Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

IOWA MOLD TOOLING CO.
Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc . and Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 828 , affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case 18-CA-2566
November 29, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On September 16, 1968, Trial Examiner Morton D.
Friedman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Iowa Mold Tooling Co.,
Inc., Garner, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
1 We correct certain inadvertent errors in the Trial Examiner's
Decision , none of which affects the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclu-
sions or our concurrence therein. Where it was found that Foreman
Marvin Watson told employee Barker a week before the time Foreman
Bomstad solicited a letter from Barker that he thought that Barker had
been sent home one day the previous November because the Respond-
ent was trying to get rid of three of four men in the basement including
Barker , it should read that the conversation took place a week before
the hearing , where it was found that on March 20, 1968, employee
Buckley asked President Zrostlik for a leave of absence to sell his farm
equipment and livestock , it should read that the conversation took place
1011
on March 28, 1968 , where it was found that the Respondent completely
ignored the Union as though the Union was not the certified
representative of the employees in the unit , it should state that the
Union was voluntarily recognized by the Respondent
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner Upon a charge
filed on March 4, 1968, and an amended charge filed April 25,
1968, by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 828, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Union, the Regional Director for
Region 18 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a complaint on May 24, 1968, on
behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, against Iowa Mold
Tooling Co., Ind., herein called the Company or the Respond-
ent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U S.C. Sec.
151, et seq ), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, the
Respondent, while admitting certain allegations of the com-
plaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at Garner,
Iowa, on June 25 and 26, 1968. All parties were represented
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce
relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs of
the parties, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Iowa corporation with its principle
place of business at Garner, Iowa, is engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of air compressors for installation on tire service
trucks. During the year immediately preceeding the issuance of
the complaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent
in the course and conduct of its business, made sales and
shipped merchandise of a value in excess of $50,000 directly
to points outside the State of Iowa.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
The Respondent, which has been in business for about 3%
years, began negotiations with the Union toward a collective-
bargaining agreement sometime in September 1967. The Union
is admittedly the bargaining representative of a majority of the
employees of the Respondent in a production and maintenance
173 NLRB No. 154
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit. During the course of these bargaining negotiations,
which have lasted until the date of the hearing and during
which no agreement has been reached, the employer has
unilaterally granted a number of individual wage rate increases
to various employees. Around the middle of February, 1968,
various employees signed letters which were sent to the
Board's Regional Office stating that the signer no longer
designated the Union as his bargaining representative, and that
he was, by means of this letter, withdrawing such designation.
Maurice Buckley was one of the employees who allegedly was
contacted to sign such a letter. Buckley refused. On April 13,
1968, Buckley was laid off or discharged.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondent
unlawfully interrogated employees as to their union activities
and affiliation, threatened and coerced them to sign with-
drawals from the Union, and threatened an employee indivi-
dually with reprisals if he did not withdraw from the Union.
All the foregoing is alleged to have constituted violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint further alleges that
the Respondent discharged Buckley in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act because of the latter's membership in the
Union and his refusal to withdraw his support of the Union.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the unilateral wage
increases granted by Respondent to unit employees consti-
tuted violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The Respondent's answer, although admitting the junsdic-
tional allegations of the complaint, denies all of the allegations
which allege that Respondent violated the Act.
Thus the issues are.
1. Did the Respondent unlawfully interrogate, threaten,
and coerce its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act?
2. Was Buckley discharged because of his membership in
and support of the Union and his refusal to withdraw
therefrom in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act9
3. Did Respondent's unilateral wage increases granted to
unit employees constitute refusals to bargain in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Acts
B. Interference, Coercion, and Restraint
1 The events
The Respondent agreed to recognize and bargain with the
Union when the Union made its request upon the Respondent
to bargain with it on September 8, 1967. Bargaining toward a
contract began and contract negotiations continued until at
least February 7, 1968. Shortly after the bargaining negotia-
tions began, probably after the Union made its first wage
demands, the Respondent's president, Francis L. Zrostlik and
Foreman Gary Bomstad held a meeting with some employees
in the basement shop of the plant. At this meeting both
Zrostlik and Bomstad spoke to the assembled employees.
Zrostlik told the employees that the Respondent could not
afford to meet the demands that the Union was making with
regard to wages, pension plan, insurance, and matters of that
nature. However, during that meeting, Bomstad also stated
that he had bad news for the employees and that all except
five of them, who had been there the longest, would be cut to
40 hours. The employees had customarily worked 50 hours per
week up to that point. Zrostlrk added that the employer could
not afford to meet the Union's demands but added that if the
Union went out of the plant the employees would get back
their 50 hours.' It should be noted, however, that although
the employees were shortly thereafter reduced to a 40-hour
workweek, this condition remained only for a short time and
the employees were soon placed back on a 50-hour
workweek.2
Thereafter, during December 1967 and January 1968, while
negotiations were being conducted, the Respondent gave wage
rate increases to certain of its employees without consultation
with the Union?
Toward the latter part of February 1968, Zrostlrk asked
employee Maurice E. Buckley to come to Zrostlik's office. The
only persons present in the immediate office were Zrostlik and
Buckley. Zrostlik stated as he pounded on the table, "I am
going to get this Teamsters business out of here and anybody
who gets in my way I am going to run over."
Thereupon Zrostlrk asked Buckley to write and sign a letter
withdrawing his designation of the Union as bargaining
representative. Buckley replied that he would not sign until he
had talked the matter over with his wife and thought about it
for a while.
Approximately a week later, Bomstad engaged Buckley in a
conversation in the basement of the plant where the two were
working Bomstad asked Buckley if he was going to sign one of
the Union resignation letters. Thereupon, Buckley asked
Bomstad if Buckley could see one of the letters Bomstad
invited Buckley upstairs into the plant office and showed the
latter a withdrawal letter which had been previously typed up.
Buckley told Bomstad that he would have to talk it over with
his wife and let Bomstad know in a week
About a week later Buckley told Bomstad that he was not
going to sign a letter. Bomstad answered that that was
Buckley's business 4
At about the same time, or perhaps a little earlier, in the
middle of February 1968, Supervisor Merle Gouge asked
employee William Schrader to go to the coffeeroom with him.
Schrader went as requested Gouge told Schrader that some of
the men had been writing letters to the Union asking that the
Union not represent them anymore Gouge asked Schrader if
the latter would write such a letter. Schrader stated that he
1 From the credited testimony of employees Carl Nygard, Roland C.
Peterson, and Harlan Block and the admissions of Zrostlik . Zrostlik
admitted that he made references to his inability to meet the demands
of the Union during that September meeting However , Bomstad did
not, in his testimony , refer to this meeting at all and the employees'
testimony to the effect that Bomstad said that only if the Union went
out of the plant would the Respondent raise the employees back to 50
hours a week remains undenied on the record.
2 The September meeting as related above is not alleged in the
complaint as a violation Therefore , I do not make any concluding
findings with regard thereto and do not base any findings of unfair labor
practices thereon . The matter is cited herein only for the purposes of
background
3 The complaint alleges the wage rate increases to have been
violations of Section 8(a)(5) Accordingly, they are treated with more
detail in other parts of his decision
4 From credited testimony of Buckley. I do not credit Zrostlik's
denial that he spoke to any employee regarding the signing of
withdrawal letters Bomstad did not deny he spoke to Buckley regarding
this matter
IOWA MOLD TOOLING CO. 1013
would like to think it over and let him know the following
morning. The following day Gouge asked Schrader what the
latter had decided, Schrader answered that he was not going to
sign such a letter s
Also at approximately the same time, in the middle of
February, Foreman Gouge engaged employee Nygard in a
conversation on the second floor of the plant where truck
bodies are attached. Zrostlik was present during this conversa-
tion and stood by within conversational range while Gouge and
Nygard conversed Gouge began the conversation and told
Nygard about the letters of withdrawal from the Union.
Zrostlik joined in the conversation and said that signing the
letters might make the difference in having a job and not
having a job. Zrostlik also told Nygard that signing the letter
would enable the latter to cross a picket line in case of a strike
because the plant would be held open in the event that the
employees did go on strike
Following this all three went into the plant office. There
the conversation continued about the letters and Nygard said
he did not know exactly how to write one. Thereupon Gouge
took a letter from his pocket and told Nygard to write one
something like the one shown. Nygard wrote the letter, with
Gouge's assistance, in the presence of Zrostlik. Nygard did not
mail the letter himself but gave it to Gouge.
Also in the middle of February 1968, employee Harlan
Block was engaged in conversation with Foreman Bomstad in
the basement. Only the two were present Bomstad asked
Block what the latter thought about the Union and Block told
Bomstad that he could not really say right at that moment
Thereupon Bomstad said that there had been a few people who
had signed letters and he wanted Block to look at a letter
Block told Bomstad that there was no harm in looking at the
letter Bomstad showed him one. Bomstad then wanted to
know if Block would sign. Block told Bomstad that he would
have to think about it and read it over again
Several days later Bomstad came back and asked Block if
the latter would sign a letter. At that point Block said that he
supposed he would. The two went up to the plant office where
Bomstad gave Block a typed letter which Block signed. After
Block signed the letter, Bomstad took it and said that "they"
would send it to the proper place 7
During the same period of time, in the middle of February
1968, Bomstad asked employee George Barker to sign a letter
of withdrawal. This request took place in the basement. No
one else was in the immediate vicinity at the time Barker
answered Bomstad by saying that he would have to think
about it and let him know. Later in the day, at coffee break,
Bomstad asked Barker about the letter again and Barker
replied that he would have to see one of them, to read it over
and then he would give Bomstad his answer. Bomstad took
Barker upstairs to the plant office. When they arrived there
Bomstad asked one of the girls who worked in the office where
the letters were She answered "on the desk." They went into
the room where the desk was located and picked up one of the
letters. Bomstand handed the letter to Barker, who read it and
told Bomstad that he would sign one. After Barker signed the
letter he gave it back to Bomstad . Barker did not mail it
himself 8
On the same day that Bomstad solicited a letter from
employee Barker, Larry Squire, a union representative, came
to the plant. After Squire left, Bomstad came to Barker and
asked the latter what Squire had to say. Barker answered that
it was nothing concerning Barker. Then Bomstad asked Barker
who else had been out there talking to Squire. Barker told him
that he did not know.
About a week before that time, Foreman Marvin Watson
engaged Barker in a conversation Barker told Watson that he
could not figure out why he had been sent home one day the
previous November Watson told him that the nearest he could
figure out they were trying to get rid of Barker; in fact they
were trying to get rid of three or four men in the basement;
they were trying to torment them. The employees mentioned
by Watson as those who the Respondent was trying to get rid
of were employees Harlan Block, Barker, Maurice Buckley and
Ron Peterson v
Because the Respondent denies the supervisory status of
Gouge and Watson, it is necessary, at this juncture, to discuss
the indicia of supervision which they were shown to possess by
testimony taken at the hearing.
At the outset it would be noted that the Respondent admits
that Bomstad is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Zrostlik testified, without contradiction, to the effect that
these individuals, Bomstad, Watson and Gouge possessed
pretty much the same authority. Thus, the testimony of
Gouge, Zrostlik, and Bomstad shows that Gouge, Watson and
Bomstad, although lacking the authority to hire or discharge
employees, did have the authority to discipline employees
This meant, according to Zrostlik, that these individuals had
the right to keep employees on the job and keep them
working Moreover, it was admitted that although they could
not give employees leave of absence for any length of time,
each could upon occasion permit employees to leave before
the end of a particular day if the work was not pressing.
Additionally, Zrostlik spent about 25 percent of his time in
the plant and the rest of his time in doing other work for the
Respondent such as selling, making contacts, office work and
so forth In his absence each of these men were completely in
charge of each of their various departments In this respect,
each of these men have the authority to assign work to the
employees under them.
I therefore conclude, on the record as a whole, that Watson
and Gouge possess sufficient indicia of supervisory authority
to find that they are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, as admittedly is Bomstad
5 From credited testimony of Schrader , Gouge admitted this
incident
6 From credited testimony of Nygard Although Zrostlik denied that
he had ever asked any of the employees to sign any letters resigning
from the Union, he did admit with regard to Nygard that he might have
told the latter if Nygard signed a letter resigning from the Union he
could work during a strike He therefore did not completely deny the
incident Gouge admitted that he talked to Nygard and that Zrostlik
was with him at that time
7 From the credited testimony of Block . Bomstad admitted that he
solicited a letter from Block.
8 From the credited testimony of Barker which was not contra-
dicted by Bomstad who admitted that he solicited Barker for a
withdrawal letter
9 All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of employee
Barker which testimony was not controverted, Watson did not testify.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Concluding findings regarding interference,
coercion, and restraint
When toward the last part of February 1968, Zrostlik
pounded on the table and told Buckley that he was going to
get the Teamsters out of the plant and that anybody that got
in his way he was going to run over, Zrostltk threatened
Buckley and the other employees with reprisals if they
continued to support their Union and refused to sign union
resignation letters Such a threat is clearly coercive and
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find
The solicitation of withdrawal letters from the employees
of the Respondent by the Respondent's supervisors and by
President Zrostltk indicated a clearly defined plan on the part
of the Respondent to rid itself of the Union This effort was
more than the supplying of mere ministerial aid to the
sponsors of the Union withdrawal movement There was actual
participation by Zrostlik, the president of the firm and by
three supervisors. In such instances, it is clear, that the
solicitation of withdrawals from the Union constituted viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act' 0
It is also clearly violative of the Act to inquire of employees
with regard to their union activities and sympathies. This is too
well established to require citation. Thus, in the case at bar,
Bomstad's asking Block what the latter thought about the
Union constituted unlawful interrogation. Also, Bomstad's
interrogation of employee Barker asking the latter what Union
Representative Squire had to say is unlawful interrogation
which is violative of the Act Moreover, Bomstad's further
interrogation of Barker to ask him who had attended the
meeting with Squire constitutes unlawful interrogation which
is violative of the Act. I so find.
C. The Discharge of Maurice Buckley
As heretofore related, toward the end of February 1968,
Buckley informed Bomstad that he would not sign a letter of
withdrawal from the Union. On March 20, 1968, Buckley had
a conversation with Zrostlik at Buckley's work station
Buckley asked Zrostlik for leave of absence because Buckley
wanted to conduct a sale disposing of all his farm equipment
and livestock Buckley had an arrangement with the Respond-
ent to take time off to farm whenever it was necessary. This
farm sale meant that Buckley was going to quit farming and
become a full time employee of the Respondent. Zrostlik
asked Buckley if a week would be enough for him to conduct
the sale and Buckley said that he did not think so but that he
would see. Thereafter Buckley went over and talked to
Bomstad to tell him that he was going to take the time off and
had Zrosthk's permission. Bomstad said that he did not
especially like it at that time because they had a special job to
do but that Buckley should go ahead; that it would be all right.
Thus, on that day, March 28, 1968, Buckley took off
On April 2 or 3, Bomstad called Buckley at the latter's farm
and asked if Buckley could work that evening. The reason for
the request was that Bomstad had some work that he wanted
to get done. Buckley answered that he would be in At 6:30
p.m. Buckley reported to work and worked at welding boxes.
At that time, Buckley informed Bomstad that he did not think
that he would be through with the sale in a week's time.
10 See William L. Bonnell Co, 170 NLRB No 14 (TXD), and cases
cited therein
Buckley said that he would see about it, however, Bomstad
answered that they would have to get along that way. This was
the extent of the conversation that took place between
Buckley and Bomstad on April 2 or 3 Buckley at that time did
not tell Bomstad about any specific date that he would return.
The following week, on a Monday, in the morning, Bomstad
called Buckley and asked how the latter was getting along.
Buckley informed Bomstad that he did not think that he could
make it at all into the shop until after the sale which he had set
for April 13 Buckley said that he would definitely report to
work on April 16. That would be a Tuesday. Bomstad
answered that Respondent would plan on Buckley's return on
the 16th.
However, on April 13, the day of Buckley's farm sale,
Bomstad called Buckley in the morning and said that he had
bad news; that Buckley was relieved of his job as of that time
When Buckley asked him the reason for this action, Bomstad
said that it was because Buckley took more than a week's time
off. Buckley answered to the effect that this meant that he was
fired and Bomstad said in answer, "Yes, more or less "
Thereafter Buckley told Bomstad that he, Buckley, had
talked to Bomstad twice during Buckley's absence and
Bomstad knew that Buckley was going to be gone more than
one week, that when he went to work on the night of April 2
or 3, he told Bomstad about this, Buckley further reminded
Bomstad that the latter called him on the telephone and
Buckley informed Bomstad of the fact that Buckley would
return to work on April 16 However, at the end of the
telephone conversation Bomstad did say that if Buckley would
come into the plant on April 15 they would see what they
could do.
Accordingly, on April 15 Buckley went to the plant. As he
parked his car and was walking toward the plant, Zrostlrk came
out of the plant to enter the latter's car. Buckley asked him
why he had been fired and Zrostlrk answered that Buckley had
only asked for a week off and had taken off more than that
time Buckley then explained that he had talked to Bomstad
twice during the period of time that he was absent and
Bomstad knew that he was taking longer than a week to have
the farm sale. Zrostlrk answered that he could not talk to him
at that time because Zrostltk had to go to Mason City
However, Zrostlik asked Buckley to come back that afternoon.
With that Zrostlrk left.
After that conversation ended, Buckley went into the
basement of the plant and talked to Bomstad. The two went
up to the coffeeroom to talk together. In the coffeeroom
Bomstad started off the conversation to the effect that he was
getting tired of people taking time off whenever they wanted
to. Then Buckley said that he had an arrangement with
Zrosthk when he started working that when he had farming to
do he would ask time off and that he could get it. Bomstad
answered to the effect that Buckley had asked for only a week
and took longer. Buckley again reminded Bomstad that
Bomstad had talked to Buckley twice during the period of
Buckley's absence and that the whole matter had been
explained to Bomstad. Buckley then asked if the taking of
extra time was the only reason for the layoff and Bomstad
answered, "You ought to know what the reason was."
Buckley then stated to Bomstad that he did not think that
was a good enough reason to release him from his work and
Bomstad answered "Well, you know what it might be."
Buckley asked Bomstad at this point whether it was the
quality of his work and Bomstad answered no, that Buckley's
IOWA MOLD TOOLING CO. 1015
work was as good as any in the plant Then Buckley asked
again, what was the reason for Buckley's discharge and
Bomstad finally said, "It is that union letter that you didn't
sign " Then he said further, "You guys that don't sign is going
to be walking on thin ice "' 1
Thereafter Bomstad said that maybe in the afternoon he
could get Buckley his job back and Buckley said he did not
know if he wanted it under the circumstances This ended the
conversation.
There was no further contact between Buckley and anyone
else in the plant until the following Saturday, April 20, 1968
On that date Buckley returned to the plant to get his tools He
was rolling his tools up in his apron when Bomstad came up to
him and said, "you big sissy, you had to go to the Union "
Then Bomstad called Buckley a baby and an argument ensued
with Bomstad yelling and hollering at Buckley as the latter left
the plant The next week Bomstad called Buckley at his home
and apologized to Buckley who accepted Bomstad's apolo-
gy.12
Concluding Findings Regarding the Layoff of Buckley
The Respondent contends that Buckley's discharge was
brought about by his overstaying the leave which Zrostlik had
granted him in order for Buckley to conduct a sale of his farm
stock and equipment. The General Counsel, on the other hand,
contends that this was mere pretext and that the real reason
for Buckley's discharge was his refusal to sign one of the letters
withdrawing from the Union I find merit in the General
Counsel's contention
In thus finding, I note, to begin with, the comment of
Zrostlik back in February 1968 to the effect that he was going
to get the Teamsters out of the plant and anybody that got in
his way he was going to run over. Then, when Buckley did not
return to work after taking more than 1 week to conduct his
farm sale, despite the fact that Buckley explained the delay on
two separate occasions to Supervisor Bomstad, the Respond-
ent, by Zrostlrk, caused Buckley to be terminated While it is
true that others who refused to sign withdrawal letters from
the Union were not discharged, so far as the records shows
only Buckley gave to the Respondent a situation upon which
the Respondent could seize in order to rid itself of Buckley, a
strong Union adherent Moreover, I note that the Respondent
claims to have hired additional employees to replace Buckley
at a time when it evidently needed welders very badly It
would seem, that under these circumstances, the Respondent
would have been more patient with Buckley since he was
considered a valuable employee. Indeed, as stated by Bomstad
to Buckley after the latter's discharge, there were none better
Additionally, I note the statement to Buckley by Bomstad
after the latter's termination that the reason therefor was that
Buckley did not sign the Union letter and that those who did
not sign "were walking on thin ice."
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent
discharged or laid off Buckley because the latter refused to
sign a letter withdrawing his support of, and membership in,
the Union. It is clear that such action for such reason is
discriminatory and violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. I so find.
D. The Unilateral Wage Increases
1 The unit and the majority
It is conceded, and I find that since on or about September
8, 1967, the Union has been the representative for the purpose
of collective bargaining of the employees in the following
concededly appropriate unit
All production and maintenance employees at the Respond-
ent's Garner, Iowa Plant; excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act as amended
2. The wage increases
I have heretofore found that in the months of December
1967 and January 1968, the Respondent gave wage rate
increases to a number of its employees, without consultation
with the Union which was then actively bargaining with the
Respondent toward a contract. The General Counsel contends
that this employer action constitutes a refusal to bargain
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I agree.
Not only did the Respondent fail to consult the Union or
negotiate with it before extending to its employees the wage
rate increases, it completely ignored the Union as though the
Union was not the certified representative of the employees in
the unit This conduct did not follow any wage rate bargaining
impasse Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that wage
rates were thoroughly discussed before the increases were
granted Thus, it would seem that the wage rate raises were
designed to disparage and undermine the Union's status among
the Respondent's employees. This is evident from the Re-
spondent's other conduct herein such as the drive by the
Respondent's officials to have employees sign letters withdraw-
ing from the Union, the coercive statement of President
Zrostlrk and the discharge for discriminatory reasons of
Employee Buckley. In the light of these findings, the Respond-
ent's contention that the wage rate increases were granted in
order to keep its employees has little weight especially in view
of the fact that the Respondent put in no evidence whatsoever
to support its contention, aside from Zrosthk's claim to that
effect.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent by
granting the unilateral wage rate increases to its employees in
December 1967 and January 1968 unlawfully refused to
bargain with the Union withm the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.' 3
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
i 1 All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of Buckley. I
was very impressed with Buckley's testimony , whereas I have in other
instances , not credited Zrostlik or Bomstad.
12 I credit Buckley's denial that when Zrostlik met Buckley outside
the plant on the morning of April 15 Zrostlik told Buckley that if he
came back in the afternoon he could get his job back I credit Buckley
in this situation because of the earlier threat made by Zrostlik and
Bomstad's statement that Buckley was discharged because he did not
sign a withdrawal letter
13 See Flowers Baking Company , Inc., 169 NLRB No. 101.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com-
merce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in acts of
interference, coercion, and restraint, and thereby having
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom Also, having found
that Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain by institut-
ing wage increases, I shall recommend that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom
Having found that Respondent discriminated against em-
ployee Maurice E Buckley by laying off or discharging him, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer Buckley
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights or privileges It is also recommended that Respondent
make Buckley whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the Respondent discrimination against him, by
paying to Buckley a sum of money equal to the amount he
normally would have earned as wages from April 16, 1968, the
date of Buckley's planned return to work to the date of the
Respondent's offer of reinstatement less Buckley's net earnings
during said period. The amount of back-pay due shall be
computed in accordance with the Board's policy set forth in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest on
backpay computed in manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 Payroll and other records in
possession of the Respondent ought to be made available to
the Board, or its agents, to assist in such computation and
determining the right to reinstatement.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices which I
have found the Respondent to have committed, I shall
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from and in
any manner interfering with its employees' rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Iowa Mold Tooling, Co , Inc , is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section (5) of the Act.
3. At all times material the Union has been and now is the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit hereto-
fore found appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees that the Respondent would
runover them and by coercively interrogating employees, and
by other acts of interference, coercion and restraint, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5 By laying off or discharging employee Maurice E.
Buckley because the latter refused to sign a withdrawal from
the Union, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
6 By unilaterally increasing the employees' wage rates, and
thus bypassing the Union, the Respondent has refused to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions
of law and upon the entire record in this case it is
recommended that Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc., its agents,
officers, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from-
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals if they fail to
withdraw from the Union, soliciting withdrawals from the
Union and coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and their attitude toward the Union.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union by discrimina-
torily laying off or discharging employees or by discriminating
against such employees in any manner in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the above-named Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the above unit
heretofore found to be appropriate by granting unilateral wage
rate increases. The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Gamer, Iowa, plant excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act as amended
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to form,
join, assist, or be represented by the Union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through a representative
of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activity
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to employee Maurice E Buckley immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the
Section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the said employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right of full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with the
Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate, concerning changes of wage
rates and other conditions of employment
(d) Preserve and, upon request make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records,
reports, and all other records necessary to determine the
amount of backpay due and to analyze reinstatement rights
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
IOWA MOLD TOOLING CO. 1017
(e) Post at its Garner, Iowa plant copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix X14 Copies of said notice on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being
duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' 5
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In
the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"a Decision and Order "
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board its provisions shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 18, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
judice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and
make him whole by paying him for any loss that he may
have suffered because of discrimination we have practiced
against him
WE WILL respect the right of our employees to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization
or to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions
of employment through said Union, or any other represent-
ative of the employees own choosing, and we will not inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of these rights.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good
faith with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union 828, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit named below with regard to wage
rate increases and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment The unit is
All production and maintenance employees at our
Garner, Iowa, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act
All our employees are free to become or remain, or re-
frain from becoming or remaining members of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 828,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that
After a trial in which both sides had an opportunity to
present their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has
ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about
what we say in this notice
WE WILL NOT question you about your activities or
your attitudes toward the Union
WE WILL NOT make threats of any kind to you regarding
your failure to withdraw from the Union or to induce you to
withdraw from the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union con-
cerning wage rates or other terms or conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage union activity by laying off
or discharging employees discriminatorily. Since the Trial
Examiner has found that we discriminated against employee
Maurice E Buckley we will offer him complete and thor-
ough reinstatement to his former position, without pre-
IOWA MOLD TOOLING
Co ,INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE WE will notify the employee to be reinstated if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of his right to full reinstatement upon Application accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Mili-
tary Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate di-
rectly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal Building,
110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (Tel.
No 334-2618)