General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 12, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 605 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. General Electric Company and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-3021 June 12, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On November 21, 1968, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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, and hereby orders that Respondent, General Electric Company, Fort Wayne , Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'The Trial Examiner found that Respondent has furnished the names and addresses of certain employees since prior to 1968. The record clearly establishes , however , that such information has been furnished since prior to 1967 . Accordingly , we correct this inadvertent error in the Trial Examiner 's Decision , which does not affect the result of this case. TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: With all parties represented , this proceeding was tried before me in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on October 7, 1968, pursuant to a complaint filed by the General Counsel of the National 605 Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by General Electric Company , herein called the Respondent.' The sole issue raised by the pleadings is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing , upon request , to furnish International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , with the home addresses of all employees in the appropriate units at Respondent's installations in Fort Wayne , Indiana , for which the Union had been designated as the exclusive bargaining representative .' At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument . Briefs have been received from the General Counsel , the Union , and the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses who testified , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS Respondent, a corporation with its places of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is engaged in the manufacture of electric motors. During the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent manufactured, sold and shipped from its establishments in Fort Wayne, Indiana, finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Indiana. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within he meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The facts adduced herein are not in dispute and I find them to be as follows. Since 1950, the Union has represented Respondent's employees in the units heretofore found appropriate under 'The complaint , which issued on July 31, 1968, is based upon a charge which was filed and served on January 17, 1968. 'The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that, since 1950 and continuing to date, the Union has been designated by the employees in the following units as their majority representative , and that these units are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act (a) All office , clerical , and technical employees at Respondent's plants in Fort Wayne , Indiana, excluding commercial and sales employees , auditors and accountants , test engineers , confidential secretaries and stenographers, and employees who work on the confidential payroll, employee interviewers, placement personnel , personnel visitors , medical technicians, divisional safety personnel, chief receptionist, telephone operators , cashiers, rate setters, planning , wage rate , time-study and methods employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act (b) All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's plants in Fort Wayne, Indiana, excluding test engineers , maintenance machinists, experimental men, tool makers , tool repairmen , die makers , die repairmen, mold makers , mold repairmen, machinists ' apprentices who are engaged in production or repair of machinery or mechanical devices for use in Respondent's manufacturing processes at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant, winding form makers , tool hardeners , tool dressers, development testers, blacksmiths, tool welders , clerical employees, chauffeurs, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 176 NLRB No. 84 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a National Agreement executed by the parties. Article XIX-4 of this Agreement provides that "On request of the [Union], local management will provide to the [Union] a list of all employees in the bargaining unit. Such information will consist of the employee's name, department, occupation, clock card number, continuous service date and seniority date. At the request of the [Union] such lists shall be up-dated not more frequently than six-month intervals." On October 30, 1967, George Crosely, the Union's President, wrote a letter to William Hamilton, Respondent's Manager of Employee and Community Relations , which recited that the Union "is again requesting a list of all employees in our bargaining unit as per Article XIX-4 of the National Agreement. We would like to have the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all employees now in the bargaining unit, also those on lay off subject to recall. This would be additional information so that the Union would be able to effectively represent all employees in the bargaining unit on wages, hours and working conditions." On November 2, 1967, Frank Conley, Respondent's Manager of Union Relations, telephonically responded that he had received the Union's letter and that "he would be unable to get the addresses because it would take a couple of months to change the computer over." On December 8, 1967, the Union filed a grievance with Respondent pursuant to the National Agreement in which it requested that the latter compile and furnish the Union with a list containing the addresses of all employees in the appropriate units. The grievance was first discussed by the parties on December 21, 1967, at which time Respondent advised the Union that it "was not obligated to and would not compile and furnish such a list," and no definitive reason was assigned for its failure to comply with the request. This grievance was further explored on December 28, 1967 and January 11, 1968, with Respondent again flatly taking the position that the Union was not entitled to the requested information. The failure to resolve this issue under the grievance procedures was followed by the filing of charges by the Union on January 11, 1968, alleging that Respondent had, by its refusal to furnish the addresses of unit employees, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In defense of its conduct in rejecting the Union's demand for the home addresses of the employees, Respondent asserts that the Union had available to it other channels by which it could effectively communicate with the employees, and that the addresses were not a necessary prerequisite to such communication. Conversely, the General Counsel maintains that, because of the scattered location of the Respondent's facilities, the geographic dispersion of the work force, the physical and climatic limitations upon handbilling employees, and various, other inhibitory factors, the Union could not properly and meaningfully contact all the employees in the appropriate units without the aid of a mailing list and hence could not discharge its Statutory duty to represent all the employees regarding their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Respondent operates a main plant on Broadway Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana, as well as plants on Taylor Street and Winter Street in the same city. The Taylor Street facility is located one mile from the Broadway Street installation, while the Winter Street operation is about two miles distant. In addition, Respondent maintains three warehouses in the city, one of which is situated in the vicinity of the Winter Street plant. The record shows that the production and maintenance unit consists of 5,695 employees of whom 4,725 or 83 percent are members of the Union. The office, clerical and technical unit is comprised of 426 employees, of whom 97 or 23 percent have executed designations in favor of the Union. Thus, of the 6,121 employees in the combined units, 4,822 or 80 percent are Union members. Of the 6,121 unit employees, 6,098 work in the plants. The remaining 23 are employed at one of the warehouses. The employees reside in 50 to 75 towns and some 15 counties located in the States of Indiana and Ohio, with approximately 75 percent of them situated in Allen County, Indiana , in which Respondent's plants and warehouses are centered. The National Agreement to which Respondent and the Union are parties provides for the voluntary checkoff of Union dues with an annual 10-day "escape" period, but does not contain any union-security clause compelling membership in the Union as a condition of employment after 30 days. The contract also obligates Respondent to make available plant bulletin boards for the posting of notices by the Union, of which there are 71 in the various work areas. However, the National Agreement recites that "All notices shall be subject to the Manager's approval and he will also arrange for posting." Lloyd Wire, the Union' s business agent, testified without contradiction that, a number of years prior to the hearing herein, Respondent refused to approve the posting of notices if they contained material to which it objected, and those notices consequently were not appended to the bulletin boards. Thereafter, the Union only submitted notices for company approval which did not contain such material. There are approximately 252 Union shop stewards and alternates at Respondent's facilities in Fort Wayne who are available to distribute literature and solicit membership among the employees.' However, the National Agreement bans the solicitation by the stewards of membership or funds during working hours. On the other hand, Respondent distributes pamphlets, bi-weekly newsletters, and other printed matter on a biweekly basis both in the plants and at the gates which contain, inter alia , information pertaining to wage rates and fringe benefits. So far as appears on this record, there is no restriction as to the times or places at which Respondent may effect this distribution.4 Although the Union conducts regular membership meetings, it is undisputed that, out of a total membership of 4,822, the average number of members attending any of these convocations since 1964 has been 64, with the highest attendance at any single meeting numbering 117. Moreover, the approximately 1,300 nonmembers do not attend these gatherings. At the four separate physical locations which Respondent maintains in Fort Wayne where unit employees work, there are a total of seven entrances at which the distribution of handbills and other literature may be made. In order to so communicate with the employees, the Union stations two employee-distributors at each gate. Generally, these distributors present themselves at the gates at 6 a.m. to reach the production and maintenance employees on the first shift and remain there until 7 a.m., returning at 7:30 a.m. to distribute 'There is a turnover of 50 percent of the stewards at the annual elections for those offices, and during a given year , 25 percent normally vacate their seats. 'In August and September 1966, Respondent distributed to all employees three or four single-page flyers pertaining to the negotiations then under way between the parties for a new National Agreement. This distribution was also made on a bi-weekly basis both in the plants and at the gates Again , there is no evidential intimation in this record that the distribution was confined to nonworking time. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 607 information to the office, clerical and technical employees who report for work at 8 a.m. The distributors then depart and return at 2:45 p.m. to hand out literature to the production and maintenance employees who commence work at 3:30 p.m., at which juncture the distributors leave. Although Respondent operates a third shift, no distribution is made to some 200 employees who come to work at this time because the shift has a variety of starting schedules. The record demonstrates that it costs the Union $150 per distribution to compensate the employees who circulate the material. Union Business Agent Wire's testimony is undenied that, over the course of the years, the Union has experienced severe difficulties in reaching the employees in the dual bargaining units through handbilling at the gates due to a variety of reasons. Thus, he pointed out that, according to Respondent's records, the average daily rate of absenteeism amounts to 6 percent of the unit personnel. Furthermore, because employees in the wire mill and powerhouse work on a continuous-operations work schedule, one-forth of them are not in the plant on any given day. Moreover, when the weather is inclement, employees demonstrate an unwillingness to stop to receive Union literature and the distributors themselves abandon their distribution stations to seek cover from the elements. In addition, the distributors may fail to appear at the gates because of a breakdown in their transportation to the plants, the inclemency of the weather, or personal reasons. Between September 1, 1965 and September 30, 1968, Respondent, through the utilization of its employee-records in which the addresses of all employees repose, regularly sent literature to the homes of workers dealing with such topics as safety equipment, holiday greetings, and the duty to vote in political elections.' On 15 occasions during an equivalent period, the Union utilized the mails to convey literature to its membership relating to the announcement of negotiated wage increases and matters pertaining to social affairs. With regard to the utilization of the mails to communicate with its members, the Union first embarked upon this procedure in 1961 but found it too cumbersome and costly. In May 1967, it purchased addressograph equipment which vastly facilitated its channel of communication and permitted it to reach its membership at a cost of only $68 . Business Agent Wire stated that the Union essays to maintain a current list of the addresses of its members. However, during a mailing on September 11, 1967 and again on May 13, 1967, 200 envelopes on each occasion were returned by the Post Office with a notation that the addressee did not reside at the home, together with the new address of the employee which the Union then posted on its master office file. Although Respondent has, since January 1968, provided a weekly list to the Union of the names and addresses of newly hired employees, employees who were absent from work due to illness, military service, or job transfers, as well as the employees who have been laid off, discharged, or recalled, the Union's master files lack the names and addresses of an estimated 1,200 employees in the combined units, or approximately 20 percent of the unit personnel.' Among the subjects about which the Union sought to inform the unit employees in its mailings were such matters as their right under State law to unemployment compensation if they did not qualify for vacation pay; company rules; the requirement under the National Agreement that employees refrain from engaging in unauthorized work stoppages; company propaganda; and, other topics regarding wages, hours , and conditions of employment. Rounding out the chronology , the record shows that Respondent makes available to the Union the names and addresses of all unit employees at its plant in Louisville, Kentucky. In treating with an issue paralleling the one presented here , in Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations , Inc..' the Board observed that: Both the Board and the Courts have found violations of Section 8(a)(5) in unsatisfied requests for information which has a direct bearing on the negotiation of wages and fringe benefits or the bargaining representative ' s ability to administer the agreement.... Once the relevance of the information is established , the Employer ' s good faith refusal to supply it is not a defense. A statutory violation is committed by the refusal to furnish relevant information.' In this case the relevance of the unit employees' address list is apparent from a comparison of the Union ' s statutory duty of fair representation with the difficulties it faced in attempting to reach those to whom it owed such a duty . The Union ' s duty extends to nonunion unit employees as well as to union members. Because of the relatively low union membership in the unit, the absence of a union-security clause in the collective-bargaining agreement , the residential dispersion of unit employees over a five or six county area , the apparent ineffectiveness of the steward system, the lack of adequate exposure of unit employees to union bulletin boards, and the inefficiency of handbilling efforts, the Union could not in any effective manner communicate with the beneficiaries of its statutory obligation. Measuring the considerations deemed important by the Board in Standard Oil in determining whether employers should be directed to make available to unions the addresses of unit employees against the backdrop of the facts in this proceeding , I am persuaded that Respondent's refusal to satisfy the Union ' s request for the home addresses of all the employees which it represents offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. A. Union Membership in the Units As heretofore chronicled, the Union's membership in the production and maintenance unit consists of 83 percent of the employees. Its representation in the office, clerical and technical unit amounts to 23 percent of those employees. In the combined unit, 80 percent of the personnel is sworn to the Union's camp, while the remainder , or 20 percent, is not . The figure of nonunion members is thus approximately 1,300 out of a total of 6,121 affected workers. In Standard Oil, the Union there represented 750 out of 1,500 in the bargaining unit, a figure which the Board characterized as "relatively low." In light of the Board's comment in that case that a labor organization 's Statutory duty of representation "extends to nonunion unit employees as well as to union members," 'Respondent concedes that it maintains personnel records containing the names and addresses of all employees in the units 'When Respondent commenced to furnish the names and home addresses of new hires , dischargees , absentees, etc., to the Union , these encompassed both Union and non -Union members. ' 166 NLRB No. 45 , enfd . 399 F.2d 639 (C.A. 9). 'Respondent makes no contention that the address list of unit employees was not relevant to the Union's performance of its statutory responsibilities. 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I am convinced that the Union's inability to communicate effectively with 20 percent of the combined unit (and most certainly with 77 percent of the office, clerical, and technical employees) would equally hinder compliance with its Statutory obligation to fairly and fully represent all employees in the unit. Moreover, while these percentage figures are not as "low" as those which appeared in Standard Oil. I am not persuaded thay they are de minimus. B. The Absence of a Union-Security Clause As indicated above, the National Agreement between the parties, while providing for the checkoff of Union dues for members, does not contain a union-security clause requiring membership after 30 days of hire. In addition, the checkoff provision permits employees to revoke their authorizations annually. On these facts, it seems obvious that the absence of required union membership, with the concomitant lack of home addresses normally contained on union authorization cards, would cause a serious hindrance to the Union's ability to communicate with nonmembers regarding matters affecting their terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, the Agreement's provision allowing the withdrawal from Union membership at annual periods would also tend to create a communications barrier in the event a former member moved to another location. C. Residential Dispersion As heretofore found, the unit employees reside in 50 to 75 towns and some 15 counties spread over the States of Indiana and Ohio, although 75 percent are located in the county in which Respondent's plants and warehouses are situated. Additionally, these employees work in plants and warehouses that are separated from each other by distances up to 2 miles. It is apparent that both the dispersal of residences and places of work would further unduly impede the Union's efforts in gaining the eye and ear of the unit employees on matters affecting their employment. D. Effectiveness of Steward System E. Exposure of Unit Employees to Plant Bulletin Boards Pursuant to the National Agreement, 71 bulletin boards are available to the Union for the posting of information. However, the Agreement places within the hands of Respondent's manager the authority to arrange for and to approve the content of Union bulletins, and this authority has been exercised in the past. Although it is unclear on this record precisely what the Respondent has objected to regarding the Union's notices, it is apparent that, to some extent, the Union's ability to communicate with the employees through the use of the bulletin boards may be curtailed by management through a form of prior restraint. F. The Effectiveness of Union Handbilling The Union normally attempts to commune with the unit employees by distributing handbills at the plant gates. Due to absenteeism , approximately 6 percent or 367 employees daily cannot be reached by handbilling. Furthermore , about 200 employees who work on the third shift are not contacted because this shift has a variety of starting schedules . Other employees , such as those in the wire mill and powerhouse , may also be out of reach of the Union ' s distribution on any given day because of their continuous-operations work schedules . Moreover, the inclemency of the weather makes it impossible to handbill all employees because they are intent upon scurrying into the plant for shelter , and weather factors, as well as others , detract from the effectiveness of the distribution because the distributors also leave their posts to seek shelter from the elements or are unable to reach their distribution posts due to transportation breakdowns or other personal reasons. G. Effectiveness of Communication at Union Meetings The Union conducts regular membership meetings. However , out of a total membership of 4,822, the average attendance since 1964 has been 64 , with the highest amounting to 117. The approximately 1,300 nonmembers do not , of course , attend the meetings . It seems demonstratively clear on these facts that Union meetings can hardly be portrayed as an effective channel of communication of pertinent information to the work complement. The Union had designated 252 shop stewards and alternates at the various installations maintained by Respondent in Fort Wayne. However, 25 percent of these officers leave their posts during the course of their terms, thus creating a distribution gap of that percentage during any given year. Moreover, while the National Agreement bans the solicitation of membership or funds during working hours by the stewards, there is no apparent impediment placed upon Respondent as to the times when the latter may communicate with the employees regarding their terms and conditions of work. Although Respondent has a Statutory right contractually or otherwise to insist that working time be devoted to work, and is not in any way to be condemned for demanding this stricture, nevertheless, at least in some degree the effectiveness of the Union's steward system could suffer both by the vacancies in its ranks and the over-balance of opportunity in favor of Respondent in reaching the employees. H. Effectiveness of the Use of the Mails In 1961, the Union commenced mailing literature to its members . This mode of communication proved cumbersome and costly until 1967 when the Union purchased an addressograph machine to facilitate its mailing procedures. However , even this improvement in technology had its shortcomings because, on two occasions in 1967, 200 letters were returned by the Post Office due to incorrect addresses and, currently, the Union lacks the addresses of some 1 , 200 employees in the combined units . With the acquisition of the addressograph machine , the cost of distribution has decreased from a figure of $ 150 for manual handbilling to $68 for a distribution by mail. During the material period, Respondent has regularly communicated to its employees by mail through utilization of the home addresses which Respondent maintains of all unit employees on their GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. personnel cards. As Respondent correctly observes in its brief submitted herein , the Board did not announce any per se rule in Standard Oil to cover the matter of satisfying union requests for the home addresses of unit employees in all cases . To be sure, each case must turn upon its own, peculiar facts . In the instant proceeding , the Union was unable to communicate with approximately 1,200 individuals through the use of the mails because it simply did not possess their addresses . Handbilling on any given day might elude over 500 employees because of absenteeism or staggered work schedules . Union meetings are fruitless means of discourse due to the light attendance at those gatherings . On the other hand , Respondent has available the home addresses of all unit employees to which it regularly mails literature . There is no contention by Respondent that compliance with the Union's request for those addresses would be unduly burdensome or costly and, indeed, Respondent furnished this information to the Union at another plant in Louisville, Kentucky, without objection or resistance . In sum , Respondent has failed to advance any reasonable justification for withholding the desired information . Indeed, it would seem advantageous for Respondent to supply the home addresses in light of the evidence that the Union sought to utilize them to inform its constituency that the National Agreement forbade the series of unauthorized work stoppages in which they had been and were engaging. On the basis of the entire record, I find and conclude that the Union requested the home addresses of all unit employees in order to function properly as their collective-bargaining representative and to represent fairly all the employees in the appropriate units as mandated to it by the Statute. By failing to satisfy this request, under the circumstances of this case, I further conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section 1, above , have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.' 'In its brief, Respondent urges that , in the event I should find that it was not entirely justified in refusing the Union 's request for the home addresses of unit employees , I should issue a remedial order "no broader than one which would require Respondent to provide on the basis of Respondent's records the address of those bargaining unit employees identified by the Union for which the Union claims it does not possess an address, providing such address had not been furnished by Respondent during the 12-month period preceding the Union request ." As found herein , while the Union attempts to maintain a current list of the addresses of its members, this list proved to be inadequate on two occasions in 1967 when 200 letters mailed to its members were returned by the Post Office because of incorrect addresses . The furnishing of the home addresses of all unit employees should not be unduly burdensome for Respondent inasmuch as 609 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. General Electric Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All office, clerical, and technical employees at Respondent's plants in Fort Wayne, Indiana, excluding commercial and sales employees, auditors and accountants, test engineers, confidential secretaries and stenographers, and employees who work on the confidential payroll, employee interviewers, placement personnel, personnel visitors, medical technicians, divisional safety personnel, chief receptionist, telephone operators , cashiers , rate setters , planning , wage rate, time-study and methods employees, professional employees, guards, and all 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. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's plants in Fort Wayne, Indiana, excluding test engineers , maintenance machinists , experimental men, tool makers, tool repairmen, die makers, die repairmen, mold makers , mold repairmen , machinists ' apprentices who are engaged in production or repair of machinery or mechanical devices for use in Respondent's manufacturing processes at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant, winding form makers, tool hardeners, tool dressers, development testers, blacksmiths, tool welders, clerical employees, chauffeurs, professional employees , guards, and all 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. Since 1950, and at all times thereafter, the above-named labor organization has been and is the bargaining representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on November 2, 1967, and at all times thereafter, to furnish the above-named labor organization a list of home addresses of employees in the appropriate units, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this proceeding , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, General Electric it concededly maintains that information on its personnel records. Moreover , this chore would seemingly be a nonrecurrent one in light of the fact that Respondent has, since 1968, been providing the Union with the new addresses of all Union and non -Union members whenever there is a change in their employment status . Accordingly, I shall not limit the remedial order to the extent urged by Respondent. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment , by refusing to furnish it, upon request, a list of employees' home addresses for all employees in the appropriate units. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Bargain collectively with the above -named labor organization by furnishing it, upon request, a list of home addresses of all employees in the appropriate units. (b) Post at its plant premises and facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."i• Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." " In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, by furnishing it, upon request , a list of employees' home addresses for all employees in the appropriate units. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The appropriate units are: (a) All office, clerical , and technical employees at Respondent ' s plants in Fort Wayne , Indiana, excluding commercial and sales employees , auditors and accountants , text engineers , confidential secretaries and stenographers , and employees who work on the confidential payroll, employee interviewers , placement personnel , personnel visitors, medical technicans, divisional safety personnel, chief receptionist , telephone operators , cashiers, rate setters , planning , wage rate , time-study and methods employees , professional employees , guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All production and maintenance employees at Respondent ' s plants in Fort Wayne, Indiana, excluding test engineers , maintenance machinists, experimental men, tool makers , tool repairmen, die makers , die repairmen , mold makers, mold repairmen , machinists' apprentices who are engaged in production or repair of machinery or mechanical devices for use in Respondent ' s manufacturing processes at its Fort Wayne , Indiana, plant , winding form makers, tool hardners, tool dressers, development testers , blacksmiths , tool welders, clerical employees, chauffeurs, professional employees , guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated By GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA, 150 W. Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.