Schuylkill Metals Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 317 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 317
Schuylkill Metals Corporation and United Steelwork-
ers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 15-CA-
4984 and 15-CA-5247
June 10, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On February 7, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order, as modified herein:
1. We find merit in General Counsel's exception
to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to provide
for a 1-year extension of the certification year, as
part of her remedy for the 8(a)(5) violation commit-
ted by Respondent in this case.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
negotiating with the Union in bad faith and with no
intention of concluding or executing a collective-
bargaining agreement. In these circumstances, under
long-established Board precedent, the Union is
entitled to an extension of its certification year for
the period of time that Respondent denied it a
meaningful opportunity to engage in collective
bargaining.3 Since in this case it is clear from the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision that Respon-
dent has engaged in bad-faith bargaining ever since
I The Charging Party and Respondent filed anoint motion to dismiss the
complaint and vacate the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. In
support of their motion, they assert, inter aka, that they have resolved their
dispute and have entered into a collective-bargaining contract, Respondent
has made an unconditional offer of reinstatement to all the strikers and
many have returned to their regular jobs, and, accordingly, the issues in the
case have become moot inasmuch as Respondent "has satisfied all remedies
which the Board could seek to enforce " General Counsel filed a brief in
opposition.
We hereby deny the motion . It is well established , as the Board stated in
Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union No. 1288 (Nickel's Pay-
Less Stores), 163 NLRB' 8I7, fn. 1 (1967):
Once a charge is filed the General Counsel proceeds , not in the
vindication of private rights, but as the representative of an agency
entrusted with the enforcement of public law and the assertion of the
public interest thereof [Citations omitted.] When a matter has ripened
to the point of being before the National Labor Relations Board for
decision, we must of course give paramount weight to the public
interest affected by withdrawal of the underlying charge.
the Union's certification in May 1973, we will
incorporate in our order a provision extending the
certification year for an additional year which will
run from the time the Respondent commences (or
commenced) to bargain in good faith.4
2. We also find merit in General Counsel's
exception to the Administrative Law Judge's failure
to specifically provide any language in her recom-
mended Order and notice which would inform
employees of their rights to reinstatement as unfair
labor practice strikers.
Although the Administrative Law Judge recom-
mended as part of her remedy that Respondent be
ordered to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers
and sign and mail copies of the recommended Order
and notice to the homes of the unit employees who
went on strike, she appears to have inadvertently
failed to include anything in her recommended Order
or notice which would inform the employees of their
reinstatement rights. Since it is customary for the
Board to provide such language in its orders in cases
involving unfair labor practice strikers, we will
incorporate the language requested by General
Counsel in our Order and notice.5
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent,
Schuylkill Metals Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following paragraphs (a) and (b)
for paragraph 2(a) of the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order and reletter the subsequent
paragraphs (c) and (d):
As General Counsel properly notes in his brief in opposition to the
motion to dismiss , there is no evidence here that Respondent has taken all
the affirmative measures necessary to comply with the order recommended
by the Administrative Law Judge or that it has posted the requisite notices
to employees . Further, there is no assurance that the interests of the public,
as distinguished from those of the Charging Party, will be sufficiently
protected by what is essentially a private settlement agreement. In these
circumstances , we do not believe it would effectuate the purposes of the Act
for the Board to waive its jurisdiction in this case and thereby deprive the
public of the right of enforcement and the protection of future rights such
affords. Local Union 99, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Crawford Electric Construction Co.), 214 NLRB No. 28, fn. 2
(1974), and Aacon Contracting Company, Inc, 127 NLRB 1250, 1269 (1960).
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the violation findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge against Respondent.
3 Barnett Pontiac, Inc., 174 NLRB 302 (1969); cf. MarJac Poultry
Company, Inc, 136 NLRB 785 (1962).
4 Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 166 NLRB 101 (1967), enfd. 403 F.2d 832
(C.A. 5, 1968).
5 See, e.g., Federal Pacific Electric Company, 203 NLRB 571, 573 (1973);
Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co., Inc., 173 NLRB 125, 127 (1968).
218 NLRB No. 49
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"(a) Bargain collectively in good faith with United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
above-described unit and embody any understanding
reached in a signed agreement. Further, for the
purpose of determining the duration of the certifica-
tion, the initial year of certification shall be deemed
to begin on the date the Respondent commenced or
commences to bargain in good faith with the Union
as the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit.
"(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, if jobs are available, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all
those employees of the Respondent in the certified
unit who were on strike on or after May 13, 1974,
and who have not already been reinstated, dismiss-
ing, if necessary, any persons hired as replacements
by Respondent on or after May 13, 1974. If sufficient
jobs are not available for these employees, they shall
be placed on a preferential hiring list in accordance
with their seniority or other nondiscriminatory
practices theretofore utilized by the Company and
they shall be offered employment before any other
persons are hired. Make whole these employees for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered, or may
suffer, by reason of Respondent's refusal, if any, to
reinstate them by payment to each of them a sum of
money equal to that which each one normally would
have earned during the period from 5 days after the
date on which each applied, or shall apply, for
reinstatement to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement to each one, absent a lawful justifica-
tion for Respondent's failure to make such offer.
Backpay shall be computed on the basis of calendar
quarters, in accordance with the method prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be
added to the net backpay and shall be computed in
the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
the
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collec-
tively in good faith with United Steelworkers of
America , AFL-CIO-CLC, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees in
the unit described below, by negotiating with said
Union in bad faith and with no intention of
concluding a collective-bargaining agreement, by
unilaterally changing the work schedule of the
unit employees without adequate notice and
opportunity for discussion afforded the Union, by
failing or refusing to furnish data requested by the
Union relating to current job classifications, or by
in any other manner refusing to bargain with the
above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate or threaten
employees about their union activities, or offer
and grant them wage increases and other employ-
ment benefits, to induce them to abandon their
support of the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in
good faith with the above-named Union, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all our employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All the production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at our Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, plant, including the laboratory
trainee, warehousemen, truckdrivers, and
construction employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, laboratory employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL regard the Union as exclusive
bargaining agent for a period of at least 1 year
after we commence to bargain in good faith
pursuant to the Board's Order and this notice.
WE WILL, upon application, offer all employees
who went on strike on May 13, 1974, or thereafter
(discharging, if necessary, any employee hired on
or after May 13, 1974), immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent jobs (placing on a preferential hiring list any
employee for whom there is no job available),
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
WE WILL make the above-mentioned employ-
iees whole for any loss of pay they may suffer as a
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 319
result of our refusal to reinstate them or employ
them upon their application.
SCHUYLKILL METALS
CORPORATION
answer admits, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed in Case 15-
CA-4984 on September 4 and October 4, 1973, respective-
ly, and a charge filed in Case 15-CA-5247 on May 2, 1974,
by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC,
referred to herein as the Charging Party or the Union, the
General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 15
(New Orleans, Louisiana), a complaint having been issued
in Case 15-CA-4984 on -October 30, 1973, issued an order
consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing on July 8, 1974. The complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges that Schuylkill Metals Corporation, herein
called the Respondent, engaged in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
The Respondent, in its answer duly filed, denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 7, 8, 9, and 10 and
November 6, 7, and 8, 1974. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
present evidence, and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses . At the close of the hearing the parties waived
closing argument . Subsequent to the hearing, briefs were
received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on
or about December 30, 1974, which have been fully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in
smelting and refining lead and lead alloys at its Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, facility, the only facility involved in this
proceeding. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, annually purchases and receives
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are
shipped directly to it from points outside the State of
Louisiana, and ships and sells goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of
Louisiana. The complaint alleges, the Respondent in its
answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
]l find that United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, is, as the complaint alleges and the Respondent in its
A. The Principal Issues
The consolidated complaint, as amended at the hearing,
alleges that Anthony, president; Baldwin, vice president; I
Robins, personnel manager; and Mann, assistant manager,
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) and/or
agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act; that the Respondent's production and
maintenance employees constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining; and that the Union,
following an election on April 25, 1973, was certified by the
Regional Director for Region 15 on May 3, 1973, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit. The complaint also alleges that the
Respondent, by Anthony, its president, (a) on or about
August 28, 1973, threatened an employee that many
employees would be hurt if they continued to support the
Union, (b) on or about November 27, 1973, and April 30,
1974, interrogated an employee concerning his own and
other employees' union membership, activities, and desires,
(c) on or about December 18, 1973, threatened an
employee with discharge if he continued his support of the
Union, (d) in early April and on or about April 26, 1974,
offered employees a wage increase if they would abandon
the Union and/or encourage other employees to abandon
the Union and thereafter not bargain or insist. on a
collective-bargaining agreement, (e) on or about October
30 and November 14 and 27, 1973, and January 30, March
13, and April 4 and 10, 1974, promised employees
employment benefits if they abandoned the Union and/or
their insistence on a collective-bargaining agreement, and
(f) on or about November 15, 1973, offered benefits to
encourage employees to withdraw unfair labor practice
charges in Case 15-CA-4984. The complaint further
alleges that the Respondent has since on or about May 10,
1973, negotiated with the Union in bad faith and with no
intention of entering into any final or binding collective-
bargaining agreement; that the Respondent entered into a
settlement agreement in Case 15-CA-4984, approved by
the Regional Director on November 29, 1973, providing
inter alia that the Respondent would bargain with the
Union as the representative of its employees in the
production and maintenance unit found appropriate, and
would not offer employees wage increases to induce them
to get rid of the Union, threaten its employees with plant
closure and/or lockout or physical harm if they continue to
support the Union, interrogate employees about their
union activities, or interfere with, restrain, or coerce its
employees in the exercise of their Section 7,nghts; that the
Respondent since on or about November 4, 1973, has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union in that it (a)
negotiated with the Union in bad faith and with no
intention of entering into any final or binding collective-
bargaining agreement, (b) adamantly refused to sign or
agree to any written collective-bargaining agreement to
1 Baldwin testified that he has been with the Respondent over 9 years,
and is the treasurer.
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which the Union was a party, (c) on or about January 8,
1974, unilaterally changed existing working hours without
giving the Union notice or an opportunity to discuss the
change, (d) since on or about March 1, 1974, has refused to
furnish data relating tojob classifications which the Union
requested for the purposes of negotiating, and (e) since on
or about October 30, 1973, engaged in the above-described
conduct violative of its employees' Section 7 rights in order
to undermine the Union and dissipate its representative
status; that since on or about May 13, 1974, certain
employees have been on strike, which strike was caused
and/or prolonged by the Respondent's unfair labor
practices; that by its refusal to bargain and by its
interference with employees' Section 7 rights, the Respon-
dent violated the terms of the settlement agreement; that
the Regional Director therefore, on or about July 5, 1974,
issued a notice of withdrawal and vacation of settlement
agreement, and determination to reinstitute formal pro-
ceedings; and that the Respondent, by its acts and conduct
described above, has engaged in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(a)(1),and (5) of the Act.
The Respondent in its answer denies that it engaged in
any conduct violative of the Act. The answer also
specifically denies the allegations of the complaint with
respect to the filing and serving of the charges, but the
Respondent amended its answer at the hearing to admit
these allegations. The Respondent -further amended its
answer to admit that Anthony, Baldwin, Robins, and
Mann are supervisors and/or agents of the Respondent.
The answer admits the allegations with regard to the
election and certification, but denies those as to the
appropriate unit, the Union's continuing representative
status, and its continuing request since on or about May
10,.1973, to bargain collectively. The Respondent amended
its answer at the hearing to admit the allegations that it
entered into the settlement agreement in Case 15-CA-4984
on November 29, 1973, and that on or about July 5, 1974,
the Regional Director vacated and set aside this settlement
agreement , but the Respondent reasserted its contention
that this action was improper. The Respondent also
amended its answer to admit that certain employees went
on strike on or about May 13, 1974, and have engaged in
such strike since that date, but the answer denies the
allegations that the strike was caused and/or prolonged by
unfair labor practices. The Respondent also asserts in its
answer that the Union has engaged in mass picketing,
blocking ingress to ands egress from the plant, and
participated in other acts of violence against the Respon-
dent's employees.
The principal issues herein, therefore, are whether or not
the Respondent engaged in the alleged conduct which
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, whether or not it has, since the
settlement agreement as well as prior thereto, refused to
bargain with a certified representative of its employees in
an appropriate unit in 'violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, and whether or not the strike which began on or about
May 13, 1974, is an unfair labor practice strike.
B. The Refusal To Bargain
1. The Union's representative status
The complaint alleges that all the production and
maintenance employees employed at the Respondent's
Baton Rouge plant, including the laboratory trainee,
warehousemen, truckdrivers, and construction employees,
but excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, laboratory employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate collective-
bargaining unit; that, following an election conducted in
Case 15-RC-5102 on April 25, 1973, the Regional Director
for Region 15 on May 3, 1973, certified the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the said unit; and that the Union at all times
since on or about April 25, 1973, has been the representa-
tive of the aforesaid employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
The Respondent in its answer denies the allegation as to
the appropriate unit. It admits that the Union was
designated by a majority in a Board election and was
certified, but denies that at all times since then the Union
has been the collective-bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees. The Respondent made no at-
tempt to show, however, that the unit is inappropriate or
that the Union lost its certified representative status.
Moreover, it negotiated with the Union on the basis of
such unit subsequent to the certification and again after
execution of the settlement agreement. I find, upon the
entire record, that the above-described unit is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that the
Union, since on or about April 25, 1973, has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in that unit.
2. The negotiators
Representing the Union in the bargaining negotiations
were the members of an employee committee whose
principal spokesman, Dunn, was president of the Union
local at the Respondent's plant; Dipaola, a staff represent-
ative of the Union, who was the principal spokesman for
the Union; and Courtney, who during this period was a
staff representative of the Union, but at the time of the
hearing was with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service in California.
Representing the Respondent as its principal spokesmen
were Anthony, president, and Norfolk, counsel to the
Respondent. Baldwin, treasurer, attended a number of
meetings. Mann, assistant manager, and other counsel
from Norfolk's firm attended on a few occasions. Norfolk
testified that he was the Respondent's spokesman as to the
contract, and that Anthony and Baldwin were the
spokesmen as to plant operations.
3. The witnesses
The General Counsel called as witnesses Courtney and
Dipaola, representatives of the International Union, and
Dunn, Lewis, and Joseph, respectively the president, vice
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
president, and recording secretary of the Union local, who
were on the plant bargaining committee. The Respondent
called as its witnesses Norfolk, Anthony, and Baldwin.
Dunn, the only individual who had attended all the
bargaining sessions, had notes he kept of the discussions.
He testified, however, from memory as to when sessions
were held, who attended, and what positions were taken.
When he occasionally looked at his notes, it was only to
refresh his recollection, and he then testified on the basis of
his recollection. The Respondent stipulated during this
testimony that Dunn was not reading his answers from the
notes. Dunn explained his ability to recall so many details
on the basis of having frequently reviewed his notes during
the negotiations and in the course of the Board proceed-
ings . When he was unable to recall the events in question,
he candidly so admitted. When in a few instances he was
incorrect as to certain details, it was apparently due to
failure to recall, not an attempt to misrepresent what
occurred. Pharis, in cross-examining Dunn, followed no
chronological or subject-matter sequence, and incorpora-
ted incorrect dates and facts in many of his questions. It
was not clear whether this was done inadvertently or to test
Dunn's memory. In any event, Dunn did not become
confused thereby, and in many of these instances pointed
out in his answers the inaccuracies in the questions.
Furthermore, much of Dunn's testimony was corroborated
by other witnesses, including those testifying on behalf of
the Respondent.2
Courtney, who came from his mediation job in Califor-
nia to testify at this hearing, had attended relatively few of
the bargaining sessions . Dipaola, the principal spokesman
for the Union, and Joseph, the local recording secretary
and committee member,3 were at many more sessions, but
were questioned only as to certain events, and not on the
entire course of the bargaining as was Dunn. They
appeared to be candid and convincing witnesses.
Lewis, the local vice president and employee committee
member,4 was also at many of the negotiating sessions. His
original testimony was unshaken as Respondent's counsel,
Pharis, asked him very few questions on cross-examination.
After Lewis was called by the General Counsel as a
rebuttal witness, however, he was cross-examined vigorous-
ly by Respondent's counsel, Norfolk. Lewis at this time
appeared to be a vague, evasive, and unreliable witness.
With regard to the Respondent' s witnesses , Anthony was
present and participated in virtually all the negotiating
sessions but took no notes. He also was present throughout
the hearing herein, did take notes as other witnesses
testified, and reviewed part of the transcript of the hearing
during the adjournment, but nevertheless was able to recall
only in very broad general terms what took place in the
course of the negotiations. He responded to many
questions that he did not recall, and admitted that the
events he could not recall might have occurred.
Norfolk and Baldwin did take notes during the negotia-
tions. Both were admittedly unable to testify as to what
took place at meetings without their notes. They were
2 The Respondent's brief states that, "While it is true that parts of the
conversations as related by Dunn are truthful, it is submitted that parts are
not worthy of belief" The Respondent at a later point in its brief, however,
urges that Dunn should be wholly discredited.
3 Joseph, who had been employed by the Respondent for almost 5 years
321
permitted to look at their notes while testifying, ostensibly
to refresh their recollection, but in fact the testimony they
gave consisted in large part of reading the notes. Norfolk
admitted that his "recollection about specifics at most of
these meetings is very vague," that as to some of the
meetings he had no recollection, that some of his notes
were unintelligible or meaningless to him at the, time he
was testifying, and that some of his notes had been written
in the margins of the Union's proposed contracts and were
not available. Norfolk was the principal spokesman for the
Respondent during the negotiations except at meetings
between the local committee and Anthony. In addition he
had reviewed the transcript of the first part of the hearing
during the adjournment. Nevertheless he was frequently
hesitant in answering questions, and there were at tunes
long pauses as he studied his notes and tried to recall what
occurred.
Baldwin, who was out of town when negotiations began
in May, returned in early July and attended many of the
meetings thereafter except when he was out of town. He
took notes at the meetings he attended, and admitted he
had little recollection of who attended the meetings or
what occurred without reference to his notes. He testified,
however, that his notes were incomplete, that in at least
one instance his notes had been changed although he did
not recall why, and that in another instance his notes had
been typewritten after the meeting in question, with the
language made more formal, at Anthony's direction.
Anthony, however, contradicted this testimony. Further-
more, the witnesses for the Respondent contradicted one
another in other respects, and their testimony was in large
part self-contradictory and inconsistent.
Accordingly, on the basis of the demeanor of the
witnesses and on the record as a whole, I discredit the
testimony of Lewis except where corroborated by credited
witnesses . I found Dunn, Courtney, Dipaola, and Johnson
more trustworthy and convincing witnesses than Anthony,
Norfolk, and Baldwin. I therefore credit the testimony of
Dunn, Courtney, Dipaola, and Johnson where it is in
conflict with that of other witnesses . I rely particularly on
the careful and detailed testimony presented by Dunn, in
large part undisputed, with regard to the bargaining
sessions as well as his conversations with Anthony.
4. The negotiations
a. The bargaining procedures
After the Union was certified on May 3, 1973, Courtney
wrote to Anthony and requested a meeting to get
acquainted and begin negotiations. When no answer was
received, Dipaola telephoned Anthony, and was referred to
the law firm that represented the Respondent. Dipaola
telephoned the firm. Norfolk, who was out.of town, called
Dipaola back when he returned, and a meeting was
scheduled for May 24, 1973. The record shows that a
meeting was held on that date; that the parties met
when he went on strike in May 1974, was doing construction work at the
time of the hearing.
4 Lewis, who had been employed by the Respondent from November
1972 until the strike, was doing construction work at the time of the hearing
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frequently from that date until October 25, 1973, with
International representatives of the Union and Respon-
dent's counsel, Norfolk, present; that, as Dipaola suggested
and the Respondent agreed, the employee committee and
plant officials held a number of meetings during about 3
months without the International representatives or coun-
sel, referred to as the "pro's"; that the pro's again
participated in negotiations thereafter; and that Federal
mediators attended some of the final series of meetings.
Virtually all the negotiating sessions were held in the plant
conference room after the regular working hours of the
committee members. There were a few meetings in
Norfolk's office, and Anthony at times called local officers
or the committee to his office for discussions.
b. Negotiations from May 24 to October 25, 1973
At the first meeting on May 24, 1973, as described by
Dunn and Dipaola and not refuted by Norfolk's testimony,
the Union gave the Respondent a written list of data it
requested covering employee names, classifications, rates
of pay, and seniority, and company policies as to
vacations, sick leave, insurance, pensions, hospitalization,
and other benefit plans. Anthony responded that the
vacation and holiday policies were set forth in the
employee handbook .5 There were six recognized holidays,
and the Respondent paid those who worked on these
holidays time-and-a-half, with no pay for those who did
not work. The Respondent also stated that it did not have a
recent seniority list but would furnish one, that it had very
few classifications as most employees were laborers but it
would prepare a list, that it had no sick leave provisions,
and that its insurance plan would be furnished but was
being revised.
Norfolk was not available for another meeting until June
28, but in the meantime the Respondent mailed to the
Union a list of employees, showing classification, date of
hire, and hourly rate, and copies of the existing insurance
and pension plans, and in the accompanying letter dated
June 15, 1973, stated that the vacation plan provided for 1
week after a year's service and 2 weeks after 3 years'
service, that the holiday plan was to give no pay unless the
holiday was worked, and that there was no sick leave plan.
On June 15, Joseph went to the office of Robins,
personnel director, to ask about a cut in his bonus. He was
accompanied by Dunn. Robins refused to talk to Joseph
in Dunn's presence because, he said, he did not recognize
the Union. Dunn left. Robins then told Joseph the cut was
because of violation tickets and absences. A week or two
later, after Joseph had filed a charge with the Wage and
5 Handbooks, last revised in 1963, had been distributed while available
to new employees . From time to time handwritten changes were made in the
handbooks awaiting distribution but were not made in those that had been
distributed. When the supply of handbooks was exhausted, the Respondent
did not obtain replacements, and employees hired after that have not been
given handbooks. Lewis, who had been employed since November 1972,
testified that he never saw the handbook and did not know whether other
committee members had them Dipaola testified that he saw the handbook
for the first time at the hearing herein . Anthony admitted that he never gave
the Union a handbook and that, while many employees had them, probably
none were given out during 1974 after the supply was exhausted
6 Robins was not called as a witness in this proceeding
7 Dunn testified that Anthony also stated this contract was familiar as it
was so much like the one in effect at Ethyl Corporation. Norfolk testified
Hour Division, he asked Anthony about the bonus cut.
During their conversation, Joseph testified, Anthony said it
was because Joseph was involved with the Union and he
did not like outsiders coming into the plant, that he could
not live with a union at the plant as it would interfere with
his plans, and that the bonus money went to pay the
lawyers to fight the charge Joseph had filed. Joseph
admitted, on cross-examination by the Respondent, that he
knew of no other committee member who did not receive
his full bonus. Anthony denied that he made the remarks
to Joseph about the Union and about paying a lawyer to
fight the charges.
At the second negotiating meeting, held on June 28, the
Union presented a form contract. Dunn testified that
Anthony commented it seemed like a Sears catalogue.? The
parties went through the provisions of this proposed
contract, the Union giving its position on each section. The
Respondent questioned some provisions, made no response
as to others, stated opposition to any checkoff provision on
the ground it did not want to do the Union's job, and
pointed out that its policies did not include any shift
differential or time off with pay. The Respondent stated
that it was working on its hospital and pension plans, and
would later furnish the data on the revised plans .8 The
Respondent explained its system of biweekly incentive pay
based on merit and of quarterly bonus based on pro-
duction. The Union claimed that the bonus plan was
discriminatory, requested discontinuance of a safety
committee to which Dunn and others had been appointed,9
and complained that some supervisors refused to recognize
union representatives who sought to process grievances.
Anthony responded that some supervisors were not yet
aware of who was a representative, that he would inform
them, but that he was the only one who could resolve
grievances.
Dunn testified that at the next meeting, on July 5, the
Union gave the Respondent a document designated
"Exhibit A, Rates and Classifications," listing the proposed
hourly rates, subject to negotiation as to those that were
increased. The Union again requested that the bonus and
incentive pay plans be abolished as employees felt that
favoritism was a factor, and that the costs ' of these
payments be included in increased hourly rates. Anthony
objected that the company plan was to reward employees
who did the best job whereas the Union plan would benefit
the lazy ones. The Union again explained its wage increase
provisions to which the Respondent made no response.
After they had discussed Exhibit A, the Respondent
commented that it primarily represented present company
that he made this remark, and that he recognized the contract as he was at
one time employed in the labor relations department of that corporation,
and Norfolk remarked on this sinulanty at subsequent meetings. I find that
Dunn was mistaken in attributing this comment to Anthony
8 Norfolk testified that his notes showed hospitalization was discussed
but not what was said, and he had no recollection. He also testified that the
Union was given a copy of the pension plan, but was told it was being
revised by a New York firm and when that was completed would be
submitted for approval to Internal Revenue Service.
9 The Union handed the Respondent at this meeting a letter dated June
28 regarding the safety committee . Norfolk testified that neither his notes
nor his recollection shows the discussion on this but he was sure there was
some.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
practice. Dipaola then asked that they reach agreement on
it and sign it. Norfolk's response was that the Respondent
preferred to continue its present practice. At this point the
parties proceeded to a section-by-section discussion of the
Union's proposed contract. They agreed on certain
language changes and on certain provisions, some of which
were in accord with present practice of the Respondent. As
to checkoff, Norfolk again asserted that he would not assist
the Union, although he admitted that the Respondent did
deduct for charities. Norfolk deferred discussion of all
economic items as he was not prepared to discuss them at
that time. With regard to benefit plans, the Respondent
stated it was still working on them and might have the
relevant data in a couple of weeks. Just before the parties
adjourned, Dipaola reminded the Respondent that it was
free to present counterproposals on any of the matters
under discussion.
Norfolk testified that he had no recollection of who was
present or what was discussed at this meeting; that the first
item he had noted was $5 initiation fee and dues, but he
did not recall even talking about the subject; that his notes
showed they went through the proposed contract again
item by item; and that they discussed bonus, wages, and
other items not listed. He also testified that he did not
recall any tentative agreements reached at the July 5
meeting and that his notes did not show any.
The next meeting took place on July 23. Dipaola
commented that Norfolk had said at previous meetings he
was not prepared to go into certain contract provisions
because he had not had time to discuss them with company
representatives, and asked if the Respondent was then
prepared. Norfolk replied that he had not yet been able to
go through all the provisions with the Respondent but
could discuss and possibly agree on some. They went
through the proposed contract again section by section and
agreed on some provisions. Dunn testified that Norfolk
stated as to checkoff that discussion was a waste of time
but agreed he would study, that and various other
provisions further; stated, as he had at other meetings, that
the Respondent was not yet ready to discuss economic
items and wanted them all held in abeyance for considera-
tion later as one package; and stated that, as to benefits,
the Respondent was working on hospitalization and
pension plans but they were not yet ready. Dipaola asked
Norfolk to submit "writeups" on certain provisions, and
Norfolk said he would try to have them at the next
meeting. Dipaola also asked for counterproposals on any
matters as to which the Respondent was in disagreement
with the union proposals. Baldwin, as the Union had
requested, gave the data on bonus and incentive costs
which totaled 30 cents an hour.
Norfolk testified that his notes showed what was
discussed at this meeting but that he had no recollection of
it. He also testified, based on his notes, that the Union gave
the Respondent Exhibit A at this meeting; that "I objected
to the proposed grievance procedure . . . I recognized it as
being a grievance procedure that was an Ethyl Corporation
grievance procedure by the prefatory statements in
there. . . . I had some objections and I don't recall
specifically what those objections were as to grievance
procedures"; that they discussed the hours and overtime
323
article and, as to the 8-hour day provision, which the
Union said was based on present practice, and "on that
representation that it was supposed to be just that, I think
we said there was tentative agreement"; that other
provisions in that article were marked "hold" and, he
thought, were discussed but no agreement reached. Phans
at this point asked Norfolk to go through his copy of the
proposed contract and indicate what agreements had been
reached, but Norfolk replied that he could not do so
because the notes indicating tentative agreement as to
certain provisions were not dated to indicate when
agreement was reached.
The next meeting was on July 30, and was one of the
longest, continuing for about 3 hours. As described by
Dunn, the Union asked for wnteups on various provisions,
some of which had been previously requested, but Norfolk
stated that he had not yet had time to prepare them.
Dipaola said he had anticipated this, and gave Norfolk
writeups on management rights, strikes and lockouts, and
probationary period. Norfolk said the Respondent was not
inclined to agree on the management rights proposal, and
Anthony added that the Respondent had these rights so
there was no need to spell them out. When Dipaola insisted
there should be such a provision, Norfolk said he would
study it. On the strike and lockout provisions, the
Respondent agreed to part and rejected part. As to the 30-
day probationary period proposal, Anthony said the
present practice was 180 days, and he would agree to
reduce this only to 120 days, and Dipaola then said he
would agree to 60 but no longer period. The parties then
went through the proposed agreement once again, mdicat-
ing tentative agreement on some matters and disagreement
on others. They omitted any discussion of the economic
items as Norfolk said he was not yet ready to discuss them.
As to a number of provisions on which there was
disagreement, Norfolk asserted the Respondent wanted its
present practice to continue. Dipaola asked Norfolk to set
forth this practice in writing, but Norfolk, as Dunn
testified, "refused to do this, saying they wasn't required by
law to do this. They wasn't required by law to put anything
in writing. He said, `That is our proposal.' He said, `We
prefer to have the situation as it is at the present time.' "
Norfolk admitted he had no independent recollection as
to anything that was discussed at the July 30 meeting, and
testified, after reference to his notes, that "these items,
management rights clause, probationary period, strikes and
lockouts, these proposals were given to the company by the
union, and my notes indicate that there was a general
discussion on a variety of topics, which obviously I do not
remember what that was." As to a provision about pay for
time spent by a terminated employee in checking out,
Norfolk had a note to ask the attorney at Ethyl Corpora-
tion about its practice as "I assumed the proposal that had
been made by the union was lifted from the Ethyl
proposal."
As Dunn testified, at the next meeting, on August 1,
Norfolk presented the Union with some of the writeups he
was to prepare. The parties discussed these and some
provisions in the proposed contract, and once again
reached tentative agreement on some of these provisions.
As to the matters in dispute, Dipaola asked the Respon-
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent to submit its own proposals. Norfolk refused to make
counterproposals on all the articles in-issue, but indicated
he would meet further and try to reach agreement on the
basis of the Union's proposal. Dipaola asked about having
a mediator attend the next meeting. Norfolk responded
that he did not object but was of the opinion there was not
much one could do at that time. Dipaola stated that the
Union was ready to go into economic matters. Norfolk
replied that he was not ready but probably would be at the
next meeting, which was scheduled for August 6.
Norfolk testified that Pharis was at the August 1
meeting, and he designated the portions of the notes
written by him and by Pharis. He also testified that he gave
the Union counterproposals on certain provisions; that he
had marked the Union's proposals on seniority list and
distribution of overtime "TA" which meant tentative
agreement; that "I believe we did reach a tentative
agreement at that meeting on those two items we had
submitted"; and that "I also have a reference to informa-
tion on retirement plan, and I don't have any recollection
at all as to what that means."
Dunn testified that there was not much discussion at the
August 6 meeting because the parties were supposed to
discuss economic items but, when Dipaola asked if the
Respondent was ready to do so, Norfolk replied that it was
the Respondent's position that the present situation should
continue in effect. When Dipaola asked that this position
be put in writing, however, Norfolk and Anthony refused
to do so on the ground, as Dunn testified, that "it would
cause mass confusion within the plant." Dipaola urged that
if the Respondent would put in writing what its present
practice was the Union could take it to the membership for
a vote, and maybe they would have an agreement on that
basis, but Norfolk refused to put anything in writing on the
ground it would cause confusion in the plant. When
Dipaola proposed calling in a mediator, Norfolk said he
did not care whether or not a mediator was called in to the
meetings. Dunn testified he had no recollection or notes
about a discussion of checkoff at this meeting.
Norfolk testified that one committeeman was missing at
the August 6 meeting but he did not know which one. He
also testified, on the basis of his notes, that certain contract
proposals were discussed, with tentative agreement on
some and disagreement on others; that he proposed a
probationary period of 120 days, which the Union rejected
and counterproposed 60 days, and he said he would
consider this; that he agreed to give the Union a writeup
on management rights by Wednesday, August 8; and that,
when the Union maintained it could not have a contract
without checkoff, "I said that we were not interested in
granting the check-off, and there was a lot of discussion
about who should do the bookkeeping and whether or not
there should be a check-off and the reasons for check-off,
and my recollection and my notes indicate there was a lot
of discussion but no change in anybody's position at the
end of that discussion."
Baldwin testified that he had no independent recollec-
tion of the August 6 meeting. His notes showed that
checkoff was discussed, and that Dipaola said this had to
be in the contract. Baldwin also testified, on cross-
examination by the General Counsel, that he thought one
of the company representatives, he did not recall who, told
the Union, or gave it the impression, that the Respondent
"did not want to assist them in any way." Baldwin further
testified that the Respondent makes payroll deductions for
"Federal income tax, contributions to the Federal Insur-
ance Contributions Act, state income tax, loans, salary
advances, we deduct for any supplies they may get, such as
shoes, payment for a lock, for example, when a man leaves
or if he loses his lock or has to break into his lock, we will
give him another one and deduct for it; their hospitaliza-
tion coverage," and for United Fund on occasion; that the
company position on payroll deductions, at some time
explained to the Umon, was "basically we do not put
ourselves between an employee and his debtors, except in
the case of the federal government where you have no
choice, where you get, not a garnishment - well, in the
case of garnishment also, we have occasionally received an
order from the federal - for an employee's federal income
tax that he is in arrears on, and these things, of course, you
have no choice."
According to Dunn's testimony, at the August 8 meeting
Norfolk presented a management rights clause he had
written, which Dipaola said the Umon would study; and
Dipaola offered to agree on a 90-day probation clause, but
Norfolk insisted on 120 days.
Norfolk testified, as to the August 8 meeting, that he
submitted proposals on grievance procedure and manage-
ment rights, with the Union agreeing on part of the
management rights proposal; that no agreement was
reached on the probationary period; and that: "At the
bottom of my notes for that meeting I have a certain series
of wage rates, and I am sure wage rates were discussed but
I cant, by looking at my notes here, tell what was
discussed, and the notes mean absolutely nothing to me. It
looks just like hieroglyphics and I don't know what it
means. I can read the numbers but I don't know in what
connection they were discussed. . . . in some instances
there are some words in here I don't understand myself,
just some isolated words that I can't recognize."
There was another meeting on August 13. Dunn testified
that the parties again went through the provisions of the
Union's proposed contract, and again tentatively agreed on
some of its provisions as well as on Norfolk's proposed
management rights clause. He also testified that Norfolk
refused to agree on checkoff even if, as the Union
proposed, employees signed individual authorizations; that
Norfolk said the Respondent would continue the present
practice as to holidays, which was to pay time-and-a-half
for those who worked on the six recognized holidays,
including overtime hours, and nothing for those who did
not work; that Norfolk said the Respondent was not yet
ready to discuss benefit plans, a wage increase, or other
economic matters; that Norfolk said he saw no need to
change the wage rates; that when Dipaola pointed out that
some newer employees were getting more than those senior
to them Anthony replied that he would decide what an
employee gets, and Norfolk repeated there would be no
wage increase; and that when Dipaola finally again asked
for wnteups on the matters that presented problems to the
Respondent Norfolk refused to do more than state that the
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 325
present practice in all unresolved areas should be main-
tained.
Norfolk testified as to the August 13 meeting that he had
no independent recollection as to what transpired; that his
notes showed that, at the Union's request, they went
through the entire proposed contract, the Union giving its
position on each item and suggesting that the Respondent
present its "complete package, if any" at the next meeting;
that he replied he could give his proposal then, which was a
"verbal proposal that what we have agreed to already plus
the other items would be as they were presently being
practiced in the plant"; that he proposed that leaves of
absence be granted employees "for reasons acceptable to
the company"; and that, with regard to union security, "we
told the union that we were not interested in the
maintenance of membership proposal that they submit-
ted," and that, as to the Union's original union-security
proposal, "we proposed that it be an open shop." He also
testified that: "My recollection is we gave them something
in writing but I don't know what that writing was. . . . I
will have to admit that my note on that point is less than
self-explanatory, and what I have just testified to is what I
believe happened from my reference to the notes and I'm
not all that sure." He further testified that he proposed that
such matters as payment for the checkout time of a
terminated employee be agreed on across the table or by
letter as they would have "a Sears catalogue" if all such
matters were included in the agreement , and he proposed
to pay for 45 minutes of such checkout time, but he did not
recall whether or not there was agreement on this. At
another point he testified that his notes indicated he made
a counterproposal on this subject, and he took consider-
able time looking through his notes to find this. Finally
union counsel suggested Norfolk look at his August 13
notes. After Norfolk did so and found the reference, he
stated that "to me it doesn 't make any sense ," and that "I
did not make a write-up and give it to the union on that
subject." Norfolk was asked by Pharis, before testifying
about the August 16 meeting , to state the provisions on
which the parties had reached tentative agreement at this
time . Norfolk thereupon listed a number of items, others
on which there was no agreement , and a number as to
which he was not sure.
Dunn testified that at the next meeting, on August 16,
Dipaola asked for the Respondent's final proposal in
writing but Norfolk refused, stating that it would cause
confusion in the plant, the Respondent was not required by
law to give written proposals , it had no wage increase to
offer, and it wanted present practice to continue.
Norfolk testified that at the August 16 meeting the
parties discussed grievances about committee members
being "`docked" but he did not remember which ones or
any of the details. Asked if there was any discussion
concerning written proposals , he replied that there was,
and added:
In the August 16th meeting, I think when the subject
first - my recollection, and it is reflected in my notes,
too, the first time that this question of signing the
contract or signing a contract came up, and it was at
this meeting that the union requested that the company
make a counterproposal or a proposal as to each item
in its contract that we did not like or that we had not
agreed to , and also - in response to that I told the
union that what we had already agreed to, all of those
items that had been tentatively agreed to in our various
meetings we would gather those up , put them together,
draw a signature line on there , add one more clause to
it and we would have ourselves a contract that could be
signed, and that one proposal to put in there, in
addition to what had already been put in there, was the
statement that everything else - or something to this
effect - everything else would be as is present practice
in the plant, that is anything we had not agreed to
already or had not been covered would be covered by
the one statement, and that would be inserted in the
contract following these other things that had been
agreed to.
I told them they could put that signature line on
there and we would sign it, and my notes show that,
just that, we would sign what was already agreed to,
plus add "everything else will stay as is."
I said, "All you've got to do is get that and draw a
signature line and we 've got ourselves a contract."
I have the word insisted , I believe, and that is my
characterization of what it was, but in any event the
union told us that rather than put this simple statement
in there, that everything else will remain the same as it
presently is, that what we, the company, should do or
had to do was to go out and write up a statement as to
everything that was being done in the plant, all
practices, all everything, and I told the union that they
could write just as well as I could and if they had
something specific in mind that they wanted in the
contract to give us a proposal on it, but that I didn't
feel it was our responsibility or our legal obligation to
try to think of what they might want in the contract,
that I had made my proposal to them about how this
thing could be accomplished and if they wanted it
broader than that they could write it up and submit it
to us.
Then we got to going back and forth as to whether or
not the company had the obligation to write all these
many undefined things up or whether the union had the
obligation to do that.
The union was insisting that the company was
supposed to do it and I was insisting that we were not
supposed to do it.
The matter was left with the - this proposition of
what we had agreed to , add that one statement and put
a signature line on there and we would sign it.
Now, this is what led to a statement by the union
that they would attempt to draw up or put in writing all
of these various things that hadn 't theretofore been
submitted to us.
Now, I don't know specifically what they were
talking about and it was never explained to me
specifically what items were supposed - that either we
were supposed to write up or they were contemplating
writing up . I didn't know whether they wanted to put
down how many men will be here on a certain day and
how many men will be there on a certain day and who
is supposed to be on the scales and what the duties of a
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scale man are, or whether or not they are supposed to
be job descriptions.
I just told him we did not have the obligation to do
that for them , but if they wanted to submit a proposal
to submit it.
I've got one other note here that we then got on to
talking about another minor section of the contract,
and then that is where my notes end.
Norfolk admitted that as of August 16 there were no
tentative agreements on economic matters. He also
testified that Courtney urged that if the Respondent would
compile the tentative agreements , refer to the present
practices , and give a general increase the Umon would take
it to the members and they might buy it , but that he
insisted that the Union would never buy it. He testified
further that a general increase was not part of his proposal,
which was only to include items agreed to plus a general
statement that "all other matters would remain as they
were at present."
Norfolk's notes for this meeting state:
I told Union that we were not interested in making
any further concessions.
Union insisted that we had to submit a written
proposal even if it said only - we agree to those things
already agreed to and to otherwise we will continue as
we presently do -
Union said to put it in writing and we might agree
Union insists we have to do it in writing
Anthony testified that he did not recall any meeting in
August 1973 when the Union requested a new wage scale
nor when the Respondent said it had no wage offer.
Dunn testified that Mediator Bates attended the next
meeting, held on August 27; that Dipaola repeated his
request for the Respondent 's final proposal in writing; and
that Norfolk again refused , stating that he had made a
verbal proposal, that he had no wage increase to offer, and
that he wanted present practice to continue.
Norfolk testified that he had no recollection of the
discussion at the August 27 meeting, and that his notes
showed only that:
I agreed to submit proposal on "J", page 22
[checkout time for terminated employees ] - present
practice
Layoff - good quits, will be paid to check out (for a
reasonable time) fires will be paid to firing time
Union requests that we submit proposal on leave of
absence
On the following day, August 28, Anthony called Dunn
to the office, offered him a weighmaster job at no increase
in pay, and told Dunn to think it over and let Anthony
know . Dunn testified that Anthony then asked if he would
mind discussing the Union; that he replied he would not
mind ; that Anthony said it was unlikely that the Union
could get a contract because a company as small as this
one could not exist with the Union , which would try to
take over; that he explained that the International would
come to the plant only when the local could not handle a
situation ; and that Anthony offered to agree to some of the
Union proposals after the Umon was out of the plant, but
said "if we continued the union drive that possibly lots of
men would be hurt."
Anthony testified that he did not recall, when he offered
this job, asking if Dunn would mind talking about the
Union. He denied that he told Dunn employees could be
hurt if they continued the union drive and that he made the
other comments about never signing a contract with the
Union attributed to him by Dunn . He testified that there
was some discussion of the Umon at this time, but it
related only to Dunn's concern about the effect the
weighmaster job might have on his position with the
Union. On cross-examination , Anthony testified that at the
time he offered Dunn the job he did not discuss anything
else with Dunn "Of any importance, anyway . . . . That I
can remember."
Anthony asked Dunn in the plant on or about September
6 if he had decided yet about the job offer . Dunn replied
that the union officers felt he might be selling out after
starting the Union, and he asked for a letter he could show
stating that the job, which had previously been performed
by a supervisor, was not supervisory and would not affect
his union status. Anthony refused, and accused Dunn of
trying to trick him. A few days later, however, Anthony
summoned Dunn to the office, offered to write a letter such
as Dunn requested, and later gave Dunn a letter, dated
September 10, stating that the Respondent had placed
Dunn in a job "within the bargaining unit for which the
Steel Workers Union has been certified as the bargaining
representative ." Dunn began his new job on September 17.
The next negotiating session was held on October 9.
Dunn testified that Dipaola gave the Respondent a
redrafted proposal incorporating the provisions on which
tentative agreement had been reached ; that the parties
went through this document , and again indicated tentative
agreement on some provisions but not on others; that
Dipaola stated his third and final proposal on the
probationary period was 90 days, but Norfolk said there
was no tentative agreement as he preferred 120; that
Norfolk stated that work was continuing on the benefit
plans, and Dipaola said he would give the Respondent
further time to produce such data ; and that Dipaola, asked
if the Respondent intended ever to sign a contract, and
Norfolk stated that in the end they would have some type
of contract to sign.
Norfolk testified also that at the October 9 meeting the
Union submitted a written proposal and said it was "what
it understood had been already agreed to"; that when they
went through the proposal , however, it contained provi-
sions and language on which agreement had not been
reached, and provisions which disregarded the Union's
agreement to make certain changes sought by the Respon-
dent. Norfolk also testified that they reached tentative
agreement on some provisions on which the Union agreed
to restore such changes, and that his notes showed, with
regard to the section on benefit plans, "Agreed to because
of addition of noncontributory pension plan . Will hold
hospitalization in abeyance ." On cross-examination, Nor-
folk testified that he did not know that the pension plan
had been made noncontributory as of October 9.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
Dunn testified that at the next meeting, held on October
22, Dipaola said he had at the previous meeting presented
what the Union thought was agreed on, but the Respon-
dent raised questions on some of the wording, and he
asked if the Respondent was now ready to agree on that
entire proposal; that at Norfolk' s request they went
through the provisions, again, agreeing on some, disagree-
ing on others; and that with regard to a checkoff proposal
based on voluntary authorizations, Norfolk again stated as
he had previously that he would not assist the Union to
collect dues, but agreed at Dipaola's request to consider it
further.
Norfolk testified that his notes showed as to the October
22 meeting that Courtney, Dipaola, and three committee-
men were present but he could not state which ones as
their names were not listed; that they discussed again the
Union's October 9 proposal; that he gave the Union data it
requested about truckdrivers, but said he saw no sense in
putting job descriptions in the contract; and that they then
discussed Dunn's job. Norfolk testified that he believed
this note referred to "the change by Mr. Dunn from his
earlier job to the job as a weighmaster, or something of this
sort, and what those duties would be, and this sort of
thing." Dunn was offered the job as weighmaster on
August 28 and began work on this job on `September 17.
The testimony of both Dunn and Norfolk shows that at
the next meeting , on October 25, Dipaola asked if the
Respondent was ready to consider'the issues referred to on
October 22; Norfolk replied there was no decision on them
yet; Dipaola suggested that company representatives meet
with the local committee in the absence of the pro's to see
if they could make more progress that way toward reaching
agreement; and Norfolk agreed to consider this suggestion
and subsequently notified the Union he agreed to it.
c. Local negotiations from October 30 to the
settlement agreement
Meetings were held without the pro's during the period
of about October 30, 1973, to about January 30, 1974, the
committee meeting with Anthony, who was frequently
accompanied by Baldwin and at times by Mann. On
October 30, at the first of these local meetings, Dunn asked
many questions about items in issue, and Anthony or
Baldwin gave some answers. Dunn testified, and was
corroborated by Lewis, that Anthony interrupted to state
that, if Dunn was- seeking by these questions to reach an
agreement, it was a waste of time because he did not intend
to sign one, although he was willing to do things for the
employees without the Union; that when Lewis asked why
Anthony had not already done these things, Anthony
replied that he did not realize he should until after the
Union was on the scene ; that Lewis asked if Anthony
would put these things in writing, but Anthony refused,
and said Lewis and Dipaola were trying to get him on an
unfair labor practice but they already had all the charges in
the book and could only tell him to stop; that Anthony
also stated that he would not do with the Union what he
would do for the employees without the Union, and that he
would not sign a contract and have the Union try to run
the plant; that Dunn pointed out, as he had on other
occasions , that the local committee would be at the plant,
327
and the International representatives would come only
when the local people failed; that Anthony responded that
he believed Dunn, but Dunn would not always be the local
president; and that Dunn and Lewis refused to discuss' an
agreement that would exclude the Union.
Anthony testified that he could "remember a small
amount about" this meeting; that "when we got in there
Dunn took up the lead in it and started talking about what
he would like for us to do, and what he did was that we
started going over the same things we had been going over
practically at every meeting since we started , and that is
rehashing whether we had agreed or tentatively agreed to
this article, this paragraph, or what have you, and we went
on through practically that whole meeting being taken up
that way. I say practically, because I don't remember any
more than just that." Anthony testified further that he did
not, at this or any other meeting, say he would not sign a
contract; that "I did there tell them I would not sign the
contract they presented to me to be signed. That I did do."
Asked if he ever made a statement as to what he would
sign, Anthony replied, "Well, I told them I would sign an
agreement to exactly what we were doing now, at the
present time." Anthony also testified, on cross-examination
by the General Counsel, that Dunn told him the men were
losing confidence in the bargaining process at the Respon-
dent's plant, that "I don't remember any specific date, but
it was during the early part, or maybe the first meeting we
had. . . . Where the pro's were not present. . . . Ever
when that date would be." He also testified that no one
ever explained to him the relationship, between the
International and local union, and then that he could not
remember anyone doing so.
Baldwin testified that his October 30 notes, which he
admitted were incomplete, show Dunn asking and Antho-
ny answering questions on various items; that when Dunn
asked if management was opposed to paid holidays,
Anthony asked Dunn what he wanted, what he would
settle for, and Dunn replied "in effect nothing to hurt the
company, he would like a substantial pay increase, some
paid holidays, but we did not get into any specifics at that
time . Then we got away from the negotiations and got into
a discussion concerning certain safety items in the plant."
Baldwin did not recall that Anthony, at this or any other
time, said Dunn would not get a contract with the Union
involved.
At the next meeting, on November 1, there was a
discussion of the impact of current Federal wage controls,
Anthony maintaining that the Union's proposal would,
subject him to a charge of violation, Dunn urging that the
employees were in an exempted category for those getting
under $3.50 an hour. Dunn also asked that the amount
paid out in incentive bonuses be added to wages, but
Anthony said the bonus was for good workers whereas the
Union would give it to all. Dunn testified that Anthony
stated further that he would grant benefits to the
employees, and would set them forth in the handbook
which wasjust as binding as a contract with the Union, but
would not sign a contract with the Union; that Dunn urged
bargaining about contract proposals and suggested, if they
could make some progress, he might be able to get the
Union to withdraw the charges of bad-faith bargaining that
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been tiled; and that Anthony said that he was not too
concerned about the charges, because, although the
Respondent was guilty as to some, he would "simply lie
about them"; that, when Anthony insisted they discuss
items for inclusion in the handbook, he agreed they could
discuss matters on this basis if Anthony insisted, and
Anthony responded "that if we was sincere in what we had
just said, then they would start their procedure,for their
decertification from the Steelworkers."
Anthony, who admitted he could not recall the,dates of
any of the meetings, testified that at one of the local
meetings "we had more or less a generally frank discussion
about the different possibilities. The committee was telling
me that the men were getting ,rather militant .. one
specific thing that they brought out was that ...some of
the men . . . were apparently talking to the Teamsters
Union. They were wanting to come up with something in
writing, specifics that they would put to the membership
and say, `This is what we are doing, we are making
progress.' . . . I know the handbook was brought up. I
don't know who brought it up. I know that someone
suggested to me, well, why don't I sign the handbook. I
told them that we gave the handbook as something that the
company was, doing and was standing behind, and than it
was just as binding upon us as if I had my signature on it
or anybody else's signature." Asked by his counsel if that
was all he remembered concerning this meeting, Anthony
answered: "That's all I remember as far as talking about
the handbook, other than another instance or other time
when I had a meeting with Mr. Courtney, he brought up
something about a handbook.... It was something along
the same lines, why don't you take your handbook and put
it in the form of a contract and sign it. I said, `Well, you
have a copy of the handbook. Put it in the form of a
contract and'we would have to sign it.' " Asked further if
he remembered any discussion about incorporating things
in the handbook and signing it but going along without any
Union backing, Anthony replied: "Well, during this time
that we were doing this talking about some of the men
leaving this unit and going in with the Teamsters Union,
this was brought up, that this might be an alternative to be
done, and I told them that really if they took all these
things that we have agreed with, the practices we are now
doing as far as what we are doing with the handbook, that
we would sign it, not necessarily putting it in the form of a
handbook. It could be either in the form of a handbook or
in the form of a contract."
Baldwin testified that his notes on the November I
meeting showed that Lewis requested something in writing
the committee could' show the employees, and that
Anthony suggested some tentative agreements could be put
in the handbook rather than in a union contract, but that
he did not recall how the handbook discussion came up.
On cross-examination by the Charging Party, Baldwin
testified that his notes on this meeting referred to an
independent such as at Exxon; that he could tell this was
not a matter of discussion but only a note to himself
because there was a question mark next to the note,
although he admitted other question marks in his notes did
not so indicate ; and, finally, that an independent such as at
Exxon might have been discussed, and that it was possibly
Anthony who brought this, up.,
The next meeting was held on November 7. Dunn
testified that Anthony told the committee he had an offer
to make, not with "union backing" but "only as a form of
relief to the rising cost of living," the offer being a 20-cent
general increase retroactive to November 4, and some
merit increases as none had been given in 1973, the merit
raises to be given in two parts to avoid any Federal wage
violations. Dunn asked if this would impair future
negotiations, and was told it would not. The' committee
agreed to accept the offer as the employees were unhappy
about the lack of progress in the negotiations, and it
requested and was granted permission to make the
announcement about the increases at a scheduled member-
ship meeting. The members voted at the meeting on
November 13 to accept this wage increase offer. The general
increase was put into effect, and a number of employees
also received merit increases.
Anthony testified that he remembered this meeting
rather well; that there had not been a general increase for
about a year because it was held off until a contract was
reached that included wage rates, but it seemed then "that
we weren't going to be able to do anything in the near
future"; that he therefore presented his wage proposal at
this time "with no strings attached in any way"; that Lewis
at first wanted to take this to the membership, but the
committee discussed the proposal and agreed to accept it;
and that he .granted the committee's request that it make
the announcement. Anthony further testified that, after the
general increase went into effect, many employees received
merit increases ranging from about 10 to 30 cents, that
Dunn and Lewis received them soon after the offer was
made and all the other committeemen at some later point,
and that he never discussed with the Union who would get
the merit raises or in what amount.
Baldwin testified that his longhand notes on the
November 7 meeting were typewritten the following day,
after the language was improved, and that this was at
Anthony's request because "Mr. Anthony had proposed an
across-the-board increase to the employees, and he felt that
we should have something of a more formal nature to show
just what transpired in regards to this particular item .. .
because he knew we were kind of treading on sacred
ground, and we wanted to be sure that we had it
documented, that complete and full approval was granted
by the committee." is Baldwin did not recall whether he
asked Anthony for ' help on the revision of these notes.
Baldwin did recall that Anthony referred to a meeting of
employees, but did not recall if it was on November 7 or at
another meeting. Baldwin also testified that his notes
showed that at the previous meeting someone said the
Union's proposed wage increase would violate the Federal
pay raise limitation; that Dunn at this meeting explained
there was an exemption for those earning under $3.50 an
hour; that Anthony, because of the time since the last
increase and the increased cost of living, made a "no-
strings-attached offer" of increases which would not affect
10 Anthony denied that he asked Baldwin to do this.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 329
future negotiations , with a requirement that the "offer must
have the committee's immediate approval"; 11 that the
"offer was to make a 20 cents per hour across-the-board
board increase, and after that to give a few merit increases
which would have been earned under normal, circum-
stances during any period from which we were prohibit-
ed 12 from giving, with preference to the most deserving
employees"; that there was no discussion of the amounts
or, times of these increases ; and that Lewis said they would
take this to the employees for a vote but, after further
discussion, the committee voted unanimously to accept it.
Dunn testified that at the next negotiation meeting, on
November 14, Anthony stated that he had received a copy
of the charges and thought some were no longer applicable,
and Dunn replied that he could get the charges dropped if
they could proceed with the negotiations; that Anthony
asked what he thought of the Respondent's gift plan, and
Dunn replied that it was "lousy" because a number of
employees could not use the gifts; that Anthony then said
he would be willing to give a gift certificate or check at
Thanksgiving and,Christmas, based on length of service,
but the recipients were not to buy cigarettes or alcohol with
this money, and the committee agreed to accept this
proposal; and that Anthony again expressed his willingness
to put changes agreed to in the handbook but, when he
replied that the employees wanted a union contract,
Anthony said he would not sign one.
Anthony testified that he, discussed the NLRB charges
on a few occasions, that he remembered discussing them
with Dunn, but not when, and that Dunn said if they could
agree on some items he would have the charges dropped.
Asked by his counsel what response he made, Anthony
answered : "I really don't know, other than I am sure, well,
we will see what we can do. I told him I felt like it had gone
too far in order to get it dropped before then. He said, `We
can get it dropped in a day or two.' We really didn't do
anything really constructive as far as negotiations were
concerned before that time."
Baldwin testified that his notes showed that, Dunn, at the
November 14 meeting, proposed the withdrawal of charges
that had been filed with the Board "if management would
agree to some of the items that had previously been
presented to us," and, later, that he believed this was based
on his recollection and his notes. On cross-examination,
Baldwin said he recalled at some time Anthony said
something about the committee looking at the charges
from the company viewpoint. Baldwin testified further that
Anthony asked Dunn what was the most important item
for the benefit of all the employees; that Dunn referred to a
number of items but said . the most important was
hospitalization ; that Anthony mentioned that production
had been low in the last quarter but the full bonuses would
be paid nevertheless ; that they discussed distribution by
the Respondent of Thanksgiving certificates based on
employee length of service, whereas previously there were
no Thanksgiving gifts, as Baldwin recalled, "unless we had
11 Anthony made no reference in his testimony to requiring immediate
approval.-
12 At a later point Baldwin testified that he did not refer to being
prohibited as to merit increases but only as to a wage increase ; that he
understood an increase could not be granted without going to the
committee and getting approval; and that, as to what prohibited doing so
given turkeys once or twice"; and that Anthony and the
committee agreed grievances would be investigated initial-
ly by Dunn only. Baldwin admitted, on cross-examination
by the Charging Party, that, after the Respondent was told
on November 14 that hospitalization was the issue most
important to the employees, it never made specific
proposals to the Union ,on this matter because, when the
revision of the hospitalization plan was completed, the
employees were on strike.
Dunn testified that Anthony called him into the office on
or about November 15 and said he did not recall getting the
committee's approval on the Thanksgiving gift certificate;
that he told Anthony it was approved by the committee,
and the employees were not to buy cigarettes or alcohol
with this money; and that Anthony also said he would try
to come up with something to get the charges dropped. A
hearing on these charges was scheduled for December 4.
Dunn testified -that he was called to the office again on or
about November 27; that Anthony asked if the men still
wanted a contract with the Union, and Dunn answeied
that a majority did; and that Anthony stated again he
would incorporate changes into .the handbook but would
not sign a contract with the Union. He also told Dunn he
understood a Board agent would try to settle the charges.
Dunn heard later from Dipaola of the settlement agree-
ment signed on November 29, and he received copies of the
notice to be signed and posted. On December 4 Dunn went
to the office to get Anthony's signature and permission to
post the notice. He testified that Anthony signed it, gave
leave to post it, but said he still-would not have a contract
with the Union.
Anthony testified that he was sure he and Dunn
discussed the settlement notice but that he did not
remember anything that was, said. Asked by his counsel if
he remembered any conversation that, even in view of the
settlement notice, he was not going to sign a union
contract, Anthony replied, "Like I stated before, I said that
I was not going to sign the contract that they presented us
originally, but I did not say that I would not sign a contractt
that we could work out."
d. Negotiations subsequent to the settlement
agreement
On December 14, 1973, Dunn telephoned Anthony and
asked him to schedule another negotiating session before
the holidays. Anthony said he was busy .with the yearend
close of the books, but arranged to meet on December 18.
Dunn had a signed petition which he had prepared with
the Union's help. He told Anthony at the December 118
meeting it showed a majority wanted a union contract.13
Dunn testified that Anthony , said he believed some
employees were engaged in a slowdown in order l o
pressure him- into signing a union contract and, if he
caught any doing so, he would promptly discharge then;
that Dunn cautioned him against , taking such action, and
previously, "That I don't know. Just the same thought, that we can't do this
or anything else would be presumption on my part "
13 The petition , dated December 6, 1973, states in part that "The best
evidence the Company can give in return for the faithful service we are
giving is, a Union Contract," and, contains over 100 signatures that
committee members obtained during nonworking hours.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'asked if Anthony was ready then to discuss any of the
proposed items in light of the majority position ; and that
Anthony said he would not do' so because Dunn might
trick him as he had tricked the employees into signing the
petition and, if he knew of a legal way to do so, he would
discharge Dunn for tricking the employees.
Anthony testified that he could not recall when but, in or
about November 1973 , before the petition was presented,
he complained to the committee about a slowdown in the
plant and said , if the committee did not stop it, manage-
ment would; and that the committee members protested
that they had not organized anything like this and "if there
was such a thing they would try to stop it." Anthony also
testified that he did not recall any mention of decertifica-
tion at any meeting ; that the purpose of the petition was
not for decertification but to show the men , who were
"getting dissatisfied," that "there was progress being
made"; that the company never questioned the Union's
backing by the membership "as such"; that he recalled
there was a brief discussion with the committee about an
independent local, but not who brought it up or what was
said ; and that at one of the meetings "we had more or less
a generally frank discussion about the different possibili-
ties . The committee was telling me . . . some of the men
... were apparently talking to the Teamsters Union" so
they wanted something in writing to show they were
making progress.
Baldwin testified that he left the December 18 meeting
early but his notes showed that, while he was present, the
"committee said that they had taken a poll regarding
decertification of the Steelworkers but that the majority of
employees at that time favored retaining the union as the
negotiating agent"; that the committee presented a petition
containing a number of signatures and a caption, but he
had no recollection of what it stated ; that one of his notes
was "Get a contract with union backing but not necessarily
Steelworkers"; and that "there was some discussion 'that
some of the other unions around town might be interest-,
ed." Baldwin testified, on cross-examination, that, at
meetings before this union poll was taken, either Norfolk
or Anthony had stated that "we didn't know the majority
... other than the fact that we had an election . . . we
never, as far as I know, we hadn't received anything from
the employees ." He was not sure whether there was any
discussion about an independent local being best for the
employees . Baldwin further testified that at this meeting
Dunn said the employees questioned the reliability of
promises by management, and warned that there was
considerable tension in the plant which would increase if
there was no contract ; that the committee "consented to
the passing out of gift certificates for Christmas"; and that
the parties agreed that the pro 's would not be called back
yet.
On January 8, 1974, Robins, the personnel manager,
posted notices about a change in shift hours.14 The change
had not been discussed with any representative of the
Union . Dunn asked Anthony in the plant about this, and
was told management decided on the new schedule for
safety reasons and he did not want to talk about changing
it. Dunn pointed out that this unilateral action might
constitute a violation of the settlement agreement. Dunn
testified that Anthony responded that this was one of his
principal reasons for not wanting a union , that Dunn
would always be trying to make company laws for him but
Dunn would never be able to do so. Dunn denied that he
was trying to do so, and urged Anthony not to consider
this discussion a reason for not wanting a union in the
plant. There was some further argument, which Dunn did
not recall, but, he testified , Anthony finally said he would
meet after work hours to discuss the change in schedule but
"not to change it back because his mind was made up." At
that later meeting Dunn gave reasons why the hours,should
not be changed , and Anthony maintained the change was
made for safety reasons. They arranged to hold another
negotiating session on January 22, 1974.
Anthony testified that he changed the hours at this time
as a safety measure for those working outdoors because of
the change in daylight saving time; that he did not think
about discussing the change with anyone ; that Dunn came
to see him and was upset about the change being made
without any discussion ; and that "I told him I would be
glad to discuss it with him but I wanted him to understand
one thing , that with the safety problems that we would
have out there, there wasn't anything we could do about
it.. ... He denied that he criticized Dunn for trying to
run the plant, and testified he did not recall Dunn saying
this was a violation of the settlement agreement.
According to Dunn's testimony , the January 22, 1974,
meeting was devoted to discussing (1) probationary period
and (2) pensions. As to ( 1), Dunn asked for 90 days,
Anthony said he preferred the present practice of 180 days
but would agree to 120 days, and Dunn agreed to this
provided Anthony would give consideration to other items.
As to (2), Anthony said the revised pension plan, which
had been put into effect , was funded entirely by the
Respondent, which would give the -Union a copy of the
plan . Dipaola testified that the Respondent, after refusing
to discuss the pension plan because it was being revised,
never notified the Union that the revised plan had been
completed, and that, although Dunn was promised a copy
of the plan, the Union never received one.
Baldwin testified that his notes as to the January 22
meeting showed that Anthony told the committee the
pension plan which had been under revision for 2 years
was finally completed, had received IRS approval, and the
Respondent would under this plan be paying 100 percent
of the cost ; that the committee agreed it would try to get
the Union to withdraw a certain recordkeeping provision
on overtime ; that Anthony said he would consider
approval of some type of funeral leave; and that a number
of individual grievances were discussed . Baldwin admitted,
on cross-examination by the Charging Party, that the
pension plan referred to at this meeting was never given to
the Union 'as the Union had not since January 22 requested
it; that when the union representatives requested the
original plan, he had convinced them it was of no use as it
was being rewritten; and that he did not recall promising a
copy of the new one but possibly did.
14 The parties stipulated at the hearing that a notice was posted on January 8 changing the work schedule . The Respondent had no copy of the
notice.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
At the next session, held on January 24, the negotiators
went through the Union's proposal of October 9, 1973, to
see if there was still tentative agreement on certain issues.
They again reached agreement on a number of these
provisions. They discussed other provisions, reached
agreement on some 15 including the pension plan, disagreed
on others, deferred some including the hospitalization plan
on which the Respondent was still working, and, on
matters such as vacations and holidays, Anthony urged
that they should continue the present practice.
Baldwin testified as to this meeting that the probationary
period, discussed several times previously, was discussed
again; that the company practice had been that an
employee had to be there 6 months to be eligible for
hospitalization and insurance programs, the Union had
asked for 30, then 60, then "had been hammering on 90
days. We were holding out for 120, and the committee
agreed to the 120"; that Anthony wanted to be able to
consider ability as well as seniority on promotions, and the
committee "seemed to agree"; that it agreed also not to
require the particular overtime records to which Anthony
had objected; that there was discussion about additional
funeral leave being granted "at the discretion of manage-
ment"; and that it was agreed that certain items would be
deleted and others deferred, but Baldwin had no recollec-
tion of what they were.
The next session was held on January 30, 1974. By this
date a number of employees had received a merit increase
in addition to the general increase agreed to on November
7, 1973, and some, including Dunn, had received two merit
increases. Dunn testified that Anthony opened this
meeting with. a question whether the Union was ready to
talk about the handbook; that Dunn replied that, in view
of the petition given to Anthony on December 18, 1973,
they had to negotiate for a union contract; that Anthony
said he did not intend to sign a union contract so saw no
need for further discussion, and the company representa-
tives began to walk out; that Dunn urged them to stay and
negotiate further, assured them the Union was not trying to
force anything on the Respondent but only to negotiate,
and asked if the Union was seeking too much; and that
Anthony responded that he could not agree to a union
contract, that he would discuss only proposals to go into
the handbook, that continued discussion was a waste of
time, and that the pro's should be called back to see if they
could find a solution. No contract proposals were
discussed at this meeting.
Anthony testified, when asked by his counsel if the
negotiations without the pro's resulted in any specific
agreements, "We tentatively came to some agreement, yes,
and yet I'm not completely sure we came to agreement on
it. I discussed with them the things that I felt the company
could do, and I did not necessarily receive an agreement
from them that this was okay, but I felt like as a whole
there was an agreement on it. . . . It was a matter of we
discussed this and I would give our position on it and then
we would move on to something else. . . . where
apparently there was some disagreement they voiced their
disagreement., One thing in particular I remember we did
331
agree on was the 120 days, and we discussed funeral leave,
but again I'm not completely sure that they agreed with it."
Baldwin testified that his notes as to the January 30
meeting showed that "We discussed various aspects of
holidays, holiday pay, time off with pay, but no decisions
were reached. Mr. Anthony said he would think about
some of these items that we had discussed." Baldwin made
no reference to a decision to call the pro's back, but
testified that they were present at the next meeting, which
was "around February 13, 1974."
Dipaola testified that the committee in early February
reported to him and Courtney that it was unable to
convince Anthony to sign a union contract or even to
reduce any provisions on which there appeared to be
agreement to writing, and requested that the pro's come
back into the negotiations at the meeting on February 13,
1974.
The pro's were back at the meeting on February 13,
Norfolk for the Respondent, and Courtney and Dipaola
for the Union. Dunn testified that he and Anthony
indicated the items on which tentative agreement had been
reached; that Dipaola said he would go along with the
committee's actions even on items with which he disa-
greed; that Norfolk agreed to send Dipaola a copy of the
pension plan on which agreement had been reached; that
Dipaola agreed to give the Respondent additional time to
work on the hospitalization plan; that they discussed other
proposed contract provisions, and agreed on some but not
others; that when Courtney and Dipaola pointed out that
some newer employees were earning more than their
seniors and that there was no system for wage increases,
Anthony said, as he had previously, that he decided what
employees were paid; that they also discussed some
proposed provisions, such as pay for time spent at funerals
of certain relatives, which Anthony had said he "would be
willing to live with that the Respondent wanted to
continue present practice on vacations and holidays, but
agreed to give these matters further consideration; and
that, when Dipaola asked about checkoff if both member-
ship and checkoff authorizations were voluntary, Norfolk
again said he refused to do the work for the Union, and
Anthony said that a majority of employees did not want
the Union, but Norfolk agreed to consider this matter
further.
Norfolk testified that his notes as to the February 13
meeting showed that they went through various written
proposals and agreed on certain provisions and disagreed
on others; that, as to the discussion of the funeral leave
provisions, "We still had not reached, in my understanding
we still hadn't reached an agreement that there would be
such a thing as a funeral leave plan, although the union did
tell us at this or a later meeting that they thought we had
agreed to one. I told them it was my understanding what
we had done on this one was we were talking sort of in the
abstract, if we ever agreed to a funeral leave plan these are
the things that ought toy be !included in it." Norfolk testified
further that they discussed pay for jury duty but to his
recollection no agreement was reached; and that this was
the extent of his notes and recollection.
15 Some of these tentative, agreements were revoked by Norfolk in a
February 13, 1974, meeting.
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Baldwin, the parties at this meeting
"reviewed the record write-up as presented by the union
for items that had been agreed to, tentatively agreed to,
and some that were still under discussion . We also
reviewed the original union proposal for certain articles
that had previously been discussed . It was decided we
would have another meeting with Mr. Dipaola and Mr.
Norfolk . It was set up for February 20, 1974, but
postponed to February 26, 1974."
The next meeting was held on February 26. Dunn
testified ' that at the Respondent's request they again
reviewed the Union 's proposals, with the Respondent
taking the same positions it previously did; that Dipaola
requested writeups on disputed items; and that Norfolk
said they were still going over items to see if they could
agree, he was giving further consideration to some matters
as he promised to do on February 13, and in these
circumstances he saw no need for writeups that the Union
could "pick over like vultures," at which remark everyone
laughed . No agreement was reached on any of the
unresolved items at this meeting after about 2 hours of
discussion.
Norfolk testified that his notes for the February 26
meeting showed the parties again discussed funeral leave;
that on holidays the Respondent continued to maintain its
position on six nonguaranteed holidays with time -and-a-
half pay for employees who worked, no pay for those who
did not , while the Union indicated it would go along if the
holidays were guaranteed and straight time was paid to an
employee who did not work if the holiday fell on his day
off; that the Respondent said it would let the Union know
on this last proposal; and that this was all of his
recollection and notes.
Baldwin 's notes for February 26 show that "There was a
discussion regarding previous tentatively agreed upon
concepts and the discussion concerning funeral leave. It
was decided to have the next meeting continue on the
unresolved items without union officials and our attor-
ney. . . . That meeting was set up and held on March 6,
1974."
Dunn testified that Anthony notified him in the plant on
March 6 that the original shift schedule had been restored.
Anthony testified that he discussed the shift schedule
with Dunn several times , that Dunn requested resuming
the original schedule while he urged delay , and that Dunn
"was elated over the fact that we were going back to it.
Then it was announced in the meeting that we were going
back."
Dunn also testified that, at the negotiating meeting on
March 6, the Union's proposals were discussed once again;
and that Norfolk or Anthony restated the company
positions that it had no wage increase to offer , that certain
other provisions would continue to be reserved as
economic items to be considered in one package , that some
provisions were rejected, and as to some that the present
practice should continue ; that Courtney referred, as he had
in previous meetings , to discrepancies in the employee list
furnished by the Respondent , and asked for a list showing
current wages and classifications; that Anthony suggested
that Dunn had sufficient knowledge to correct the list; and
that, when Courtney argued that the Respondent was
better able than Dunn to do this , Norfolk indicated that he
would look into it. The next meeting was scheduled for
March 13.
Norfolk denied that he attended a meeting on March 6.
As noted above , Baldwin testified that on February 26 a
meeting without the pro 's was scheduled for and held on
March 6, and that his notes showed that, at the March 6
meeting, "Mr. Dunn told us that he was in the process of
writing up items that had tentatively been agreed upon. A
vacation plan as proposed in the first write-up was
discussed . The hours and overtime were discussed. Mr.
Anthony announced that on March 17, 1974, we would go
back to our 7:00 a .m. starting time at the plant because the
daylight hours were getting so we could now start at 7:00.
The next meeting was set up for the following week .. .
March 13, 1974."
Dipaola sent Norfolk a letter dated March 12, 1974,
which stated:
Enclosed are two (2) copies of a partial Agreement
which reflects the understanding reached by and
between the Company and the Committee. Also,
incorporated in this booklet , for your consideration, are
articles such as Holiday Pay, Check-off and Sick pay
which has not been agreed to.
There are other items, such as economics , not listed
herein which are currently being discussed. As these
items are agreed to, we shall put them in writing for
your concurrence.
Dunn testified that, before the meeting on March 13,
Anthony asked him in the plant what was being done
about the negotiations, and he said the Union was waiting
to hear regarding the items Norfolk was to consider; that
Anthony then said it was a waste of his and the
committee's time because he did not intend to sign a union
contract as it would do him more harm than good so Dunn
should seek some procedure not tied to the Union; that
when Dunn said the committee had to try to get a contract
as that was what the employees wanted, Anthony com-
mented that he would do things for the employees and
incorporate them in the handbook , Norfolk would help
with the language in the handbook, Dunn and Lewis were
the principal ones who got the employees into the Union
and could get them out , and a strike would not be effective
as another union would help him ; and that Dunn said, as
he had on other occasions , that he wanted no strike as it
would hurt the employees and the Respondent.
Dunn also testified that at the meeting on March 13,
when the parties began to review the Union's revised
proposal, Norfolk said it was not in accord with their
tentative agreement ; that Dipaola explained that he,
Courtney, and Dunn had prepared this , had included
provisions on which tentative agreement had been reached
to avoid going over them repeatedly, and had added items
that Norfolk said he would consider further ; that they then
went through the provisions , and agreed on some as having
been previously agreed to , and on some others including
the shift schedule as restored on March 6 ; that the union
representatives agreed to check some items on which
questions were raised ; that where language changes had
been made Norfolk agreed to some as minor , objected to
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
others, and Dipaola, while maintaining the meaning was
the same, agreed to reconsider the original wording; and
that Norfolk agreed he would consider those provisions
Dipaola stated Anthony had said he could live with and
those Norfolk had previously agreed to consider further;
that Dipaola admitted the membership and checkoff
provisions had not been agreed to but were included as "a
must"; and that Norfolk stated the Respondent's position
on this was the same, and there was no agreement on it.
Norfolk testified that the only negotiating meeting he
attended in March was one held on the 27th; that, whether
there were negotiating meetings during this period at which
he was not present, "There may have been; I'm not sure
whether there were or not.... Frankly, I don't know; I
don't remember. I don't know whether anybody told me
that there were meetings or whether there weren't. I just do
not remember." He also testified that "I know there has
been testimony both by Mr. Dipaola and Mr. Courtney
and Mr. Dunn as to other meetings , and I was said to be
there, and some testimony or statements have been
attributed to me coming from those meetings , but I was not
there and I could not have said those things. I may have
said them at some other time at some other meeting, but I
just wasn't at any meeting on those dates." Norfolk
admitted that some of his material shows the dates the
Respondent received it but some does not, and that his
notes are not paginated.
Baldwin testified from his notes that the meeting on
March 13 was without the pro's; that the committee stated
it had no recourse but to call the pro's back on the basis of
an informal survey of employee views; that Dunn "said he
had reworked some portions of the prior items and had
given several copies to Bill Norfolk"; and that Anthony
said he would have Norfolk call Dipaola and set up the
next meeting . Baldwin also testified that he recalled that
meetings without pro's were held on March 6 and 13, but
that he had no independent recollection regarding what
was discussed.
Dipaola testified that there was a meeting on March 13
at which they discussed the proposal he had mailed on
March 12. He testified further that at the March 27 meeting
he submitted that proposal again with revisions he made as
requested by Norfolk at the March 13 meeting. Each page
of this -proposal was marked "Tentative Agreement" and
had places designated for the initials of the parties and for
the date. It is undisputed that when the parties on March
27 began going through this proposal section by section,
indicating where there was tentative agreement, Courtney
suggested they avoid repeated discussion of some sections
by initialing those on which tentative agreement was
reached, and Norfolk responded that it was unnecessary to
take the time of all those at the bargaining table for this,
and suggested instead that one representative of the Union
come to his office for this purpose. It was agreed Dipaola
would do so on April 2.
Courtney also requested that Dipaola and Norfolk at
that time try to do something about the classification list
is Norfolk also testified, on cross-examination by the General Counsel,
that he did not know when or how he received a copy of a union proposal
with "3-27-74" printed on each page , that Dipaola may have delivered it to
him pei sonally but he had no recollection of this , that he guessed he had a
333
which the Respondent had given the Union as some
classifications had been omitted and some rates were not
current. Dunn and Courtney testified that Norfolk said the
Respondent would try to do this, but that the Union never
received current wage and classification data. Both also
testified that this was a short meeting because the initialing
was deferred.
Norfolk testified that the March 27 meeting was the only
one he attended in March .i6 He also testified that , prior to
that meeting , he checked against his notes about half of the
provisions in the proposal mailed by the Union on March
12, that, although the attached letter had stated this
proposal contained provisions on which there was tentative
agreement and other specific items, he found many
discrepancies from the tentative agreements and concluded
it was largely a restatement of the Union's original
proposal ; that at this meeting the parties discussed his
objections to that part of the proposed agreement he had
checked and deferred discussion of the rest until he could
check it; and that at this meeting "A request was made to
bring the list of pay rates for the employees up to date, and
the union was told that this would be done, that it would
take a little bit of time . . . but it would be provided."
Norfolk testified further as to this March 27 meeting that
"the suggestion was made about going through at least the
ones we had already talked about and initialing those
sections that had been agreed to. Then, after I had had an
opportunity to go through the rest of them, to initial those
sections which had been agreed to, if they were in
compliance with what we had previously discussed, I
suggested to the union that it was unnecessary for
everybody to get together on that point, for the full union
committee and the full company committee to get together
and I suggested to him that he and I, or somebody else for
the union, have a meeting to go over this document, and it
was agreed that it would be handled that way," and that
this meeting would be held with Dipaola in Norfolk's office
on April 2.
Baldwin testified as to the March 27 meeting that
Dipaola presented a compilation of items on which there
had been tentative agreement ; that, while there had been
such agreement on some of the items, many of them had
been "rejected by us" and others were under considera-
tion; and that Dipaola "proposed we review it with the
idea of agreeing to everything that was in there , and said
that is it." Baldwin generally did not receive copies of
union proposals so was not aware of who presented certain
ones nor when . He testified that he thought there was some
discussion at this meeting of a classification list, but was
vague as to what the Union was requesting in this .regard.
He testified further that they discussed the group hospitali-
zation plan, a copy of the booklet explaining it having been
distributed to the employees and a copy sent to Dipaola;
that a new pay rate list was requested and subsequently
mailed , Baldwin thought , to Dipaola ; that Courtney
requested phasing-out of the merit system; and that "Mr.
Dipaola made the remark _ and I have this in quotes -
number of meetings with , Dipaola but "I don't have any of them
documented or noted . I frankly don 't have any recollection.... The only
thing I do know about it is it came into my possession after March 27,
1974."
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`with adequate across-the-board increases and a simple
check-off' he committee will take what we now have to the
membership for a vote." Baldwin made no reference to the
response to this remark, or to the discussion described by
the other conferees about initialing tentative agreements.
Dipaola went to Norfolk's office on April 2. Norfolk,
who testified he had no notes on this meeting with Dipaola
but could recall what occurred, testified about it as follows:
Well, after Mr. Dipaola and I exchanged our usual
pleasantries , he suggested that we start going through
this document, this R-6, and he was getting ready to
reach for his briefcase, I assume to take it out, and I
said , "Really, there is no use in your pulling that out of
your briefcase." I 'said, "I have gone through it. I know
what is in there, and you know that you have got in
there a bunch of items that we have not agreed to and
that we told you we are not going to agree to and can't
agree to, and specifically that check-off."
Mr. Dipaola said, "That is something we have got
to have." He said, "You don't expect me to every
payday go chase those people all over the parking lot,
do you, trying to collect those dues?"
I said, "Willie, I don't really expect you to do that
and I don 't really know how you are going to do it, get
your money for your dues, but that is one of your
bookkeeping problems and not mine."
Frankly, we never got any further than that.
Of course, I heard Mr . Dipaola testify this morning
about a statement that was attributed to me at that
meeting, saying that I said we would never sign a
contract, or words to that effect.
It may be that Mr. Dipaola gathered from what I
said , at least this may have been his interpretation of
what I said, but my appreciation, understanding and
remembrance about what I said was not that we
wouldn 't ever sign a contract or not that we wouldn't
sign a contract, but I had told him then , and I told him
before, that I knew enough to know that when we
reached an agreement on these items , we had them in
writing, that we were going to sign a contract.
I told him that we would have a hard time
bargaining a contract and we were not going to be by
far the easiest people he had ever negotiated a contract
with, but I knew eventually we would get there, to the
point where we would sign a contract ; he knew it and I
knew it.
I did not tell him on that date that we were not going
to sign a contract . I wasn't about to sign what he had
presented to me as R-6, and I am sure he understood
from my comments that is what I meant, I wouldn't
want to sign that because it had in it any number of
things we just flat had not agreed to, and what we had
agreed to was misstated, plus this discussion about the
check-off.
He never did get the proposal out of his briefcase,
that is true . I had, between the last time I had met with
the union and the time Mr . Dipaola came to my office,
gone through , the rest of it and , as I told him, I knew
precisely what was in there.
JUDGE SCHLEZINGER: What had you intended to do
when you suggested at the previous meeting that Mr.
Dipaola come to your office on that day?
THE -WITNESS : That if we could go through this thing
and take out his check-off, I knew what his problem
was, I thought I understood what his problem was
about check-off and his union security clause, that if he
could get that out of there - well, two things I told him
specifically, "We will sign a contract but we won't sign
it with that check-off in there and that proposal for a
wage increase."
Frankly, I wanted to talk to Willie - Mr. Dipaola
privately on that point and tell him that.
JUDGE SCHLEZINGER : You had not planned, then, to
initial some provisions?
THE WITNESS : I had not . That is right.
Dunn testified that he had a conversation with Anthony
in the office on April 4 during which Anthony asked if
things were "at the breaking point" in the plant; that he
said the committee felt something could be worked out
without a strike ; that Anthony said he did not think the
other committee members agreed with Dunn and he
wanted to get their opinion ; that Anthony asked what was
the biggest issue for the employees , and Dunn replied it
was "a contract of some kind"; and that Anthony said he
was willing to give some of the items discussed in the
negotiations, that he knew the Board could force him to
sign a contract, that the Union could demand that he sign
a contract based on present practice , but that the
negotiations would then have accomplished nothing.
Dunn testified further that Anthony called the commit-
tee to the office on April 10, and said he wanted to get the
views of the members other than Dunn to the offer of
changes that had been discussed but without the Union;
that Lewis asked why Anthony was willing to make such
changes after all these years ; that Anthony replied he had
planned some before and recognized others after the
Union organized the plant, and he would put the changes
in the handbook on a step-by-step basis; that the
committee did not accept this offer; that, when Dunn
commented that the employees were demanding action,
Anthony asked the committee to present his views to the
employees and then meet again with him; and that
Anthony also said the Union could get them only a strike,
and he would not sign a contract with the Union as it
would then try to run the plant.
Baldwin testified that at the April 10 meeting Anthony
announced (1) that he had arranged to have a catering
service bring hot food to the plant in the morning; (2) that
he "would like to institute another 20 cents an hour across-
the-board increase effective April 7, 1974.... a general
increase that would be followed in a reasonable length of
time by another cost of living increase," to which the
committee gave its immediate approval ; and (3) that "we
were working on an improved hospitalization plan and the
improvements would be implemented as soon as practi-
cal." He also testified on cross-examination that he did not
recall any discussion about an employee meeting but there
may have been some. The next meeting attended by
Baldwin was on May 8.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 335
Courtney in about mid April requested a private meeting
with Anthony away from the plant premises. Anthony
agreed and they met at a motel. Courtney testified that he
urged Anthony to enter into good-faith bargaining with the
Union; that Anthony said he was unwilling to sign a
contract, and discussed his position regarding present
practice set forth in the handbook; that Courtney urged
Anthony to put this in writing as a proposed contract; that
Anthony insisted this would not be a contract the Union
could accept, and he could not accept the fact of a signed
union contract; that Courtney asked if the Union could
write a contract that would be signed, but Anthony said
the Union could not; that when they were leaving he asked
Anthony to consider a contract as it would be good for the
Respondent and the men; that Anthony said he doubted
his position would change but he would think about it; and
that Anthony asked Courtney to walk away and forget it,
but Courtney said the Union as the elected representative
could not do so.17
Anthony testified that at this meeting, which lasted
about 2 hours, Courtney urged acceptance of checkoff and
other provisions, offered to discuss fewer holidays, and
said there would be a strike unless some agreements were
reached; that he told Courtney he would sign a contract
based on the tentative agreements and present practice;
and that they agreed to get together again if there was any
change of position.18
Dunn testified that he had another conversation with
Anthony in the office on April 16; that Anthony asked, as
he had on previous occasions, what was most important to
the employees, and Dunn again replied it was insurance;
that Anthony said they could get a provision on insurance
and other changes but only if it was done without union
backing, that he would not do anything on the basis of a
union contract, and that he was still willing to add things
step by step to the handbook which had always been
binding and would continue to be; that Dunn said a
meeting of the local officers was scheduled at which to
discuss a report to the employees on Anthony's sugges-
tions ; that Anthony urged that this be cone because he
would not sign a union contract; and that Anthony also
commented that he believed Dunn could get the Union out
for him if Dunn really wanted to do so, but Dunn replied
that he had to carry out the wishes of the employees he
represented.
Dunn testified that Anthony called the committee
members to the office on April 19 and asked if they had
considered his April 10 proposal; that Dunn replied that
they had agreed to hold an employee meeting on Friday
evening , April 26, to report on the status of the negotia-
tions, to give the company view on the handbook, and to
let the employees vote; that Anthony said he agreed with
this program and the outcome would depend on how well
the committee presented his position; and that Anthony
also stated that he was sincere about the changes in the
handbook, they would be made one at a time as the
Respondent was limited in what it could give, and it would
17 Courtney requested this meeting with Anthony, fox an "off-the-record"
discussion . He testified that he meant it would not be a formal negotiating
meeting and they could talk freely, and that neither indicated the discussion
was intended to be private.
'5 Anthony, in testifying about the November 1, 1973, negotiations,
be best for the employees as the Union could get them only
a strike at this time . Dunn asked Anthony to hold overtime
work to a minimum so most of the employees could attend
the meeting. He asked leave to post a notice of the meeting,
and later showed Anthony the notice which Anthony
approved for posting.
Dunn testified, and was corroborated by Lewis, that the
committee met twice with Anthony on April 26 prior to the
membership meeting . At the first of these meetings, as
described by Dunn, Anthony asked what the committee
thought was an adequate general increase; Dunn replied
that, in view of the wage levels, it should be 40 or 50 cents
an hour; Anthony said that was more than he was willing
to offer but, if the employees voted for the handbook idea,
he would give 20 cents then and 20 next month; when
Lewis asked why both could not be given then, Anthony
said it was because the employees would probably vote to
go on with the Union and he would be bound by this
increase . Anthony also commented that the committee had
complained in the past that company promises were not
kept; and Lewis said he had asked the question because he
knew of company promises made to employees that were
not kept; Anthony then said he would give 20 cents as of
April 26 to show his good faith and, if the employees voted
for the handbook proposal, another 20 cents the following
month, and that Anthony also pointed out that the
"certification isn't out until the first of next month." The
Union was certified on May 3, 1973. The committee
promised to convey, Anthony's offer to the employees at
the meeting. Anthony thanked the men for their time, and
they returned to work.
Dunn testified that, at the second meeting in the office,
Anthony said he was sincere about the handbook offer, the
outcome of the meeting depended on how the committee
conveyed his offer, and he believed they could get the
employees to agree to the handbook as he had heard
speeches made by Lewis and Dunn; that Dunn said they
also were sincere about reporting all the facts to the
membership, and would abide by whatever the outcome
was; that Anthony again said he would not sign a contract
with the Union, they could not win with a strike because
another union would furnish replacements, and the Union
men would suffer; and that Anthony asked Dunn to report
the results of the meeting to him the next day, a Saturday,
and Dunn said he would if he had the results.
The membership voted to reject the handbook offer.
Dunn did not call Anthony on Saturday. Dunn testified
that he was called to the office on April 30, that Anthony
accused Dunn of avoiding him, that Dunn denied this and
said Courtney was to report, that Anthony said no one had
reported but he heard the results were fairly close, and that
Dunn said that was not so and explained that the vote was
by secret ballot, counted by the wives of the officers, and
he was told' on Saturday the handbook proposal was
rejected by 90 percent. Dunn testified that Anthony then
thanked him for the committee having gone out on a limb
to present the company side, and asked what the situation
stated that at a meeting with Courtney, who "brought up something about a
handbook . . . why don't you take your handbook and put it in the form of
a contract and sign it. I said, `well, you have a copy of the handbook Put it
in the form of a contract and we would have to sign it.' "
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was at that time; that Dunn said another meeting was to be
held on May 3 with a Union representative present, and
again asked for permission to post a notice after clearance
by Anthony; that Dunn later brought in two notices, one
about the contract negotiations, the other about a strike
vote; and that Anthony agreed to the posting of the first
but advised against the second as it would alarm people.
Anthony testified that he did not recall anything in
particular about meeting with Dunn in April 1974; that the
possibility of a strike was "in our minds from the very
start" ; that it was raised at times by committeemen or
others saying they would not be able to control the men
much longer unless they could show that they "had made
some progress , but anything just specifically talking about
a strike, no." He also recalled that he discussed with Dunn
notices about a membership meeting and a strike vote
which he gave Dunn permission to post, that during this
period he asked Dunn "who was going to give the
company's side as to what the company had already agreed
to in the proposal, and what have you"; and that Dunn
assured him "they were going to present it just like it was."
He also testified, as to discussion of a wage increase in
April, that he recalled only that in April he asked
permission to give another 20-cent increase, the committee
agreed, and it was put into effect, with no strings attached
by either side. He denied that he conditioned this increase
on acceptance of a handbook instead of a contract.
Both Dipaola,and Courtney were present at the May 3
membership meeting . Dipaola described to the member-
ship the negotiations to date, and Courtney then spoke of
the many disadvantages of a strike. The vote by secret
ballot was 131 to 7 in favor of a strike.
The parties met on May 8 with Mediator Bible present.
Dipaola reported th e strike vote was over 90 percent, said
this resulted from the Respondent denying the rights of the
employees and their certified representative under the Act,
and asked if the Respondent had any final offer. Dipaola
testified that Norfolk said he did but, when asked to put it
in writing, said he had no intention to put anything in
writing . Dipaola also testified that he commented that
Anthony never intended to bargain, to which Anthony
responded that he did, not ask for the Union, and stated
that if they wanted a strike they should go ahead and
strike. The strike began on the morning of May 13 and was
still in progress at ^ the time of the hearing. The parties
stipulated at the hearing that there were, prior to the strike,
approximately 160 unit employees, none of whom reported
for work on May 13, that about 35 have returned to work
since that date , and that about 125 employees were still on
strike at the time of the hearing.
Norfolk testified that his notes listed the date of May 8
but made no reference to what occurred.
Baldwin testified that he was at this meeting and read
from his notes who was present, but was not asked by
Pharis what occurred.
Dipaola testified that 'a meeting was called by Norfolk
and held in Norfolk's office in early June with Mediator
Bible present, that he asked if the Respondent was ready to
bargain, but Norfolk made an angry statement regarding
certain acts ' of violence he blamed on the strikers, and
refused, when both Bible and Dipaola requested that the
parties negotiate, to discuss any other subject. Dipaola also
testified that another meeting was held in late June or early
July in Norfolk's office, with Dipaola and Courtney
present for the Union and Norfolk and Baldwin for the
Respondent, at which Norfolk again berated the Union for
acts of violence and refused to discuss any other matter.
Norfolk testified that he did not keep notes on these two
meetings; that he thought, but was not sure, the first
meeting was requested by mediation and Bible was
present; that he was very angry about certain violence that
had occurred and the only topic he permitted was his
condemnation of this conduct; that he did not recall who
was at the second meeting but thought no mediator was
present; that violence was again the only topic; that he did
not give the union representatives much chance to talk,
and he did not recall whether they or the mediator asked at
these meetings to negotiate; but that he did recall their
asking that he let the Union know if he found any
connection between the violence he described and the
Union.
That was the last meeting between' the parties. In
September Dipaola telephoned Anthony and urged him to
enter into an agreement and get the men back to,work, but
Anthony said his position had not changed. Dipaola
suggested that they at least embody in an agreement the-
provisions on which tentative agreement had been reached,
merely list the unresolved items, give the men some general
increase, get them back to work, and negotiate from there.
According to Dipaola, Anthony was reluctant but agreed
to talk to Norfolk about it. Norfolk telephoned Dipaola a
few days later, they discussed Dipaola's conversation with
Anthony, and Norfolk suggested Dipaola come to his
office. When Dipaola went to Norfolk's office, as he
testified, Norfolk told him, "You know I work for a client,"
and Dipaola then said "for the good of everybody, you are
their attorney, I would appreciate it very much if you
would advise them to let's go ahead and enter into an
agreement here with the unresolved items still pending and
we will not prejudice your position or ours and continue to
negotiate." Norfolk said he would talk to his client, but
Dipaola heard nothing further from him.
Near the close of Dunn's lengthy testimony, he was
asked by Respondent's counsel, Pharis, if the Respondent
ever refused to discuss any proposals submitted to it during
the negotiations and, if so, what and when. Dunn replied
that "The company refused to discuss their vacation
proposal ... in several different meetings . . . refused to
go into the -holiday provision . . . refused to discuss
economical items on hours and overtime . . . refused to
discuss union membership and check-off' . . . refused to
discuss time off with pay"; that as to such provisions the
Respondent stated that it wanted its present practice; and
that it reserved discussion of economic items and stated it
"had no wage increase to offer."
Dipaola testified that the parties never discussed eco-
nomic items because the Respondent insisted they wait to
discuss these items as one package after agreement was
reached on all other matters. He denied, on cross-examina-
tion by Pharis, that Norfolk said he would sign what was
agreed to and let everything else stand. He asserted that
Norfolk refused to sign any agreement on the basis that the
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
Respondent,liked what it had, and that when the Union on
frequent occasions told Norfolk to put that in writing, sign
it, and Dipaola would submit it to the membership,
Norfolk invariably stated that he did not intend to do any
writing for the Union. Dipaola further testified that
Norfolk never submitted a written statement of current
practices, and that he never received a copy of the
handbook but saw it for the first time at the hearing herein.
Norfolk and Anthony admitted they never gave one to the
Union but assumed the Union had it as many employees
did.
Norfolk testified that he never refused to give considera-
tion to any proposal made by the Union. He maintained
that they discussed checkoff numerous times; that, while
he never told the Union "specifically that I was' going to
give them consideration on the check-of," he likewise
"never did tell them I would not give them consideration
on check-off"; that Dipaola's latest proposal on this matter
was considerably improved from the company viewpoint,
but that nevertheless the company "position was that we
did not want it . . . did not want to do it"; then that he did
not believe he said the company did not want to do it, but
explained to Dipaola "why we didn't want to do it," which
was because the Respondent was not set up like other
companies to make deductions so the Union could do it
better. Thd Respondent did, however, admittedly make
various payroll deductions.
Norfolk also testified that the Respondent furnished the
Union with some cost data on benefits, and explained the
pension plan changes being made; and that he never
submitted for inclusion in an agreement any provisions,
even for continuation of the status quo, on holidays,
vacations, benefit plans, and other substantive items on
which no tentative agreement had been reached, but
merely indicated agreement or disagreement with what the
Union presented. He admitted, on cross-examination by
the Charging Party, that the agreement he proposed to the
Union on August 16 would have included no provisions as
to checkoff, shift differential, hours and overtime, funeral
pay, holiday pay except for those who worked on the
holidays, benefit plans, and wage increase, and would have
included only in part the provisions as to arbitration,
seniority, and vacations. He also testified that he had told
the Union he was getting the data on hospitalization and
that the revised pension plan would become noncontribu-
tory, but that neither the Union nor the Respondent knew
then whether this would mean increased benefits for the
employees.
Anthony testified that he would not sign the original
proposal presented by the Union or any of its amended
proposals; that he would have signed a contract incorpo-
rating the items on which there was tentative agreement
and present company policy; that this had been his
position since about August, and he had told Courtney so
in their private meeting at the motel; that neither he nor
any other company representative, however, ever put this
position into writing to present to the Union for accept-
ance as a contract; that after the Union submitted a
'19 N.L RB. v. A. W. Thompson, Inc., 449 F.2d 1333 (C.A. 5, 1971).
20 See, for example, N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 299 (C.A.
5, 1960).
337
proposal setting forth what it asserted were the provisions
on which there was tentative agreement , with which the
Respondent did not agree, the Respondent never put into
writing its understanding as to what tentative agreement
had been reached; and that, while he remembered "the
union asking us to write up what we were now doing," he
could not remember exactly the response that was made,
but it was to the effect that "it was such a wide variety of
things and such a big job that it would be better if it was
some specific thing that they wanted and it could be
handled that way." Anthony admitted that at one of the
meetings without the pro's he told the committee the
handbook "was just as binding upon us as if I had my
signature on it." He also testified that when Courtney at
their meeting "brought up something about a handbook
... something along the same lines, why don't you take
your handbook and put it in the form of a contract and
sign it," he replied, "Well, you have a copy of the
handbook. Put it in the form of a contract and we would
have to sign it."
Concluding Findings
1. Allegations of refusal to bargain
a. The pattern of bargaining
The complaint alleges that the Respondent negotiated
with the Union in bad faith with no intention of
concluding any agreement with the Union and refused to
execute any agreement to which the Union was a party.
Section 8(aX5) of the Act places upon an -employer the
obligation to bargain collectively with the duly designated
representatives of its employees. Section 8(d) of the Act
states that this duty to bargain requires an employer to
"confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, or the
negotiation of an agreement . . . but such obligation does
not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require
the making of a concession. . . ." As was stated by the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "We have held on
numerous occasions that while the duty does not compel
either side to make concessions, it does require that the
parties `enter into discussion with an open and fair mind,
and a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement ...'
[citing cases]. "19 The court has also held, in agreement
with the Board, that bargaining in good faith "takes more
than mere `surface bargaining,' or `shadow boxing to a
draw,' or `giving the Union a runaround while purporting
to be meeting with the union for the purpose of collective
bargaining.' "20 In determining whether an employer has
bargained in good faith, it is necessary to scrutinize the
totality of its conduct and, on the basis thereof, to draw the
fine line between legitimate hard bargaining designed to
achieve a contract the employer considers desirable, and
unlawful surface bargaining designed to frustrate the
possibility of concluding an agreement.21 As the courts
21 Florida Machine & Foundry Company and Fleeo Corporation, 190
NLRB 563 (1971); West Coast Casket Co., Inc., 192 NLRB 624 (1971); John
Zink Company, 196 NLRB 942 (1972).
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have held, "The heart of this type of case is the fact
question of good faith," 22 and the problem involved "is
essentially to determine from the record the intention or
the state of mind of [the Employer] in the matter of [his]
negotiations with the union." 23
The Respondent in the instant case entered into
negotiations with the Union, the certified representative of
the employees, on May 24, 1973. When unfair labor
practice charges were filed in Case 15-CA-4984 on
September 4 and October 4, 1973, which included an
allegation of refusal to bargain, the Respondent entered
into a settlement agreement on November 29, 1973, which
provided inter alia that it would bargain collectively with
the Union. There ensued a prolonged series of negotiation
meetings, some quite lengthy. Nevertheless, no agreement,
complete or partial, had been concluded when, on May 13,
1974, a year after the Union's certification, the entire
complement of unit employees went on strike in protest
against the Respondent's failure and refusal to enter into
an agreement with the Union. The Union made various
written contract proposals which the Respondent at the
negotiation meetings discussed, over and over again. There
was tentative agreement on a few of the provisions in these
Union proposals, but even as to such provisions, when the
Union attempted to reduce them to writing, the Respon-
dent raised questions as to their substance or wording. The
record shows that the Respondent during the protracted
negotiations insisted on deferral of economic issues;
refused to discuss the terms of benefit plans that were
being revised until the revisions were completed; refused to
make any wage increase offer to the union representatives;
stated that the company president would decide what
wages employees received; notified the plant committee of
employment- benefits it was granting including general
raises in amounts the Respondent determined and merit
increases given in amounts and to individuals determined
by the Respondent; 24 rejected without any meaningful
bargaining the Union's various checkoff proposals; refused
when it rejected union proposals to make counterpropo-
sals; questioned the Union's representative status without
any basis for its asserted doubt, and, when the Union 7s
majority status was affirmed overwhelmingly, nevertheless
urged employees to shift their allegiance from the certified
Union to an independent or other union; stated repeatedly
it would grant some of the changes sought by the Union by
incorporating them from time to time in an employee
handbook, but refused to state this position in writing or to
reduce the handbook to the form of a contract it would
sign ; insisted as to many of the Union's proposals that
present plant practice should continue, and asserted a
willingness to sign a contract based on tentative agree-
ments that had been reached and present practice, but
refused to reduce its present practice to writing; refused to
22 N.L KB. v. Herman Sausage Co., supra.
23 N.L.R B. v. National Shoes, Inc, and National Syracuse Corporation,
208 F.2d 688, 691 (C.A. 2); see also N.L.R.B. v. Reed & Prince
Manufacturing Company, 205 F.2d 131, 134 (CA. 1), cert. denied 346 U.S.
887; Church Point Wholesale Grocery Company, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 93
(1974).
24 1 find no merit in the contention made in the Respondent's brief that
the Union is estopped from basing charges on conduct which occurred
during the negotiations without the pro's because the Union proposed
initial provisions on which there was tentative agreement,
after indicating it would do so, when it admittedly had no
intention to initial anything; and refused to engage in any
negotiations after the strike began..
It is apparent, from the foregoing and the record as a
whole, and I fmd, that the totality of the Respondent's
conduct manifests "a predetermination not to reach
agreement" on any basis with the Union. Anthony in fact
frequently asserted his determination not to conclude and
execute any agreement with the Union. It is also manifest
from the Respondent's conduct that it was engaging in
"stalling" tactics and in fruitless negotiations "in order to
frustrate bargaining and undermine the statutory repre-
sentative." 25 Accordingly, I find, on the basis of the
credited testimony, the admissions made by the Respon-
dent's witnesses, and the record as a whole, that the
Respondent was not engaging in legitimate hard bargain-
ing, as it maintains, but in surface bargaining, as the
General Counsel contends, that the Respondent by its
overall conduct was negotiating with the Union in bad
faith and with no intention of ever concluding or executing
any collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, that
this conduct of the Respondent was designed to undermine
the Union's representative status, and that the Respondent
by such conduct has failed and refused to bargain with the
Union since its certification in May 1973, in violation of
the Settlement Agreement of November 29, 1973, and of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.26 Accordingly, I fmd
that the Regional Director was warranted in vacating the
settlement agreement. I find further that the employees
went on strike on May 13, 1974, in protest against the
Respondent's failure and refusal to bargain in good faith
with the Union, and that the strike therefore is, and has
been since its inception, an unfair labor practice strike.27
b. Unilateral changes in shift schedules
The complaint specifically alleges that the Respondent
refused to bargain collectively with the Union in that it
unilaterally changed existing working hours without giving
the Union notice or an opportunity to discuss and bargain
thereon.
The Respondent admits it changed the shift schedules on
January 8, 1974, without such notice to or discussion with
the Union. When Dunn protested this unilateral action and
asserted it was violative of the settlement agreement,
Anthony agreed to discuss the changes with Dunn, but
only on the understanding that Anthony would not retract
the announced changes. Such unilateral action as to
working schedules, even if taken in good faith and with the
bargaining on this basis.
25 See American Steel Building Company, Inc., 208 NLRB 900 (1974).
26 The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 191 NLRB 563 (1971); West
Coast Casket Co., Inc., supra, Supak and Sons Manufacturing Corporation,
192 NLRB 122 (1971); John Hutton Corp., d/bla KUMU Radio AM-FM
213 NLRB No. 12 (1974); Underwriters Adjusting Company, 214 NLRB No.
58 (1974); Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc., 215 NLRB No. 140 (1974); Warehouse
Market, Inc., 216 NLRB No. 41 (1975).
27 American Steel Building Company, Inc., supra.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION
committee's later consent, is nevertheless violative of the
Respondent's statutory bargaining obligation.28 I find,
therefore, that the Respondent, by such unilateral action,
further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.29
c. Refusal to furnish data
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent refused
to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing, since on
or- about March 1, 1974, to furnish to the Union data
relating to job classifications which the Union had
requested for the purposes of negotiating an agreement.
The Respondent early in the period of negotiations
furnished some data requested by the Union, including a
classification list. The Union pointed out to the Respon-
dent, however, that this list was out of date, and the
Respondent agreed to furnish the current classification
data. This it failed to do, although the Union repeatedly
requested it. I find, therefore, in the entire context of this
case, that the Respondent failed and refused to produce
data requested by the Union relating to current job
classifications, and that it thereby further violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.30
I find further that the employees who went on strike on
May 13, 1974, in protest against the Respondent's failure
and refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union, have
engaged in and are engaging in an unfair labor practice
strike.
2. Allegations of interference, restraint, and
coercion
The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by the following acts and conduct of Anthony: (a) on or
about August 28, 1973, threatened an employee that many
employees would be hurt if they continued to support the
Union; (b) on or about November 27, 1973, and April 30,
1974, interrogated an employee concerning his own and
other employees' union membership, activities, and de-
sires; (c) on or about December 18, 1973, threatened an
employee with discharge if he continued his support of the
Union; (d) on or about a date in early April and April 26,
1974, offered employees a wage increase if they would
abandon the Union and/or encourage other employees to
abandon the Union and thereafter not bargain or insist on
a collective-bargaining agreement; (e) on or about October
30, November 14 and 27, 1973, and January 30, March 13,
April 4 and 10, 1974, promised employees undisclosed
benefits and improvements in working conditions if they
abandoned the Union and/or their insistence on a
collective-bargaining agreement; and (f) on or about
November 15, 1973, offered undisclosed benefits to
encourage employees to withdraw unfair labor practice
charges in Case 15-CA-4984.
I find, on the basis of the, credited testimony and the
record in its entirety that (a) Anthony told Dunn in the
28 See, e.g., N.L.RB. v. Benne Katz d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products
Co., 369 U.S. 736; Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 203 NLRB 905 (1973);
Missourian Publishing Company, Inc., 216 NLRB No 34 (1975).
29 The Respondent's subsequent resumption of the original work
schedule, with notice to , but no bargaining thereon with the Union, is not
alleged by the complaint as a separate violation of the Act, nor are other
339
office on August 28, at the time he offered Dunn the
weighmaster job, that he did not believe a company the
size of the Respondent could exist with a union and that, if
the employees continued the union drive, "possibly lots of
men would be hurt"; (b) Anthony asked Dunn in the office
on or about November 27, 1973, if the men still wanted a
contract with the Umon, and on April 30, 1974, asked
about the results of the strike vote taken at a membership
meeting on April 26 and about what the membership was
planning; (c) Anthony told the plant committee in the
office on December 18, 1973, when it presented an
employee petition affirming the Union's representative
status, that he was "going to fire all of the employees that
was dragging their feet within the plant ... right away,"
and that if he knew of a legal way to do so he would
discharge Dunn for tricking the employees into signing the
petition; (d) Anthony told the committee in the office on
April 26, 1974, that he would give a 20-cent general
increase then and another the following month if the
committee persuaded the employees to vote for incorporat-
ing changes in the employee handbook in lieu of a contract
with the Union; (e) Anthony, on a number of occasions
during the course of the negotiations, offered the commit-
tee in the office various employment benefits if they would
agree that benefits could be incorporated in the employee
handbook from time to time in lieu of a contract with the
Union; and (f) Anthony told Dunn in the office on or
about November 15, 1973, he was going to try to come up
with a new insurance provision and other benefits that
would meet with Dunn's approval if in return he could get
Dunn's approval to drop'the charges that had been filed in
Case 15-CA-4984.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent, by the acts and
conduct of its president, coercively interrogated and
threatened employees about their union activities, and
offered and granted wage increases and other benefits to
employees, to induce them to abandon their union
activities, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed' 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 that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
unilateral actions taken by the Respondent . Testimony with regard thereto
was presented by the General Counsel as part of the bad -faith bargaining
pattern.
30 N L.RB. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149; John Zink Company, supra.
The complaint does not allege the failure to furnish the revised pension plan
or other data to the Umon as a separate violation of the Act.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cease and desist therefrom and from any like or related
interference with the rights of its employees guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent has refused to
bargain collectively in good faith with the Union, I shall
recommend issuance of an order that the Respondent,
upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement 31
It has been found above that the unit employees went
out on strike on May 13, 1974, to protest the Respondent's
refusal to bargain with the Union. Some of these
employees have found work elsewhere and some have
returned to work for the Respondent, but most of them
were still on strike at the time of the hearing. I shall,
therefore, in all the relevant circumstances, recommend
that the Respondent be required to sign and mail copies of
the Order 'and notice to the homes of the unit employees
who went on strike, and to reinstate them upon application
in a nondiscriminatory manner.32
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Schuylkill Metals Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All the production and maintenance employees
employed at the Respondent's Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
plant, including the laboratory trainee, warehousemen,
truckdrivers, and construction employees, but excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employees, laborato-
ry employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. The Union has been certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
5. By negotiating with the Union in bad faith and with
no intention of concluding or executing a collective-
bargaining agreement, by unilaterally changing the work
schedules of the unit employees without adequate notice
and opportunity for discussion afforded the Union, and by
failing and refusing to furnish data requested by the Union
relating to current job classifications, the Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the
31 Thompson Brothers Coal Company, Inc. Thompson Coal Company, Inc
and Thompson and Phillips Clay Company, Inc., 192 NLRB 24 (1971).
32 See American Steel Building Company, Inc., supra; Lorenz Schneider
Co., Inc., supra.
33 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Union, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By coercively interrogating and threatening employ-
ees about their union activities, and by offering and
granting employees wage increases and other employment
benefits, to induce employees to abandon their support of
the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The strike which began on May 13, 1974, is, and has
been since its inception, an unfair labor practice strike.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER33
The Respondent, Schuylkill Metals Corporation, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating and threatening employees
about their union activities and offering and granting
employees wage increases and other employment benefits
to induce them to abandon their support of the Union, or
in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good
faith with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit, concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions
of employment, by negotiating with the Union in bad faith
and with no intention of concluding or executing a
collective-bargaining agreement, by unilaterally changing
the work schedules of the unit employees without adequate
notice to and opportunity for discussion afforded the
Union, by failing or refusing to furnish data requested by
the Union relating to current job classifications, or by in
any other manner refusing to bargain with the Union in
accord with its statutory obligation.
(c) The aforesaid appropriate unit is comprised of all the
production and maintenance employees employed at the
Respondent's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, including the
laboratory trainee, warehousemen, truckdrivers, and con-
struction employees, but excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, laboratory employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herem shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
SCHUYLKILL METALS CORPORATION 341
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named labor organization, as the certified
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the above-described unit, concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions
of ernployment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix," 34 and mail a copy
thereof to each of its striking employees. Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
34 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
Region 15, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by- it 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."