Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1188 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of our employees in the appropriate unit described below, concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and
we will, upon request, embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of Respondent, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Allied
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Region #4, or any other labor
organization of our employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reemploy
or recall employees on layoff, or in any other manner discriminating against them
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten economic retaliation if any employees engage in orga-
nizational activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by granting or promising economic
benefits, or by unilaterally changing the terms or conditions of their employment,
provided, however, that nothing in the "Recommended Order" requires us to vary
or abandon any economic benefit or any term or condition of employment which
has heretofore been established.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally grant a wage increase without notice to or con-
sultation with the Union above named.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor orga-
nizations, to join or assist Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Region #4, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL make Morris D. Smith whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of a labor organization of their own choosing.
ROSELON SOUTHERN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No.
876-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation and United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO . Case No. 13-CA-6600. June 4, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 18, 1965, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his
Decision 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 and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
152 NLRB No 119.
PHELPS-DODGE COPPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1189
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a
brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions and 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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, briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations 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, Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation, 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
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed on August 3 and September 23, 1964,
respectively, by United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13, issued a complaint
on September 30, 1964,1 against Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation , herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain
with the Union by refusing to recognize and meet with the Union as the exclusive
representative of employees in an appropriate unit, and by bargaining directly with
the employees, promising and granting them benefits, and interrogating and threaten-
ing them, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In its answer, the
Respondent admitted that it had not bargained collectively with the Union, but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on November 23, 1964,
before Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson. The General Counsel and the Respondent
were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to participate in the
hearing. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent have been duly
considered.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with its principal office in New York,
New York, maintains a warehouse in Melrose Park, Illinois, the only facility involved
in this proceeding, from which copper tubing, copper cable, and other copper products
are distributed to its customers . During the calendar or fiscal year preceding the
issuance of the complaint , the Respondent received copper products at its Melrose
1 Unless otherwise Indicated, all dates refer to 1964.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Park warehouse valued in excess of $50,000 directly from places in States of the
United States other than the State of Illinois, and during the same period shipped
copper products from said warehouse valued in excess of $50,000 to places in States
of the United States other than the State of Illinois The Respondent admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile , Aerospace , and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
The only facility of the Respondent with which we are concerned is the Melrose
Park warehouse, where the Respondent at the time here material employed five
warehouse workers 2 under the immediate supervision of George Armond, ware-
house supervisor. Leroy Born, operations manager, was in charge of the warehouse,
reporting directly to C. A. Reidinger, national manager of warehouses and ware-
house inventories, in Yonkers, New York. Reidinger in turn reports to E. F. Gordon,
vice president in charge of operations, and to Daniel F. McGlinchey, vice president
in charge of legal and labor matters. Also maintaining offices at the Melrose Park
warehouse is Dwight Palmer, district sales manager, who reports to T L Adams,
central regional sales manager, who in turn is responsible to a Dunbar, vice president
in charge of sales.
On July 21, the five warehouse employees met with Frank Pniewski, an interna-
tional representative of the Union. After Pniewski had explained the benefits of
organization and a union contract, each of the employees signed three cards-an
application for membership in the Union, a dues deduction authorization, and a sep-
arate collective-bargaining authorization card.3 Pniewski told the employees that he
intended to utilize the cards to obtain recognition rather than a Board election, and
that he would send the Respondent a formal letter demanding recognition.
Pniewski on July 23 wrote Palmer a letter (received July 24), addressing him as
"District Manager, Phelps Dodge Copper Products, Inc.," 4 demanding recognition
of the Union "based on the fact that our union currently represents all of your ware-
house employees who are in your employ in a non-supervisory non-clerical capacity "
The letter further requested a meeting to begin contract negotiations and offered to
join with the Rec^nndent in requesting the Illinois Department of Labor to "conduct
a card check agai-irt your payroll to certify our majority " McGlinchey, the Respond-
ent's vice president in charge of labor and legal matters, who was then on vacation,
was apprised of this request on July 24 or 27, by a telephone call from his assistant
in the New York office, John V. Coultere. McGlinchey instructed Coultere to go
to Chicago and find out what the facts were
On July 28 Pniewski had another meeting with the warehouse employees, attended
by four of them. He informed them that no reply had been received to his July 23
letter and that another letter would be sent to the Respondent. Pniewski wrote to
Palmer again on July 29, repeating the claim made in the July 23 letter that the
Union "represented for collective bargaining purposes, ALL of your warehouse
employees in your employ in a non-supervisory and non-clerical capacity" and also
again offered to submit proof of that claim. Continuing, the July 29 letter, which
was received on July 31, stated:
As of this date, I have not received any reply to this communication [of
July 231 I am aware that you may not be in a position to make this decision
without consultation with your home office.
a John Broussard, Robert Hudgins, Walter Morris, Charles Romig, and Tames Scott.
3 The latter card contained the following language below the signature line* "This card
is for use in support of the demand of UAW-AFL-CIO for recognition, or for an NLRB
election" The application for r'ember