Globe Business Furniture, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1988

290 N.L.R.B. 841 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 841
Globe Business Furniture, Inc. and Local 2338,
Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-11921
August 16, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Globe Busi-
ness Furniture , Inc., Hendersonville, Tennessee, its
officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On December 11, 1987, Administrative Law
Judge Howard I . Grossman issued the attached de-
cision . The Respondent filed exceptions and a brief
in support, and the General Counsel filed cross-ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions ,2 to modify the remedy, 3 and to adopt
the recommended Order.4
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F .2d 362 (3d Cir . 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by locking out its employees , we note that the
lockout was implemented following the Respondent's repeated, unlawful
refusals to provide the Union with information it had requested for bar-
gaining . Within the context of these preexisting unfair labor practices, the
Respondent's subsequent lockout of its employees may not be found le-
gitimate.
Similarly , the Respondent's failure to provide the Union with crucial
information central to bargaining renders unlawful its December 8, 1986
meetings with employees . While it is true, as the Respondent contends,
that an employer may properly meet outside the presence of the union in
order to explain its contract proposals directly to its employees, this is
not so when the employer, as the Respondent has done here , has denied
the Union the very information it needed to evaluate those same propos-
als during negotiations . In such circumstances , the Respondent's dialogue
with employees is not a privileged communication under Sec . 8(c) of the
Act, but rather is an effort at circumventing its obligation to deal with
the exclusive representative of those employees. Accordingly, we agree
with the finding that the Respondent thereby violated Sec. 8 (ax5) and (1)
of the Act . Cf. United Technologies, 274 NLRB 609, 610 (1985), enfd. 789
F.2d 121 (2d Or. 1986).
a Because the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are vari-
able and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage
of a proceeding for the addition of interest at a fixed rate on unlawfully
withheld fund payments. We leave to the compliance stage the question
of whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit
funds in order to satisfy our "make whole" remedy. These additional
amounts may be determined depending on the circumstances of each
case, by reference to provisions in the documents governing the funds at
issue and, where there are no governing provisions, to evidence of any
lose directly attributable to the unlawful withholding action , which might
include the loss of return on investment of the portion of funds withheld,
additional administrative coats , etc., but not collateral losses. See
Memyweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 fir. 7 (1979).
• The General Coounsel's request for a visitatorial clause is denied in
the absence of any evidence indicating a likelihood that the Respondent
will attempt to evade compliance . Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB
1080 (1988).
Jane Vandeventer, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles Hampton White and Richard L Colbert, Esgs
(Cornelius & Collins), of Nashville, Tennessee, for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD I. GROSSMAN , Administrative Law Judge.
The charge was filed on 10 December 1986 , 1 a first
amended charge on 18 December , and a second amended
charge on 23 January 1987, by Local 2338 , Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-C102 (the
Union), and complaint issued on 27 January 1987. As
amended at the hearing , it alleges that Globe Business
Furniture, Inc. (Respondent or the Company) refused to
furnish the Union with information on (1) its employees'
addresses, telephone numbers , sex, ages, and marital
status; (2) insurance costs, including present insurance
cost and the past 2 years' loss experience, and factors
used in determining Respondent's projected costs and ra-
tionale for increase in costs ; and (3) Respondent 's previ-
ous employee turnover , including documentation thereof.
Further, the complaint alleges that the Company by-
passed the Union and dealt directly with its employees
by soliciting them to accept the Company's bargaining
proposals. The foregoing actions are alleged to be viola-
tions of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act (the Act).
Further, the complaint alleges that Respondent en-
gaged in a lockout of its employees in an attempt to
modify a collective-bargaining argreement to which it
and the Union were parties, and otherwise to undermine
the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
A hearing was held before me on these matters on 27,
28, and 29 April 1987 in Nashville , Tennessee, and the
General Counsel and Respondent thereafter submitted
briefs . On the entire record, and on my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is an Indiana corporation with an office
and place of business in Hendersonville, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of furniture.
During the 12-month period ending 26 January 1987, Re-
1 All dates are in 1986 unless otherwise indicated.
a The Charging Party's name appears as amended at the hearing.
290 NLRB No. 94
842 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent sold and shipped from its Hendersonville, Ten-
nessee place of business products , goods, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Tennessee , and purchased and received at the
place of business goods and materials exceeding the
aforesaid amount in value directly from points outside
the State of Tennessee . Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings establish that the Union is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Relationship Between the Parties
Since 1963 the Union has been the collective -bargain-
ing represenative of Respondent 's employees in a unit of
production and maintenance , tool room, and shipping
and receiving employees . The parties have entered into a
series of collective-bargaining agreements and are cur-
rently parties to such an agreement , which was effective
on 18 December 1986 and expires accordingly to its
terms on 1 December 1989.3 The issues in this proceed-
ing concern events preceding and following the expira-
tion of the prior agreement , on 1 December 1986.4
B. Bargaining in November
1. Summary of the evidence
a. Union 's bargaining demand and request for
information
By letter dated 2 September 1986 , Ray White , execu-
tive secretary of the Southern Council of Industrial
Workers , informed Company Vice President Frank Pat-
terson that the Union desired to modify the then existing
agreement , and requested the Company to begin negotia-
tions with White 's assistant , Timothy Byrd . White 's letter
also requested Patterson to furnish Byrd with the names,
addresses , phone numbers , classifications, and wage rates
of all employees , together with the age , sex, and marital
status of each employee , the number of single and family
insurance plans, and a complete breakdown on present
insurance cost plus the past 2 years ' loss experience.5
Company Industrial Relations Manager Danny Bates
responded a few days later with a letter to Byrd. Bates
stated that it would take him "a while" to get all the re-
quested information , and that he might be unable to get
some of it . In the meantime, Bates suggested that negoti-
ations begin on 6 November . 6 In a later telephone con-
versation between Bates and Byrd , the former requested
that the date be changed to 7 November .7 The bargain-
8 G.C. Exh. 3.
4 G.C. Exh. 2.
G.C. Exh. 4.
G.C. Exh. 5.
Testimony of Byrd.
ing sessions in November principally concerned noneco-
nomic matters.
b. The 7 November meeting
The meeting was held at the Gallatin City Electric
Company, about 10- 12 miles from Hendersonville.
The Union was represented by Byrd as chief spokes-
man, Local Union President Willie Jenkins , Chief Union
Steward Clifford Wilkinson, and Local Union treasurer
Dorothy White. The last three individuals were compa-
ny employees . Respondent was represented by Vice
President Patterson and Industrial Relations Director
Bates.
Byrd testified that the Union submitted proposed writ-
ten changes in the contract . A preprinted topic entitled
"Article 22-Insurance" was followed by the comment
"See Attachment." However, there was no attachment
pertaining to insurance .8 According to Byrd, he told the
Company's representatives that the Union was unable to
make a proposal on insurance because the Company had
not provided the information requested in White's letter.
This information was needed , Byrd informed the Compa-
ny, so that the Union could get a competitive "bid" on
insurance from the Southern Council of Industrial Work-
ers Trust Fund . Byrd went over the information request-
ed in White's letter . According to Byrd, the Company
gave no reason for not having the information-Patter-
son merely shrugged his shoulders . However , Byrd af-
firmed that Bates said that the Company would give the
information to Union President Jenkins within a few
days so that the latter could forward it to Bryd.
Company Vice President Patterson agreed that the
Union asked for the information requested in White's
letter , but contended that Industrial Relations Director
Bates submitted it in a handwritten note . Although Bates
was called as a witness by Respondent , he did not testify
about insurance discussions at the 7 November meeting-
except to deny that there was any request for insurance
information concerning unit employees until 13 Decem-
ber. Byrd agreed that he received a note , but at the next
meeting . Patterson also contended that the Union's pro-
posed modifications of the contract were submitted at a
meeting on 17 November, and that the Union's reason
for the absence of an insurance proposal was that it had
not had time to get a bid from the Union's trust fund-
not that it had been prevented from doing so by the
Company's failure to provide the requested information.
c. The 17 November meeting
At the next meeting , on 17 November , the parties
were represented by the same individual . According to
Byrd, corroborated by Union President Jenkins and
Chief Steward Wilkinson, the Union informed the Com-
pany's representatives that they had not yet provided the
insurance information requested in White 's letter of 2
September . In the absence of this information, the Union
proposed a general increase in medical benefits, plus a
dental plan. As indicated, Byrd agreed that Bates gave
him a note ; it indicated, according to Bryd , that the
8 G.C. Exh. 6.
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 843
Company had paid insurance claims of more than
$400,000 in 1985 and $438 ,000 in 1986 . Also, the sheet of
paper showed over 200 single employee plans , and over
300 family plans , a total of about 540. Byrd affirmed that
he again asked for the information requested by White's
letter, and that Patterson and Bates said they would have
it the next day.
As indicated, Patterson gave a different chronology of
events . In addition to asserting that the Union 's proposals
on contract modification were submitted at the 17 No-
vember meeting, he contended that there was no more
discussion of insurance (i.e., no renewal of the Union's
request for insurance information ). On the other hand,
Patterson also contended that on 17 November he gave
Byrd a letter to the Company from Corroon & Black,
the administrator of the Company 's self-funded insurance
plan.9 Byrd denied seeing this letter before the hearing,
and affirmed that he saw only a handwritten note from
Bates.
d. The 18 November meeting
The same represenatatives met the next day, 18 No-
vember. Byrd testified that he then told Bates that the
Company total of more than 500 unit employees-over
200 single and over 300 married employees-was false,
and that Bates gave no reply . The Union argued that the
Company's totals must have included nonunit employees
such as clericals, and employees at the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary , Summer Manufacturing , locat-
ed at Franklin , Kentucky . Byrd demanded the insurance
costs and employee totals only for unit employees at the
Hendersonville plant . Bates called his office, and said
that the unit complement was 377. Chief Steward Wil-
kinson agreed with this figure.
Company Vice President Patterson denied that there
was any discussion of insurance or a request for insur-
ance information at the 18 November meeting.
e. The 19 November meeting and comments by
Company's chief financial officer
On the next day, 19 November , the Company's vice
president in charge of finance , James Mills, attended the
meeting . According to Byrd, corroborated by Wilkinson,
Mills discussed company finances , and said that the med-
ical insurance cost was either $1 .40 or $1 .46 hourly per
employee.10 The Union multiplied the number of em-
ployees in the plant times $1.40 times the number of
work hours yearly, and came up with an asserted compa-
ny cost of about $1.2 million for medical insurance. The
Union 's representative doubted the accuracy of this
figure, and asked Mills whether it was true . He asserted
that it was . The Union protested the discrepancy be-
tween the prior year 's cost, $438,000, and the $1.2 mil-
lion projection claimed by the Company.
Y The letter , dated 30 October, states that the Company's medical in-
surance expenses in 1985 for "Globe employees" were about $432,000,
and in 1986 about $438,000. "Projected" expenses for 1987 were about
$91 for each employee and about $245 for each family (R. Exh. 1).
to Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that Mills gave $1 .40 as the
hourly cost.
Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that he told the
Company that they as well as the Union knew that their
$1.2 million figure was "ridiculous ." Patterson agreed
that the figure was high and said that he would try to
get to Corroon & Black in a day or two, and get the
matter "straightened out." Byrd affirmed that Patterson
promised the information the next day.
Company Vice President Patterson acknowledged that
Mills spoke at the 19 November meeting and gave "pro-
jected financial information ." However, Patterson denied
that there was any discussion of insurance or any request
for insurance information . The Union asked to see the
Company 's audited financial statements . Mills did not tes-
tify.
f. The 20 November meeting
On 20 November the Company made its economic
proposals to the Union ." They continued to include
Company-paid insurance, but increased the employee de-
ductible over that in the previous plan .' a Whereas the
Company paid for dependent coverage under the then
existing plan, proposed that employees pay for this ex-
pense under the new contract.'s
As shown hereinafter, these proposals were changed
to an offer that the only employee payment for depend-
ent coverage would be by "temporary" employees, and
that this would be restricted to one-half the cost of such
coverage. Whereas the old contract paid for all insurance
costs (up to specified limits) for dependents and employ-
ees who had completed their "probationary periods," the
Company's new proposal was that employees would first
be covered after 120 days of employment, but that
"new" employees would be required to pay one -half of
the cost of their dependent coverage. The witnesses oc-
casionally substituted "temporary" for "new" employees
in identifying those employees who would be required to
pay one-half of dependent coverage.
According to Byrd, the Union could not determine the
actual cost for dependent coverage for new or tempo-
rary employees without getting some explanation from
the Company for the difference between the $438,000
last-year cost figure , and Mills' projection of about $1.2
million for the next year . Although the Union asked for
an explanation , the Company gave no answer. Byrd testi-
fied that Patterson just shrugged his shoulders, and that
Bates said the Company could not get the information.
Byrd responded to Bates that the latter could get infor-
mation on insurance costs for every unit employee at
Hendersonville from Corroon & Black. Bates again
denied that he could get the information , and Byrd re-
plied that Bates knew he could, that all Corroon & Black
had to do was "punch their computer a couple of times"
and get the information.
In addition , the Union requested information from the
Company on the amount of savings that it would achieve
as a result of its economic proposals.
" G.C. Exh. 8.
12 G C. Exh. 2, an. 22.
23 G.C. Exh. 8.
844 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Patterson testified that the parties agreed on language
changes, and that the Union wanted to know the project-
ed savings from the Company's economic proposal.
g. Union's request for insurance costs and other
information concerning unit employees
As noted, the Union questioned the Company's pro-
jected insurance costs, based in part on its belief that
those costs included nonunit employees. Wilkinson testi-
fied that the Union on 18 November requested costs only
for unit employees.14
In an apparent effort to prove that the Union knew or
could have learned the number of unit employees and
thus their insurance costs, Industrial Relations Manager
Bates testified about union access to timeclocks and time-
cards in the plant, and six union stewards. The existing
contract had a checkoff provision, and the Company
provided a union steward with a weekly checkoff
report.15 In addition, according to Bates, the Company
distributes a seniority list twice yearly to the union presi-
dent and a steward, and posts it on all three of the Com-
pany's bulletin boards.16 Finally, a weekly seniority list
is distributed to all supervisors. Bates agreed that salaried
employees had a better health plan than hourly employ-
ees, and that the benefits were paid differently.
Union President Jenkins testified that there were 70-80
employees in the bargaining unit who were not members
of the Union, and whose names were not on the checkoff
list. Tennessee is a right-to-work state. He testified that
he saw all three of the Company's bulletin boards daily
during the last 4 months of 1986, and never saw an em-
ployee seniority list. The Union's president affirmed that
he asked Bates for one in late 1986. Jenkins further testi-
fied that he could have obtained a list at any time-
which he explained by saying that he got one, without
management approval, from an office clerical. Jenkins
asked Bates for a copy of the foreman's seniority roster,
but never received one.
Examination of the Company's checkoff printouts sup-
plied to the Union and the seniority lists assertedly
posted on the bulletin boards shows that neither of these
documents indicated the employees' addresses, telephone
numbers , sex, age , or marital status.17
Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that'he had access
to the checkoff lists and the timecards, and from the
latter could have counted the number of unit employees.
Wilkinson stated that he agreed with Bates that the total
of 377 unit employees was accurate, and that it was this
figure that the Union used in its computation that Mills'
$1.40 hourly insurance amount meant a total insurance
cost of $1.2 million to the Company.
14 I do not credit Bates' testimony that the Union first asked for unit
insurance costs on 13 December. In addition to Wilkinson's explicit testi-
mony, it is obvious from White 's original demand letter that he was
asking for information pertaining to unit employees . Patterson admitted
that he knew the parties were negotiating only about unit employees.
15 R. Exh. 2.
16 R. Exh. 3.
17 R. Exhs. 2 and 3.
2. Factual analysis
Union spokesman Byrd was a credible witness with
good recall of the events. In addition, he was corroborat-
ed on various points by other union witnesses. The only
company witness who testified about these events, Vice
President Patterson, was inconsistent at times and was
uncorroborated. Thus, Patterson's assertion that there
was no discussion of insurance at the 17 November meet-
ing is inconsistent with his claim that he then gave a
copy of the Corroon & Black letter concerning that sub-
ject to union spokesman Byrd. In the absence of any tes-
timony from Financial Officer Mills, I credit the union
witnesses that Mills discussed company finances includ-
ing projected insurance costs of 19 November. Patterson
agreed that Mills gave "projected financial information,"
but denied that he discussed insurance. I do not credit
this denial, or Patterson's other denials that the Union re-
quested insurance information. I conclude that the Union
on various occasions repeated the request for information
in White's letter and told the Company the reason it
needed this information-in order to get a competitive
bid from the union trust fund. It is unnecessary to deter-
mine whether the Union's proposal was made on 7 or 17
November, although it is probable that Byrd was correct
in affirming that it was given on the earlier date.
As set forth above, White's letter asked for various
items of information about employees, the number of
single and family insurance plans, and the past 2 years'
loss experience. Additional requests for information were
made during the November negotiations based on the
Company's profered information-the costs specifically
attributable to unit employees, and the reasons for the
Company's projected increase in costs from about
$438,000 to about $1.2 million annually.
The testimony of Byrd and Wilkinson corroborates the
Company's evidence that it gave the Union a handwrit-
ten note with the 1985 and 1986 loss experience based on
the Corroon & Black letter."" However, the letter speci-
fies that it concerns the benefit plans of "Globe employ-
ees," not unit employees. The fact that this loss figure in-
cludes nonunit employees is further established by the
Company's assertion of about 540 insurance plans-far
more than the 377 employees that, Bates agreed, were in
the unit. Such individuals included salaried employees
who, according to Bates, had a better plan with benefits
that were paid differently. It follows that the cost figures
given to the Union in November did not portray the
prior insurance costs of unit employees for two rea-
sons-the figures included nonunit employees, and the
latter had a different benefit plan.
Based on all the evidence, I conclude that there were
377 employees in the unit at the time of these negotia-
tions. However, it does not follow that the Union would
have been able to compute the prior insurance costs for
unit employees even if it had had a reliable cost figure
for all company employees-the variation in cost be-
tween unit and nonunion employees was such that a unit
cost figure based on the proportion of unit employees
rs R. Exh. 1.
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 845
(377) to total employees (540) would have been inaccu-
rate.
Further , the Company claimed a "projected" cost for
the forthcoming year with an increase from $438,000 to
about $ 1.2 million. This was not explained by the Com-
pany despite the Union 's request for clarification.
I therefore conclude that , through November, the
Company did not provide any of the information re-
quested by the Union, either in White's 2 September
letter, or during negotiations . However , the parties did
agree on various noneconomic matters.
C. Bargaining in Early December
1'. The 1 December meeting, the Union 's rejection
of the Company's proposal, and the extension
agreement
The period between the 20 November meeting and the
1 December meeting included the Thanksgiving holiday.
Union spokesman Byrd testified that he had other union
business on the first 3 days of that week . However, Byrd
affirmed , he offered to meet with the Company on the
weekend before 1 December (a Monday), when the exist-
ing contract was scheduled to expire . The Company re-
fused to, according to Byrd. Patterson denied this, and
asserted that he offered to meet on Thanksgiving Day,
the following Friday, or the weekend . Byrd was the
more credible witness and I accept his version.
On Monday , 1 December, the Union advised the Com-
pany at the meeting that union spokesman Byrd would
be available through Thursday of that week but would
be unavailable on Friday because of other commit-
ments.19
The Union submitted economic proposals,80 as did the
Company.81 The latter included a new insurance provi-
sion that required all employees employed after 1 De-
cember 1986 (new employees) to complete 120 workday
before being eligible for insurance benefits . Therefter, the
Company would pay for new employees ' insurance and
the employee would pay for one-half of his dependents'
coverage. 22 There was no change in coverage for exist-
ing employees. According to union spokesman Byrd, the
Company said that it would save about $500,000 as a
result of this proposal over a 5-year contract. Company
Vice President Patterson testified that the savings would
be $40,000 to $50,000, although the period in which they
would be effected is not clear from the record.23
Byrd protested that the Company 's stated insurance
costs were not true , and asked why those costs would
have increased over 60 percent from one year to the
next. According to Byrd 's uncontradicted testimony, the
Company gave no response.24
The Union's membership rejected the Company's pro-
posal on the evening of 1 December but voted to contin-
ue working during continued negotiations. Byrd called
Patterson and requested a 15-day extension of the agree-
ment. He conceded that he told Patterson that there
would be a strike vote if the Company refused to extend
the contract. Following a return call from Patterson,
Byrd and other union representatives went to the plant
in the evening and were presented with an extension
agreement that provided that the extension would not go
past midnight on 8 December, and that the exclusive
issue to be discussed was the length of the contract. The
Union demanded that this latter restriction on the re-
maining issues be omitted, and the Company agreed.25
2. The 2 December meeting
The Union continued to protest the validity of the
Company 's insurance costs, and the Company replied
that they were based on "actuarial valuations." Howev-
er, Patterson admitted that he told the Union that he
would call Corroon & Black and get the dollar amount,
based on actual loss experience, of the Company's pro-
posal that new employees pay half the cost of dependent
coverage.
The Union was also concerned about a "two-tier" em-
ployee system-the Company's hiring of "temporary"
employees at lesser wage rates and benefits . The Compa-
ny's 1 December proposal would have eliminated a prior
restriction on the number of such employees . 26 In re-
sponse to the Union 's inquiry , the Company said that it
planned to hire 100 temporary employees in the follow-
ing year . The Union then asked for the Company 's turn-
over rate during the past 3 years as a rationale for its
projection of the hiring of temporary employees, and the
Company promised to provide it the next day. The par-
ties also discussed wages and other economic issues. Pat-
terson agreed that Byrd said it was the Union 's intention
to negotiate without a strike.
3. The 3 December meeting
Bates told the Union that the Company had an 8-10-
percent turnover rate, and that 40-50 employees annually
had left the Company . Although Chief Steward Wilkin-
son said that he accepted this figure, Byrd testified that
he told the Company it was "ridiculously high ," and that
the national average was less than 5 percent.
The Union continued to protest the accuracy of the
Company 's asserted insurance costs , and asked how
much new employees would actually have to pay as
their one-half share of the cost of dependent coverage.27
19 Testimony of Union President Jenkins.
90 G.C. Exhs . 9 and 10.
a' G.C. Exh. 11.
as G.C. Exh. 11 , art. 22.
as According to Patterson , the Company 's proposal would achieve its
greatest savings as a result of the insurance revision, with changes in
wages, job classifications , and other categories resulting in lesser savings.
a• On the same day, I December, the Union 's auditor examined the
Company's financial statement with Company Vice President Mills. Byrd
testified on cross-examination that the Union 's auditor could not deter-
mine the Company 's financial status because the Company did not use
"proper accounting procedures ." However, the Union did not raise the
issue again, and the Company 's financial status was not an issue thereaf-
ter.
sa G.C. Exh. 12.
$' G.C. Exh . 11, an. 15, sec. 14.
57 According to Patterson , the Union made this request an 2 Decem-
ber, and he told them on 3 December that it would be no more than $75
to $76 monthly. However, he agreed that it was "excessive," and prom-
ised a lower figure based on "actual " costs.
846 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, the Union renewed its demand for the informa-
tion requested in White's 2 September letter, and the
Company promised to give it the next day.
4. The 4 December meeting
Byrd and Jenkins testified that the Company stated
that one-half of dependent coverage for temporary em-
ployees would be about $75. This in turn was based on
Corroon & Black's "projected" costs in their 30 October
letter, which asserted a cost of about $91 for single em-
ployees and about $245 for family plans.28 Byrd averred
that the Company's reasoning on the $75 charge was as
follows: "You take $91 from $244, that leaves you with
$150, and you divide by two which is $75 and that is
what the figure would be." This was one-half the single
rate, according to Jenkins.29
The Union asked the Company to provide the infor-
mation previously requested and the Company replied
that they did not have it. At that point, there was a
recess which the Uion prepared a letter to the Company
requesting (1) documentation (a) that 377 was the correct
number of unit employees, and (b) that the employees'
turnover figures previously given were accurate; (2) the
projected number of employees in 1987; (3) the projected
number of temporary employees in the next 3 years and
the means of arriving at this figure; and (4) a determina-
tion about the projected temporary employees would be
in addition to the estimated unit complement of 377. In
addition, the letter repeated the previously expressed dis-
crepancies between the 1986 and projected 1987 insur-
ance costs, and requested the factors used in figuring the
1987 projection as well as an explanation of the 60-per-
cent increase.30
The Union then delivered this letter to Patterson. Byrd
affirmed that he told the Company that the information
was needed because of the effect that the Company's
proposals would have on temporary employees and the
insurance costs of new hires. According to Byrd, Patter-
son said that he would give the requested information to
Union President Jenkins and other union officials on the
following day. Patterson agreed on cross-examination
that he told the Union he would provide a response the
next day.31
According to Byrd, the meeting closed with his an-
nouncement that he had to leave town and would call
the Company about the next meeting. Patterson contend-
ed that Byrd promised to call him back the same after-
noon, and to have the next meeting either on the same
day or the following day, 5 December. Byrd did not
call, according to Patterson. Union President Jenkins,
however, testified that Patterson was reminded on 4 De-
cember that he had been advised 3 days before that Byrd
28 Supra, fn. 9.
29 Without quarreling over the Company's arithmetic , its apparent rea-
soning was that subtraction of the cost of a single employee plan from
the cost of a family plan resulted in the cost of dependent coverage, and
that half this amount would be the Company 's proposed expense to be
paid by new employees . These figures are based on Corroon & Black's
projected costs for 1987 rather than the actual costs for prior years (R.
Exh. 1).
30 G.C. Exh. 14.
31 Patterson also contended that he could buy only estimate future
sales and the number of employees.
would be out of town on 5 December. Further, accord-
ing to Jenkins, it was agreed on 4 December that Byrd
would call Patterson on the morning of 8 December (a
Monday) to arrange the next meeting. I credit Byrd's
and Jenkins' testimony concerning the way in which the
4 December meeting ended.
After the meeting, Vice President Patterson asked
Union President Jenkins for a meeting the next day, 5
December. Jenkins refused because Byrd was out of
town. Patterson testified that Jenkins called early on 6
December stating that there could be no meeting because
Byrd was out of town. Patterson also asserted various
preparations for a 5 December meeting. Jenkins denied
the call, and I do not credit Patterson's testimony-he
knew on 4 December, or before, that Byrd would be out
of town on 5 December and that there would be no
meeting on that day.
5. Company's final proposal on 6 December and
Union's rejection
Byrd returned home on the evening of 5 December
and found messages from Patterson and Bates waiting for
him on his telephone recorder. Patterson wanted a meet-
ing on 6 December, and Bates left his work number. Pat-
terson called Byrd early on Saturday, 6 December, and
requested a meeting that day. Byrd responded that he
had a meeting in the afternoon with Ray White and that
evening with the negotiating committee. Patterson then
said that he would deliver the Company's "final propos-
al" that morning to Jenkins and the other committee
members. Byrd replied that, under these circumstances,
the committee was not compelled to present the proposal
to the membership. Byrd asked whether the Company
had given Jenkins the information that it had promised
on 4 December. Patterson replied that the Company had
not done so. Byrd then responded to Patterson that the
Company was not negotiating in good faith. He repeated
the Union's need for the information. Union President
Jenkins confirmed that he asked Bates for the requested
information on the morning of 5 December, and that the
latter said he did not have it.
Patterson and Bates personally went to Jenkins' home
on Saturday morning, 6 December, and attempted to de-
liver a company proposal. Jenkins refused to receive it
on the ground that the committee would have questions
about it, but the Company's representatives left the pro-
posal and a cover letter in Jenkins' mailbox and distribut-
ed copies to other committee members, including
Byrd.32
The Company's proposal suggests various benefit in-
creases for current employees, lesser benefits for employ-
ees hired after 1 December 1986, and other provisions.
The Company's 1 December proposal that new employ-
ees pay one-half of the cost of insurance coverage for de-
pendent33 is amended to provide that the cost to the em-
ployees would be calcualted on the prior year's actual
cost to the Company. However, there is nothing in the
proposal itself to indicate the dollar value of that cost.34
32 G.C. Exhs. 15 and 16.
33 G.C. Exh. 11, art. 22.
94 G.C. Exh. 15, sec. II, art. 22.
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE
Although the prior agreement limited the Company to
15 temporary employees , after which it was required to
advance the most senior temporary employees to proba-
tionary or full-time status ,85 the Company's 6 December
proposal changed this to allow the Company 50 tempo-
rary employees, after which the most senior temporary
employees would obtain "seniority right" only in the
event of layoff or recall.36
The Union's membership met on Sunday , 7 December,
and voted to reject the Company 's proposal but to con-
tinue working and to send the negotiating committee
back to the bargaining table . The issues preventing ac-
ceptance were the Company 's proposal on new or tem-
porary employees and on insurance . The lesser benefits
for new or temporary employees would have created a
"two-tier" employee system , and the insurance proposal
was not understandable . Byrd read the latter proposal
based on actual costs according to its terms , but told the
members that the Company 's proposed $75 charge was
based on projected costs.37
D. Patterson 's Meeting with Employees on 4 or 5
December
1. Summary of evidence
The complaint originally alleged that the Company at-
tempted to bypass the Union and deal directly with em-
ployees by soliciting them on 8 December to accept the
Company's bargaining proposals . The complaint was
amended at hearing to allege 13 and 15 December as ad-
ditional dates of such activity . Further, the record con-
tains evidence of company meetings with employees
about the bargaining on other dates.
Patterson testified that he had a "communications
meeting" on 5 December with 16 to 20 "first shift em-
ployees" in which he explained the Company 's 1 Decem-
ber proposal . The Company had received word from
employees that they did not understand the proposal and
believed that the Company was trying to cut benefits. At
this meeting, various employees, including Randy She- •
hane, told the Company that it should "take" its proposal
"to the employees."
Randy Shehane, a union vice president, testified on
cross-examination that he had served "on something at
the Company that is called a communications commit-
tee," which held monthly meetings with management.
On 1 December, the Company 's maintenance superin-
tendent called union members out of the shop and asked
them whether they understood the Company's proposal
of that day. At a "communications meeting" on 4 De-
cember, there were various nonunion employees who
had not attended union meetings and who stated that
they did not understand the Company's 1 December pro-
posal . Shehane himself said this , and agreed that it was
possible that somebody at this meeting suggested that
Patterson meet with employees and explain the proposal,
although Shehane did not recall suggesting this himself.
ae G.C. Exh. 2, art. 15, sec. 14.
Sa G.C. Exh. 15, sec . II, art. 15, sec. 14.
sT Testimony of Byrd and Jenkins.
847
2. Factual analysis
I credit Shehane's testimony that a superintendent
called union members out of the shop on 1 December
and asked them whether they understood the Company's
proposal.
The record is not clear on the nature and function of
the "communications committee." If it was a union com-
mittee, there appears to be no reason why its meetings
with management would be attended by employees who
not only were not members of the committee, but were
not even union members . It is also unclear whether there
was one meeting on 4 December, one on 5 December, or
two meetings.
I conclude that on 4 or 5 December, Patterson ad-
dressed "first shift employees," as he testified , who for
some reason were present at a management meeting with
the communications committee . At this meeting, Patter-
son explained the Company's 1 December proposal.
Some employees, including Shehane , suggested that he
explain the proposal to employees. Patterson in fact had
already done so at the meeting prior to receipt of this
advice.
E. The Events of Monday, 8 December-Patterson Is
Further Meetings with Employees His Conversation
with Byrd, and the Lockout
1. The meetings with employees
a. Summary of the evidence
Patterson and Bates held various meetings with em-
ployees on 8 December . Shehane testified about a meet-
ing with 50 to 60 press and maintenance employees that
began about 10 a.m . and lasted about an hour . According
to Shehane, Patterson said that the Union had "misled
the membership," and that he wanted to explain the
Company's proposal before the members voted on it.38
In a question-and-answer period following his speech,
Patterson was asked why the employees had been re-
quired to work the previous Saturday . His answer was
that there had been "a threat of either a lockout or a
strike." Somebody asked Patterson whether he would
"lock the doors," and he replied that the Company
would do so if necessary.
Union Steward Walter Brinkley testified that he at-
tended a meeting of about 30 employees that began
about noon and lasted 30 to 45 minutes . Patterson read
parts of the Company 's proposal from a screen , and said
that he wanted to make sure the employees understood it
before they voted on it that night . Somebody asked why
the Company had not answered Byrd 's questions, and
Patterson replied that he had done so to the best of his
ability. The Company's vice president said that if the em-
ployees "didn't vote on it that night that the gates would
be locked."39
Sa Patterson obviously was unaware that the membership had already
rejected the Company 's proposal on the previous day.
39 On cross-examination , in response to a leading question concerning
whether Patterson had threatened the employees in any way, Brinkley
answered in the negative.
848 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Patricia Jones, a sewing machine operator, testified
that she attended a meeting of about 30 cutting, sewing,
and receiving employees that began about 2 p.m. Patter-
son read the contract from a projector and told employ-
ees that the Union either did not understand it or had
not explained it accurately to the members. Patterson
further stated that the employees did not realize how se-
rious the problem was and that there could be a lockout.
Union President Jenkins testified that he attended an
employee meeting on 8 December at which Patterson
"showed slides and read the contract." Jenkins asked
Patterson whether the employee's one-half share of the
insurance expenses was still $75, and Patterson replied
that it was .40
Company Vice President Patterson denied that he told
employees he was going to lock them out. However, he
asserted that employees asked him whether there was
going to be a strike or a lockout, and whether they could
continue to work. According to Patterson, the fact that
the employees asked these questions gave him the
"option" to lock them out, and he so advised them. Pat-
terson also asserted that the Company's insurance pro-
posal on 6 December was based on the previous year's
actual cost. However, he agreed on cross-examination
that he did not give the Union the actual figures on unit
costs prior to 8 December, and that the Company first
asked for this information from Corroon & Black on 14
December. By letter from Corroon & Black dated 15
December 1986, the Company received the "actual cost
(of insurance) for the bargaining unit employees" for the
year ending 1 September 1986.41
b. Factual analysis
I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses and conclude that the Company held employee
meetings on 8 December during which Vice President
Patterson read the Company's last contract proposal and
said that the Union had misled the members about it, and
stated that there might be a lockout. Further, as noted,
the Union Steward Brinkley testified that at the meeting
he attended, Patterson said the "gates would be locked"
if the employees "didn't vote on it that night." I credit
Brinkley's testimony and conclude that Patterson thereby
communicated to employees the message that there
would be a lockout if the employees did not vote favor-
ably on the Company's proposal-it is obvious that he
did not intend to close down the Company if the em-
ployees accepted the last company proposal.
I further conclude that the Company had not given
the Union the actual cost of one-half of dependent cover-
age at that time, and , indeed, did not even have it. I
credit Jenkins' uncontradicted testimony that Patterson
told employees on 8 December that the cost was still
$75. Since this figure was based on Corroon & Black's
"projected" cost figures in its 30 October letter'42 the
40 On cross-examination , Chief Steward Wilkinson , in response to a
leading question , asserted that the Company's 6 December proposal did
away with projected costs and was based on the prior year's actual cost.
41 G.C. Exh. 24.
42 Supra, fn. 9.
clause in the Company's 6 December proposal-that the
employee's share was based on actual cost-was either
erroneous or incomplete.43
2. Byrd's conversation with Patterson and the
lockout
a. Summary of evidence
Byrd was scheduled to go to Athens, Georgia, on
other union business on 8 December. He affirmed that he
called Patterson's office at 7 a.m. that day pursuant to his
undertaking during the last negotiating session on 4 De-
cember. According to Byrd, Patterson's secretary said
that he was in meetings and was unavailable. While on
the way to Athens, Byrd called again and spoke with
Patterson's secretary about 9:30 or 10 a.m. Patterson was
still busy. Finally, about 4:30 p.m., Byrd spoke with Pat-
terson and advised him that the Union had rejected the
last offer but was not threatening to strike. The members
wanted to continue working and negotiating and there
were other issues to discuss. Patterson replied that he
was locking out the employees at midnight. Byrd re-
sponded that the Company had other options such as im-
plementing its final offer, and that the employees were
not going to strike under any circumstances. This ended
the conversation and Byrd immediately returned to Ten-
nessee.
Patterson testified that he "could not believe" that
Byrd was "on the road to Athens," but agreed that Byrd
tried to call him. Patterson contended that he tried to
call back. Bryd finally reached Patterson at 4:30 p.m.
Patterson agreed that Byrd said the men wanted to con-
tinue working but denied that he said there would be no
strike. According to Patterson, he told Byrd that he was
not going to allow the employees to continue working
because the Company had "tried to meet during this time
and that time." Accordingly, the parties were at impasse,
and the Company was exercising its rights to shut the
plant down. Byrd offered nothing further, according to
Patterson.
The Company therefore shut the plant down at mid-
night on 8 December . Its reasons , according to Patter-
son, was that the Union had rejected the last company
proposal, and that it was necessary "to bring this thing
to a head . . . and place some pressure on Mr. Byrd to
get back to Tennessee to negotiate a contract." Accord-
ing to Byrd, the Company had never previously asserted
that the parties were at impasse.
b. Factual analysis and summary
Patterson's admission that Byrd said the men wanted
to continue working is the equivalent of saying that there
would be no strike. Accordingly, I credit Byrd's testimo-
ny on this issue . Although Byrd did not specifically sug-
43 It is clear from the foregoing that Wilkinson 's testimony, cited
above, fn. 40, is inaccurate . In cross-examination of Wilkinson on the
Union's demand letter of 4 December (G.C. Exh. 14), counsel elicited a
statement that that letter did not demand the actual dollar amounts of the
insurance coverage . However , as shown above, the Union demanded this
information on 2 or 3 December , Patterson gave the figure of $75 to $76,
and agreed that it was "excessive."
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE
gest the date of another bargaining session , I credit his
testimony that he told Patterson that the union members
wanted to continue negotiating , that there were other
issues to discuss , and that the Company had options
other than a lockout.
In summary, the parties' last bargaining session on 4
December included the Union's written request for infor-
mation and the Company 's promise to supply it the next
day. The Company did not do so. It tried but failed to
arrange a meeting on 5 or 6 December . The union
spokesman's reasons for his unavailablity on those days
were communicated to the Company . The Company sub-
mitted another proposal that the employees rejected be-
cause of concern about temporary employees and insur-
ance costs . On the next day, 8 December , Vice President
Patterson spoke to employees , had the conversation with
Byrd described above , and shut down the plant at mid-
night.
F. Communcations Between the Parties and the
Meeting on 13 December
1. Summary of evidence
Vice President Patterson wrote a letter to Byrd dated
9 December "confirming" their conversation on 8 De-
cember that the membership had voted to continue to
work without a contract and had rejected the Company's
proposal . The letter further advised that the Company
"plans to exercise its rights as to not operating the plant
without a contract ."44 Byrd wrote a letter dated 12 De-
cember in which he affirmed that he had told Patterson
that the employees were ready to work under the old
contract , to continue negotiating , and were not threaten-
ing to strike . Further, Byrd had offered to let the Com-
pany implement its last offer pending further negotia-
tions . The letter also accuses the Company of engaging
in an illegal lockout and unfair labor practices.45
Byrd received a call on 10 or 11 December from the
Federal mediator for the purpose of arranging a meeting.
This was accomplished and the meeting was held at the
usual place, the Gallatin City Electric Company. The
Union was represented by the same individuals-Byrd,
Jenkins, Wilkinson, and Dorothy White-while the Com-
pany was represented by Patterson , Bates, and company
counsel. The Federal mediator was also present.
According to Byrd , the Union said that there was no
sense in having a meeting if the Company did not pro-
vide the information previously requested , in particular,
information on the insurance costs and the turnover rate.
Byrd read or delivered his letter of 12 December to Pat-
terson, and reminded the Company of the Union's re-
quests in Ray White 's 2 September letter and the Union's
4 December communcation . Patterson stated that he
would try to call Corroon & Black immediately and the
meeting recessed . The Company's representatives re-
turned to state that they were unable to get the informa-
tion at that time, but might be able to get it by 15 De-
44 Q.C. Exh. 18 . The letter was sent to a former address of Byrd's but
he received it 2 days later.
45 Q.C. Exh. 17.
849
cember at which time they would call to arrange a meet-
ing.
Patterson agreed with most of Byrd 's testimony,
except that he testified that the Union's request for insur-
ance information had a new element-whereas the Union
had previously requested the "projected cost on the
Company's total insurance program ," it now wanted the
"projected costs (for) the hourly bargaining unit." Pat-
terson averred that Byrd was acting "very independ-
ent."46
2. Factual analysis
I credit Bryd's testimony regarding this meeting. Pat-
terson 's assertions that the Union had previously request-
ed the cost of the Company 's total insurance program,
including the costs of nonunit employees , and first re-
quested the "projected" costs pertaining to unit employ-
ees on 13 December are inaccurate for the two reasons
previously given-the Union had previously asked for
the actual costs pertaining only to unit employees.
G. Patterson 's Conversation with Wilkinson on the
Evening of 13 December and Meetings at Shoney's on
15 December
As indicated, the amended complaint alleges that the
Company attempted to bypass the Union on 13 and 15
December as well as on an earlier date . Chief Steward
Wilkinson testified that he and his wife were attending a
company Christmas party on Saturday evening, 13 De-
cember . After supper, Patterson came to their table and
said that they had to "discuss this thing and get it re-
solved." Wilkinson replied that he was there to have a
good time and did not want to talk business-he was
going to dance with his wife. A short time later, Patter-
son came back and said that they "really needed to dis-
cuss this."
Wilkinson told Patterson that changes had to be made
in the Company's insurance proposals and the hiring of
temporary employees. The Union could not accept an ar-
rangement whereby some employees paid for insurance
and others did not-this would split the Union . Instead,
Wilkinson suggested all the employees might pay a
smaller amount and had in the past paid $3 .08 weekly for
dependent coverage . He also suggested that the Compa-
ny delay in the hiring of temporary employees. Patterson
said he would draw something up, and Wilkinson sug-
gested that Patterson call him Monday morning at his
home. Patterson 's testimony agrees with this account on
the essential points.
Patterson called Wilkinson on the morning of 15 De-
cember and met with him and Union President Jenkins
for lunch at Shoney's . Company President Parks was
present . The Company 's representatives presented a
rough draft of an agreement , and Jenkins again asked for
the information the Union had requested.
46 Patterson also noted that Byrd was wearing a T-shirt of the United
Furniture Workers , which was seeking representation at the Company's
Sumner subsidiary . Byrd theorized that the Company wanted a poor con-
tract in Hendersonville in order to influence the voters at Sumner in a
forthcoming Board election on 19 December.
850 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties met again at Shoney's later the same day.
In addition to the original union representatives, Doro-
thy White was present on this occasion, while James
Mills and a Corroon & Black representative were on the
Company's side.
The evidence is conflicting on the nature of insurance
data presented by the Company. Chief Steward Wilkin-
son testified that he was shown a Corroon & Black letter
dated that day (15 December). The letter in fact shows
insurance costs for unit employees for the prior 2 years
and indicates that the cost had gone down. There is no
reference to future projected costs.47 Nonetheless, Wil-
kinson asserted that the Corroon & Black representative
spoke of "projected" costs and said that "there was no
way of nailing it down to a dollar and cents figure."
Union President Jenkins testified that the costs on Cor-
roon & Black's "first sheet" had gone down but "then
the next year they went triple high, triple the difference
with their records showing a trend of everything . . .
going down and then all of a sudden it was going to
triple." Jenkins told the Company that they "could get it
cheaper from Aetna," said that he could never under-
stand the Company's figures. Company Vice President
Patterson testified that the Corroon & Black representa-
tive, a "Mr. Beard .. . tried to explain again . . . that
those were projected costs based off actual valuations."
I conclude that at this meeting the Company did show
Jenkins, Wilkinson, and White a Corroon & Black letter
dated 15 December showing actual unit employee costs
for 1985 and 1986.48 There is no credible evidence that
the Union's representatives were given copies. The Com-
pany also showed them a prior letter from the same firm
projecting higher costs for 1987.49
The Corroon & Black representative responded to Jen-
kins ' objections in essence by arguing that they were ir-
relevant, because the parties were then discussing a flat
weekly rate of $3 for all employees. The Company also
suggested other `options."50 Company President Parks
asked the Union's representatives whether they could
"handle Mr. Boyd."
H. Meetings on 16 and 17 December and the Final
Agreement
The parties met again on 16 December. The Company
was represented by Patterson, James Mills, and the Fed-
eral mediator was again present. The Union's representa-
tives were joined by Southern Council Executive Secre-
tary Ray White. Union Vice President Randy Shehane
was also present.
White told the Company's representatives that he was
the Union's exclusive bargaining agent , that he had des-
ignated Byrd as his representative, and that the Compa-
ny's meetings with other union representatives were un-
lawful in the absence of Byrd. Patterson testified that is
was the first time he had been so advised.
The Union again asked for the requested information
on insurance and the turnover rate. There is no evidence
47 G.C. Exh. 24.
48 Ibid.
4s R. Exh. 1.
50 G.C. Exh. 21.
that the Company showed either of the two Corroon &
Black letters (on insurance) at this meeting, and Byrd
flatly denied that he ever received information on the
actual cost of insurance for unit employees. The Compa-
ny presented the Union with another proposal,51 and of-
fered to allow the employees to return that night if the
Union ratified it by midnight. Failing ratification, a new
lockout would go into effect. Thereafter, the mediator
informed the Union's representatives that the Company
would no longer meet with them face to face.
Nonetheless, negotiations were conducted on 17 De-
cember, with the mediator acting as an intermediary be-
tween the Union's representatives stationed at Shoney's
Inn, and the Company's representatives at the Gallatin
Electric Company. The Union presented various written
questions that the mediator carried to the Company and
to which the Company responded. Thus, the Union
asked whether the Company intended to utilize tempo-
rary employees as in the past in a manner not detrimental
to full-time employees, and the Company answered af-
firmatively. The Union asked questions about new hires
and queried about other "options" that the Company had
suggested in its 15 December meeting with the "local"
committee. The Company responded with various
monthly charges in lieu of the weekly insurance
charge. 5 2
A final agreement was executed on 17 December. It
provided, inter alia, for insurance coverage according to
a benefit schedule for all employees who had completed
120 working days. All employees were to pay $3 weekly
for insurance coverage. The agreement increases the
number of temporary employees the Company may hire
from 15 to 25,53 and continues to compensate them at
wage rates less than that of regular employees.54 The
employees returned to work on 18 December.
Byrd credibly testified that the Union never received
from the Company the number of single and family in-
surance plans, as requested in Ray White's 2 September
letter.55 Further, the Company did not provide docu-
mentation on the number of bargaining unit employees
or the number of turnovers, nor did it supply the factors
used in calculating the "projected" increase in insurance
costs-all requested in the Union's 4 December letter.56
Finally, the parties stipulated that the Company did not
provide the Union with information on the names, ad-
dresses, age, sex, telephone numbers, and' marital status
of unit employees as requested in White's letter.
1. Legal Analysis and Conclusions
1. Alleged unlawful refusal to supply information
The Board has stated the applicable legal standard as
follows:
51 G.C. Exh. 19.
52 G.C. Exh. 21.
53 G.C. Exhs . 2 and 3; art. 15, sec. 14.
54 G.C. Exh. 3, Appendix A.
55 G.C. Exh. 4.
56 G.C. Exh. 14.
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 851
It is well established . . . that Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act imposes on an employer the duty to furnish
a union, upon request, information relevant and nec-
essary to enable it to intelligently carry out its statu-
tory obligations as the employees ' exclusive bar-
gaining representative . And, under the standard rel-
evancy as applied by the Board and the courts, it is
sufficient that the Union 's request for information
be supported by a showing of "probable" or "po-
tential" relevance . 57 Florida Steel Corp ., 235 NLRB
941, 942 (1978),
It is clear that information concerning the cost of em-
ployee insurance68 and other employee benefitsas is rele-
vant and necessary in order to enable the bargaining rep-
resentative to meet its statutory obligations . In this case
the Union wished to compare the costs of the employer's
self-insurance plan with the costs of plans offered by a
union trust fund , and communicated this need to the
Company in support of its request for information con-
cerning the addresses , age, sex, telephone numbers, and
marital status of employees, as well as the number of
single and family insurance plans. The Board and the
courts have concluded that this information must be pro-
duced when requested by the Union pursuant to its statu-
tory obligation.80
The Company's argument that the Union knew or
could have learned the number of unit employees is irrel-
evant, because even with this knowledge the Union
could not have determined the actual costs of their insur-
ance for the reasons given above . Although the Compa-
ny did give the actual cost insurance of unit employees
to the "local" committee on 15 December, this is no de-
fense since the Company did not supply all the requested
information, and that which it did no supply was not
timely-the information was provided very late in the
bargaining after repeated union requests , 81 and after the
Company had engaged in a lockout.
Further, as noted, the Company refused to supply fac-
tors to justify an increase in its "projected" insurance
costs during the first week of December . The Company's
argument that this information was not needed on 15 De-
cember since the parties were then considering a flat
weekly charge is not persuasive for essentially the same
reason that its late submission of factual insurance costs
was inadequate-the Union required this information at
least by the time of the early December bargaining, prior
to the lockout . Although the parties did reach agreement
on an insurance provision that incorporated a weekly
° T NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967).
s° Hall Industries, 285 NLRB 391 (1987); American Marine Decking
Systems, 277 NLRB 433 (1985); E I. duPont & Co., 271 NLRB 1245
(1984).
6° Del Rey Tortilleria, 275 NLRB 1486 (1985); Van Dorn Plastic Machin-
ery Co., 265 NLRB 864 (1982).
so Sgfeway Stores Y. NLRB, 691 F.2d 953 (10th Cis. 1982), enfg. 252
NLRB 1323 (1980); Action Automotive, 284 NLRB 251 (1987); Coalite.
Inc., 278 NLRB 293 (1986); Emro Marketing Co., 272 NLRB 282 (1985),
enfd . 786 F.2d 151 (7th Or. 1985); S-B Mfg. Co., 270 NLRB 485 (1984);
Riveredge Hospital, 266 NLRB 1198 (1983), enfd. as modified 789 F.2d
524 (7th Cir. 1986); Grand Islander Health Care Center , 256 NLRB 1255
(1981).
61 Hall Industries. supra at fn. 57; Postal Service, 276 NLRB 1282
(1985).
charge for all employees , the Union never received all
the information that it needed to compare the employer's
self-insurance plan with alternative union trust fund
plans.
The complaint also alleges Respondent 's unlawful re-
fusal to supply documentation for its asserted turnover
rate . The Union demended this information on 2 Decem-
ber in response to the Company 's stated plan to hire 100
temporary employees in the following year and the
Company's "two-tier" employee system , under which
temporary employees received lesser wages and benefits
than other employees. When the Company responded on
3 December that the annual turnover rate was 40-50 em-
ployees, union spokesman Byrd replied that this was "ri-
diculously high," and the Union 's letter of 4 December
requested documentation of this figure . Byrd told the
Company the reasons the Union needed this information
and the latter promised to supply it the next day. How-
ever, the information was not supplied . Instead, the
Company's 6 December proposal raised the number of
permissible temporary employees from 15 to 50, and al-
tered the rights of senior temporary employees to
progress to full employee status . The issue of temporary
employees was one of the reasons that the employees, on
7 December, rejected the Company 's 6 December pro-
posal, which was followed by the Company 's lockout on
8 December . Finally, on 16 December , the Union again
asked for the requested documentation on the Company's
turnover rate. It was not supplied . Although the parties
ultimately agreed on an increase in temporary employees
from 15 to 25, the fact that the documentation on the
turnover rate was never supplied contributed to the em-
ployees' rejection of the Company's 6 December propos-
al and thus to the lockout.
The fact that the Company proposed an increase in the
number of temporary employees who already worked at
lesser wages and benefits , and proposed further diminish-
ment of their rights, went to the core of the employer-
employee relationship . The Union represented all the em-
ployees, and it was its statutory obligation to explore the
Company's asserted rationale for these proposals. Ac-
cordingly, I conclude that under the broad standard of
relevance governing union requests for information,62
the Union has supported its request for documentation
on the turnover rate with a showing of at least probable
or potential relevance.
I therefore find that Respondent , by refusing to
supply, or delaying in supplying , the Union with request-
ed information on insurance costs of unit emplolyees, in-
cluding present costs and the past 2 years' loss experi-
ence, the number of single and family insurance plans,
the factors used in determining a projected increase in
costs, the employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex,
ages, and marital status, and documentation on previous
employee turnover, thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.63
°S Florida Steel Corp., supra . See authorities cited in Leland Stanford
Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 138-139, enfd . 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir.
1983).
03 I make no finding on evidence pertaining to refusal to supply other
information where such refusal is not alleged in the complaint.
852 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Alleged unlawful direct dealing with employees
a. Factual summary
The evidence shows that a company supervisor asked
employees on 1 December whether they understood the
Company's proposal of that day, and that Company Vice
President Patterson explained the proposal to employees
on 4 December. Some employees, including Union Vice
President Shehane, suggested at that meeting that Patter-
son explain the proposal to employees. Following sub-
mission of another company proposal on 6 December
and its rejection by the Union on 7 December (unknown
to Patterson), the Company's vice president on 8 Decem-
ber read details of the, last proposal to employees, de-
clared that the Union had misled them about it, said that
there might be a lockout, and communicated to employ-
ees the message that the plant would be closed down if
they did not vote favorably on the plan that night.
After a regular negotiating session on 13 December,
Company Vice President Patterson approached Chief
Steward Wilkinson in the evening at a social occasion
and said that the matter needed to be resolved. After an
initial rejection by Wilkinson, Patterson again ap-
proached him and the steward responded with sugges-
tions that led to meetings 2 days later between the Com-
pany and members of the Union's bargaining committee,
absent Chief Spokesman Byrd. The Company's president
asked the Union whether it could "handle Mr. Byrd." At
this meeting, the Company for the first time showed Jen-
kins, Wilkinson, and White documentation of the actual
costs of insurance for unit employees, which had been
going down, but continued to argue the validity of "pro-
jections" for the next year showing that costs were going
up. At the regular meeting the next day, 16 December,
when Executive Secretary Ray White and Chief Spokes-
man Byrd were present, the Union again asked for the
insurance data but the Company did not provide it.
b. Legal analysis
It is well established that it is unlawful for an employ-
er to negotiate directly with individuals when they have
a bargaining representative . 64 However, Section 8(c) of
the Act provides that the expression of views, argument,
or opinion does not violate the Act "if such expressison
contained no threat or force or promise of benefit."65
The Board has recently affirmed that "free and open
discussion by all parties . . . affords the best chance for
successful conclusion of negotiations . . . . Indeed, em-
ployees ought to be fully informed as to all issues rele-
vant to collective-bargaining negotiations and the parties'
positions as to those issue."66 The mere fact that an em-
ployer outlines to employees the details of contract pro-
posals which he had presented to the union does not
constitute a violation of the Act.67 In another case, the
employer sought to inform employees of the employer's
proposals to the union and said that the employees might
strike if his proposals were not accepted. An actual strike
84 Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683-685 (1944).
es National Labor Relations Act, Sec. 8(c).
66 United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 1069, 1074 (1985).
87 Safelite Glass, 283 NLRB 929 (1987).
voted had been conducted and the employees of other
employers in a multiemployer association, of which the
employer had formerly been a member, were actually on
strike. The Board concluded that by these and other ac-
tions the employer did not engage in direct dealing with
employees or make coercive comments. Putnam Buick,
280 NLRB 868 (1986), enfd. sub nom. Machinists v.
NLRB, 827 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1987).
Nonetheless, the Board in Putnam Buick also noted
that "violations of Section 8(a)(5) will be found if em-
ployer communications with unit employees during col-
lective-bargaining negotiations are coercive or invite
direct bargaining between the employer and the employ-
ees" (280 NLRB at 869).88 And, in a case where the em-
ployer threatened discharge of employees if they did not
vote in favor of the employer's proposed decrease in
wages, the Board concluded that the employer had en-
gaged in unlawful direct dealing. Chestnut Ridge Mining
Corp., 268 NLRB 374 (1983).
In the case at bar, union spokesman Byrd did say on 1
December that there would be a strike vote if the Com-
pany did not extend the expiring contract. However, the
contract was extended and there was no strike vote.
Company Vice President Patterson told employees in
one of his 8 December meetings that there was "a theat
of either a lockout or a strike." A threat of a lockout
could only have come from the Company. As for a
strike, there had been no threat during the events follow-
ing the last bargaining session on 4 December and the
Company's submission of its 6 December proposal. Al-
though union members on 7 December voted to continue
working and negotiating, this was a vote on the Compa-
ny's last proposal, not a strike vote. Finally, on 8 De-
cember spokesman Byrd explicitly informed Company
Vice President Patterson that there would be no strike
despite the Union's rejection of the last proposal. Patter-
son, however, communicated to employees on 8 Decem-
ber the message that he would lock them out if they did
not vote favorably on the Company 's last proposal that
night. This was followed by an actual lockout at mid-
night, and, in later negotiations, another lockout threat.
I conclude that Patterson's statements to employees on
8 December that the gates would be locked if the em-
ployees did not vote favorably on the Company's last
proposal that night were coercive.69 These statements
tended to force union members to accept the Company's
last proposal, which they had already rejected in a union
meeting the day before. Accordingly, I find that Re-
spondent thereby engaged in unlawful direct dealing
with employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.7 °
68 In support of the principle set forth above, the Board cites Mashkin
Freight Lines, 272 NLRB 427 (1984), and Friederich Truck Service, 259
NLRB 1294 (1982). 280 NLRB at 869 fn. 6.
69 Union Steward Brinkley 's testimony on cross-examination, that Pat-
terson had not threatened employees, is conclusory in nature is entitled to
little weight in light of the credited evidence as to what Patterson actual-
ly said.
70 Although Union Vice President Shehane was one of the employees
who, on 5 December, suggested that the Company explain its 1 Decem-
ber proposal to employees , he did not suggest , much less authorize it to
Continued
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE
As indicated , the amended complaint also alleges that
the Company's conversation with Chief Steward Wilkin-
son at the Christmas party on 13 December, and with
Wilkinson , Local Union President Jenkins , and treasurer
White on 15 December also constituted unlawful direct
dealing with employees.
There is little doubt that the Company preferred deal-
ing with the local committee rather than with Byrd, and
that it was Vice President Patterson who initiated the
discussion with Wilkinson at the Christmas party. More-
over, the Company showed the Corroon & Black
"actual" insurance costs only to the local committee, and
Company President Parks asked members of the commit-
tee whether they could "handle" Byrd, who acted "very
independent" according to Patterson.
It is true that Southern Council Executive Secretary
Ray White asked the Company to begin negotiations
with Timothy Byrd . Nonetheless, the amended pleadings
establish that "Local 2338 , Southern Council of Industri-
al Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO" was the statutory bargaining
representative of the unit employees .? t Wilkinson was
not only chief steward of Local 2338, but also a member
of the Union's negotiating committee . Although Patter-
son approached Wilkinson at the party, it was the chief
steward who advanced a formula to resolve the insur-
ance issue and who suggested that Patterson call him the
following Monday morning.
Jenkins and White, who, with Wilkinson , met with
company representatives on 15 December , were also
members of the Union 's negotiating committee and were
union officers. Jenkins was the president and White the
treasurer. In a case with similar facts , the union president
claimed that he met with employer representatives only
as an individual. Nonetheless, his actions and those of an-
other committeeman, although "not actually negotia-
tions, were representative in nature ." BASF Wyandotte
Corp., 276 NLRB 1576 , 1584 (1985). In the case at bar,
the Company's representatives and the local committee
discussed at least one of the principal issues in the negoti-
ations, the cost of insurance to.unit employees. I con-
clude that Wilkinson's actions on 13 December , and his
and those of Jenkins and White on 15 December, were
representative in nature, and that the Company did not
engage in lawful direct dealing with employees during
those meetings. Accordingly , I shall recommend that this
allegation be dismissed.
3. Alleged unlawful lockout
Respondent argues that the 8 December lockout was
lawful because the parties had reached impasse . No eco-
nomic agreements had been reached and the Company
"from December 4 through December 8 ... was unable
to persuade Byrd to bring the negotiations back to the
negotiating table."7E When Byrd talked with Patterson
threaten employees in order to win acceptance of its proposal . Further,
Patterson on 8 December discussed a later company proposal , not the
one referred to by Shehane. The latter was not then a member of the
bargaining committee and has not been shown to be speaking on behalf
of the Union at that time.
71 G.C. Exba. 1(g) and 1(i).
72 R. Br. 34.
853
on 8 December, he "did not request any further negotia-
tion session; offer any counterproposals ; or request an-
other extenstion ." In addition , he did not "specify any
particular problems that the Union had with the Compa-
ny's final offer."7 a
Accordingly, Respondent argues, the parties were at
impasse and it was entitled to lock out its employees "for
a lawful purpose , namely to persuade the Union to
return to the negotiating table and to consider the Com-
pany's proposals."74 Further, neither the "absence of any
reasonalbe fear of strike nor the absence of an impasse
makes a lockout in support of bargaining demaed"s un-
lawful."7 a
Respondent's summary of the facts is not in accord-
ance with the credited evidence . Thus, although the par-
ties may not have reached agreement on economic
issues, this was due "in part to the fact that they had
agreed to discuss noneconomic issues first and had
reached some agreement on these matters. It is also inac-
curate to assert that the Union failed to state its disagree-
ment with the Company's 6 December proposal . On that
day, when union spokesman Byrd was informed that the
Company had not delivered the promised information to
Union President Jenkins , Byrd told Company Vice Presi-
dent Patterson that the Company was bargaining in bad
faith . It is clear that the Union 's objection to the Compa-
ny's "final proposal" was that it was not accompanied by
relevant information that the Union needed in order to
evaluate it, and that this objection was communicated to
the Company.
The Company's stated purpose of the lockout , to "per-
suade the Union to return to the negotiating table," also
distorts the facts . The Union had never left the bargain-
ing table, except for brief and reasonable absences of
union spokesman Byrd in connection with other union
business . The Company knew that the last negotiating
day in the first week of December would be 4 Decem-
ber, a Thursday , because Byrd was scheduled to be out
of town on other union business on Friday. It was
agreed that Byrd would call the Company the following
Monday , 8 December, to arrange another meeting. The
Company then tried to compel a Saturday meeting, but
Byrd was previously scheduled for two other meetings
that day on the Union's negotiations with the Company.
As agreed , Byrd tried to reach Patterson at 7 a.m. on
Monday, but was informed that the Company's vice
president was in meetings and was unavailable . After re-
peated attempts throughout the day, Byrd finally
reached Patterson at 4:30 p.m. and was informed that a
lockout would begin at midnight . It is untrue, as asserted
by the Company , that Byrd made no counterproposals.
He suggested other alternatives to a lockout such as the
Company's implementing its last offer pending negotia-
tions. Although Byrd did not then request an extension
of the contract, his original request for a 15-day exten-
sion had previously been rejected by the Company in
lieu of a shorter extension . The fact that Byrd was "on
73 Ibid.
14 Id. at 35.
75 Ind. The Company cites Harter Equipment, 280 NLRB 597 in. 6
(1986), and Birkenwald Distributing Co., 282 NLRB 954 (1987).
854 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the road to Athens" (on other union business) did not
make him unavailable for a meeting on Tuesday-in fact,
Byrd returned to Tennessee Monday night after learning
about the lockout.
The Board has stated the criteria for determining an
impasse as follows:
Whether a bargaining impasse exists is a matter of
judgment. The bargaining history, the good faith of
the parties in negotiations, the length of negotia-
tions, the importance of the issue or issues as to
which there is disagreement, the contemporaneous
understanding of the parties as to the state of nego-
tiations are all relevant factors to be considered in
deciding whether an impasse in bargaining existed.
Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967),
enfd. 395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Even if Respondent's unlawful conduct prior to the
lockout were to be disregarded, it would be difficult to
find a bona fide impasse on the facts in this case. During
the 4 days of bargaining on economic matters that began
on 1 December, the principal disagreement was not over
the substantive nature of the Company's proposals, but,
rather, with the factual data asserted by the Company to
justify those proposals. This is insufficient to warrant a
finding of impasse. "All items on which the parties had
not agreed are not necessarily items causing an impasse;
mere discussion of unresolved items falls short of unlaw-
fully, president demands to the points of impasse." San-
derson Farms, 271 NLRB 1477, 1479 (1984). In this case
the only persistent demands were those of the Union for
information-and even on this issue the Company did
not refuse outright, but continuously promised to supply
the information, only to default until late in the negotia-
tions at which time it supplied only part of the informa-
tion. Further, as indicated, the Company's asserted
reason for the lockout-to bring the Union back to the
bargaining table-is based on an erroneous factual
premise.
However, I need not base an impasse finding on the
Taft Broadcasting criteria alone, because the Company
did engaged in unlawful conduct prior to lockout-it en-
gaged in direct dealing with employees and refused to
supply relevant information demanded by the Union. It
is well established that such conduct bars a finding of a
bona fide impasse.76
Respondent has not advanced any business reason for
the lockout-unless its asserted but invalid claim that it
needed to get the Union back to the bargaining table can
be called a business reason . The obvious object and tend-
ency of the Company's threat to lockout its employees
was to compel them to vote favorably on the Company's
last proposal. By such threat, which formed a part of its
unlawful direct dealing with employees, the Company
thereby demonstrated its union animus. 7 7 Considering
78 Dahl Fish Co., 279 NLRB 1084 (1986); Coalite, Inc., 278 NLRB 293
(1986); Cowin & Co., 277 NLRB 802 (1985); Harvstone Mfg. Corp., 272
NLRB 939 (1984), enfd. as modified 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1986).
77 Bedford Cut Stone Co., 235 NLRB 629 (1978).
these factors together with the Company 's unlawful re-
fusal to give relevant information to the Union ,7 8 and
the absence of a threat to strike ' 79 it is clear that the
lockout was unlawful.80
The cases relied on by Respondent are inapposite.81
The issue in those cases was the legality of the hiring of
temporary replacements after a lawful lockout, which
followed the employer 's presentation of legitimate bar-
gaining positions . As the Board noted , "there is no evi-
dence that the Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargain-
ing before or after the lockout ." Harter Equipment, 280
NLRB 597 ( 1986). In contrast , Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8 (a)(5) prior to the lockout by its direct dealing with
employees and by its refusal to supply information to the
Union . Accordingly , following the above -cited cases
where the lockout was preceded by unlawful bargaining,
I conclude that the lockout was intended to compel em-
ployee acceptance of Respondent 's last bargaining pro-
posal , and thus to undermine the Union . This conduct
tended to discourage membership in the Union and was
thus violative of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
In accordance with my findings above, I make the fol-
lowing
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Globe Business Furniture, Inc. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Work-
ers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance and tool room em-
ployees, shipping and receiving employees, working
group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent
at its Hendersonville, Tennessee plant excluding all
office clerical and plant clerical employees, drafts-
men, guards , technical and professional employees
and supervisors as defined under the National Labor
Relations Act.
4. Since about 1963 and at all times material, the
Union has been the designated collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the above-described ap-
propriate unit, and has been recognized as such repre-
sentative in prior collective-bargaining agreements with
Respondent.
78 Bagel Bakers Council, 174 NLRB 622 (1969), enfd. as modified 434
F.2d 884 (2d Cir. 1970).
79 Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 121 NLRB 334 (1958), enfd. 270
F.2d 40 (3d Cir. 1959).
80 See also American Cyanamid Co., 235 NLRB 1316, 1324 ( 1978);
Siebler Heating & Air Conditioning, 219 NLRB 1124, 1131 (1975), revd. on
other grounds 563 F.2d 366 (8th Cir. 1977); Crockett-Bradley, Inc., 212
NLRB 435, 441 (1974), enfd. 523 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1975).
81 Harter Equipment, Inc., 280 NLRB 597 (1986); Birkenwald Distribut-
ing Co., 282 NLRB 954 (1987).
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 855
5. By refusing to timely supply the Union requested in-
surance costs of unit employees , including present costs
and the past 2 years' loss experience ; and by refusing to
supply information on (a) the factors used in determining
a projected increase in costs; (b) the number of single
and family insurance plans, the employees ' addresses,
telephone numbers, sex , ages, and marital status; and (c)
documentation of previous employee turnover , Respond-
ent thereby committed unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. On 8 December 1986 , by bypassing the Union and
attempting to cause its employees to accept Respondent's
last bargaining proposal , Respondent thereby committed
an additional unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. On 8 December 1986, by locking out its employees
until 18 December 1986 in an attempt to compel them
and the Union to accept its last bargaining proposal, Re-
spondent thereby discouraged membership in the Union
and thus committed an unfair labor practice in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
8. The above-described unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor
practices except as specified here.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to
supply the Union with timely information on the insur-
ance costs of unit employees , including the present costs
and the past 2 years' loss experience, I shall recommend
that, on request, it forthwith gave such information to
the Union. The fact that Respondent did submit such in-
formation on 15 December 1986 is an insufficient reason
for not requiring it do so again , since said submission
was not timely, was given only to the local committee
and not the full committee, and the documents them-
selves were not supplied.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to
give the Union information on factors used in projecting
an increase in insurance costs of unit employees, the
number of single and family insurance plans, the address-
es, telephone numbers , sex, ages, marital status of such
employees, and documentation on previous employee
turnover, I shall recommend that Respondent be re-
quired , on request, to submit such information to the
Union.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully locked out
its employees from 8 to 18 December 1986, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent be ordered to make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the unlawful lockout, buy paying each of
them a sum of money equal to the amount he or she
would have earned during the lockout, less net interim
earnings during such period, to be computed on a quar-
terly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and to pay
into any employee benefit funds established by the last
contract the sums that Respondent would otherwise have
been required to pay absent its unlawful lockout, with in-
terest on such payments as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).82
On the basis of these findings of fact and conclusions
of law and on the entire record , I issue the following
recommended"
ORDER
The Respondent , Globe Business Furniture , Inc., Hen-
dersonville , Tennessee , its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to timely supply Local 2338, Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO as the
statutory bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit stated below , with the insurance costs, including
the present costs and last 2 years ' loss experience of the
unit employees . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance and tool room em-
ployees, shipping and receiving employees , working
group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent
at its Hendersonville , Tennessee plant excluding all
office clerical and plant clerical employees , drafts-
men, guards , technical and professional employees
and supervisors as defined under the National Labor
Relations Act.
(b) Refusing to supply the above-named labor organi-
zation with the factors used in determining a projected
increase in insurance costs for 1987, the number of single
and family insurance plans in the aforesaid unit, the unit
employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and
marital status, and documentation of previous employee
turnover in the aforesaid unit.
(c) Bypassing the above-named labor organization as
the statutory representative of the employees in the
above-stated unit, and attempting to cause the employees
in that unit to accept its last bargaining proposal, or any
bargaining proposal.
(d) Discouraging membership in the above-stated labor
organization , or any other organization , by locking out
its employees in an attempt to compel them to accept its
last bargaining proposal or any other bargaining propos-
al, or by discriminating against them in any other manner
with respect to their hire, tenure of employment, or
terms and conditions of employment.
8 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to
26 U.S.C. § 6621. Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective
date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
sa If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall , as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all put-
poses.
856 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effecutate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, supply the above-named labor organi-
zation with the insurance costs, including the present
costs and the last 2 years' loss experience, of the employ-
ees in the above-stated unit; the factors used in determin-
ing a projected increase in unit insurance costs for 1987;
the number of single and family insurance plans in the
aforesaid unit; the unit employees' names , addresses, tele-
phone numbers, sex, ages , and marital status, and docu-
mentation of previous employee turnover in the aforesaid
unit.
(b) Make whole each employee whom it locked out
from 8 until 18 December 1986, and pay into each em-
ployee benefit fund established by the last contract the
sum that Respondent would otherwise have been re-
quired to pay, absent its unlawful lockout, except to the
extent such sums have already been paid, in the remedy
section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of reimbursement due em-
ployees under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant at Hendersonville, Tennessee,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."84
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 26, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
84 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refused to supply Local 2338, Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, as the statutory rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit listed below,
with the insurance costs, including the present costs and
last 2 years' loss experience, of the unit employees, the
factors used in determining a projected increase in insur-
ance costs for 1987, the number of single and family in-
surance plans, the unit employees' addresses, telephone
numbers, sex, ages, and marital status, and documentation
of previous employee turnover in the unit. The unit is:
All production and maintenance and tool room em-
ployees, shipping and receiving employees, working
group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent
at its Hendersonville, Tennessee plant excluding all
office clerical and plant clerical employees, drafts-
men, guards, technical and professional employees
and supervisors as defined under the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT bypass the above-named labor organiza-
tion, or any other labor organization, in an attempt to
compel our employees to accept any of our bargaining
proposals.
WE WILL NOT lockout our employees in an attempt to
compel them to accept our bargaining proposals, nor in
any other way discriminate against them.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, supply the above-named labor
organization with information on all the items listed
above.
WE WILL make whole every employee whom we un-
lawfully locked out from 8 to 18 December 1986, and
WE WILL pay any required amounts into any employee
benefit fund, to the extent we have not already done so,
with interest.
GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE, INC.