Otis Elevator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 770 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

7 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding from each group office, clerical , and professional employees,
salesmen, guards, department managers, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act 4
Group (a) : All truck drivers.
Group (b) : All meat cutters and luggers.
If a majority in each of the two groups vote for the same labor
organization, they will be deemed to have indicated a desire to consti-
tute a single unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the labor organization so chosen for
such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority in either
group vote for a labor organization not also selected by the other, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represent-
atives to the labor organization so chosen for a unit composed of the
employees in such group, which the Board in such circumstances finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The Petitioner desires to represent a plantwide unit including all truck driers, meat
cutters, and luggers . In the alternative it is willing to represent two separate units for
the outside and inside employees The Intervenor relies on the bargaining history in this
plant under its contract with the Employer , contending that the present unit of the truck
drivers it represents is appropriate. The Employer is opposed to separate units for its
outside and inside employees.
The record indicates that in the Employer's Eastern District , which includes Metropolitan
New York, New Jersey , and Connecticut , it has several plants where the Petitioner or the
Intervenor represent plantwide units. It also has some plants , particularly the larger
plants, where its employees are represented in separate units for its outside employees and
its inside employees . As the truck drivers are a group such as the Board has frequently
found may constitute either a separate unit or be part of a plantwide unit, we find that
either a plantwide unit or separate units for the inside and outside employees may be
appropriate in this case . Armour & Co . ( Los Angeles plant ), 100 NLRB No. 125 Cf.
Swift & Co., 99 NLRB 1497.
OTI$ ELEVATOR COMPANY and LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO . Case No.
9-CA-2047. January 29, 1953
Decision and Order
On October 14, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease send desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel,
the Respondent, and the Union filed excepi,ions to the Intermediate
Report, and supporting briefs.
102 NLRB No. 72.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 771
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following modifications :
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent
was obligated to grant the Union's request for the original time-study
data developed by the Respondent's experts in their determination
of standards applicable to the job involved in grievance 1855, and to
permit the Union to conduct its own time study in order intelligently
to appraise the merits of the dispute. Although the Respondent
refused both of these requests, the Trial Examiner found a violation
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act only with respect to its refusal to
furnish the requested time-study data. As to the refusal to permit
the Union to conduct its own time study, the Trial Examiner concluded
that there was no violation, because he found that the Union has effec-
tive means under the contract in the next step of the grievance pro-
cedure to obtain such a study by an arbitrator. The record does not
support the latter finding. The contract is silent as to any right
of the Union to obtain a time study at the arbitration stage, or at any
other stage of the grievance procedure. The record shows only that
the Respondent has permitted arbitrators, on a few occasions in the
past, to obtain independent time studies. The Respondent also indi-
cated at the hearing that it would permit independent time studies in
the future at the request of arbitrators. However, its consistent
position has been that the Union is not legally entitled to the privilege.
In view of these facts, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
the Respondent's refusal to permit the Union to conduct its own time
study was unlawful, and that the Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (5) of the Act .2 Accordingly, in addition to adopting the
Trial Examiner's recommendations, we shall also order that the
Respondent, upon request, permit the Union to conduct its own time
study of the job involved in grievance 1855, at such stage in the griev-
ance procedure as is necessary for the Union to appraise the merits
of the grievance and to bargain intelligently.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
2 Crompton -Highland Mills, Inc, 70 NLRB 206; 337 U. S. 217
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Otis Elevator Com-
pany, Yonkers, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 453, International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as exclusive
bargaining representative of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at its Yonkers plant, including inspectors, exclusive of execu-
tive and administrative employees, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, by failing or refusing to furnish
the Union information for its use which would disclose the basis for
the Respondent's determination of the production standard involved
in grievance 1855, and by refusing to permit the Union to conduct
an independent time study through its own experts on the job involved
in grievance 1855.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the
Union to bargain collectively with it in behalf of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, furnish to the Union, as exclusive representative
of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, information for
its use which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determina-
tion of the production standard involved in grievance 1855; permit
the Union to conduct its own time study on the job involved in griev-
ance 1855; and hereafter under like or related circumstances, upon
request, furnish to the Union similar information and permit the
Union, under reasonable conditions, to conduct its own time studies.
(b) Post at its plant at Yonkers, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Responent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 773
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to LOCAL 453, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargain-
ing unit described herein, information for its use showing the
basis for our determination of the production standard involved
in grievance 1855, and hereafter under like or related circum-
stances, upon request we will furnish the above-named union simi-
lar information.
WE WILL, upon request, under reasonable conditions, permit the
above-named union to conduct its own time study on the job in-
volved in grievance 1855, in order that the union may appraise
the merits of the grievance and bargain intelligently with respect
to that grievance, and hereafter under like or related circum-
stances upon request we will permit the above-named union to
conduct similar time studies.
The bargaining unit is : All production and maintenance
employees at our Yonkers plant, including inspectors, but
excluding executive and administrative employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -----------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by Local 453 , International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein called , respectively , the General Counsel
and the Board , by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City), issued his complaint dated January 22, 1952 , against Otis Elevator
Company, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947 , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
and the charge together with notice of the hearing were duly served upon the
parties.
250983-vol. 102-53--50
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent, beginning on or about February 8, 1951, refused to bargain collectively
with the Union. The Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 24 and 25, 1952, at New York
City before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel, the charging party, and the Respondent were
represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
the parties. The parties did not present oral argument at the close of the
testimony. The Union and the Respondent each have, but the General Counsel
has not, filed a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New Jersey corporation, maintains its principal office and
place of business at New York City and plants at Harrison, New Jersey, and
Yonkers, New York. At the Yonkers plant, the only facility involved in this
proceeding, the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of escalator and elevator equipment and related products. During the year
1950, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations, caused to be
purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Yonkers plant, copper, steel, pig iron,
and other materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75
percent was transported to that plant from States of the United States other
than the State of New York. During the same period, the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured at the Yonkers
plant products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent
was transported from that plant to States of the United States other than the
State of New York. The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 453, international Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Refusal to Bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the majority
The parties agree and the undersigned finds that all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Respondent at its Yonkers plant, including inspectors,
exclusive of executive and administrative employees , guards, and all supervisors
as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The parties agree and the undersigned finds that on or about November 4, 1949,
a majority of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit designated
or selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with the Respondent and that at all times since that date, the Union
has been and is now the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 775
bargaining of the employees in the aforesaid unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
2. The request and the refusal to bargain
The dispute before the Board arises out of a difference between the Union and
the Respondent as to their respective rights and obligations under the Act con-
cerning the Union's obtaining certain information from the Respondent relating
to wages. The issue presented arose in the course of the processing of a certain
grievance known as number 1855 under a contract between the Union and the
Respondent dated November 4, 1949.'
The grievance involved which remains unresolved was initiated by the Union
on September 25, 1950, and within a few days it progressed through the early
steps provided for in the contract for settlement by negotiation first between
the department steward and the department foreman, and then the building
steward and the superintendent The Union described the grievance as having
arisen in connection with the operation of a new coil-taping machine installed
about 6 months earlier and contested the adequacy of the production standard
established by the Respondent under its incentive wage system for that opera-
tion. The Union contended that after a fair trial it was found impossible to
earn the nonpremium wage and hence the operators were unable to earn the 25
percent minimum premium guaranteed by the contract under the Respondent's
incentive system and requested that the standard be adjusted to make it fair and
equitable. The Respondent, on the other hand, took the position that the opera-
tors of the coil-taping machines involved were not putting forth the effort to earn
the 25 percent premium and that they had not given the standards a sufficient
trial. The Respondent in addition explained that an engineer was investigating
the job and that if he found anything wrong appropriate action would be taken.
The issue as it arose between the Union and the Respondent involves a pro-
vision of the contract under which they have agreed that the average trained
and experienced employee should be able in his occupation to earn at least 25
percent over standard through exerting extra effort.' The following is a de-
scription of the incentive plan adopted from the Respondent's brief :
Under the system there are established standards which are amounts of
time for doing jobs determined upon the basis of what an average employee
'Negotiations for a new contract were commenced in August 1951 , and after a strike an
agreement was reached in December 1951. During the course of these negotiations the
Union requested, and the Respondent refused to disclose, information of the same nature
as is here involved
2 The text of the agreement , article x , entitled "Wage Incentive System, Section 1,"
provides as follows :
Section 1. The Wage Incentive System is designed to enable :
(a) The average employee who is trained and experienced in the occupation in which
engaged to increase his earnings at least 25-%Jo through incentive premium offered
for extra effort.
(b) The Employer to intelligently control its estimates , production , scheduling,
routing and costs.
Section 2 provides, in part, as follows :
For this mutual purpose, the Wage Incentive System shall continue and the
Employer agrees :
(a) To maintain the maximum practical coverage in present measured departments
by the following methods or any combination thereof :
(1) Direct time study
(2) Standard data
(3) Use of elements from existing time studies on comparable jobs
(4) Estimate
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trained and experienced in the occupation would be expected to do without
extra effort over the course of an 8-hour day after making adequate allow-
ance for relaxation and time for personal necessities . The amount of work
that such a man would be expected to do in one minute under such circum-
stances is called a "unit". Therefore an employee working under such cir-
cumstances over the course of an 8-hour day would be expected to produce
480 units of work without extra effort and for that he would be paid his
regular hourly wage . If he produced less his pay would not be reduced.
If he produced exactly 480 units he would have worked a "60 unit hour."
To the extent that the employee produces units in excess of 480 during an
8-hour day , he receives additional incentive compensation at the incentive
rate for his job set forth in [the section of the agreement between the Re-
spondent and the Union entitled Wage Rates]. If in a particular day, for
example, instead of producing 480 units he produced 720 units, he would
receive for the additional 240 units pay for 4 hours at the incentive rate set
forth in [the contract]. Such an employee would have worked a "90
unit hour."
Standards may be established by four different means, or any combination
of them, as provided in Section 2 of the contract [quoted in part in footnote
2, above]. They are direct time study, standard data, use of elements from
existing time studies on comparable jobs and estimate.
• Direct time study involves a time study man observing the actual per-
formance of a job or elements of a job, recording the time taken by the
operator, estimating the rate of speed at which the employee worked and
correcting the actual times taken to the theoretical norm of a 60 unit hour
and adding an allowance for relaxation for the job.
Standard data represents the synthesis of time studies previously taken.
The use of elements from existing time studies on comparable jobs means
the use of partial time values from other jobs in combination with other
values in order to make up a new complete standard.
Estimate means that time for the job or element is either computed
mathematically upon the basis of machine tool speeds and feeds, is taken
partly from existing studies or is pure estimate without any supporting
figures.
Any combination of the methods may be used in determining the standard
upon a particular job.
As between the Union and the Respondent the contractual issue centers upon
the adequacy or fairness of the standard applied to this particular operation.
No settlement was reached in the course of the first two steps of the grievance
procedure and the grievance was presented at the weekly grievance procedure
meetings for further discussion-the final step under the contract for negotiation
between the Union and the Respondent preceding a solution of the grievance by
decision as a result of submitting the matter to arbitration. Grievance 1855
along with other grievances was taken up at about 7 of these committee meetings
during September and a month or two thereafter. During these meetings, each of
which lasted about 3 hours, grievance 1855 was discussed for varying periods
from about 15 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was also one occasion
when a special meeting was devoted to this grievance. The grievance never
went beyond this stage of the procedure.
In the course of these meetings, as was the Respondent's custom, the Respond-
ent produced its file as to the standard for the Union's inspection in an effort to
explain its position. In this instance the Respondent's purpose was to show
what changes had been made in the standard. Although the union people
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 777
undoubtedly had some understanding of the matters involved, as one of the
Respondent's representatives who was present at the meeting described in his
testimony, ". . . I don't doubt for a second that it confused rather than clarified
things and when the volume of material was seen by the union , I guess they
were just flabergasted." During this period of negotiation the Union requested
permission to bring its own time-study man in and conduct a study of the job,
and the Respondent declined the request. On another occasion the Union asked
that it be furnished or be permitted to make copies of the data which the Re-
spondent had already produced. The Respondent declined this request also.
The Union urged to the Respondent that the information requested was neces-
sary to bargaining and to a presentation of the grievance to an arbitrator. These
refusals by the Respondent on February 8, 1951, as to the Union's conducting its
own time study and on May 15, 1951, as to the furnishing of the information,
form the test as to whether the Respondent violated the Act.
There is no disagreement among the parties as to the general principle that
an employer, in order to fulfill its obligation under the Act to bargain in good
faith, is required upon request to furnish a labor organization with information
necessary for the labor organization to bargain intelligently over in matters
in issue. There is no dispute that the information here involved is peculiarly
within the Respondent's control. The disagreement arises in the application of
the general principle to the circumstances of the case.
The Respondent urges that the documents, including copies of the time studies,
are useless to the Union or to anyone else who was not present when the studies
were made and who is not familiar with the workings of the plant and with the
Respondent's concept of norm in which it trains its time-study men. More
particularly, the Respondent urges that there is a subjective factor known as
coding which underlies its ultimate conclusion and that this factor involves judg-
ment in estimating the rate of performance or pace of work making adequate
allowances for relaxation and time for personal necessities. Although the
Union points out that some indirect examination of the coding could be made
from the documents alone, the Union concedes that it might appear upon in-
vestigation in this instance or in a given set of circumstances that the time
studies or data alone are useless and contends that in such an event its own time
study would be indicated. It pointed out further that the difficulties do not in
all instances arise from the coding factor and that an examination of the time
studies or data by its expert and an interview with the men might lead to its
own determination of the merit or lack of merit of the grievance or give it an
appreciation as to where the difficulty lies. The Union showed, for example,
that it could thus learn whether the job corresponds with the elements set forth
in the data, whether the elements are in conformity with the data, whether the
data is representative, and whether the data is the controlling factor in the
study. If it had a time study performed, the Union urges, it could learn, aside
from gaining information which might be used to question the coding factor-
the sequence by which the job is performed-whether the process was responsible
for the dispute, whether alternate work patterns were given full reflection in
the Respondent 's studies , and whether important deviations were given adequate
consideration.
Although the Respondent is undoubtedly convinced of the accuracy of the
information it has carefully collected , has complete confidence in the soundness
of the conclusions it has reached in the form of standards , and believes that
the information requested would not be useful to the Union for further checking,
it is not for the Respondent to pass upon the relevancy of the information
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sought once it has been placed in issue and is not patently outside the bargaining
area.' The Respondent's production standard and the basis for the standard
have been placed in issue and are relevant to wages.
The Respondent urges also that the contract with the Union fully expresses
its obligation to furnish information. The Respondent relies upon certain of
three notice provisions in the article concerning the wage incentive system. One,
the Respondent is obligated to give written notice to the Union and the employee
involved when elements are eliminated from the standard. Two, when new
production standards are established it is required to make available in writing
in the department affected its conclusions as to the coding (except when standard
data is used), and its directions as to equipment, tooling, speeds, and feeds, and
other pertinent matters. Three, when it makes new or revises old standards
for labor which contributes toward but does not directly engage in production
it must furnish copies of the standards to the Union.
The effect of the Respondent's argument that the contract fully expresses its
obligation to furnish information to the Union is that by implication the Union
agreed that it was not entitled to and waived its statutory right to any additional
information to process grievances under the procedure also provided for in the
contract. The setting forth of these provisions does not constitute the "clear
and unmistakable" showing of waiver required by the Board 4 It appears, more-
over, in practice when negotiating under the contract toward the settlement of
a grievance that it was customary for the Respondent to make certain disclosures
as to the basis for its decision as to a standard.
The Respondent urges further that as a practical matter the Union has suffi-
cient information to police the incentive system. The Respondent points out
that the Union has information from several sources, (1) the notice of changes
provided for under the contract, (2) the information in the possession of the
individual operator, and (3) disclosures and explanations of original time studies,
data, graphs, and other materials at the grievance-committee meetings already
referred to when under the contract the Union could have had its expert present.
The Respondent also points out that it has invited union officials for training in
its time-study methods but the Union declined the invitation.
The information the Respondent furnishes in accordance with the contract
appears to be little more than notice of changes in standards in conclusional
form. The individual operator is also informed of the requirements of the
job to be done. The only time that there was a disclosure to the Union of the
underlying data or basis for the Respondent's decision as to the proper standard
relating to grievance 1855 was at the grievance-committee meeting already re-
ferred to. The Respondent's representative present at the meeting explained
in his testimony that he was ". . . not quite sure as to just how much inspection
was given [the Union] nor how much . . . would have been tolerated; but, at
the same time, . . . [the file] was brought down to answer [the Union's] ques-
tions-which would be by inspection, if necessary." There appears to be no
doubt that the material here involved could not be analyzed and evaluated by
an expert in the course of a half hour or so. It would appear also that the
detail would thereafter have to be retained by him to effectively interview the
operators. Although the actual earnings of premium by some employee or
employees indicates that the premium can be achieved, there is no question
that where the dispute resolves itself into an issue of the adequacy of the
standard both the underlying documentation and a time study of the job are
necessary for a determination of the merits of the issue. In at least one instance
an arbitrator under the grievance procedure had a time study conducted to
s N L. R. B. v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F. 2d 947.
* General Controls Co., 88 NLRB 1841.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 779
resolve an issue as to the adequacy of a standard. It would seem that bargain-
ing in good faith calls for inspection at reasonable times and places sufficient
to afford a labor organization an opportunity to study and analyze the complex
materials involved so that it could find the basis of the dispute and appraise it.
It would follow also that in the event this method does not suffice the labor
organization should be permitted under reasonable conditions to perform its
own time study in order to obtain the information necessary for bargaining.
To rule otherwise would put the employees' representative in a position in nego-
tiating with the employer where it would be opposing the employer's conclusions
arbitrarily, that is, without knowing the basis of a given dispute except that
some member was complaining. This would be the antithesis of intelligent bar-
gaining fostered by the Act and might affect the representative's fulfillment of
its affirmative obligation to bargain in good faith.
The Respondent offers two additional reasons for opposing this view of the
duty to bargain in good faith. First, the Respondent points out that it has the
sole right under the contract to establish production standards , that the Union
has the right to attack the standards if they do not meet the minimum premium
test, but that the Union is here seeking to inject itself into the formation of the
standards. It does not appear to the undersigned that the Union is seeking more
than to effectuate its right of review or as the Respondent puts it, attack the
standards as not meeting the minimum premium test. Secondly, the Respondent
objects to disclosing its internal working papers. The effect of this argument
is that the material is confidential. The Board has found no merit to substan-
tiate this objection to making disclosures.`
It is accordingly found that beginning May 15, 1951, when the Respondent
refused to disclose any information for the Union's use in a practical manner
which would show the basis for the Respondent's determination as to the pro-
duction standard involved in grievance 1855, the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Union has effective
means under the contract in the next step of the grievance procedure to obtain
an independent time study by an arbitrator, the undersigned finds it unnecessary
to pass upon the issue as to whether the Respondent's refusal to permit the
Union to conduct its own time study of the job in question is violative of the Act.
IV. THE EFFEOT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE 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, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent refused to bargain in violation of the Act by
refusing to furnish the Union with information for its use which would disclose
the basis for the Respondent's determination of the production standard involved
in grievance 1855, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to
cease from engaging in this conduct and upon request disclose this information
to the Union. It is contemplated by the remedy recommended that the Re-
spondent would upon request disclose to the Union sufficient information as to
the basis for arriving at the production standard involved in the grievance 1855
so that the Union would have an opportunity for a full understanding of the
5Aluminum Ore Company, 39 NLRB 377, enforced 131 F . 2d 485. Southern Saddlery
Company, 90 NLRB 1205.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis of their dispute and there would be a sufficient narrowing of the issues
so that the Union could make an intelligent decision as to whether it should
yield, negotiate further, or invoke the arbitration provisions of the contract to
obtain an independent time study. Because of the limited scope of the Re-
spondent's refusal to bargain and because of the absence of any indication that
danger of violation of other provisions of the Act is to be anticipated from the
Respondent's past conduct, it will not be recommended that the Respondent be
ordered to cease or desist from the commission of any other unfair labor
practices. It will be, however, recommended that the Respondent be ordered
not to engage in any like or related conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Yonkers
plant, including inspectors, exclusive of executive and administrative employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The Union has been at all times since November 4, 1949, and is now the
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in
the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with information for its use
which would disclose the basis for the Respondent's determination of the pro-
duction standard involved in grievance 1855, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act.
5. By the aforementioned conduct, the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
FRED E. NELSON, D/B/A NELSON INDUSTRIES , NELSON STAMPING AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND ELECTRO-CAP MOLD COMPANY and
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O. Case No. 6-CA-450.
January 29,1953
Decision and Order
On July 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that
102 NLRB No. 88