Lifetime Door Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 518 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lifetime Door Company and Local Union 3135,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-3678
November 7, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On August 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Abraham H.
M aller issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices in the complaint
and recommended the dismissal of such allegations.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
orders that Respondent, Lifetime Door Company,
Denmark, South Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Company, herein called the Respondent. Upon said
charge, the Regional Director for Region 11 of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
on September 4, 1968, issued on behalf of the General
Counsel a complaint against the Respondent, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq ),
herein called the Act Briefly, the complaint alleged that
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees by interrogation and threats, that the Union
was the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment; that the
Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union by unreasonably delaying furnishing the Union
information concerning the wage rates and job
classifications of employees in the bargaining unit and
failed and refused to furnish such information to the
Union, and that such conduct caused and prolonged an
unfair labor practice strike In its duly filed answer,
Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at
Orangeburg, South Carolina, on May 13, 14, and 15,
1969. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the
Charging Party were represented and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to
present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. Briefs
were filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent
Upon consideration of the entire record' and the briefs,
and upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation owning and operating a plant at
Denmark, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of doors Respondent's Denmark, South
Carolina, plant is the only plant involved in this
proceeding. During the 12 months preceding the filing of
the complaint herein, which period is representative of all
times material herein, Respondent sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points and places outside the State of South Carolina
from its Denmark, South Carolina, plant. During the
same period of time, Respondent caused goods and raw
materials of a value in excess of $50,000 to be shipped
directly to its Denmark, South Carolina, plant from
points and places outside the State of South Carolina.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board
to assert jurisdiction here.
ABRAHAM H. MALLER , Trial Examiner On July 15,
1968, Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO , herein
called the Union , filed a charge against Lifetime Door
'These findings and conclusions are based in part upon the Trial
Examiner's credibility determinations to which Respondent excepts On the
basis of our careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial
Examiner's credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence, and we find no basis for
disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd
188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
If THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
'The General Counsel has filed a motion to correct the record in a
certain particular No opposition to the motion has been filed Upon
consideration of the motion, it is hereby ordered that the record be
corrected as requested
179 NLRB No. 83
LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY 519
Ill. THE ISSUES
I Whether Respondent interrogated and threatened
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Whether Respondent unreasonably delayed and
failed and refused to furnish the Union with information
concerning the wage rates and job classifications of
employees in the bargaining unit, in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act
3 Whether the strike of Respondent's employees was
an unfair labor practice strike
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
On April 15, 1966, in Cases 11-CA-2638 and
ll-RC-2081, the Board issued its Decision and Order
finding that the Union represented a majority of the
employees of the Respondent in the following appropriate
unit
All production, maintenance, and yard employees of
Respondent employed at its Denmark, South Carolina,
plant, exclusive of all office clerical employees,
professional and technical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act,
and directed, inter alia, that Respondent bargain upon
request with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit. Lifetime
Door Company, 158 NLRB 13.
On February 1, 1968, the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit issued its Decision and Order enforcing the
Decision and Order of the Board N L R B v. Lifetime
Door Company, 390 F 2d 272
B Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I By Foreman Priester
Employee Minnie Bell Fishburne testified that in
March 1968,2 she attended a union meeting and was given
a union badge which she wore at the plant. Thereafter, she
testified, she had two conversations with Foreman W A.
Priester of the glueing department. She later changed her
testimony and said there were four conversations,
although she described only three She testified that the
first conversation took place in April in Foreman
Priester's office which she cleaned in the mornings No
one else was present Her testimony is as follows-
A He told me that I was wearing one of those
things, it was a button, and I said, "Yes," so he said
that we wished that we had never seen one of those
things, and wished to hell, or the damn, that we had
never worn them, and asked who started it, and I told
him I didn't know
Q Now, was anything else said, as best you recall?
A. Well, let's see, he said someone would be put in
our place.
According to Fishburne, the second conversation took
place at the glueing machine where she worked, about 2
or 3 days after the conversation in the office.' She testified
as follows
A. He said, "You are wearing one of those things, a
button," and I told him yes, and I can't really direct
remember all of it
Q Do you recall anything else he said?
A He asked me, you see, we didn't know what we
was doing, he said if we was going to get into it, why
didn't we wait until they get into the plant, that he
wasn't supposed to say anything about it.
Fishburne testified that a third conversation took place
in the office. Again, no one else was present As to this
conversation, Fishburne testified as follows
THE WITNESS He said someone would be put in our
place.
Q Do you recall him saying anything more during
this conversation?
A Let's see, we would catch hell.
According to Fishburne, she took the badge off and put it
in her bag She testified further that she did not attend the
next bargaining committee meeting, although she was a
member of the bargaining committee, because she didn't
want to lose her job.
Employee Vonnie Guess called to corroborate
Fishburne, testified that in April, he was working at the
glueing machine when Foreman Priester had a
conversation with Fishburne, that he was between 5 and 6
feet away from Fishburne at the time, and that Foreman
Priester was standing next to Fishburne He testified
further that neither he nor Fishburne were working at the
time, although it was not a break period According to
Guess the following occurred.
A Mr Priester, he walked back there, he was
passing by, and he told Minnie Bell Fishburne what was
she doing with that badge on, and she told him, she
didn't say nothing, so he said, that badge, she would
regret that she wore that damned badge.,
Contrary to Fishburne's testimony, Guess testified that
Fishburne continued to wear her badge thereafter.
Foreman Priester specifically denied the statements
attributed to him He admitted having only one
conversation with Fishburne and testified as follows:
Q. . . State whether or not you ever had any
conversation with her about the union activities9
A. Only once, she came up to me in the office one
morning, and wanted me to try and give her some
advice about the union, that she didn't know what, she
didn't know anything about it, she didn't know what to
do, or she thought maybe I could help her
Q Did you reply to her?
A. I replied to her that I had nothing to do with the
union, I knew nothing about the union, and I could
advise her nothing
Q. Why did you tell her that?
A Well for two reasons, one reason, we was advised
to say nothing about the union to any employees, and
another reason, we knew nothing about the union to
start with
Q Who advised you to say nothing to the employees
about the union?
A Mr. Corbin and Mr. Scivally [plant managers].
Foreman Priester specifically denied having a
conversation at the glueing machine. He testified that it is
impossible to carry on a conversation in the area of the
gluemg machine, that people have to shout to make
themselves heard, because in the area there is a large
'All events referred to herein occurred during 1968
'According to Fishburne , employees Guess and Robertson were present
'Employee Robertson whom both Fishburne and Guess placed at the
glueing machine during this alleged conversation , was not called as a
witness
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coreing machine which runs about 75 percent of the day,
and a large suction fan which runs all day, and these two
machines make a tremendous noise
I credit the testimony of Foreman Priester, and do not
credit that of Fishburne and Guess in this regard.
Priester's testimony regarding management's admonitions
to supervisors not to discuss unionism with the employees
is corroborated by the testimony of Plant Manager Corbin
who testified that supervisors were reminded daily of "the
importance of not saying anything either way, because it
could be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the
individuals involved " Indeed, Respondent's efforts to
prevent and neutralize any improper statements by its
supervisors is demonstrated by the following testimony of
Attorney Smith.
Q Mr Smith, state whether or not Mr. Henderson
made a remark with regard to an action by the foreman
about having made remarks to employees about union
activities
A Yes, sir, the meeting opened on April 25, and this
was actually prior to any exchanges by anyone on that
date Mr Henderson said that a foreman, W. A
Priester, had told some lady employee that when the
Union got in, or if the Union got in, that all of the
female employees would be replaced by men
I asked him at that time to whom did he say it, so
that we could get - and told him if he would tell us
that we would go directly to that person, whether or
not it had transpired, and tell her that it was not the
case
Mr Henderson at that time did not pursue it He
said that was all that he had to say about it, . S
Furthermore, Priester's statement that he could not advise
her about the Union is corroborated by Fishburne, herself,
who testified that he told her that "he wasn't supposed to
say anything about it [the Union] " On the other hand,
employee Guess, called to corroborate Fishburne, did not
in fact corroborate her testimony. What he testified to
was what Fishburne testified had occurred in the office
while she was cleaning when no one was present, and was
not what she testified had occurred at the glueing
machine It is also significant that, at the time of the
alleged conversations regarding the wearing of the badges,
approximately 90 percent of the employees in the plant
were wearing badges without incident I therefore find it
difficult to believe that Foreman Priester would have
singled out Fishburne to threaten her about wearing a
badge In sum, I find and conclude that Foreman Priester
did not interrogate or threaten Fishburne or otherwise
interfere with her right to wear a union badge
Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed in this
regard
2. By Foreman Coleman
The complaint originally alleged that on July 12,
George Coleman, shipping and traffic manager,
threatened employees that privileges previously enjoyed by
them would be withdrawn because of their support of the
Union At the hearing, the General Counsel amended this
allegation to read that the threat occurred "on or about
August 5, 1968." In support of this allegation, employee
William Hutson testified that he returned to work about 3
weeks after the strike ended; that after his return Coleman
told him that he used to go to the bathroom 4 or 5 times
'In this connection, see The Ohio Rubber Company . 152 NLRB 1121,
1125
a day, but that henceforth he would go only twice a day,
once in the morning and once in the evening.' Foreman
Coleman denied having a conversation with Hutson
individually He pointed out that "there's no such thing as
having an individual conversation, unless we carry them
up to the front office " He explained further that the
employees under him work in groups of three because it
takes three people to handle a trailer He testified further
that Hutson on several occasions did go to the bathroom
too much and just smoke, that he told his employees as a
group that there was a limitation on how many times they
could go to the bathroom, because when one man goes, it
stops the work of the team of three men.
There is nothing in the record which would indicate
that Coleman's statement was motivated by an antiunion
animus on the part of the Respondent or was as a reprisal
for the strike Coleman's explanation, which I credit,
demonstrates that his limitation on the use of the
bathroom was a managerial decision prompted by the fact
that excessive use of the bathroom for smoking or other
purposes adversely affected the efficiency of his three-men
teams The fact that, according to employee Hutson,
Coleman's statement was made at least 3 weeks after the
strike ended would seem to negate the idea that his action
was taken in reprisal for the strike Accordingly, I find
and conclude that Foreman Coleman's action did not
constitute a violation of the Act, and I recommend that
the complaint be dismissed in this regard
C The Failure of the Respondent to Supply the
Union with Requested Information
Respondent concedes (br p 8) that, if requested,
information concerning wages and related information
pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit is pertinent
and must be supplied Whitin Machine Works, 108
NLRB 1537, 1541, Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative
Association, 165 NLRB No 62, Cowles
Communications, Inc, 172 NLRB No 204 But
Respondent asks What information was requested') Was
it fairly supplied? Thus, this phase of the case presents the
narrow issue whether the Respondent supplied the Union
with the requested information
Prior to the first bargaining session, Union Business
Agent Billy Henderson wrote to Respondent's attorney
under date of March 14, 1968, requesting "a list of pay
scale and job classifications at this plant "
At the first bargaining session, on April 4, Respondent
gave Business Agent Henderson a document reading, in
pertinent part, as follows
Our Labor Classifications are.
Laborers $1.60 per hour
Lead Men $1 70 per hour
Maintenance $1.70 per hour & up
Upon receipt of this document, Business Agent
Henderson protested that the information was incomplete,
that it was not what he had requested and, again,
requested a list of employees by the specific jobs, the
dates of employment, and rates of pay He also pointed
out that Respondent's document listed the pay of
maintenance men as "$170 per hour & up," and
'Employee Hutson also testified over objection, that some time in July,
before the strike, Coleman pointed out the union badge which he was
wearing and asked him why he didn't take it off Inasmuch as the alleged
conversation concerning the wearing of the badge was not alleged in the
complaint as a violation , it is not within the issues of the case, and no
finding is based upon it
LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY
requested more specific information in that regard
Respondent orally supplied the information as to the three
grades of maintenance men and their hourly rates At this
and the succeeding meetings, the parties bargained on
various issues The General Counsel does not contend that
the Respondent bargained in bad faith, except by reason
of its failure and refusal to supply the requested
information
On April 16, Union Business Agent Henderson wrote
to Attorney Smith in part as follows "You have also
agreed to have available for us a list of employees,
seniority date, job classifications and pay scale We
respectfully request you include truckdrivers and pay rates
in this list "
Attorney Smith replied to Henderson's letter under date
of April 17 and stated, inter a/ia "We shall try to have
available a list of employees setting forth their seniority
dates and job classifications at our next meeting "
The next negotiating meeting was held on April 25. At
this meeting, Respondent presented Henderson with a list
of employees by name, clock number, pay rate, and date
employed The only jobs identified were those of
truckdriver, truck maintenance, maintenance, and
foremen According to Business Agent Henderson, he
complained that the list was incomplete and that he
wanted the employees broken down by specific fobs; that
Attorney Smith replied that Henderson could get this
from his committee. According to Attorney Smith,
Henderson placed the list among his papers and asked no
questions about it' At this meeting, Plant Manager
Scivally gave the Union an oral description of the
operations of the plant
At the next meeting of May 13, Business Agent
Henderson again requested a list of job descriptions
Attorney Smith replied that he told Henderson that the
submissions already given him were adequate, that
Henderson knew what was going on in the plant, and that
"your committee can tell you "
Under date of May 14, Business Agent Henderson
wrote Attorney Smith, requesting that he be allowed "to
study the jobs in the plant in order that we may study and
evalueate (sic/ them more fully "
Under date of May 20, Attorney Smith replied to
Henderson's letter of May 14. In that letter, Attorney
Smith stated that the general operation of the Respondent
was similar to Simpson Timber Company, whose
employees the Union represented The letter continued
Besides the maintenance personnel, whose actual job
requirements we shall be glad to discuss with you at our
next meeting, there are presently seven Forklift Drivers,
three employees in the Pre Hung Department, two
Pressmen, one glue mix employee, two Trimmer
Feedmen, two Trimmer Off Bearers and a check up
man. Additionally, there are eight inspectors, nine
truck-loaders and four glue spreader feeders, all of
whom are considered as ordinary laborers All the
balance of the employees other than truck drivers are
ordinary laborers As your own Committee will
undoubtedly tell you, the Company is broken up into
the Receiving Department, the Lay Up Department,
The Trim Department, the Machine Department,
Warehouse and Shipping. It is noted that the letter
listed 39 jobs in the plant (though it did not identify the
persons holding those jobs), whereas according to
'I credit the testimony of Henderson whose dissatisfaction with
Respondent 's submission is confirmed by his repeated requests , oral and
written , for job classifications
521
Respondent's submission of April 25, there were some
91 production employees in the plant.
It is noted that the letter listed 39 jobs in the plant
(though it did not identify the persons holding those fobs),
whereas according to Respondent's submission of April
25, there were some 91 production employees in the plant
At the May 23 negotiating meeting, Henderson stated
that the information that he had received was inadequate
and renewed his request information According to
Henderson, Attorney Smith told him that he could get the
information from his committee " At this meeting,
Attorney Smith characterized the Union's wage proposal
as being unrealistic and not in keeping with the wages in
the area. Henderson replied that the proposal was the best
he could do with the information which the Respondent
had furnished him and asked for an opportunity to study
the jobs in the plant to evaluate them. Henderson further
said that he did not feel the Respondent had fulfilled its
responsibility to furnish the information requested, that
the people were getting restless, and that the Respondent
was putting the Union into a situation where "if we did
not make some improvement, that we was faced with a
strike, and this was the last thing that the Union wanted "
At the meeting of June 10, Business Agent Henderson
told Attorney Smith that he felt that the Respondent had
not bargained in good faith by failing to give the Union
the requested information, that most of the proposals that
the Union had accepted up to this point were those of the
Respondent, that the people had become restless and that
he did not want to be backed into a corner with a strike
situation
On June 28, Business Agent Henderson again wrote to
Attorney Smith complaining , inter alia, of Respondent's
"failure and refusal to furnish information requested and
necessary to the bargaining agents of your employees "
The parties next met on July 3 At this meeting the
Union was represented by International Representative
Deese in addition to Business Agent Henderson
Henderson stated that he had asked for information
pertaining to the names of the employees, the jobs
performed in the departments and rates of pay, but had
never received it. Attorney Smith replied that he didn't
think that Henderson needed the information
International Representative Deese then requested the
same information and renewed the request before the close
of the meeting 9
On July 8, Respondent's employees went on strike
According to Attorney Smith, the strike was 90 percent
effective The nature of the strike whether economic, or
caused by an unfair labor practice, is discussed under a
separate heading infra
While the strike was pending, the parties met on July
16 At this meeting, Attorney Smith gave Henderson a list
of 36 striking employees classified by job Henderson
protested that this was not the entire list of employees at
the time of the strike, when there were approximately 91
production employees in the plant.- Plant Manager
'Ernest Corbin , who succeeded Scivally as plant manager, testified that
no request for information was made at that meeting and that the first
time he heard such a request was at the meeting of July 23 i credit
Henderson 's testimony which is consistent with his written requests for
information
'The credited testimony of Deese However , I do not credit Deese's
testimony to the effect that Attorney Smith told Henderson that he had
thrown his letters in "File 13" and would continue to do so The remark
attributed to Attorney Smith is inconsistent with Attorney Smith's
correspondence with Henderson Deese ' s request for information is
corroborated by Plant Manager Corbin
"At the same time, Attorney Smith gave Henderson an additional list
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Corbin admitted that this list did not contain the names of
all the persons on the list submitted to the Union at the
meeting of April 25, and testified that he did not know
why
In essence, it was Respondent's position in the
negotiations and at the hearing that all of its employees,
except truckdrivers, were ordinary laborers, that such
designation was sufficient information to the Union, and
that Respondent was not required to specify the particular
functions performed by each laborer. To support this
contention, Plant Manager Corbin testified that employees
are transferred from one operation to another However,
on cross examination, he admitted that the average
number of such transfers is three per day, that some days
there are no transfers, and that the employees so
transferred are usually returned to their original positions
the following day. It is also significant that the card of
each employee bears the number of the department in
which he works and such number is not changed when an
employee is temporarily transferred to another
department This number, Plant Manager Corbin testified,
is for the purpose of determining the cost of each
department.
Despite Respondent's insistence that all employees,
except truckdrivers, are ordinary laborers, it did on July
16 supply the Union with a list of 36 employees together
with their job descriptions No reason was advanced for
Respondent's failure to supply this information before the
strike started Nor was any reason given for Respondent's
failure to list the remaining 55 employees and their job
classifications As previously noted, Plant Manager
Corbin admitted that he did not know why the list was
incomplete. Furthermore, employee Vonnie Doe Guess,
testifying on another phase of the case, testified that his
permanent job at the plant was operating the glueing
machine Yet the list given by Respondent on July 16
contains no classification of operators of the glueing
machine, and Guess' name does not appear on that list. It
is apparent from the foregoing that the Respondent could
have supplied the Union with the requested information
and could have done so before the strike commenced.
It is no answer, as the Respondent contends, that all of
its employees, except truckdrivers, were considered by the
Respondent to be ordinary laborers. The Union could
have, and might have, submitted a wage proposal calling
for various rates of pay based upon the difficulties and
other conditions attendant each specific operation It may
well be that the Respondent might have refused to accede
to wage differentials for the various operations and might
have insisted that all such employees were ordinary
laborers and were entitled to the same rate of pay.
Nevertheless, the Union was entitled to that information
so that it could make whatever wage proposals it desired,
even if the Respondent might ultimately reject such
proposals. Significant in this context are Attorney Smith's
repeated rejections of the Union's wage proposals as being
"unrealistic." Without the requested information, the
Union may have been bargaining in the dark. Thus, after
Respondent 's repeated refusal to supply the information
as to job classifications, Henderson asked for permission
to visit the plant to evaluate the jobs. This request was
also refused. As the Board has stated "The employer's
duty . . is predicated upon the need of the Union for
such information in order to provide intelligent
representation of the employees" (F W Woolworth Co,
109 NLRB 196, 197, enfd per curiam 352 U S 938) By
failing to supply the requested information to the Union,
the Respondent hampered the Union's bargaining efforts.
N.L R B v Yawman & Erbe Mfg Co, 187 F 2d 947,
949 (C.A 2) "
I therefore find and conclude that the information
requested by the Union was relevant to the bargaining and
that the Respondent failed and refused to supply the
Union with the information requested until after the
strike, and then supplied only part of the information By
reason of such conduct, Respondent failed and refused to
bargain in good faith, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, 157
NLRB 496, 503, enfd. 388 F.2d 673 (C A 6);
Curtiss-Wright Corp , Wright Aero Div v N L R B, 347
F.2d 61, 69 (C A. 3).
D. The Nature of the Strike
As previously noted, at the meeting of May 23,
Attorney Smith characterized the Union's wage proposal
as being unrealistic and not in keeping with the wages in
the area, and Henderson replied that the proposal was the
best he could do with the information which the
Respondent had furnished him and asked for an
opportunity to study the jobs in the plant to evaluate
them Henderson further indicated that the Respondent
was putting the Union into a situation where a strike
might result. Again, at the meeting of June 10, Henderson
told Attorney Smith that he felt that the Respondent had
not bargained in good faith by failing to give the Union
the requested information, and that he did not want to be
backed into a corner with a strike situation
On June 10, there was a meeting of the employees
called by the Union According to Henderson's credited
testimony, he told the employees present that the
Respondent had not fulfilled its responsibility to bargain
in good faith and had failed to supply the Union with
requested information He explained the differences
between an economic strike and an unfair labor practice
strike, and the consequences of each. A strike vote was
taken by secret ballot, and the employees present voted
unanimously to strike at a date to be set by the elected
committee and the Executive Board of the Local Union.
Another meeting of the employees was held early in the
morning of July 8, at which time the strike was called
The Respondent contends that the strike was an
economic strike. It argues that the alleged unfair labor
practices involving the alleged statements to employees
Hutson and Fishburne are without substance; that it had
fully complied with the Union's request for information,
and that a union leaflet distributed after the strike began
setting forth the reasons for the strike failed to mention
the Respondent's alleged failure to supply the information.
With regard to the first contention, I have found supra
that the alleged unfair labor practices with regard to the
alleged threats made to Hutson and Fishburne are without
substance and should be dismissed As to the second
contention, I have found, contrary to Respondent's
position, that the Respondent failed and refused to supply
indicating three additions to the payroll prior to the strike, and three
deletions from the payroll The list of additions and deletions did not
specify the fobs performed
"In its brief , Respondent no longer contends , as it did during the
negotiations , that the Union could obtain the requested information from
its committee Of course , an employer is not relieved of his obligation to
furnish information even if it is available from the employees Dixie
Corporation . 105 NLRB 390, 396
LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY 523
the requested information and supplied only part of the
information after the strike began, and I have concluded
that Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act If, therefore, the strike was caused by that
unfair labor practice, then the strike was an unfair labor
practice strike.
The Respondent relies upon a leaflet put out by the
Union on July 24, entitled "WHY WE THE
EMPLOYEES OF LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY,
INC. OF DENMARK, SOUTH CAROLINA ARE ON
STRIKE " The leaflet accuses the Respondent of a
refusal to bargain in good faith and specifically refers to
the following items. Seniority, checkoff of dues, hours of
work, paid holidays, vacations, and wages Nowhere in the
leaflet did the Union explicitly refer to the Respondent's
refusal to supply requested information
Considered alone, the leaflet would appear to derogate
from the General Counsel's contention that the strike was
caused by Respondent's failure to meet the Union's
request for information. However, the leaflet cannot be
considered in vacuo Business Agent Henderson had made
it clear to the Respondent that its failure to supply the
requested information could lead to a strike which the
Union sought to avoid Also, the Union's strike vote came
after Henderson had informed the employees of
Respondent's refusal to supply the information.
Furthermore, the leaflet, published 16 days after the strike
had commenced, was an appeal for public sympathy and
urged "no one go to work for Lifetime Door Company in
Denmark, S.C , until they bargain in good faith with our
Committee " In such an appeal, it was only natural that
the Union would emphasize the economic issues involved
in the negotiations, rather than Respondent's failure to
supply job classifications of the employees - an issue
which might appear to be of little, if any, significance to
the general public.
Of course, there were unresolved economic issues
between the parties As the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia has said
No doubt the Company's refusal to bargain was not the
only cause of the strike . . But if an unfair labor
practice had anything to do with causing the strike, it
was an unfair labor practice strike (General Drivers
and Helpers, Local 662 v. N L R B., 302 F.2d 908, 911,
cert. denied 371 U.S. 827)
See also N L R.B v. West Coast Casket Co., 205 F.2d
902, 907 (C A. 9), N L R B v Fitzgerald Mills Corp.,
313 F.2d 260, 269 (C.A. 2), and cases cited.
I find and conclude that the strike was caused in
substantial part by Respondent's unfair labor practice and
was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception.
Even if the strike had been an economic strike at its
inception, Respondent's conduct in supplying some, but
not all, of the information on July 16, after the strike had
been in progress, was an unfair labor practice which
prolonged the strike, for it demonstrated Respondent's
ability to supply the requested information and
emphasized its refusal to supply all of it. In this context,
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said
There is no question but that where a strike is initially
undertaken for economic reasons but is prolonged by
reason of the employer's intervening unfair labor
practices, the employer is in the same position he would
have been in had his unfair labor practice cause the
strike in the first place . (N.L.R.B. v. Crosby
Chemicals, Inc , 188 F.2d 91, 95).
To the same effect, see N L R B v. Remington Rand,
Inc , 130 F. 2d 919, 928, fn . 8 (C.A 2); General Drivers
and Helpers . Local 662 v. N L R B, supra
Shortly after the strike began, the Respondent hired
replacements and was operating at full capacity . On July
30, Business Agent Henderson wired Attorney Smith as
follows
Your employees voted this date to terminate the current
strike against Lifetime Door Company Inc , Denmark
South Carolina and return to work unconditionally at
regular starting time 7 AM Wednesday July 31, 1968.
This will also confirm our meeting of August 1, 1968 at
2 PM.12
When the parties met on August 1, Attorney Smith
offered to discuss with the Union the "orderly return" of
the strikers . International Representative Deese replied
that the Union stood upon the telegram By letter dated
August 2, Attorney Smith informed Henderson that 38
named strikers should report to work on Monday
morning, August 5. By a second letter dated August 12,
Attorney Smith specified another 33 employees who were
to return to work on Monday , August 12. Inasmuch, as I
have found , the strike was an unfair labor practice strike,
and the Union's request for reinstatement was
unconditional , the strikers were entitled to reinstatement 5
days after the unconditional offer to return The 33
strikers who were not restored to their jobs at that time
are entitled to backpay from August 5, less the net
earnings of each during such period.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Lifetime Door Company set forth in
section IV, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Respondent set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that the strike was an unfair labor
practice strike, that on July 30, the Union made on behalf
of the striking employees an unconditional offer to return
to work on July 31, and that some of the strikers were not
reinstated by Respondent 5 days thereafter, I shall
recommend that the Respondent make whole all strikers
named in Appendix A for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's failure to
reinstate them on August 5, by payment to each of a sum
of money equal to that which each normally would have
earned as wages from August 5, 1968, to the date of their
reinstatement or the effective date of Respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such
period. The backpay provided herein shall be computed in
"It is well settled that a union representing strikers may make a valid
application for reinstatement of strikers Pecheur Lozenge Co , Inc . 98
NLRB 496, enfd 209 F 2d 393 (C A 2), cert denied, 347 US 953,
Brown and Root , Inc, 99 NLRB 1031, 1042, Elmira Machine and
Specialty Works , Inc , etc, 148 NLRB 1695, 1696, 1703
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accordance with the formula stated in F W Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest shall be added at the
rate of 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co, 138 NLRB 716
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that the Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and
conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All production, maintenance, and yard employees of
Respondent employed at its Denmark, South Carolina,
plant, exclusive of all office clerical employees,
professional and technical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to furnish the Union pertinent wage and
payroll data, including, but not limited to, job
classification and pay scale of each employee by name, or
unreasonably delaying in furnishing such data to the
Union
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-described unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, furnish to the Union pertinent wage
and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job
classification and pay scale of each employee by name,
within a reasonably prompt time
(c) Make whole all strikers whose names are listed in
Appendix A attached hereto, for any loss of pay each may
have suffered because of the Respondent's failure to
reinstate them on August 5, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all
records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due.
(e) Post at its Denmark, South Carolina, plant copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B "" Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 11, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
"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 States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 11, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
Willie Rice, Jr.
Phillip Rice
Charles W Lee
Nurlin Dowling
Glenn Smith
Harry Johnson, Jr
Neatha Barnwell
Bryant Henderson
Leola Greene
Mose Moore
Jeremiah Graham
Annie Jamison
Eddie James
Ernell Hartwell
James Rogers
Andrew Lingard
Edgar Tuten
Stanley Breeland
Earleen Rice
Linda Riley
Robert Edwards
Jannie Tyler
Elmo Campbell
Rufus Jamison
Richard Tyler
Mary Lee
Leroy Odom
William Hutson
Abe Williams
Frank Hughes
Willie Mae Wade
Abbie Belle Tyler
Harold Moseley
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT refuse, upon request, to bargain
collectively with Local Union 3135, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the following appropriate unit
All production , maintenance , and yard employees
employed by us at our Denmark , South Carolina,
plant , exclusive of all office clerical employees,
professional and technical employees , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union pertinent
wage and payroll data, including, but not limited to, job
classification and payroll scale of each employee by
name, nor will we unreasonably delay in furnishing such
data to the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization , to form, join , or assist
any labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Local Union 3135, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above-described
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work
and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement
WE WILL upon request, furnish to the Union
pertinent wage and payroll data, including, but not
limited to, job classification and pay scale of each
employee by name, within a reasonably prompt time.
WE WILL make whole all strikers whose names are
listed in Appendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, for any loss of pay each may have suffered
because of our failure to reinstate them on August 5,
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum.
525
All employees are free to become or remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
Dated By
LIFETIME DOOR COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting , and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia
Building , 301 North Main Street , Winston-Salem, North
Carolina 27101, Telephone A.C. 919, 723-9211