followed , would have
justified the actii,n. Where the parties themselves did not enforce the contract literally
during its term, we see no basis for resort to the parol evidence rule to justify literal
adherence to the contract after expiration.
796-027-66-vol. 15 3-6 9
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that they were to be at the hearing. Davidson then called Bob
Allen, a union officer, and advised him that the whole committee was
excused from work. The Trial Examiner found that Davidson's con-
duct, recited above, violated Section 8(a) (1) as an attempt to dis-
suade union witnesses from testifying at the May 12 hearing. Al-
though Respondent may have overstepped the bounds of permissible
conduct, we do not believe its conduct, viewed in total context, is
sufficiently serious to justify a remedial order. Accordingly, contrary
to the Trial Examiner, we shall dismiss the Section S(a) (1) viola-
tion based thereon.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, Frontier Homes Corporation,
Falls City, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified :
1. Delete subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c)
of paragraph 2 thereof.
2. Substitute the following for what is now subparagraph (d) of
paragraph 2:
(c) Make the employees listed below whole for any loss of earnings
each may have suffered by reason of the unilateral changes in the sys-
tem of layoffs, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to the amount he would have earned from the date of layoff to the date
of recall to work, less earnings during said period, to be computed on
a quarterly basis in a manner established by the Board in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and including the payment of interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to be computed in the manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing c6 Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716:
James Goodloe Donald Masonbrink Gary Coulter
Gary Kirkendall Charles Fouraker Henry Kessler
Sylvester Weber Charles Grady Harlan Russell
Irvin Hunker Gary Feldmann Jack Thomason
Walter Schuetz Morris Grady Steve Hoover
Luddie Thomas Clinton Paul Ernest Carpenter
Charlie Anno
3. Renumber the other subparagraphs accordingly.
8 While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the microscopic examination of every
statement made during a bargaining session can distort the total picture of such negotia-
tions, we do not believe , as our colleague implies, that an employer, with impunity, may
restrain, coerce, intimidate , or threaten members of the union 's negotiating committee or
employees represented by them during a negotiating session. The Coachman's Inn, 147
NLRB 270.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1075
4. Substitute for the fourth indented paragraph of the notice
appended to the Trial Examiner's Decision the following :
AVE WILL make whole the employees listed below for any loss of
earnings each may have suffered by reason of the unilateral change
in the system of layoffs.
5. Delete the third and sixth indented paragraphs of the notice.
6. The telephone number for Region 17, given below the signature
line at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, is amended to read : Telephone No. 221-2732.
CHAIRISIAN MCCULLOCH, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues except in their adoption of the Trial
Examiner's findings that Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (1)
by telling the "Ohio Match" story and by remarking that if a contract
had been signed there would not have been this trouble, and Section
8 (a) (5) by laying off employees on the basis of ability rather than of
strict seniority.
Respondent has been bargaining with the Union since 1957. The
last collective-bargaining contract preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint expired on December 31, 1963. In December the parties began
negotiations for a new collective-bargaining contract. At a bargaining
session held about December 26, one of Respondent's negotiators told
the "Ohio Match" story which is set out verbatim in the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. At another session held on January 11, 1964, Respond-
ent and the Union presented different seniority proposals. The Union
also protested the manner of layoffs made a week earlier; Respondent
justified its selections. Respondent's negotiator then remarked, accord-
ing to the finding of the Trial Examiner, "that if a contract had been
signed that there would not have been this trouble." The Trial Exam-
iner found that the telling of the "Ohio Match" story "constituted a
threat to the employees that if they freely exercised their union or con-
certed rights that they were endangering their continued employment,"
and that the remarks at the January 11 meeting considered in context
"again reminded the employees of this threat of reprisal as illustrated
by the Ohio Match story." It seems to me that the Trial Examiner
discovered "veiled threats or sinister ambiguities by placing a strained
interpretation on the employer's remarks 4
When an employer and a union have been dealing amicably with one
another for a number of years, as in this case, much more is necessary to
coerce the union representatives than this "Ohio Match" story told
during a negotiating session. There is an advantage to collective bar-
gaining in permitting a wider latitude of expression in bargaining
negotiations than might be tolerated in a campaign for organization
4130k, "The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections Under the
National Labor Relations Act," 78 Harv. L. Rev. 38, 77 (1964).
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a plant's employees. Examining every statement made during such
negotiations under a microscope for possible coercive impact can only
serve to undermine and seriously impair the collective-bargaining proc-
ess. For related reasons many experienced students of labor relations
oppose having a transcript made of what is said at such negotiations.5
Accordingly, I would not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the
telling of the "Ohio Match" story was violative of Section 8(a) (1).
There is even less reason for finding Respondent's "trouble" remark
at the January 11 meeting coercive. It seems to me to be no more than
an expression of opinion privileged by Section 8(c).
As to the seniority issue, it is to be noted that seniority arises only out
of contract or statute; an employee has no inherent right to seniority.6
Contract seniority rights survive the expiration of the collective-bar-
gaining contract which has created them until negotiated out or other-
wise lawfully altered following a bargaining impasse.?
The collective-bargaining contract which expired on December 31,
1963, contained the following seniority clause :
The Company shall observe seniority principles in all cases of lay-
off, re-employment, promotion and filling of vacancies or new jobs,
ability being substantially equal, seniority shall prevail.
There is no ambiguity in this clause. It plainly means that seniority
shall prevail in layoff, and other personnel action referred to in the
clause, only when ability is equal." Under these circumstances, extra-
neous evidence is not admissible to vary the clear meaning of the
words.9 It is true that until January 3, 1964, Respondent applied strict
principles of seniority in layoffs, but this was because it had not prior
thereto developed an employee merit rating system. I do not think an
intent to rescind the "ability" criterion may reasonably be inferred
from the fact that the Respondent, before development of a merit rat-
ing system, had without objection from the Union utilized the only
other objective criterion allowable under the contract that was prac-
tically available to it."'
Accordingly, I would find in this case that the current seniority
clause was not ambiguous, that Respondent's earlier practice in making
layoffs on a strict seniority basis did not constitute a mutual rescission
6 See St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, affiliated with International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO (Union Employers' Section of the Graphic Arts Association of St. Louis,
Inc), 149 NLRB 750; Reed & Prince Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 850, enfd. 205
F. 2d 131, cert. denied 346 U.S. 887.
9 Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U.S. 40, 53; Fagan v. Penn. R R., 173 F. Supp. 465
(D.C.M.D. Penn.).
7Bethlehem Steel Company (Shipbuilding Division), 136 NLRB 1500, 1503, enfd sub
nom. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO v.
N.L.R B., on this issue 320 F. 2d 615 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 375 U S. 984.
8 See Combustion Engineering, Inc., 34 LA 301 ; San Francisco News-Call Bulletin, 34
LA 271, Unit Rig & Equipment Co., 31 LA 42.
6 Williston on Contracts § 631 (3d ed. 1964).
10 See Williston on Contracts § 1826 (rev. ed. 1938).
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1077
of the contract provisions relating to reductions in force, and that in
following the contract system in making layoffs shortly after the ter-
mination date of the contract, Respondent acted lawfully.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on January 8 and February 11, 1964, respectively, by United
Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the Union or Charging
Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director of Region 8 (Kansas City, Missouri), issued his complaint dated Febru-
ary 20, 1964, against Frontier Homes Corporation, herein sometimes called the
Respondent or Employer. Respondent's answer (dated February 27, 1964) admitted
some of the facts alleged in the aforedescribed complaint but denied other facts and
denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing in this matter was held before Trial
Examiner Jerry B. Stone on March 26 and 27 and May 12, 1964. All parties were
represented at and participated in the hearing and were afforded the right to present
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral arguments, and to file
briefs. During the hearing with respect to the original charge, I allowed the General
Counsel to amend the complaint to add to and to delete from the complaint certain
allegations. Additional amended charges filed by the Charging Party on April 22
and 28, 1964, were received into the record, and amendments to the complaint were
allowed thereon as well as amendments to the answer thereto. At the hearing I
granted a motion to dismiss that part of the Respondent's answer which alleged that
that Charging Party had filed the charges upon which the complaint was based for the
purpose of coercing and harassing the Respondent into the unqualified acceptance of
the Union's contract proposals.
The issues concern whether Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (5)
of the Act.
Briefs from the General Counsel and the Respondent have been received and
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Recommended Order are made.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The facts pertaining to the business of the Employer are based upon the pleadings
and the admissions therein.
Frontier Homes Corporation is now, and at all times material herein has been, a
corporation with its principal place of business (herein called the plant) at Falls
City, Nebraska, where it is engaged in the manufacture of housetrailers. In the
course and conduct of its business, the Respondent annually ships goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of Nebraska, and annually
purchases goods, material, and/or supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
sources outside the State of Nebraska. As conceded by the Respondent, it is found
and concluded that the Respondent is now, and at all times material herein has been,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Based upon the pleadings and admissions therein, it is found and concluded that
United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is now, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues are (1) whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
making threats of reprisal and discharge to its employees, (2) whether Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by deviating from its seniority policy in its
'All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite evaluation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effectuation of a layoff in order to force the Union to accept Respondent's collective-
bargaining terms, and (3) whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by laying off employees without notice to and consultation with the Union, by
deviating from its seniority policy in the referred to layoff, by providing for different
allowance rates for production items in its productivity sharing plan for line produc-
tion employees, and by discussing bonus calculations directly with individual employ-
ees, and whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to
furnish information relevant to the productivity sharing plan discussions and by
refusing to meet with the Union for the purpose of negotiations.
Introduction and Background
The facts relating to Respondent's commencement of operations and to its collective-
bargaining relationship with the Union are based upon a composite of Zipurski's and
Graham's credited testimony and the pleadings and admissions therein.
The Respondent commenced operations at its Falls City plant in January 1957.
Thereafter, following the usual proceedings under Section 9(c) of the Act, the Union
was certified on July 31, 1957, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all the employees in a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The described appropriate unit of Respond-
ent's employees is- All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Falls
City, Nebraska, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. It is concluded and found that the above-described appropriate
bargaining unit is a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
Ever since the certification the Union has been and still is the duly certified
collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. It is so concluded
and found. The Respondent recognized the Union as the bargaining agent for its
employees and entered into contractual agreement with the Union on November 11,
1957. The Respondent and the Union continued their bargaining relationship with
subsequent contracts. The most recent bargaining contract between the Respondent
and the Union was one which commenced on January 1, 1962, and expired on Decem-
ber 31, 1963.
Past Layoff Policy and Practice 2
Prior to January 1964 the Respondent for the purpose of layoff and recall of
employees had maintained a seniority list for line production employees On the
occasions of general layoffs for line production employees the Respondent followed a
strict numerical seniority policy in laying off line production employees.
Gary Kirkendall credibly testified that there were times when layoffs were dis-
cussed with the employees, that specifically he recalled a discussion of the July 3,
1963, layoff with the union committee At that time, Davidson, 1 week prior to the
layoff, called the employees' union committee into the office and notified them of
the layoff and that the selection of employees for layoff would be on a strict numerical
seniority basis. The union committee raised no objection to the announced layoff.
Practically simultaneous with the commencement of the meeting with the union com-
mittee to discuss the July 3, 1963, layoff, Davidson instructed his secretary to post
the notice of the layoff which was done.
October-December 1963 Bargaining Arrangements and Sessions 3
The collective-bargaining agreement of the parties in existence was one effective
from January 1, 1962, to December 31, 1963 The agreement provided for automatic
2 Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Davidson, Zipurski, Gary Kirken-
dall, Morris Grady, and Robert Allen Davidson's and Zipurski's testimony at first seemed
directed to establishing that there were exceptions to the use of a strict numerical seniority
policy as to layoff As to Davidson's testimony to the effect that a "drapery girl" incident
was an exception, both Davidson's and Zipurski's testimony revealed that the drapery
department had a separate seniority plan. As to Zipurski's testimony relating to a "press
break" man incident as an exception, further testimony revealed that an employee who
claimed the job by virtue of strict seniority would have had the job except for inability to
perform the job
3 The facts relating to the late 1963 bargaining arrangements and sessions are based
upon a composite of the exhibits and the credited testimony of Davidson, Zipurski,
Graham, Piper, Gary Kirkendall, and 'Morris Grady.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1079
renewal unless proper notice was made by one or both of the parties of an intent to
terminate or modify the agreement. In October 1963 the parties timely notified each
other of an intent to amend the bargaining contract. The Union's letter of intent to
modify the contract requested Respondent to propose suitable dates for bargaining
meetings. There was no reply by the Respondent to this letter by November 14,
1963, and the Union on November 14, 1963, by letter reminded the Respondent of
the Union's request for meetings. The Respondent replied to the Union, by letter of
November 19, 1963, suggesting available dates of December 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1963, and
set forth that the Union might be able to meet with the Respondent on one or two
dates during the 4-day period. The Union replied by letter of November 22, 1963,
that December 2 and 3, 1963, were satisfactory dates and that the Union could be
available for additional meetings on December 4 and 5, 1963, if necessary. The
Respondent replied to the Union by letter of November 25, 1963, that it could only
meet on December 2 and 3, 1963.
The parties held a number of bargaining sessions in December 1963. At the
December 3, 1963, bargaining session, Respondent Plant Manager Davidson stated
to the assembled bargaining representatives of the parties 4 that if a contract was
not agreed to by December 31, 1963, that there would not be a contract. Union
Representative Graham pointed out that this was contrary to the past practice of
extending the existing contract on a day-by-day and week-by-week basis. Again
around December 27, 1963, Respondent Plant Manager Davidson stated at a bar-
gaining session that the contract had to be agreed to in its entirety, that, if not, the
current contract would expire on December 31, 1963, and there would be no contract.
Union Representative Piper asked Respondent Vice President Zipurski "if that was
his position" and Zipurski replied that Davidson had stated it quite well.
During the bargaining sessions in December 1963 the parties discussed seniority
clauses. Initially, around December 6, 1963, the Respondent contended for seniority
clauses providing for the maintaining of three seniority lists (one for production
employees, one for furniture employees, and one for sewing employees). The Union
contended for a continuation of the manner in which seniority was being maintained.
The Respondent also contended for a change in the time required for posting of
notice of layoffs and for bidding on jobs. On December 27, 1963, the parties were
in agreement as to the seniority provisions for the new contract. During the Decem-
ber 1963 bargaining sessions there were no contentions by either party that the con-
tract provision providing ". . . the Company shall observe seniority principles and
in all cases of layoff, reemployment, promotion and filling of vacancies on new jobs,
ability being substantially equal, seniority shall prevail . . ." should be changed nor
that the manner of company implementation and interpretation of said clause be
altered.
At the bargaining meeting prior to December 19, 1963, the parties had discussed
the contract clause in the existing contract requiring the Respondent, after work was
curtailed from a normal to a short workweek for 2 weeks, to discuss a layoff with
the Union. The Union contended that the Respondent had not abided by this con-
tract provision. On December 19 or 20, at one of the bargaining sessions, and at a
time that layoff discussions as aforesaid were being discussed, Respondent Plant
Manager Davidson stated in effect that business looked good and that there would be
no foreseeable layoffs in the future.
Around December 26, 1963, at one of the bargaining sessions, Plant Manager
Davidson told the bargaining group of a story about the selling of a plant by Ohio
Match Company. Davidson's story is revealed in part by the following excerpts
from his credited testimony.°
A. All right. I told the committee a story about the Ohio Match that I had
heard that involved the lumber division at Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, and I told them
how the lumber division had had a background of labor trouble, a six months'
strike. It was quite a different contrast to what we had experienced at Ohio
Match where we had a mature relationship and where we used to negotiate a
contract in three or four days, but at Idaho, where I wasn't working or had any
4Included among members of the union bargaining committee were employees of the
Respondent.
6 Graham and Piper credibly testified to substantially the same effect as did Davidson
Their testimony revealed certain additional statements by Davidson as to the significance
of the story.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contact, I had understood that they had sold the company to a competitor and
the plant was shut down for a little better than 30 days, and following the shut-
down, the plant was reopened by the competitor, and it was my understanding
that they hired in employees who were less obsteperous, was the information I
had on it.
This discussion was in a context, and the context was the desirability of
Frontier at Falls City to try to develop the same type of mature relationship
we had at Ohio Match, as opposed to some of these other instances that had
been occurring in other industries in other plants, the need for us to try to get
together and work in harmony.6
Davidson told the group that the Ohio Match incident could happen here and
that he would not want to get in that position.
Union Representative Graham told Davidson in effect that the story was interest-
ing, that he would like to discuss it further as he (Graham) thought some Federal
agencies might be interested in this type of procedure. Davidson replied that it
happened but he did not know that he could prove it.
Considering the foregoing, Davidson's telling of the Ohio Match story constituted
a threat to the employees that if they freely exercised their union or concerted rights
that they were endangering their continued employment. Such a threat constitutes
Respondent's conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so conclude and
find.
During some of the December 1963 bargaining sessions the parties discussed labor
costs. In connection with such discussions the parties discussed the quality of
employees' work and the rating of employees by the supervisors. There were
instances wherein Davidson pointed out areas of apparent criticism of some of the
employee members of the bargaining committee but such apparent criticism was
coupled with general praise of the same employees. The discussion of employees'
work quality and of employee ratings was not in the context of the discussion per-
taining to the seniority clause or layoffs.
The January 3, 1964, Layoff 7 Deviation From Past Layoff Selection Policy
Sometime between December 20, 1963, and January 2, 1964, the Respondent's out-
look as to prospective job orders changed. The Respondent decided that its job or-
ders were not sufficient to maintain full production by its employees. On January 2,
1964, Plant Manager Davidson went to Omaha, Nebraska, and conferred with
Vice President Zipurski. Davidson and Zipurski discussed whether to have short
workweeks or to have a layoff. Davidson contended that employee morale would
be better if a layoff were used instead of short workweeks. Davidson and Zipurski
decided thereupon to have a layoff on January 3, 1964. Davidson contended that
the selection of employees for layoff should be on the basis of ability rather than
on the basis of strict seniority as in the past and was instructed to select the employ-
ees for layoff on the basis of ability.8 Davidson thereupon returned to Falls City,
0In view of the testimony as a whole and the story told by Davidson, Davidson's testi-
mony reveals that the harmony desired was bargaining on his terms.
7 Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Gary Kirkendall, Davidson,
Pipurski, Pearson, Golts, and Milford Kirkendall.
8I do not credit Zipurski's testimony to the effect that he and Davidson discussed labor
cost as affected by the quality of the individual employee's efficiency or interchange on
jobs, nor to the effect that he instructed Davidson to lay off on the basis of seniority but
giving attention to ability. I discerned a lack of candidness and forthrightness in
Zipurski's demeanor as he testified concerning his discussion with Davidson. Additionally,
his testimony in this regard was vascillating and unreliable and elicited by suggestive
leading questions at times. Davidson testified to the effect that the layoff as was could
have been in accordance with the contract. The issue herein is what was the basis of
selection-not what it could have been I am convinced that had Zipurski instructed
Davidson to follow the seniority clause that Davidson would have so instructed his fore-
men. The foremen testified that Davidson did not use the word "seniority" in his in-
structions relating to selection. Nor did Davidson's testimony aver to the term "seniority"
as being used. Similarly it is noted that in December 1963, although quality of work,
employee ratings, and labor costs were discussed, the aforementioned items were not dis-
cussed in connection with proposed changes relating to layoffs and seniority provisions.
Accepting Zipurski's testimony to the effect that employees earned higher bonuses under
the productivity sharing plan after the January 3, 1964, layoff, I am not persuaded that
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1081
Nebraska , and on January 3, 1964 , called the foremen over the production employ-
ees into his office. Davidson instructed the foremen to select the employees for
layoff by considering the abilities of the various employees . The foremen involved
thereupon considered the abilities of the employees involved and based upon such
consideration selected the employees for layoff. Davidson thereafter posted on
January 3 , 1964 , a notice of layoff. The notice of layoff included the list of the
employees selected by the foremen for layoff.
As indicated on January 3, 1964, Respondent Plant Manager Davidson caused to
be posted a notice of layoff which set forth that 26 named employees would be laid
off starting at 3:30 p.m. (January 3, 1964 ) for an indefinite period. It is undisputed
that the January 3, 1964, layoff was not discussed with the Union or its employee
committee prior to the posting of the notice of layoff. Nor does the evidence reveal
that the layoff was discussed with the Union or its employee committee at or about
the time of the posting of the layoff notice or prior to the time that the layoff actu-
ally affected the employment of the employees involved. Union Representative
Piper, at sometime between January 3 and 11, 1964, telephoned Plant Manager
Davidson and tried to submit a grievance concerning the January 3, 1964, layoff.
Davidson rejected the referred -to grievance . Later on the same day, employee Mor-
ris Grady attempted to file with Plant Manager Davidson a written grievance on the
January 3, 1964, layoff . Davidson rejected Grady 's written grievance.
As indicated herein the employees selected for layoff were selected on a basis of
ability and work performance . The selection of employees resulted in 20 employees
(of the 26 ) being laid off who would not have been laid off had the selection for
layoff been made on a strict seniority basis. Doyle Ramer, 1 of the 20 employees,
was notified to report to work at noon on the first workday thereafter but was paid
for a full workday.
Considering all the foregoing and all the evidence in this case , and particularly
(1) the fact that during the December 1963 bargaining sessions that Davidson in
the telling of the "Ohio Match" story had threatened employees with reprisals
designed to weaken their support of the Union , ( 2) that the negotiations concerning
seniority provisions had not related to changing the policy respecting selection of
employees for layoff, ( 3) Davidson 's December 1963 statement of no foreseeable lay-
off, and ( 4) Davidson 's statement that there would be no contract after December 31,
1963, unless a new contract was agreed to, I am convinced that Respondent knew
that the employees would believe that the January 3 , 1964, layoff as handled was
in retribution for their support of the Union 's contract positions and to impair their
feeling of secureness in believing that layoffs would be handled on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis . I am also convinced that the Respondent knew that the employees would
realize that the Respondent was acting with disregard of the Union because a con-
tract had not been agreed to. Under such circumstances , Respondent 's conduct in
the manner it implemented the January 3, 1964, layoff discriminatorily affected the
employment of James Goodloe , Gary Kirkendall , Doyle Ramer, Sylvester Weber,
Irvin Hunker , Walter Schuetz , Luddie Thomas, Charles Anno, Donald Masonbrink,
Charles Fouraker , Charles Grady, Gary Feldmann , Morris Grady , Steve Hoover,
Clinton Paul, Ernest Carpenter , Gary Coulter , Henry Kessler, Harlan Russell, and
Jack Thomason , and was violative of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act. This
unilateral change in employment conditions constituted a refusal to bargain in good
sufficient information has been supplied to reveal that the bonuses were the result of
increased work efficiency . The very allowance rate set by the Company affects materially
the possibilities of earning bonuses. The change from an allowance rate of $310 per
item to $320 per item , as reflected for the work of the week of January 19, 1964 , resulted
in an increase from approximately a 14-cent-an -hour bonus to a 19-cent -an-hour bonus.
The increase in bonuses earned could result from the setting of generous allowance rates
(see the section herein dealing with the productivity sharing plan and the method of
computing bonuses), the scheduling of production of the same type item , and from many
other factors . I do not find that the testimony is persuasive to reveal that in fact there
was increased efficiency . Additionally during some of the time after January 3, 1964,
and when bonuses were earned , many of the employees involved in the layoff had been
recalled . Nor in connection with the foregoing do I find merit in Respondent ' s conten-
tions that the selection of the employees based on ability was on economic reasons or in
line with the expired contract ' s contractual provision . It is completely unpersuasive
that if there were substantial differences in ability that Respondent , with the contractual
provision relating to seniority and ability , would have laid off employees on a strict
numerical seniority basis in the past, which it had done.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
faith with the Union as to such employment conditions . Thus Respondent 's conduct
in the January 3, 1964, layoff constituted conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1), (3),
and (5) of the Act .9
Davidson's Conversation with Charles Grady on January 4, 1964
On January 4, 1964, employee Charles Grady returned to the plant to check in
some handtools . What transpired is best revealed by the following excerpts from
Davidson 's credited testimony: 10
A. Charles Grady came in and wanted to check in some tools and he didn't
find anybody to check them in with , and I told him he could give them to me, I
would make sure that the tool costs weren 't deducted from his check . I would
see to it it was taken care of. And we got to talking about the contract and he
said, "We pretty near had a contract but not now."
A. Yes. He said to me, "We pretty near had a contract but not now," and I
said , "How close were we," and he said , "If the company would have seen their
way clear on five cents , I think we could have wrapped it up." I said, "Charley,
if that was the case , we might as well have been ten miles apart With our
base rates at $1.351/2, the base rates at Champion , we might as well have been
ten miles apart , because there was no nickel in the picture at all "
Q. Did you tell him , "I told you you would suffer if you didn 't sign a contract?
A. No, but he did ask me why he was selected for layoff and-
Q. (Interrupting ) What did you answer him?
A. I told him, "Charley, frankly, you are talking to other employees too
much." Then I mentioned the specific instances when he was over in the metal-
forming shooting the bull and getting everybody talking about a queer or some-
thing....
The Events of January 11, 196411
The parties had a bargaining session on January 11, 1964. At the beginning of
the meeting the Respondent presented a proposal which defined seniority in an
° See Body 4 Tank Corp, 144 NLRB 1414; The Radio Officers' Union of the Commei cial
Telegraphers Union, AFL (A. H Bull Steamship Company) v. N L R B, 347 U S. 17;
Movie Star Inc, et at., 145 NLRB 319; and N L R.B v. Benno Katz, etc, d/b/a Williams-
burg Steel Products Co., 369 U S. 736. It will be recommended that all employees dis-
criminatorily affected by the layoff be made whole for loss of earnings except Ramer.
Testimony reveals that Ramer was paid for all time lost at work. The other incidents
of Respondent's conduct found later violative herein also reveal that Respondent through-
out the time involved did not approach bargaining with an open mind but in fact in bad
faith attempted to restrict and hamper the Union in its negotiating of material contractual
issues. Zipurskl's testimony as to why he had not given the Union the bonus calculation
sheets as promised is revealing . Zipurski testified that he had not given the calculation
sheets because the parties were still in negotiations.
10I do not credit Grady's testimony to the effect that Davidson had told him, "See,
Charlie, I warned you if you would have signed . . . "I told you if you didn't sign
this contract by the first of the year you would suffer " This testimony of Grady's
would be consistent with the facts of the Respondent's discriminatory action of January 3,
1964. However, Grady's testimony also revealed that he asked why he was laid off and
was told in effect that he was selected because he talked too much while working Grady's
testimony revealed that specific reasons were given for the other employees laid off.
From observing Grady while testifying I am convinced that his recollection was not
accurate and that he has testified to his own impression of the meaning of the events
11 Based on a composite of the credited testimony of Graham, Piper, Grady, Whitten,
Allen, Gary Kirkendall , Davidson, and Zipurski . I do not credit Morris Grady's and
Allen's testimony to the effect that Davidson stated that if the contract had been signed
that there would not have been this trouble and there would not have been a layoff in
that manner. Davidson denied the reference to layoff. It is unlikely that Davidson
would be so open about the layoff 2 days after the filing of the Union ' s unfair labor
practice charge concerning the layoff. On the other hand Davidson on May 11, 1964,
practically admitted that the Respondent had refused to furnish relevant bargaining in-
formation . Kirkendall 's (an employee who was president of the local union and a mem-
ber of the bargaining committee ) appearance as a witness and demeanor while testifying
was much more impressive than the other witnesses as to whether Davidson used the
word layoff or not in connection with his statement above not having trouble if the con-
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1083
explicit way as being largely based upon ability of the employees. Piper, of the
Union, told the Company that the Union could not accept this proposal. In this
session Piper, for the Union, protested the January 3, 1964, layoffs as to the manner
of selection of employees for layoff and demanded that the laid-off employees be
returned to work and made whole for loss wages. Zipurski, for the Respondent,
stated that he thought the Respondent was right in its manner of selection of employ-
ees for layoff and that the Respondent would not go through the reshuffling job that
would be necessary if it complied with the Union's request. Davidson made a state-
ment to the effect that if a contract had been signed that there would not have been
this trouble.
Considering the above incident in context with the December events set forth
herein and the January 3, 1964, layoff, Davidson by inference again reminded the
employees of this threat of reprisal as illustrated by his "Ohio Match" story. This
conduct of Davidson constituted Respondent's conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
Productivity Sharing Plan 12 Changing and Setting of Allowance Rates
For approximately 4 years the Respondent has operated with a production bonus
plan. Under the plan a labor cost allowance is placed upon each type of mobile
home model product. Weekly direct production labor costs are subtracted from
total allowance. To the extent that direct production labor costs are less than the
set allowance there is what may be described as a bonus under the plan. Total
production hours of the employees is divided into the referred-to bonus figure in
order to obtain the employees hourly bonus rate.
At the beginning of a collective-bargaining contract term the various allowance
rates under the plan are set forth in the collective-bargaining contract. During the
term of the 1962-63 bargaining contract there were many additions and deletions
of the types of model homes produced by the Respondent. Allowance rates for the
new models and changes thereto were set by the Respondent and were subject, accord-
ing to the collective-bargaining contract, to review under the grievance procedure.
No grievances pertaining to the allowance rates were filed by the Union during the
1962-63 contract term.
At the first bargaining session (December 2, 1963), the Union proposed that the
productivity sharing plan be discussed fully so that the Union could understand the
plan and how it was figured. The Union also proposed that at the end of each week
of,production that a breakdown on how the production bonus was figured be given
to the president of the Union. Plant Manager Davidson told the union committee
that the Respondent was planning on doing as suggested but that the Respondent
intended to call in three different employees each week and discuss the bonus com-
putation with the employees. Union Representative Piper told Davidson that he had
better not do that, that he had better give the computations to the president of the
Union or the union committee.
On December 27, 1963, as part of its contract proposals, the Respondent showed,
but did not give, the Union a proposed contract including the allowance rates for the
various models in existence. Among the allowance rates were the rates for Villager
models which had been initiated in November 1963. The allowance rate for Vil-
lager Model 50-2 in the December 27, 1963, contract proposal was $310. At the
December 27, 1963, bargaining sessions the parties discussed in brief and rapid
fashion the productivity sharing plan in general and the various model allowance
rates excepting that there was more detailed discussion of the furniture rates. At
this session Union Representative Piper asked how the bonus was figured and Vice
President Zipurski told Piper that he would give him a copy of a calculation sheet
(one that Zipurski then had) for the union files. Zipurski did not give a copy of the
calculation sheet to the Union at that time and testified that he has not given a copy
of the calculation sheet to the Union since that time "because we are still in nego-
tiation." Around January 15, 1964, without prior consultation with the Union, the
tract had been signed . Kirkendall's credited testimony reveals that the word layoff was
not actually used. I do not credit or believe Davidson 's self-serving statement that by
"trouble" he was referring to the presence of the Federal mediator . I am convinced
from all the evidence that Davidson meant by the word "trouble" to refer to the layoff.
Grady's and Allen's erroneous understanding that the word "layoff" was used is under-
standable. The events are such that logically one would assume that reference to the
layoffs was intended.
12 Based upon a composite of exhibits and the credited testimony of Zipurski , Davidson,
Piper, Graham , Georges, Kirkendall , and Whitten.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent changed the allowance rate on the Villager Model 50-2 to $320 because
there had been a small change in the model and in the selling price.
Sometime between December 27, 1963, and February 11, 1964, the Respondent
added a new model house-48(ft ) with an allowance rate of $577. Between Febru-
ary 11, 1964, and February 20, 1964, Respondent changed a house model 54(ft.) to
house model 56(ft.) and apparently sometime after February 20 and prior to
March 27, 1964, the Respondent added a new model Villager-58 feet. The Re-
spondent set the allowance rate on the new models and changes without having
discussed or consulted with the Union prior thereto.
Vice President Zipurski had managed Respondent's plant at Falls City, Nebraska,
from February to June 1963. During this time he designed a bonus calculation sheet
that was used by Respondent for such calculations for sometime thereafter, and
initiated a plan of calling three employees (different employees on different occa-
sions ) into the office and showing the employees the bonus calculation sheets and
the manner in which the production bonus was calculated. On such occasions, for
six or eight times between February and June 1963, the calculation sheets were posted.
During this time plant production was such that there was an earned bonus on five
occasions. Zipurski also had posted the bonus calculation sheets on occasion when
bonuses were not earned. In all, as indicated, Zipurski had the bonus calculation
sheets posted six or eight times.
On most of the referred-to six or eight occasions in which Zipurski had the bonus
calculation sheets posted, Zipurski had called in three employees from different parts
of the plant and had shown and explained the bonus calculation sheets to the three
employees.13
At the time that Davidson became plant manager, Zipurski explained his plan of
explaining the bonus calculations to the employees. During June to December 31,
1963, there were approximately three occasions when earned bonuses were granted
to the employees.
In January 1964, on one occasion prior to the week of January 12 to 18, 1964, the
employees had I week in which bonuses were earned also. There is no credible evi-
dence that Respondent implemented Zipurski's plan of explaining bonus calculations
to employees during Davidson's time as plant manager up and until the week of
January 12 to 18, 1964.14
"Respondent' s counsel appeared to be contending that the bonus calculation sheets
used by Zipurski were similar to the one used by Davidson around January 18, 1964, and
that the bonus calculation sheets included at the bottom under the word "approved"
space for three names and that the names of the three employees who had been shown
the sheet were inserted therein Witnesses who testified to the bonus calculation sheets
(Whitten and Georges) did not testify that the word "approved" or that space for names
or names were included on the 1963 bonus calculation sheets. Zipurski testified that he
may have put names on the sheets once or twice. It is not clear whether Zipurski was
testifying with reference to the January 1964 bonus calculation sheet when he testified
that there were places for three names. The Respondent did not authenticate or offer
copies of the 1963 bonus calculation sheets. Testimony otherwise does not disclose that
such sheets had the names of employees typed thereon nor that the word "approved" was
thereon. Zipurski's testimony relating to the bonus calculation sheets was elicited in
part by leading questions and did not have a ring of reliability. I find it hard to believe
that Zipurski would have designed a sheet in 1963 upon which there were places for em-
ployees' names and upon which above the places for employees' names there was a nota-
tion marked "approved" and not have executed the use of the sheet accordingly Zipurski
appeared very unsure that the employees' names had been placed on the 1963 sheets I
found his testimony to the effect that the 1964 calculation sheet was the same as the
ones used and designed by him in 1963 to be unreliable and do not credit it. Whitten's
testimony to the effect that the 1964 bonus calculation sheets were dissimilar to the 1963
bonus calculation sheets is credited
14 Respondent witness Davidson was prone to follow the lead of suggested questions.
I am convinced that much of his testimony constitutes erroneous interpretation favor-
able to Respondent's version of events of facts. Davidson testified to the effect that he
followed Zipurski's plan of explaining bonus calculations to employees "at times" as to
earned bonuses. Davidson testified on cross-examination that he could not recall a specific
instance of the same prior to the instance of the week of January 12 to 18, 1964 Under
such circumstances, considering Davidson's demeanor while testifying and his proneness
in general to follow the lead of suggested questions and the fact that his testimony lacked
the underlying ring of truth and sureness, I do not credit his testimony to the effect that
he implemented Zipurski's plan of explaining bonuses to employees at times prior to
January 19, 1964.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1085
On January 19, 1964, Plant Manager Davidson and Vice President Zipurski called
three employees into the office and explained the bonus calculations for that week
to the three employees (Elwanger, Koso, and Whitten). The employees were not
asked to sign the bonus calculation sheets but were merely shown the calculation
sheet and had the calculations explained.
The calculation sheets reflected for the week the number of items produced, the
allowance rates for the items, the net payroll, the nonproductive payroll, the number
of production hours, and computation based thereupon. The computed bonus for
the week was 19 cents per hour. Later, apparently on the same day, the bonus cal-
culation sheet was posted. The bonus calculation sheet as posted contained lines at
the bottom under the word "Approved by" and the typed names of the employees
(Elwanger, Koso, and Whitten)."
It is clear from the foregoing that Respondent during the months of January and
February 1964 changed some rates and set new rates for new models. The Jan-
uary 19, 1964, calculation sheet included changed rate for a Villager Model 50-2
($310 allowance rate changed to $320 allowance rate).
Considering the foregoing and all the evidence in this case, including the fact that
the parties had commenced negotiations on the productivity sharing plan and the
allowance rates included in the plan in December 1963, Davidson's statement and
Zipurski's concurrence thereto that the bargaining contract expired on December 31,
1963, and Respondent's entire course of conduct, I am convinced that the evidence
reveals that Respondent unilaterally, in January and February 1964, set allowance
rates for it sproductivity sharing plan and intentionally disregarded the bargaining
representative in the setting of such rates. By such conduct the Respondent refused
to bargain in good faith with the bargaining representative of its employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act.] G
The foregoing evidence, and for the foregoing reasons, plus (1) the fact that the
Respondent's bonus calculations for the week of January 12 to 18, 1964, including
a new and higher allowance rate for the Villager Model 50, had not been discussed
or negotiated with the Union, (2) the fact that the posted bonus calculation sheet
for the week January 12 to 18, 1964, purported on its face to have been approved by
three employees, and (3) the fact that the Union had told the Respondent that instead
of following the plan of calling in three employees that it should go through the union
committee or union president, convince me that Respondent's action in calling the
three employees in on January 19, 1964, discussing the bonus calculations for that
week, and posting of the referred-to calculations sheet, was for the purpose of reveal-
ing to the employees that Respondent was dealing directly with the employees and
disregarding the Union. By such conduct the Respondent revealed that it was refus-
ing to bargain with the Union as bargaining representative of its employees. Such
conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. It is so found and
concluded.17
Refusal to Furnish Information 18
Zipurski credibly testified that on February 10, 1964, he told the Union that there
would be no increase in wages, that employees would have to earn their increases
through bonuses. At the April 6, 1964, bargaining session, the parties discussed the
productivity sharing plan. Union Representative Piper wanted to know how the
Respondent arrived at the allowance rates for the plan Respondent Vice President
Zipurski told Piper that the allowance rates for items produced were approximately
10 to 101/a percent of its selling price of the units.19 Piper then asked for the selling
price lists. Piper told Zipurski in effect that the union committee only had Zipurski's
calculations, that the basic figures of the plan had not been given, that the selling price
list should be furnished so that the union committee could figure the bonus and know
from day to day what the bonus was. Zipurski told Piper that he was not going to
put the price sheets on the table before the committee, that the price sheets were not
for the public, that if they thought he was going to give the committee the price list
they were crazy, and that he was not going to furnish the price selling lists to the com-
15 See Appendix A (attached to this Decision )-a copy of the posted calculation sheets
"See N.L.R B. v. Benne Katz, etc, d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S.
736 ; Movie Star, Inc., et at., 145 NLRB 319.
17 See N L.R.B. v. Bennie Katz, etc., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., supra;
Movie Star, Inc., et al., supra.
IS Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Zipurski , Ramer, Graham, Piper,
Morris Grady, and Robert Allen.
10 The price for which the Respondent sold the units to the dealers.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee.20 Piper told Zipurski that if he could not have the selling price list he did
not want the bonus plan.
The parties discussed the productivity sharing plan at some of the meetings subse-
quent to April 6, 1964, and prior to May 12, 1964. At these meetings Union Repre-
sentative Piper asked that the Respondent furnish certified copies of the selling price
lists and the Respondent continued to refuse to supply the selling price lists to the
Union.
As is readily apparent, Respondent's productivity sharing plan has been an integral
part of the wage structure. The wages or earnings of the production employees has
been affected by and fluctuated according to the production of the employees as a
group. Zipurski, during negotiations, had also taken a position that wages would not
be increased but increased earnings would have to be in accordance with earned
bonuses under the productivity sharing plan. It is also readily apparent from
Zipurski's explanation of how the employees' hourly bonus was computed on a weekly
basis, that in order to understand or verify the implementation of the productivity
sharing plan it is necessary to know the types of models produced, the quantity of
each type of model produced, the allowance rate for each model produced, the total
plant payroll, the nonproductive plant payroll, and the number of hours worked by
the production employees. From the foregoing it is clear that the set allowance rate
for items has a vital bearing on whether employees earn bonuses and, if so, how
much. Zipurski's testimony to the effect that other factors have an effect on the
amount set as allowance rate, as well as Davidson's testimony to the effect that all
allowance rates are not at the 10 to 101/2 percentage of the selling price, demonstrates
the necessity of the Union having precise information as to the selling price lists in
order to bargain intelligently about the set allowance rates. Thus, in a situation
where the Respondent has advised that the allowance rate is based on approximately
10 to 101/2 percent of the selling price, the Union needs the precise selling price infor-
mation so that it can know whether this is accurate and true or whether other factors
are involved. If other factors are involved, the Union needs to know of such factors
so that it can evaluate such factors and the reasonableness of deviation from the
described percentage or the selling price of the set allowance rate. For substantially
the same reasons the Union would need the selling price information in connection
with changed allowance rates or the processing of grievances as to rates and changed
rates Without such information the Union would be hampered in ascertaining even
Respondent's unintentional mathematical errors in computing the allowance rates
or changes thereof. In summary, the above reveals that the selling price lists are
clearly relevant and necessary for the Union in order to intelligently bargain concern-
ing the productivity sharing plan.
The Respondent contends that its refusal to furnish the Union the selling price
list does not constitute a per se violation of good-faith bargaining where such infor-
mation is highly confidential and is not particularly relevant to enable the Union to
bargain intelligently. I do not find merit to Respondent's contention. The Board has
held that confidentiality is not a defense to an obligation to furnish relevant wage
data.21 The facts of the instant case reveal, as indicated previously, that the selling
price lists (to the dealers) are clearly relevant and necessary for the Union in order
to bargain intelligently concerning the productivity sharing plan.22 Considering all
the facts relating to the discussions of the productivity sharing plan, the Union's
request for the selling price lists and the Respondent's refusal to furnish the selling
price lists to the Union, I conclude and find that the Respondent by such refusal has
refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act 23
The Events of April 27, 1964 24-Refusal to Meet With the Union
Sometime after April 6 and prior to April 27, 1964, the parties with the help of
Federal mediators had arranged for a meeting on April 28, 1964. On April 22,
20 Zipurski testified to the effect that there were also other factors that affected the
allowance rates. His testimony does not reveal, however, that this is what he told Piper.
In any event it is clear that in principle the allowance rate (of the productivity sharing
plan) is geared to the selling price.
21 The Ingalls Shtipbuilding Corporation, 143 NLRB 712.
22
Davidson's testimony to the effect that he told Ramer that the Respondent would
in all probability stipulate, that the price list was something the Union should necessarily
have in order to evaluate the fairness of the bonus rate for each type of trailer almost
constitutes a direct admission of the relevancy.
21 The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 143 NLRB 712; N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,
351 U.S. 149.
2! Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Piper and Zipurski I do not
credit Zipurski 's denial that he referred to the settlement of the case in court.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1087
1964, the Union filed a second amended charge in the instant case alleging in partial
effect that the Respondent had refused to bargain with the Union in good faith by
refusing to furnish the Union necessary information for bargaining since on or about
April 6, 1964. On April 27, 1964, Zipurski , who had been out of town , returned to
his office and discovered that the aforedescribed unfair labor practice charges had
been filed. Zipurski then called the Federal mediator and told him in effect that
there was not much sense in having the meeting until after the May 12 hearing and
the case was settled in court because the Union had filed unfair labor charges. Several
hours later Union Representative Piper telephoned and told Zipurski that he thought
they should have a meeting on the next day . Zipurski told Piper that there was no
sense in having a meeting , that every time a meeting was held the Respondent received
a new charge. After the aforedescribed conversation Piper sent Zipurski a telegram
requesting that he reconsider and that the meeting be held. Zipurski replied by tele-
gram to Piper. In Zipurski 's telegram he suggested to Piper the meeting date of
May 5, 1964 , providing the Union was willing to bargain collectively . Piper, in his
further reply telegram , agreed to May 5 and suggested that the mediator be advised.
A further meeting was held by the parties on May 5, 1964.
Respondent appears to defend the cancellation of the April 28, 1964, meeting in
Zipurski's testimony to the effect that he was motivated in the cancellation of the
meeting with the Union because he believed the Union was having the meetings only
"to get more charges." I do not credit Zipurski 's testimony to this effect but am con-
vinced and find that he was motivated by a desire to hamper and impede bargaining.
Zipurski was familiar with what had transpired at the bargaining meetings and with
the events with which the charges filed by the Union were concerned. Zipurski
impressed me as an inetlligent person who would not be prone to render wildly inac-
curate judgment. Zipurski 's and the other witnesses ' testimony as to the matters dis-
cussed at the bargaining meetings revealed that the issues discussed and pursued by
the Union were issues of obvious and material interest to a collective -bargaining
agent. The incidents upon which the charges would consider that the Respondent
had engaged in discriminatory and improper acts. I am convinced that Zipurski did
not believe that the Union was having the meetings only "to get more charges" and
that he knew that the unfair labor practice charges were filed by the Union in good
faith Considering Zipurski 's testimony in total context with Respondent 's other
acts of bad-faith bargaining , I am convinced that Zipurski was irritated by the failure
of Respondent 's bad-faith bargaining to dissuade the Union from pursuing its legiti-
mate bargaining demands and that consistent with Respondent 's prior acts , he utilized
an argumentative basis as a pretext to hamper and impede bargaining and to attempt
to force the Union to desist from pursuing its rights in filing charges of unfair labor
practices on incidents it believed violative of the Act . Accordingly , considering all
the evidence herein, I conclude and find that Respondent 's cancellation of the sched-
uled April 28 , 1964, meeting because of the filing of unfair labor practice charges by
the Union constitutes bad-faith bargaining and constitutes Respondent 's conduct
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) of the Act.25
The Events of May 11, 1964-Threats of Reprisal 26
On May 11 , 1964, employee Doyle Ramer was asked by Plant Manager Posey 27
whether he was going to attend the May 12 , 1964, unfair labor practice hearing in
this matter . Ramer told Posey that he did not know, that he would not know until
that night, that whether he did or did not attend that he would report to work the
next day and work an hour or two. Vice President Davidson , at that time , came to
where Ramer was and Ramer repeated to Davidson what he had said to Posey.
Davidson told Ramer that he could not see any sense in everyone coming to the hear-
ing and saying the same thing , that as to the amended charge in regard to the price
list that neither he nor Zipurski were going to lie on the stand, that he and Zipurski
were going to admit that they had not given the Union the price list, that there was a
strong likelihood the Company might stipulate to the fact that the Union had asked
25 Kit Manufacturing Company Inc ., 142 NLRB 957.
26 Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Zipurski , Davidson , Ramer, and
Morris Grady . Ramer's testimony to the effect that Davidson admitted that the Respond-
ent was wrong in not furnishing the information is not credited . I am convinced that
Davidson 's statements are as set out, conveying the same idea , and yet qualified.
27 At sometime prior thereto Davidson had been made a vice president and Posey had
been made plant manager
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the price list and that the Respondent had not agreed, and that the price list was
something the Union should necessarily have in order to evaluate the fairness of the
bonus rate for each type of trailer.
At sometime on May 11, 1964, Vice President Davidson became advised that mem-
bers of the union committee (most of whom had testified at the prior hearing dates
in this matter) were planning to be at the hearing in this matter when it resumed on
May 12, 1964. Davidson thereafter contacted Vice President Zipurski, who in turn
contacted Respondent's attorney, Cassman, relative to the rights of the committeemen
to be off work and attend the May 12, 1964, hearing. Respondent Attorney Cassman
told Zipurski to tell Davidson to instruct the employees to report to work on May 12,
1964, unless they were subpenaed to testify. Zipurski told Davidson to call the
union committee and tell them that there was no reason for everybody to be there,
that the Respondent would be happy to let one or two people appear, and the others
were expected to report to work.
Davidson, shortly thereafter, had a meeting with four of the union committeemen
(Morris Grady, Don Baldwin, Myron Whitton, and Robert Allen). Davidson told
the committeemen that one or two of the men might possibly go to the hearing.
Davidson told the committee that he and Zipurski were not going to say that they had
offered the price list and that in all likelihood the Company would stipulate it had
refused to give the price list, that he did not think all of the committee had to be at
the hearing, that if the committee did not show up for work that those with no warning
slip would get a slip, that those with a warning slip would get warning slip number
two and that those who had two warning slips would get discharged. Davidson told
the committee that NLRB or no NLRB hearing that the Respondent had trailers to
build and bonuses to do it and were going to do it. The committeemen told Davidson
during the discussion that they were under subpena and had been told by Union Repre-
sentative Graham that he expected and wanted them at the hearing on May 12, 1964.
It appears that Respondent's defense for its actions on May 11, 1964, mainly con-
sists of Davidson's testimony to the effect that the employees were needed at work
for business reasons and that he did not have knowledge that the persons would be
utilized as witnesses in the hearing. Davidson's own testimony to the effect that he
told the committee and Ramer that he and Zipurski would testify truthfully about
refusing to furnish the price lists reveals that he was attempting to explain why they
would not be necessary as witnesses. Davidson's testimony thus reveals that he
expected that they would be witnesses at the hearing. Furthermore it is clear that
the committee told Davidson that they were under subpena and were expected to be
at the hearing. Under such circumstances I am convinced that Davidson's further
testimony to the effect that he had no knowledge that the committee would be used
as witnesses is not credible. On the contrary, I am convinced that he thought that
they were subpenaed witnesses who were expected to testify at the hearing on May 12,
1964, and that he was attempting to dissuade such witnesses from testifying at the
May 12, 1964, hearing. Davidson's conduct in this regard constitutes Respondent's
conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.28
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
shall be iecommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel requests, in part, that Respondent be required to bargain in
good faith with the Union, that the Respondent be required, if requested by the
Union, to rescind the unlawful unilateral changes (allowance rates) in the pro-
ductivity sharing plan, and that the Respondent make whole in back wages the 20
employees who were laid off as a result of Respondent's discriminating deviation from
its layoff policy and practice. Merit is found in the General Counsel's request and it
will be so recommended and the Respondent will also be required to furnish such
relevant bargaining information, including selling price lists.
28 See Alterman Transport Lines, Inc ., 127 NLRB 803, and The Youngstown Cartage
Company, 146 NLRB 305.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1089
With respect to Respondent's threat of reprisal on May 11, 1964, directed at inter-
fering with witness participation in the hearing on May 12, 1964, I have considered
the fact that the problem of attendance was solved and that Respondent's attorney
made a statement in open hearing that no retribution would result. The remedial
provision which would be recommended for Respondent's interference otherwise will
remedy this aspect of violative conduct. The various incidents of Respondent's con-
duct reveal a general hostility to the principles of collective bargaining and to the con-
certed rights of the employees. Accordingly, a broad order is recommended enjoining
all forms of unlawful interference with rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the following is made:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Frontier Homes Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Falls City, Nebras-
ka, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since July 31, 1957, the Union has been and is the certified exclusive
certified collective-bargaining representative of all Respondent's employees in said
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain in good faith collectively with the Union as the certified
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in said appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By selecting employees for layoff so as to constitute retribution to said employees
because of their support of the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 29
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, Frontier Homes
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steel Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the certified exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit consisting of all the Respondent's production and
maintenance employees at the Falls City plant, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Instituting changes with rsepect to terms and conditions of employment of its
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, defined above, without prior consulta-
tion and bargaining with United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the above
exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Discouraging membership in the United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by laying off employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
as In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the word "Order"
shall be deemed substituted for the words "Recommended Order". Additionally there
shall be deemed substituted for the first paragraph of the Recommended Order the fol-
lowing paragraph:
Upon the entire record in these cases , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that.
796-027-66-vol. 153-70
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals in order to discourage their support of
the Union or to discourage their pursuit of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
connection with the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own free
choice, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid of protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with United Steel Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appro-
priate unit, above, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, furnish the aforesaid Union with the information to which it is
lawfully entitled, including selling price lists (to dealers) upon which the allowance
rates of Respondent's productivity sharing plan are based, and which will enable said
Union to discharge its function as the statutory representative of the Respondent's
employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
(c) Rescind the allowance rates set or changed by Respondent's unlawful uni-
lateral action subsequent to December 31, 1963, if United Steel Workers of America,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, above, so
desires.
(d) Make the employees listed below whole for any loss of earnings each may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date
of the discrimination to the date of recall to work, or offer of recall to work if
declined, less earnings during said period, to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and including the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
James Goodloe Donald Masonbrink Gary Coulter
Gary Kirkendall Charles Fouraker Henry Kessler
Sylvester Weber Charles Grady Harlan Russell
Irvin Hunker Gary Feldmann Jack Thomason
Walter Schuetz Morris Grady Steve Hoover
Luddie Thomas Clinton Paul Ernest Carpenter
Charlie Anno
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due, and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its premises, in Falls City, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." 30 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.31
80 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION 1091
APPENDIX A
BONUS CALCULATION SHEET
[Week of January 12-181
Model Quantity Allowable
60'-12 Wides----------------------- 2------------------------------ $450 00 $900 00
50' Villagers_________________________ 24----------------------------- 320 00 7, 680 00
Extras--- ------ --------- 1 washer----------------------
1 Early American_____________ 60 00
4 plumb for washer____________
Total Allowable______________
Total Plant Payroll -----------------
Non-Productive --------------------
Net Payroll___________________
Bonus Pot____________________
Regular Hrs________________________
Overtime Hrs_______________________
Total Hrs---------------------------
Bonus/Hr---------------------------
$8, 339 00
-537 00
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
4,302
Approved by: D Koso
M. Whitten
C. Elwonger
Bonus Hrs /
Total Hrs_______
8, 640 00
-7,802 00
838 00
19¢/hour.
Plus $21 left over in pot to-
ward next week.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with United Steel-
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit, defined below, for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
All production and maintenance employees at Respondent 's Falls City,
Nebraska, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request , furnish the aforesaid Union with the information to
which it is lawfully entitled , including dealer selling price lists upon which the
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allowance rates of our productivity sharing plan are based, and which will
enable the aforesaid Union to discharge its function as the statutory repre-
sentative of our employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
WE WILL, if requested by the aforesaid Union, the exclusive representative of
our employees in the defined appropriate unit, rescind the allowance rates set
or changed by our unlawful unilateral action subsequent to December 31, 1963.
WE WILL make whole the below listed employees for any loss of earnings
each may have suffered by reason of the discrmiination against them.
James Goodloe Charlie Anno Ernest Carpenter
Gary Kirkendall Donald Masonbrink Gary Coulter
Sylvester Weber Charles Fouraker Henry Kessler
Irvin Hunker Gary Feldmann Harlan Russell
Walter Schuetz Morris Grady Jack Thomason
Luddie Thomas Steve Hoover Charles Grady
Clinton Paul
WE WILL NOT institute changes with respect to terms and conditions of
employment of our employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, defined above,
without prior consultation and bargaining with United Steel Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, as the above exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steel Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by laying off
employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals in order to discourage
their support of the Union or to discourage their pursuit of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively with representatives of
their own free choice, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
FRONTIER HOMES CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------.
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of postings
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto.
Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore
1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-.
ance with its provisions.
Danner Press , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, Akron Bindery Workers Union Local No. 5, AFL-CIO,
Case No. 8-CA-3455. July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 7,1965, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Deci
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma,
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision,
153 NLRB No. 87.