Generac Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GENERAC CORPORATION 351
Generac Corporation and District No. 10 , Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-2667
December 6, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On August 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and
has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, Generac Corporation, Genesee Depot,
Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
admitting that it has refused to furnish the said requested
information, nevertheless defends upon the basis that the
information requested is not necessary for the administration
of the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties as
contended by the Charging Party and the General Counsel.
Pursuant to notice, this matter came on to be heard before
me at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on June 20, 1974. All parties
were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argu-
ment and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived by all
parties. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel
and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record
herein and upon my observation of each witness appearing
before me, and upon due consideration given to the conten-
tions of the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Wisconsin corporation, with its principal
offices and plant in Genesee Depot, Wisconsin, is engaged in
the manufacture of generators and alternators. During the
calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent manu-
factured, sold, and shipped products of a value in excess of
$50,000 directly from its plant to points located outside the
State of Wisconsin.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted , and I find , that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
a charge filed on March 28, 1974, by District No. 10, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Regional Director
for Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a complaint on May 10, 1974, on
behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, against Generac
Corporation, herein called the Respondent or the Company,
alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
Act. In its duly filed answer, the Respondent, while admitting
certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the Respondent
has refused and is refusing to bargain in good faith in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
furnish to the Union, at the Union's request, the names and
addresses of employees in the unit for which the Union is the
certified bargaining representative. The Respondent, while
A. The Facts
Since approximately June 14 , 1963, the Respondent has
bargained with the Union as the certified bargaining re-
presentative of Respondent 's employees in a unit concededly
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining consist-
ing of all production and maintenance employees , excluding
office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, at Respondent's plant at Genesee Depot , Wiscon-
sin. Since that time, the Respondent and the Union have
entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements cov-
ering the terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit. The current collective -bargain-
ing agreement is effective from October 19, 1972, with
expiration date of October 12, 1974.
However , none of these collective -bargaining agreements,
including the current agreement , contain any union -security
provisions . As a result thereof, and as a result of other factors,
not made part of the record herein , out of a complement of
approximately 290 employees , the Union now retains a mem-
bership among employees in the said unit of approximately
20. Of course , the terms and conditions of the bargaining
agreement between the Respondent and the Union apply to
215 NLRB No. 41
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and govern the hours, wages, and other working conditions
of all the employees in the unit whether or not members of
the Union.
Under the laws -of the State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin
Employment Relations Commission, herein called the Com-
mission , regulates the authority of unions and employers to
include in collective-bargaining agreements provisions for un-
ion shops. Upon petition filed with it, the Commission con-
ducts union-shop referendums. On or about January 21,
1974, the Union herein petitioned the Commission to conduct
such a referendum among the employees of the Respondent
in the above unit . At a meeting held before a representative
of the Commission, for the purpose of determining the appro-
priate unit and the cut-off date for the employees eligibility
to vote, the Union requested that the Respondent supply to
the Union the full names and addresses of all the employees
in the unit. The Respondent refused to give the names and
addresses voluntarily and the matter was referred by the
representative of the Commission to the whole Commission.
On February 12, 1974, in directing a referendum for an "all-
union agreement" between the Employer and the Union, the
Commission denied the Union's request that the eligibility list
contain the addresses of the unit employees. The Commission
gave no reason except that it has never required any employer
to provide the addresses of employees involved in a referen-
dum conducted by the Commission.
It should be noted, in connection with this request for the
addresses of the employees in the unit, that although the
Union has been the certified bargaining representative of the
said employees since 1963, this was the first time that it had
made a demand on the Respondent for the addresses of the
employees. However, pursuant to the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreements, including the current agreement, the
Respondent for the purposes of seniority, supplies to the
Union at regular monthly intervals, a list of all of the em-
ployees in the unit employed during the previous months.
However, these lists contain only the initial and last name of
the employees without any addresses.
Following the Commission's decision to hold a referendum
among the Respondent's employees fo- an "all-union agree-
ment ," the Respondent distributed by mail to the unit em-
ployees three separate letters containing propaganda and ar-
gument with regard to why the employees should vote against
a union shop. The first of these letters was mailed to the
employees in the unit on February 18, and the last on Febru-
ary 20. Perhaps as a result of these mailings and as a result
of the Union's failure to obtain the addresses of the em-
ployees, the Union withdrew its petition for a
referendum.'
On March 6, 1974, the Union's business representative,
Joseph Spehert, sent a letter to Werner Scheerenberger, direc-
tor of manufacturing of the Respondent, requesting that the
Respondent supply to the Union a list of all of the unit
employees giving their full names and post office addresses.
In the letter, Spehert stated that under the existing labor laws
a certified union must represent all of the employees in the
unit for which it is certified whether such employees are
' The mailings noted above sent by the Respondent to the unit employees
are not alleged to have been violative of Sec 8 (a)(1) of the Act and no claim
to that effect is made by either the General Counsel or the Union
members of the union or not. In reply to this request, Respon-
dent's counsel answered that the Union is supplied the names
of the employees in the seniority list, above mentioned, and
also stated that because the Union had set forth no specific
necessity for the addresses of the employees, the request of the
Union was therefore refused. Following this reply, on March
14, 1974, Spehert addresses a second letter to Respondent's
counsel acknowledging receipt of Respondent's counsel's let-
ter of March 13. In this letter to Respondent's counsel, Spe-
hert stated that because the agreement does not include
union -security provisions , and, therefore , the employees
are not required to join the Union as a condition of em-
ployment, the Union does not have access to the names
and addresses and the employees that it is required to rep-
resent under the Act. Spehert went on to explain that the
Union's legal obligation under the Act was to represent
all of the employees in the unit and that therefore it
was necessary to have their names and addresses. In
answer to this letter , Respondent ' s counsel replied
by letter dated March 21, in which he stated that he still
did not find any basis for the request made for the employees'
addresses and that the Union's request was, therefore, denied.
Thereafter, the charge in this case was filed alleging, as in
the complaint, that the Respondent had violated its duty to
bargain with the Union under the Act by refusing to supply
the full names and addresses of the employees in the unit.
With regard to the accessibility of the employees in the unit
to the representatives of the Union and for the distribution of
matters concerning wages, hours and working conditions,
and the administration of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, it becomes necessary to review the physical location of
the plant, the dispersion of the employees residences in rela-
tion to their distance from the plant, the accessibility of the
means of distributing union information by the Union within
the plant and immediately surrounding the plant, the availa-
bility of union members and union-appointed committeemen
to make contact with union and nonunion members of the
unit and, finally, the rules established by the Respondent both
in the collective-bargaining agreement and otherwise with
regard to the dissemination of information issued, by the
Union within the Respondent's premises.
As a joint exhibit, there was submitted at the hearing a list
of the addresses, without names, of the employees of the
Respondent as of the week of June 19, 1974. As noted above,
the Respondent's plant is located at Genesee Depot, a small
village approximately 6 miles from Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Waukesha is located approximately 25 miles west of Mil-
waukee and Genesee Depot is approximately the same dis-
tance from Milwaukee in a slightly different direction. A
study of the map of Wisconsin, as compared with the entire
list submitted as a joint exhibit, as above, shows that the
employees live in a six-county area in southeastern Wisconsin
dispersed throughout the area, for the most part in small,
rural communities or small cities. Although 118 of the com-
plement of employees as of June 19, 1974, live in Waukesha,
the balance of the employees were spread out among the
aforesaid counties anywhere from 8 to 20 or 30 miles from
Genesee Depot. One employee, as a matter of fact, lives in
Madison, Wisconsin, a distance of 60 miles. Twelve em-
ployees live 14 miles from the plant, 16 live 16 miles from the
plant, 22 others live 16 miles from the plant in another direc-
GENERAC CORPORATION 353
tion , 28 live 10 miles from the plant in still another direction
and the dispersion follows somewhat the same pattern with
regard to all of the other employees.
With regard to the ability of the Union to dispense printed
information to the employees as they leave or enter the plant,
the plant is located off a main road on a little traveled road
so that , according to the testimony of Scheerenberger, there
would be no physical danger with regard to union representa-
tives passing out union literature at the entrance to the Re-
spondent's premises . In addition , the Respondent provides a
bulletin board at each of the two timeclocks in the Respon-
dent's plant , which bulletin boards are used for the posting
of various notices by the Union , including notices of union
meetings . Moreover , within the last few months before the
hearing herein , a third bulletin board was established some-
where in the center of the Respondent 's plant Additionally,
although the employee manual distributed to all employees
upon hiring contains a no-solicitation provision which could,
standing alone, be considered too restrictive , and therefore
possibly violative of the Act, the Respondent has since posted
on its bulletin boards a modification of this restrictive no-
solicitation rule which now permits distribution of union
matters in nonworking areas on nonworking time provided,
however , that such distribution does not create a littering
problem.
George Urban , a union business representative , testified,
without contradiction , which testimony is credited, that there
are only four persons on the shop committee representing the
Union and that these individuals are not sufficient in number
nor do they work in areas or on shifts which would permit
them to sufficiently cover the entire workforce in all sections
of the plant to disseminate union information with regard to
the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement or
other matters of interest to employees represented by the
Union . There are many departments with no shop commit-
teemen . He further testified credibly, that although the bulle-
tin boards had been used to publicize union meetings , only 10
or 15 nonunion members usually attend . He ascribed this to
the fact that employees do not have time to read the matters
on the bulletin board because they are either checking in or
checking out of the Employer 's plant when they are reading
the bulletin board and are, therefore , in too much of a hurry
to either go to their work stations or to leave the plant to go
home in order to fully comprehend what has been posted.
Furthermore , although four union representatives , not em-
ployees of Respondent , handbilled outside the plant in con-
nection with the scheduled March 1974 union-shop referen-
dum, which was later withdrawn by the Union , there was not
sufficient distribution of matter through this means to over-
come the anti union-shop propaganda which the Respondent
mailed to employees and to which reference has hereinbefore
been made.
Thus, Urban testified, that although admittedly no request
had been made by the Union at any time prior to the referen-
dum hearing conducted by the Commission for a list of the
names and addresses of all employees in the unit , one of the
reasons for this failure to make such a request was that,
formerly , the Union had been locally represented by another
branch of the Machinists International which had not re-
quired such a list , but that at the present, and dust before the
events herein, another district of the International took over
the administration of the area and its officials required and
requested such list Furthermore , according to Urban, the
necessity for the names and addresses of the employees, al-
though admittedly for the purpose of contacting such em-
ployees for organizational reasons, also is necessary for the
purpose of sending Machinists newspapers to all persons in
the unit , whether or not union members, for the dissemina-
tion of legislative action that might be taken up or passed for
the benefit of organized labor or even for the particular shop
involved Also , there are a multitude of other areas which
might give rise to the necessity to apprise the members of the
unit in order to properly represent them whether or not they
are members of the Union.
In addition to the foregoing , Scheerenberger , the Respon-
dent 's director of manufacturing, testified that the Respon-
dent , within the last year has made about seven mass mail-
ings to its employees , among them the letters to the employ-
ees sent pending the scheduled referendum , mentioned
above , in which the Respondent informed the employees
of the pitfalls of compulsory unionism . These matters
were mailed to all of the Respondent ' s employees and
signed by Scheerenberger . Scheerenberger, however, also
testified, without contradiction , that union representa-
tives distributed literature at the parking lot gate two or
three times during the prereferendum period.
B. Discussion, Analysis, and Conclusions
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the names
and addresses of the employees of the Respondent are neces-
sary for the Union to have in order for the Union to properly
administer the collective-bargaining agreement and to inform
the employees in the unit of matters which are necessary for
the Union to properly represent all of the employees in the
unit , whether members or not , because such is the Union's
duty under the Act Furthermore, counsel for the General
Counsel argues that the dispersion of the employees with
regard to their residences and the conditions within the plant
and around the plant are such that personal contact with the
employees to disseminate such information is literally im-
possible absent the ability to mail such matters to the em-
ployees' homes.
On the other hand , Respondent 's counsel argues that in the
first instance , the claim that the Union requires the addresses
of the unit employees for the purpose of carrying out the
Union's statutory duty to represent all of the employees in the
unit is spurious , and that the real and only reason for the
request for the addresses of the employees is for the purpose
of organizing the unorganized . Furthermore, Respondent's
counsel argues, that the residences of the employees in the
unit are not so dispersed and so far apart that it becomes a
virtual impossibility or an extreme difficulty for the Union to
make personal contact by house-to -house canvassing. More-
over , Respondent's counsel further argues that the modified
no-solicitation rule together with the bulletin boards estab-
lished for the Union 's use, plus the capability of union re-
presentatives to disseminate union literature at the parking
lot gate of the Respondent 's plant eliminates the necessity for
the Union to have the addresses of the employees in the unit
in order to inform such employees of any matters of which
the Union desires to inform them, or needs to inform them,
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as their statutory representative and pursuant to the Union's
obligations under Board law.
As counsel for the General Counsel points out, it is a
fundemental principle of the law under Board decisions, and
pursuant to the Act, that the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of unit employees has a duty to fairly represent all unit
employees and not just members of the Union.' Accord-
ingly , although the Union for a number of years dunng its
bargaining relationship with the Respondent did not request
the addresses of the employees in order to properly represent
all of the employees in the unit, whether or not such em-
ployees were union members, nevertheless, the late start for
such a request does not minimize nor eliminate the necessity
for equal representation of all employees in the unit by the
Union, the certified representative of the unit. And this is true
even if the original impetus for the request for the addresses
came only after the Union petitioned the Wisconsin Employ-
ment Relations Commission for a union-shop referendum.
This being so, the necessity and legal obligation imposed on
the Union to represent all of the employees in the unit having
been established, I find and conclude the Respondent's con-
tention that the Union desires the addresses of employees
solely for organizational purposes to be without merit.
What is left for decision, and what represents the real issue
here, is whether the Union can fully represent the employees
in the unit without obtaining the addresses of the employees
from the Respondent. Moreover, it can be concluded that this
works no hardship upon the Respondent because it was testi-
fied, without contradiction, by the Respondent's office em-
ployee at the hearing herein, that the compillation, through
the use of computer, of the joint exhibit listing the addresses
of the employees in the unit, without giving the names or
collating the names to the addresses, took but a very short
time . Accordingly, any defense that the preparation of such
a list of names and addresses would work a hardship upon the
Respondent is also without merit.
We come then to whether the Union is without any truly
effective means of communicating with unit employees unless
the Respondent supplies the names and addresses of the em-
ployees.
The Board decisions' that determine whether an em-
ployer must supply the list of names and addresses of unit
employees, once it is determined that such names are neces-
sary for the proper administration of the contract and for the
purpose of serving the employees in the unit whether mem-
bers of the Union or not, are based on considerations of such
factors as the size of the unit; the rate of turnover; the nature
of the contractual union-security clause, if any; the Union's
ability to reach member and nonmember employees, both at
the plant and at their homes, including the effectiveness of
any steward system, and the use of bulletin boards; and the
availability of the information to the Employer.'
' Steelev Louisville & Nashville RR., 323 US 192, Ford Motor Co, v
Huffman, 345 U.S 330, Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181
(1962), and Bekins Moving & Storage Co, 211 NLRB 138 (1974)
3 Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., 166
NLRB 343, 344-345 (1967), enfd 399 F 2d 639 (C A 9, 1968), Prudential
Insurance Company ofAmerica, 173 NLRB 792, 793 (1968), enfd. 412 F 2d
77 (C.A 2, 1969), UnitedAircraft Corporation, 181 NLRB 892, 903 (1969),
enfd. 434 F 2d 1198 (C A. 2, 1970), Shell Oil Company, 190 NLRB 101,
Food Employer Council, Inc., 197 NLRB 651 (1972)
4 Magma Copper Company, San Manuel Division, 208 NLRB 329 (1974)
The elements, set forth above in the cited cases, are present
here in varying degree. In the Standard Oil Company case,
supra, the Board ordered the employer to furnish the names
and addresses of the employees where there was approxi-
mately a 50-percent union membership in the unit which the
union in the case represented. In the case,at bar, the percent-
age is less than 10 percent. Additionally, in the case at bar,
as in the cases cited, there is a rather extensive dispersion of
the employees in the unit with regard to their places of resi-
dences. Although perhaps not as great as in the Standard Oil
Company or Prudential Insurance Company ofAmerica cases,
supra, it does nevertheless extend over a number of counties
with an average of approximately 20 miles distant in all direc-
tions from the Respondent's plant. Moreover, for a unit of
approximately 290 employees, there are only four union com-
mitteemen in the plant, certainly not a sufficient number to
make personal contact with all of the employees during the
times when the employees may be free from work on com-
pany premises, at which time contact could be made between
the representatives of the Union and the other employees.
With regard to the bulletin board situation, it should be
noted, as stated above, that the bulletin boards, with the
exception of the newest one, are posted near the timeclocks
where the employees remain but for a few moments in enter-
ing or leaving the plant. With regard to the effectiveness of
bulletin board posting, the Board has stated' as follows:
Even if the Respondent had not placed restrictions
upon the Lodges use of bulletin board, bulletin Board by
their very nature do not provide an effective means of
communicating with employees about important mat-
ters.
In connection with the foregoing, upon examination by
counsel for the General Counsel, Respondent's director of
manufacturing, Scheerenberger, stated, with regard to the
propaganda mailed to the employees before the March sche-
duled referendum, that the reason that these matters were
mailed to employees, rather than merely posted on the bulle-
tin boards, was that "I felt it was an important enough subject
to mail it directly to them rather than just posting it on a
bulletin board; I wanted to make sure every individual re-
ceived it."
Thus, the Respondent would seem to be admitting in the
testimony of its own, most important official, that the bulletin
boards are insufficient for the dissemination of information to
the employees. Thus, the Respondent cannot argue under
such a situation that the Union's notices to employees should
be limited to the bulletin board and that by the bulletin board
the Union can make contact with the employees sufficiently
to properly represent them in the manner required of the
Union as the certified bargaining representative.
With regard to the accessibility of employees entering and
leaving the Respondent's premises for the purposes of hand-
billing the employees or making contact with them by union
representatives, there would seem to be some conflict. The
representatives of the Union attempted to reach the em-
ployees at the entrance to the Respondent's premises during
the prereferendum period. But, they gave up after a few days
because the attempts to reach a substantial number of the
employees seemed futile. The Respondent, on the other
' United Aircraft Corporation, 181 NLRB 892 (1970)
GENERAC CORPORATION 355
hand, elicited an admission that a number of the employees
refused to accept the handbilling and, moreover, argues that
the Union's attempt was but a feeble one and did not establish
that the Union was unable to reach the employees by hand-
billing at the entrance to the Respondent's premises.
Regardless of the merits of this argument, however, it
would seem that this 'is but a minor factor when regarded in
the context of the situation as a whole. Accordingly, on the
basis of all of the foregoing, I find and conclude that the
Union, in order to properly service the employees in the unit
for which it is certified as the bargaining representative and
to represent all of the employees in the unit regardless of
union affiliation should be supplied by the Respondent with
the names and addresses of all of the employees in the said
unit.
The Respondent also contends, as a final argument, that
the Union here is seeking to take a "second bite at the apple"
having been refused the names and addresses of the em-
ployees by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commis-
sion at the time that the Union desired such names and
addresses for the purposes of contacting employees to induce
them to vote for a union shop. The Respondent argues that
the intention is the same here and that therefore the decision
of the Wisconsin Commission should prevail. I find no merit
in this contention.
While it is true that the original impetus for the request for
the names and addresses of the employees in the unit came
at a time when the Union deemed it necessary to have the
addresses in order to promote its campaign for a union shop,
and while it is quite obvious that this was the Union's original
purpose because the Union withdrew its petition for a union
shop election when the Commission denied it the right to the
addresses of the employees, I find for several reasons that the
Wisconsin Commission's decision in the referendum matter
is not binding on the Board in the instant proceeding. Al-
though the Supreme Court has held6 that the Wisconsin
Commission has authority, under the Act, to decide whether
employees may have a union shop and that the Commission
has exclusive jurisdiction within the State of Wisconsin for
this purpose, nevertheless, there is nothing in the Supreme
Court's decision to indicate that the decision of the said Com-
mission in a peripheral matter such as determining the right
of the Union to the names and addresses of employees in the
unit, is binding on the Board, especially where the decision
of the Wisconsin Commission gave no reason for the denial
and, moreover, the denial would seem to be in conflict with
Board decisions as sustained by the Courts, as recited above.
In such instance, the Board has preemptive authority over the
authority of the Wisconsin Commission. Secondly, although
one of the purposes for the request for the names and ad-
dresses of the unit employees by the Union is admittedly for
the purpose of organizational activity and to induce nonunion
members to accept union membership, it has been held that
. . there is no clear distinction between informing non-
members agents [employees] about the benefits it has ob-
tained and hopes in the future to secure for them and its
solicitation of their support."' Moreover, in the Standard
6 Algoma P l y w o o d v N.LR.B, 336 U S 301
7 Prudential Insurance Company of America v N.LR.B., 412 F 2d 77,
84-85 ( 1969).
Oil of California case , supra, the Board held, in part, "The
Union 's effectiveness as an employee representative was
necessarily dependent on'its bargaining strength, and this in
turn was dependent on continued employee adherence and
support."
Accordingly, it would seem that union organizational ac-
tivities of a certified union are considered part and parcel of
its duty to adequately represent all of the employees in the
unit . Inasmuch as I have heretofore determined that the
names and addresses of employees are necessary with regard
to other matters , there is no reason to hold that because the
supplying of such information may also assist in organiza-
tional activities , the Union's request for this information
should be denied.
Accordingly, by reason of all of the foregoing , I find and
conclude that the Respondent 's refusal to furnish the Union
with the full names and addresses of all of the employees in
the unit , for which the Union is the certified representative,
constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith within the mean-
ing of the Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activity of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with its operations described
in section I, above , has a close , intimate , and substantial
relationship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the se-
veral States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following
conclusions of law:
1. Generac Corporation is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , excluding
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, employed by the Respondent at its Genesee De-
pot, Wisconsin plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
4. Since on or about June 14, 1963, the Union has been the
certified and recognized bargaining representative of the Re-
spondent's employees in the above appropriate unit.
5. Since on or about January 21, 1974, the Respondent has
wrongfully refused to supply the Union the names and ad-
dresses of the employees in the aforesaid unit thereby refusing
to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER'
Respondent, Generac Corporation, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates to
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment with District No. 10, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, by refusing to
furnish to the said union, upon request, a list of unit em-
ployees full names and home addresses.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain collectively with the above-named labor organ-
ization by furnishing it, upon request , a list of the full names
and home addresses of employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Post at its plant premises in Genesee Depot, Wisconsin,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
9 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Realtions Board "
of said notice, of forms to be provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representatives, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately 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 notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively with District No. 10, In-
ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, by furnishing it, upon request, a
list of the full names and home addresses of unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercises
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act employed at our Genesee Depot,
Wisconsin, plant.
GENERAC CORPORATION