Soule Glass & Glazing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 792 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Soule Glass and Glazing Co.; Soule Glass Industries;
Soule Replacement Co. and/or Presque Isle Glass
d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing and Glaziers Local
Union 1516, International Brotherhood of Painters
and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Cases I-CA 11856.
I CA 11964, 1 CA-12549. I CA 12866, and I-
CA- 12937
December 5, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANt) MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENEI.I.O
On July 9, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Re-
spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National abor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
I The General Counsel's exceptions relate solely to certain comments by
the Administrative Law Judge regarding the General Counsel's brief. We
agree with the General Counsel that such comments are inappropriate. See
sec. 17400, Manual, Division of Judges: see, generally, Automotive Proving
Grounds, Incorporated, 139 NLRB 431, fn. I (1962).
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy to overrule an
administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d ('ir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Further, we have considered Respondent's contention that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision reveals bias and prejudice on the part of the
Administrative Law Judge. After carefully considering the record and the
attached Decision, we have concluded that these charges are without merit.
Respondent has filed a motion to reopen the record with the Board in
which it alleges that an October 16, 1979, letter from the Charging Party's
attorney to Respondent's attorney contradicts the Administrative Law
Judge's findings that "at no time did the union ever state that none of the
strikers would return to work unless all of those listed in the March 8 offer
were returned." The General ounsel and Charging Party have filed an
opposition to the motion. In our view, there is nothing in the letter in ques-
tion which conflicts with or otherwise detracts from the finding made by the
Administrative Law Judge. Accordingly. since this letter is not relevant to
the issues presented in this case and there is an opposition to its being re-
ceived into evidence, we hereby deny Respondent's motion to reopen.
2 We shall modify the affirmative provisions of the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order to correspond to the violation found by him
with respect to Respondent's refusal to furnish the Union with requested
information and the remedy therefor.
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent. Soule
Glass and Glazing Co.; Soule Glass Industries; Soule
Replacement Co. and/or Presque Isle Glass d/b/a
Soule Glass and Glazing, Portland, Maine, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and reletter
the subsequent paragraph accordingly:
"(d) Upon request, furnish the Union with ade-
quate relevant information necessary to the perform-
ance of its function as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit."
DECISION
SIAIlIMENI OF It F CASE
RIClHARD L. DNISoN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Portland, Maine. on November 14-18,
and 28 30. and December I and 2, 1977, based on the fol-
lowing charges. The charge in Case I CA- 11856 was filed
and served on June 8. 1976. As amended and served on July
27, 1976, this charge alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by the Respondents who allegedly bar-
gained in bad faith with the Union by unilaterally changing
the wages and working conditions of its bargaining unit
employees, who consequently have been engaging in an un-
fair labor practice strike since its inception on or about
April 12, 1976.' The charge in Case I CA-11964 was filed
by the Charging Party and served on July 6. alleging that
Soule Glass Industries violated Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act by
threatening and/or assualting pickets, and promising im-
proved benefits and working conditions if the strikers re-
turned to work.
The charge in Case I CA 12549 was filed by the Union
and served on December 17. As amended and served on
March 2. 1977, this charge alleges that the Respondents
further violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by alleg-
edly failing and refusing to comply with the Union's No-
vember 22 request for information, which the Union
claimed was relevant and necessary to an intelligent discus-
sion of issues raised at the bargaining table. In this charge
the Union also renews its contention that the April 12 strike
was an unfair labor practice strike.
The charge in Case I CA- 12866 was filed on March I I,
1977. As twice amended and served on March 30, 1977, and
June 23. 1977. respectively, it alleges that Respondents
since on or about April 12 engaged in bad-faith bargaining
in negotiations, and on March 25. 1977, withdrew their rec-
ognition of the Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its unit employees.
The charge in Case I CA 12937 was filed by the Union
and served on March 30. 1977. alleging that Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act by failing and
refusing to reinstate 22 striking employees pursuant to an
unconditional application by letter on March 8, 1977.
All dates are 1976 unless otherwise specified.
246 NLRB No. 135
792
SOULE GLASS AND GLAZING CO.
On August 18 the Regional Director for Region I of the
Board approved separate informal settlement agreements in
Cases I-CA- 11856 and I-CA- 11964, and on November 23
those cases were closed conditionally upon the continued
observance of the settlements' terms. On March 4, 1977, the
Regional Office approved another informal settlement
agreement in Case -CA-12549. However, following the
investigation of the charges filed in Case -CA-12866. as
subsequently amended, and Case -CA-12937, on March
II and 30, 1977, respectively the Regional Director on June
14, 1977 revoked his approval of all the settlement agree-
ments in the three previous cases, reopened Cases I-CA-
11856 and I-CA 11964, and advised the parties that all five
cases were to be consolidated for complaint and hearing.
The consolidated complaint, issued on June 27, 1977, as
amended, alleges that Respondents, as a single employer or
as joint employers, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by making unilateral changes without bargaining. re-
fusing the Union's request for information relating to em-
ployee classifications and rates of pay at issue in the nego-
tiations, and withdrawing recognition from the Union on
March 25, 1977. It alleges that Respondents violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by failing and refusing to
reinstate 22 named employees, who went on strike on April
12 and applied for reinstatement on or about March 8,
1977, and who are allegedly unfair labor practice strikers.
Finally, it alleges that Respondents independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting, on or about April 12,
a substantial wage increase to all its nonstriking employees
including replacements, in excess of that which had been
offered to the Union during bargaining, in order to induce
striking employees to return to work: by assualting strikers;
and by offering strikers a wage increase to return to work.
Respondents' answer, as amended, denies the allegations
of unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated com-
plaint, as amended. The allegation that Respondents' busi-
ness operations constitute a single employer or a joint em-
ployer is also denied. It is alleged as a "special defense" that
Presque Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing should
be dismissed from this proceeding since the entity is now
Soule Replacement Co. Lastly. Respondents' answer al-
leges, as affirmative defenses, that Section 10(b) of the Act
bars all of the consolidated charges, particularly Cases I
CA-12866 and -CA-12937: that the Regional Director's
actions revoking the settlement agreements and reopening
Cases I-CA- 11856 and I-CA- 11964 were an abuse of dis-
cretion; that the Union's offer to return the strikers to work
was conditional and refused for legitimate business reasons:
that the strike was not an unfair labor practice strike: that
Respondents' withdrawal of recognition was prompted by
the Union's loss of a majority: and that the acts of the
Regional Director in accepting settlements without making
a finding concerning the nature of the strike prejudiced Re-
spondents, violated the Board's rules in this area, and
should preclude a subsequent finding concerning the strike.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make
the following:
2 Counsel for Respondents submitted an excellent brief which was most
helpful in analyzing the evidence and in understanding the Respondents'
position on all issues. On the other hand, counsel for General Counsel's brief
FINDINGs O- FA(CI
I. THIl BSINESS OF THE RESPONDENIS ANI) I H:IR AI.I tl(;l)
STATtS AS A SIN(GLE IN rF(iRATID N I I RPRISI
A chronological review of the history of the Soule famili
business enterprises at the outset of this Decision is essential
because the relationships which existed among the various
companies and the changes affecting those relationships are
the key to the resolution of difficult issues in this case.
The progenitor of the Soule complex of corpora tions was
Soule Glass and Paint company, established in 1934 and
incorporated in 1936.1 This Company operated under the
same name until January 1975. As of' 1966, when ('harles
Soule first joined the family business, SGP had four loca-
tions: 137 Preble Street, Portland, 785 Main Street, I.ewis-
ton: 89 Hildreth Street: and another location on Oak Street
in Bangor.' From these locations SGP carried on its husi-
ness involving the sale and distribution of paint and glass
products, including auto glass. In addition. another major
phase of the business consisted of the installation of glass
and framing on new construction projects, called contract
work. The Company's executive offices were located at
Preble Street in Portland. In Bangor the distribution of auto
glass and all inside work (defined as work performed in the
shop pursuant to order or brought into the shop by an em-
ployee or a customer) was performed at Oak Street. while
all other phases of the Company's Bangor operations, in-
cluding the contract work, came from the Hildreth Street
facility.
In 1967 SGP moved its executive offices and Portland
auto glass division to a new facility at 127 Marginal Way,
while the paint division, glass distribution division, and
contract office remained at Preble Street around the corner.
From this time the Company embarked upon an expansion
program under the administrative direction of Charles
Soule. In 1968 a major addition was constructed onto the
127 Marginal Way facility and most of the glass distribu-
tion business was moved there. In October 1971 the Com-
pany purchased the assets of King and Dexter Company.
an old established Portland hardware corporation with a
substantial wholesale building, hardware, and specialty
products supply business for the construction trade. and
some retail residential business. The new King and Dexter
Division was installed at the Preble Street facility.'
On July 5. 1972. a new corporation called SOAGC'O (at
times called Soule Auto Glass) was formed for the purpose
of enabling dealers in Soule auto glass to better compete for
the auto glass replacement business made available b in-
surance companies. By October 1973 SOAGC('O operated
was, for the most part, a restatement of his opening argument and. although
it contained helpful case citations, it provided onl~ a cursor) analysis of the
evidence and was not helpful on certain issues. particularl? concerning the
wage increase and the transfer of unit work, where hil psition shifted to a
degree Finally. the statement that "Counsel for General Counsel. of course.
has no intention of going through the entire record to poilnt ,ut where Re-
spondents' witnesses were less than truthful .... since it would be "burden-
some and redundant." followed by almost no analysis of credibilt In critical
areas where the evidence conflicted. is. to sa the least. grosslN inadequate in
a case such as this one. which contains difficult and complex issues.
Hereafter referred to as SGP.
4All the facilities referred to in this Decision are located in the State of
Maine.
Hereafter the King and Dexter Division will be referred to as KD)
793
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from four facilities: 127 Marginal Way. Portland: 600 Main
Street, Bangor: 785 Main Street. .ewiston (covering the
l.ewiston-Waterville area): and Lithgow Street in Winslow.
By this same time KD was also operating from Hildreth
Street. Bangor. and from Lewiston. SGP operated from
Marginal Way. Portland: Lewiston: Waterville: and
Hampden.
In 1973 SGP purchased the assets of GAMC('O in Water-
ville and in 1974 Brunswick Glass in Brunswick. Maine.
A major corporate reorganization began in January 1975.
Once again Charles Soule was the chief architect. SGP
changed its name to Soule Glass Industries and KI) and
SOAGCO merged into the new corporation and became
operating divisions of' the parent corporation.' Charles
Soule became president of SGI. In addition, another new
corporation, Soule Glass and Glazing Co.. was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of SGI.' Stated simply, SGG was
the contract division of the old SGP, elevated to corporate
status. Edward Churchill. former contract division manager
and vice president of SGP under Charles Soule, was elected
president of SGG by the board of GSI. Andrew Soule,
Charles' cousin, also came over to the new corporation as
treasurer.! William Winslow, SGP supervisor. became SGG
superintendent in Portland. In October 1975 SGG-Portland
moved from Marginal Way to 37-A Preble Street.' Other
SGG locations established were at 785 Main Street, Lewis-
ton, where SGP Manager Kenwood Kimball and SGP Su-
pervisor Richard Ray assumed corresponding positions
with SGG: Lithgow Street, Winslow (SGG's Waterville fa-
cility, also under Kimball): and Main Road in Hampden
(frequently referred to as Bangor). a facility set up in 1973
as a separate location for the contract division of SGP in
the Bangor area. Long service SGP Supervisors Edward
Tribou and Roland Partridge were transferred to SGG
Hampden as manager and superintendent, respectively.
Furthermore, the month of' February 1975 saw the cre-
ation of still another Soule family entity in the formation of
a corporation named Presque Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass
and Glazing ('o. in Presque Isle. wholly owned and oper-
ated by SGI management in Poitland through a local man-
ager.
The above chronological summary of the development of
the Soule enterprises shows the status of the organization as
of the beginning of the strike of SGG's employees on April
12. Following the start of' the strike there were further cor-
porate changes. some of which are in issue and will be dis-
cussed in detail later. Following the commencement of the
strike in April, Charles Soule decided to completely rear-
range SGl's method of doing business. In essence SGI now
became an operating company rather than a holding com-
pany. KD and SOAGCO were abolished and their names
disapeared from the scene. SGI not only continued to fiunc-
tion as the payroll and administration headquarters of the
6 Hereafter referred to as SGI.
Hereafter referred to as SGG.
gCharles Soule testified that this appointment was a "lest" of Andrew's
ability to manage, tie also testihed that it wits an attempt "to try to unlock
us from any conflicts that may develop in a family business . ." and that he
felt his cousin "should have a separate responsibility in the business and that
he can feel that he can make his own management decisions."
'About this same time the Portland operations of KD also moved. Its
fabrication operations went to 785 Main Street in Lewiston. while the hard-
ware phase iof the business moved to 127 Marginal Way. Portland
Soule complex. hut now, in addition, became the manufac-
turing entity for the Soule businesses bs assuming the func-
tion previously perfomed by KD. hus. SGI directly ac-
quired the insulating glass manufacturing tfacility at
Hildreth Street in Bangor. the Lewiston labrication shop at
785 Main Street. and the hardware and paint distribution
businesses.u Soule Replacement (o. waits iormed.l SR o.
was actually a combination of Presque Isle (ilass Corpora-
tion and SOAGCO. It was wholls owned by SGI. In addi-
tion to its ancestral facility in Presque Isle. SR Co. acquired
the former SOAGC(O locations at 127 Marginal Way, Port-
land; 785 Main Street. l.ewiston; I.ithgow Street, Winslow:
and 600 Main Street. Bangor. Furthermore, following the
commencement of the SGG strike. SR o. not onlNy in-
stalled auto glass but also was permanently assigned all of
SGG's replacement work formerly performed b bargain-
ing unit employees. SR Co. is managed by Herbert Robert-
son under the supervision of SGI Manager Preston Rich-
ardson. David Dunbar. an SGI Waterville management
trainee, was named SR Co.'s manager in l.ewiston. which
facility started operating sometime in May. Also after the
strike began. SGG closed its Lithgow Street, Winslow (Wa-
terville), and its 785 Main Street. Lewiston, operations.
Manager Kenwood Kimball was shifted to the position of
full-time salesman at a small office SGG obtained in Au-
burn. Lewiston Supervisor Richard Ray was made SGC
Portland supervisor, but he also kept a desk in the Auburn
office from which he directed the activities of a crew of four
SGG strike replacements who performed SGG contract
work in the Lewiston-Waterville area. The closing of Lewis-
ton-Waterville is an issue which requires discussion at a
later stage in this Decision. However, apart from other con-
siderations. the above historical and chronological review
of the development of the various Soule family enterprises
shows how these businesses had evolved as of the time of
the hearing in this case, and their interlocking relationship
to one another.
The General Counsel argues that the various Soule cor-
porations are part of a single integrated enterprise and thus
form either a single employer of joint employers. Respon-
dents contend that SGG is a completely separate and in-
dependent corporation.
The Board has long held that in assessing whether or not
such a series of business organizations constitutes a single
employer or a joint enterprise is dependent on an e alu-
ation of fotur indicators: Interrelation of operations. com-
mon management. common owership or financial control.
and centralized control of labor relations. In the case of
lWe./ern Union (Cororporion, 224 N LRB 274. 276 (1976). the
Board further explicated. "t is well settled that a critical
factor in determining whether separate legal entities oper-
ate as a single employing enterprise is the common control
of labor relations policies, and that common ownership is
not determinative where such requisite common control is
not shown. Moreover. as noted above. such common con-
trol must be actual or active, as distinguished from poten-
tial control .... " Respondents urge that the criteria set
forth by the Board are not satisfied with respect to SGG,
S(i also operated Iwo home decoration husinesscs in Portland at Mar-
ginal Wa3 and South Portland. under the direction of Mrs. Charles Soule.
they are not in issue.
u Hereafter referred to as SR Co
794
SOUI.t GLASS AND) (;I.AZING (CO
particularly concerning the kevstone indicator of central-
ized control of labor relations. I disagree. The interrelation
of operations and the flow of comnion management person-
nel from one corporation to the other have been carefull
traced in the preceding paragraphs of this Decision and
need not he repeated here. Concerning the subject of com-
mon ownership or financial control, in addition to the
above summary of evidence pointing to the fact that control
clearly resides in the Soule family, the parties stipulated to
the foillowing: The stockholders of S(il and the shares thex
own are Frank Soule. Jr.. 83 shares: L)avid Soule. 81
shares; Peter Soule. 83 shares: a marital trust with the ('a-
nal Bank as trustee for Elizabeth Chapman (Andrew
Soule's mother). 243 shares: Andrew Soule. 83 shares;
Charles Soule 577 shares. The corporate directors of Sil
are William Soule. Charles Soule. Elizabheth Chapman. Ro-
land Chabot, Frederick Pape. Joseph Jones. and Howard .
Detner. The officers of SGI are Charles Soule. president;
P. J. Richardson. vice president: and Roland Chabot. trea-
surer. SGI owns all the stock in SR Co., whose directors are
Harold Tate and Roland Chabot. SR Co.'s officers are liar-
old Tate. president, and Roland Chabot. president. SGI
also owns all the stock of SGG, whose directors are Andrew
Soule and Edward B. Churchill, who are also president. and
vice president and treasurer, respectively. It is therefore
crystal clear that the ownership and financial control of the
various Soule enterprises rests solidly in the hands of the
Soule family, and that the majority stockholder of the SGI
is Charles Soule.
Turning to the critical factor of centrialized control of
labor relations. Respondent argues that in addition to the
undisputed facts that SGG maintained a separate main of-
fice and office crew, separate salesmen and separate forms.
SGG also had separate management and pursued its own
labor relations policy. This premise does not withstand
scrutiny. In the first instance. evidence in the record shows
that on limited occasions there was employee interchange. a
specific example of' which was the transfer of Harold Doug-
las, an SGI employee in Hampden. to the SG payroll.
apparently without his knowledge. Also the record shows
that from time to time there was an interchange of equip-
ment. particularly trucks. An examination of the various
locations occupied by the Soule corporation reveals that in
certain instances SGG occupied premises also occupied by
another Soule enterprise. Most important of all, however. is
the undisputed fact, clearly revealed by a close examination
of the record, that Charles Soule is the person who has and
exercises the power to make the major decisions. including
labor relations decisions, fr the entire Soule complex, in-
cluding SGG;. Edward Churchill. S(i's president. was pro-
moted to this position after sucessfull- serving as SCiP's
contract manager and vice president under Charles Soule.
In these circumstances, considered in the light of SGlI's
stock distribution, it is clear where his allegiance lies.': Like-
wise. Charles testified that he considered Andrew's appoint-
ment as vice president and treasurer of SCGG a "test" of his
ability to manage and that "the fmily'' felt he should have
'. At one point in his eslmolny Churchill , as ked it he meant to contra-
dict the prior testilmn oI Charles Soule. ('hurchill answered, "I wouldn't
dare "
this opportuitl. Although it is true that C(harles also testi-
tied that he had nothing hatsoeer t d1o with the maniilge-
ment of SG(;, he also testified Ilhit ill his traTels around the
State of \laine from location to location he met v ith alnd
was kept advised of what as going on at (SG(. lie at-
tended SGG(i budget meetings and also dropped in iat S(i
for "triendly" conversations about the business from' tmle
to time. Charles Soule agreed that he was kept apprised of
SCGi's negotiations with the Lnion. This testimonN is con-
firmed bs that of Iocal 1516's business agent andl inancial
secretars, Walter Dolbow. an S(;i striking lazier at Port-
land, who stated that, at various key points in the negotia-
tions with SCi management. Chief Negotiator and (orpo-
rate l.abor ('ounsel Alan J. Leenson found it necessar to
request recesses to consult with "mv client." or with "C(har-
lie." although Andrew Soule and Edward Churchill were in
attendance. In the final analysis, however, it is the testi-
mony of Alan J. Levenson and of Charles Soule himself
which proves that it is Charles who ultimately charts SGG's
course in the field of labor relations. Thus., according to
both l.evenson and Charles Soule, at a highly critical period
in the latter stages of SGG(ii's negotiations with the Union. as
Levenson was in the process of formulating his "agenda"
fior presentation to the Union. evenson and Soule dis-
cussed Charles' idea of closing the l.ewiston-Waterville
shop and having SGR take over all the outside replacement
work previously done by SGG. I.evenson and Charles
Soule discussed how Charles wanted to see SR Co. function
in the context of I.evenson's efforts to draft proposals for
presentation to the Linion, which he thereafter did. While it
is true that the record shows there were other discussions of
this topic between Levenson and the other principals. and
between Charles and Andrew and [Edward Churchill. the
fact remains that it was Charles. the acknowledged leader
over the years in the developmeni of the Soule complex of
companies, who put into motion the changes which had a
dramatic effect on SC's negotlations with the tnion. I
find that Soule Glass and (lazing Co.: Soule Replacement
(o. (at other times known ais Presque Isle Glass db/a
Soule (ilass and Glazing): and Soule (ilass Industries are
now and have been at all times material herein a single
integrated enterprise, and ais such constitute a single em-
ployer. hereafter referred to as Respondent.'" Since it is ad-
mitted that in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions each of' the Respondent's companies annually receis es
goods and materials valued in excess of S50.(XX) directly
from points outside the State of Maine. and annually per-
fi'rms services valued in excess of' 550.0X) lfor enterprises
engaged directly in interstate commerce. I find that the Re-
spondent is i single employer engaged in conmmerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act.
1I. A)R OR(GA i/A tII()N
Glaziers Local Union 1516, International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades. ALl ('10. is a labor organiza-
tion ithin the nleaning of Section 2(c5 oft the Act.
" In the alternaltve I .ould find. on the hb,>L , the silne vidence an lfor
the sanme reasons. that Repondents companics ire Ioint templ,\ers
795
I)F61(ISIONS OF NAT IONAL ABOR RIATI()ONS BOARI)
111. Illi t[INAIR tABOR PRA( 11( 1 S
A. I.ahor Relations Hivlorv
Employees of Respondent in Portland. Maine. have been
represented by the Union since 1945 when Respondent was
SGP. KD employees voted for the Union in a Board-con-
ducted election in 1969. and during that year SP' negoti-
ated a 3-year collective-bargaining agreement for a unit of
"all glaziers. apprentice glaziers, inside glass workers, metal
fabricators, and truckdrivers. excluding all office clerical
employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards and
supervisors." As SGP continued to expand to additional
locations the Union also came to be recognized as bargain-
ing agent for those employees. Thus, in 1970 SGP signed a
contract with the Union fr an identical unit of its employ-
ees at the Bangor branch. As time went on and the various
Soule enterprises became specialists in three broad catego-
ries of the glass and paint business-- i.e., inside and outside
glazing; glass cutting, fabricating, and warehousing and
metal fabricating; and auto glass cutting and installation
following a strike in 1973 the Union and the Respondent
negotiated three distinct contracts covering separate units.
Each contract had an expiration date of March 31. The
SGP unit was "all glaziers, apprenctice glaziers, and inside
glass workers . .." with the same exclusions. The KD con-
tract covered "all glass cutters and fabricators, warehouse
men, truckdrivers, and metal fabricators..." with the same
exclusions. THe SOAGCO contract was fi)r a unit of "all
glass cutters and auto glass installers . . ." with the same
exclusions. Thereafter, with the advent of SGI and SG,
KD assumed the inside glass work while SGG acquired the
outside replacement work in addition to its primary func-
tion as the construction contract division of Respondent.
Thus, Waterville-l.ewiston Manager Kimball estimated
that in his area outside replacement work represented ap-
proximately 30 percent of the total work. Supervisor Rich-
ard Ray estimated that the amount of time was approxi-
mately I or 2 workdays per week for two men. Andrew
Soule testified that 10 to 11 percent of SGG's 1975 work
was glass replacement. There were isolated instances in
which the Union learned that a crew of KD employees
supervised by Albert Bettney was surreptitiously perform-
ing outside glazing jobs; however, The Union grieved the
matter, which was settled by an agreement that the outside
work belonged to SGG employees."
Next, as described earlier, in February 1975 SGI formed
Presque Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing. From
the outset this corporation remained nonunion. The final
historical development in the Respondent's labor relations
history prior to the strike was the filing otf separate RM
petitions for the KD and SOAGCO bargaining units which
resulted in the decertification of the Union in these units on
March 24, 1976. just as the SGG negotiations. which com-
menced on February 21, were reaching a critical phase, and
the contract was about to expire.
4 These findings concerning the SG(i employees' exclusive rights to out-
side work is based on a credited portion of the testimony oit Walter l)olbow,
which is corrotborated by the testimony of the Respondent's witness. Albert
Betrney.
B. 7/1e (/lltir lihor Pra(lice'. Relatig to the 1/97( SG(i
(Conltrauc .'Vegotitlitotls
'Ihere were 17 bargaining sessions between Respondent
and the Union: February 21, March 12 and 13, April 8 and
9. May 6, 7, and 25. June 18, August 6 and 27. September
14 and 15. October 18 and 22, November 22. and Decem-
ber 9. The chief negotiator for the Union was James ol-
croft, a general representative who led his side of the nego-
tiations until superseded by the Union's attorney, David M.
Cohen. Gerald F. Petruccelli served as chief union negotia-
tor at the August 27 meeting. Ileading up the union com-
miltee were ocal President David Bates and Business
Agent and Financial Secretary Walter Dolbow, who substi-
tuted on occasion as chief union negotiator in Hlolcroft's
absence. Respondent's bargaining team was composed of
its chief negotiator and labor relations counsel. Alan J. Lev-
enson.'' Mayo Levenson, senior partner in the firm of Lev-
enson & L.evenson. who substituted for Alan as chief nego-
tiator for the Company at the May 25 meeting and also
attended the June 18 and August 6 and 27 sessions; Edward
Churchill, president of SG(G: and SGG's vice president and
treasurer, Andrew Soule.
At the outset of the negotiations the parties agreed to
negotiate in the traditional manner: i.e.. to resolve the non-
economic issues before the economic issues were consid-
ered. Bargaining in this fashion during the earls sessions of
the negotiations. all noneconomic issues were agreed upon,
and by the April 9 meeting only the issue of wages re-
mained unsettled.l Moreover, a portion of the wage issue
had been agreed to, by the adoption of a clause which fior
the first time divided S(iG's operations throughout the
State of Maine into three geographical wage zones. All that
remained to be negotiated was the amount of the wage in-
crease. Since the 1973 contract had expired on March 31.
the Company and the Union had agreed to extend that
0I Alan J. .esvenson was labohr counsel r SGP. and as such negotiated the
1973 contract with the Union. Therealter he represented SGI and was in-
volved in its organization into all of its various divisions.
'r Except where indicated the summary' of the events which transpired at
each of the subsequent bargaining sessions is based on an amalgam o the
testimony of Walter Dolbow. Alan J I.evenson, Mayo evenslon Edward
Churchill. and Andrew Soule with respect to the meetings at which each of
these persons was present. By far the greater amount of testimony concern-
ing the actual bargaining was adduced by )oltbow, and L.evenson. Ilolcroft
did not testi. I)olhbow impressed me s an honest witness who was attempt-
ing to remember is best he could the events which occurred at each ofa long
series iof negotiating meetings which endedl almost a year prior to his appear-
ance as witness. Considering the fact that D)olbow testified entirely without
the use of notes he displayed a remarkable abilits to remember detail and.
except where otherwise indicated. was al credible witness for the General
Counsel. evenson on the other hand displayed a poor independent memory
concerning what transpired at the bargaining table. despite his status as the
Respondent's chief negotiator and labor relations counsel, and found it nec-
essary, lir the most part to rel 5 on notes while testifying about the bargain-
ing sessions In addition, as did his lather Mayo l.evenson. when he testified.
I.evensn requentls departed from ;I precise exposition of the acts. and
launched into sellsersing speeches concernng his thought prcrcesses and
conclusuionarY assertilns about Respiondent's good intentions. In addition.
when serving at the hearing in the other 1of his dual capacities as Respon-
dent's chief trial counsel. Ievenson adduced much testimony from important
witnesses for Respondent including Charles Soule, Edward hurchill, and
Andrew Soule. through the repeated use of leading questions supplying an-
swers relating to crucial issues. despite admonishments from the bench. I
have thoroughly and carefully considered all of the abose factors in writing
this D)ecision. particularly concerning the findings of fact relating to Respon-
dent's conduct during the negotiations.
796
SOU()l. GL.ASS AND (GIAZING C(O.
contract until April 9, with the understanding that any raise
agreed upon would be retroactive to April 1. At the April 9
meeting. which ended during the early morning hours of
April 10, Union Representative Holcroft proposed a $1.10
per hour raise in the minimum glazier's rate on the basis of
a I-year contract. This was rejected by the Company, and
Alan Levenson countered with 15 cents and 10 cents, and
15 cents and 10 cents in 6-month intervals in a 2-year con-
tract. Thereafter, the union membership met to consider the
Company's proposal, and rejected it.
The SGG bargaining unit employees went on strike dur-
ing the early morning hours of April 12. That afternoon
Charles Soule approved pay raises f;or Respondent's non-
striking employees. The amount of the raise was a flat
across-the-board 25 cents per hour retroactive to April I."
Charles Soule testified that historically pay increases tbr
these employees had come about April I because in the
past some of these employees had been under labor con-
tracts. According to Charles Soule, "April 12 arrived, and I
became very aware of the fact that because of certain picket
lines were in front of our locations, then maybe it was time
to act upon granting a wage increase. So I gathered the
information and consulted with my payroll clerk, Mrs.
Murray, and after assembling all the information decided
that a flat $10, or 25-cent raise per hour was appropriate at
that particular time." Thus, it is clear on the basis of
Charles Soule's testimony that the picketing of Respondent
precipitated the granting of a wage increase on the opening
day of the strike, which was over and above the Company's
wage offer to its bargaining unit employees. Under these
circumstances there can be little doubt that Respondent's
intention was to emphasize to the strikers at the very outset
of the strike that it did not pay to support their Union.
Alba-Waldensian, Inc.. 167 NLRB 695, 696 (1967): Chanii-
cleer, Inc., 161 NLRB 241. 252 (1966). I find that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)( I) and (5) of the Act on April 12
by granting this unilateral wage increase for nonstriking
employees, greater than what was offered to employees in
the bargaining unit."
The first meeting between the parties for negotiations fol-
lowing the start of the strike tk place on May 6. At this
meeting Dolbow presented those present with contract lan-
guage embodying what had been agreed to, including a pro-
vision sought by the Company dividing the State of Maine
into three geographical wage zones. At this point Levenson
announced that the Company had decided to close its
Lewiston-Waterville shop and, consequently, now wanted
two wage zones instead of the three previously agreed to.'"
17' he Union learned of the wage increase ver) shortly thereafter through
nonstrikers' conversations with the pickets he wage increase was reported
to the Union's membership at a meeting a few days later, and the member-
ship voiced its dissatisfaction at this development.
1i Although the complaint, as amended, alleges this conduct only as a
violation of Sec. 8(aX 1) of the Act, the facts on which this additional finding
of an 8(aX5) violation is based are the same and were fully litigated. It is well
established that an employer may violate Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act during
negotiations by the conduct of its supervisors and agents away from the
bargaining table. Chatham Manufacturing Cornmpanv, 172 NL.RB 1948. 1978
(1968).
"9 Kenwood Kimball, manager of Leviston-waterville at that time, testi-
fied that he first learned the facility was to close about May 1, but that it
actually closed about May 15. His testimony is supported by that of Edward
Churchill. tLeenson testified that before May 5 the decision ar made to
close ILewiston-Waterville and hae the cris rkl out ol their homes.
Levenson explained that SGCi was going to operate
through a supervisor, and that the employees on the work
crews would report directly to the jobs from their homes
instead of from the warehouses. le said they would have to
negotiate what to do with the employees. There fllowed a
discussion concerning what would become of the two Wa-
terville and five Lewiston employees. I.evenson also said
that the Company had decided to work the Waterville crew
out of the Bangor shop while the Lewiston crew would be
assigned to SGG's Portland operations. He then gave the
Union a seniority list which showed the Lewiston employ-
ees merged with Portland and the Waterville employees
merged with those in Bangor. At this point Walter Dolbow
noticed a discrepancy' in that Lewiston employee Roland
Ray's name was missing. He questioned Levenson about
the omission. Levenson responded that Roland Ray no
longer worked for SGG but worked for "another com-
pany." When Dolbow asked what company, Levcnson n-
.swerred Iutat Dolhbot would have to find out rom Ray'. Thus,
Levenson concealed from the Union, for the time being, the
advent of SR Co.. by which Roland Ray had become em-
ployed pursuant to Charles Soule's starting to set up re-
placement centers during the latter part of April.2 " It was
SR Co. that thereafter took over SGG's outside replace-
ment work which had always been bargaining unit work. It
is therefore clear that at the May 6 meeting Respondent not
only reneged on the previously agreed-to three wage zone
section of the contract, but also withheld from the Union
important information directly relating to bargaining about
the effects on employees of the closing of the Waterville-
Lewiston shop,2 ' which was a firt accompli.
The subject of wages was also discussed at this meeting.
Levenson testified that he had "a vague recollection about a
passing reference or a general proposal" hby the Union for a
2-year contract with an increase of 81 cents per hour the
first year followed by 93 cents per hour the second. This
proposal was not accepted. The Company offered no coun-
terproposal on wages. The Union rejected the Company's
two zone proposal relating to Lewiston-Waterville. and the
meeting ended.
The parties resumed negotiations on May 7 in the pres-
ence of a mediator. Holcroft and Levenson met alone, dur-
ing which time Holcroft offered a 3-year contract with a
wage increase of 26 cents each 6 months for the first year.
29 cents every 6 months for the second year, and 54 cents at
the outset of the third year. Holcroft also wanted an accre-
tion clause in connection with the closing of the Lewiston-
Waterville shop. After a caucus the Company returned to
"" Charles Soule testified that he started setting up replacement centers in
late April. but from "an accounting standpoint" not until June. He testified
that SR Co. name signs first appeared on Respondent's buildings in Jul or
August, but that there were no name changes on Respondent's trucks Dol-
bow testified that the Union first found out about the existence of SR Co
around May 10 12 when pickets reported seeing SR Co. signs on trucks and
on the Lewiston warehouse. He then investigated and fLund out that Roland
Ray worked for SR Co. To the extent Charles Soule's testimony conflicls
with that of Dolbo on this point. I credit Dolbow.
'' Levenson admitted that Respondent had previously agreed to the three
zone proposal and that the parties discussed combining the Lewiston-Port-
land and Waierville-Bangor senionty list. He also testified that it was "my
intention" to talk about the effects of the Waterville-Lewiston closing and
how it was going to opeiate. Levenson's testimony about this meeting
omitted any reference to the colloquy with Dolbow about Roland Ray To
the extent his testimony differs from that of Dolhbow. I credit Dolhow.
797
I)l.(lISIONS OF NAIO()NAl I.ABOR R:EI.ATIONS BOARDI
the bargaining table and rejected the Union's proposal. At'-
ter some further discussion about the l ewiston-Waiterville
closing, 1Holcroft accused the C'ompany of trying to get non-
union shops. I.evenson answered that they intended to do
as they pleased. and that he could not guarantee anything.
The Union again stated that it would not agree to the Com-
pany's Lewiston-Waterville proposal. Then l.evenson
stated that he would put a wage proposal on the table. but
that he wanted a commitment from the Union's bargaining
committee that their membership would accept it before he
put it on the table. The Union answered that it they' gave
the Company such a guarantee the C('ompany would have to
give a similar guarantee in return. At this point, although
Andrew Soule and Edward Churchill were present. the
meeting adjourned in order that l.evenson could consult
with "his client," referred to at other times during the nego-
tiations as "Charlie." Upon resuming the meeting that eve-
ning in L.evenson's office. Levenson informed the Union
that he had not been able to sell "his client" on the pro-
posal. The Company then offered the Union a 2-year con-
tract with a wage increase divided into 6-month increments
of 20 and 15 cents, and 21 and 15 cents, which the lnion
did not accept. There was no mention of SR ('o. at this
meeting."2
At the May 25 bargaining session a short session Ilol-
croft adopted the position that every thing was settled in the
contract except wages and that this was what he wished to
discuss. On the other hand l.evenson kept insisting on dis-
cussing other issues relating to the strike, including the
Company's hiring of permanent replacements. No progress
was made and the meeting ended.
The next collective-bargaining meeting took place on
June 18. In Holcroft's absence, Dolbow served as chief' ne-
gotiator for the Union. He told the Company that every-
thing in the contract was settled except wages, and that this
was all he wanted to discuss. Nevertheless. the (Company
raised the subject of its hiring strike replacements, and the
record shows there was some discussion of this topic. I)ol-
bow reduced the Union's wage proposal again to 9( cents
and I-year contract. he (Company rejected the proposal
and the meeting ended.
The next negotiating session was held on August 6. Int the
interim important events had occurred. On June 25 Re-
spondent's supervisors, including Edward Churchill. at-
tempted to induce strikers to return to work by offering
them a raise, and engaged in strike violence as described in
a later section of' this Decision. Also. during this period,.
Charles Soule decided to transfer permanently the n;ajorit
of Respondent's replacement work, lormerly performed b
bargaining unit employees, to SR Co. Beginning around the
middle of June he discussed this idea with both Andre,
Soule and Alan Levenson as a logical and profitable lil-
lowup of the l.ewiston-Waterville closing. No mention of
this effect of the leuiston-Waterville closing was made to
the Union at the June 18 meeting. However. as discussed
earlier in this [)ecision Levenson and Charles Soule dis-
cussed the permanent transfer of the replacement work
from SGG to SR Co. during this interim period in connec-
2 I.tevensoln testified hal at he end of the meeting. aboul I .r. i, rlcrott
stated that the parties were at impasse. Dolbow denied that Ilolcrott charac-
terl7ed the negtiallons in this manner. I credit Dolhblv.
tion with l.evenson's preparation of a proposal and a writ-
ten agenda for the forthcoming August 6 meeting. I)uring
these discussions Charles Soule spelled out for Levenson
how the new arrangement, utilizing SR Co. to do the re-
placement work, would operate.
UInion Attorney David Cohen took over as chief union
negotiator for the first time at the August 6 session. Cohen
wanted to discuss wages, the remaining item in the con-
tract, and wind up the negotiations. lie took the position
that every thing else was settled. At this po)int evenson pro-
duced his "agenda" document ((i.(. lxh. 21), an outline of
topics he wished to discuss at the meeting, which he distrib-
uted to the conferees. 'Ihis document for the first time dur-
ing the negotiations acknowledged the existence of SR Co.
and its resulting permanent effect of depriving the bargain-
ing unit of the replacement work. levenson stated that
these changes were in force. Levenson read from the agenda
and for the first time fully explained the full scope of the
corporate reorganization. He took the position that the
C'ompany had the right to modify any of its previous pro-
posals since a complete agreement had not yet been
reached. He then made further proposals. outlined in the
agenda, which were significant changes from what had pre-
viously been agreed to. These were a change in the jurisdic-
tion of' work clause, the elimination of the apprenticeship
plan, modification of the grievance and arbitration clauses,
a clause stating "it is understood that the Union does not
and will not have any interest or authority over wages,
hours, or working conditions of any employees of the par-
ent or affiliate or subsidiary companies of this Company,"
changes in the vacation pay and insurance clauses, a no-
retaliation clause, and a change in the pension clause. The
oral presentation by l.evenson included remarks extolling
the work performance of the strike replacements and how
well the shift of outside replacement work from SGG to SR
Co. had worked during the strike. Levenson testified that at
the end oft' his presentation he could not recall Attorney
Cohen saying anything in response to this proposal. Consid-
ering the staggering consequetices of' Ievenson's presenta-
tion one cannot be surprised that there was no immediate
reply. However. evenson conceded that the parties did dis-
cuss insurance and "some other things." He noted some-
what parenthetically in his testimony that there was a lot of
discussion as to who was bargaining in good faith. No
agreement was reached, and there was no shift in position
b, either party with respect to wages.
At the Augtust 27 meeting Mayo Levenson substituted for
,\lan as chief' negotiator for the Company, since Alan was
sick. Inion Attorne (Gerald 1'. Petruccelli, sq., substi-
tuted lor (Cohen as chief union negotiator. At this meeting
the nion reduced its wage proposal to an 80-cent-an-hour
increase and a I-year contract, but this proposal was re-
jected ad the company stood firm on the same proposal it
had offered the Union before the strike began.
I'here is almost no evidence of what transpired at the
September 14 aind 15 meetings. Dolbo omitted any men-
tioii of these sessions in his testimony and l.evenson stated
that he did not have a clear recollection as to what tran-
spired because he did not take any notes, but thinks that
Cohen passed out a sheet at one of these meetings summa-
rizing what other trades received in wages over a period of
years.
798
SOLI.E GI.ASS ANt) (il.AZIN(i CO.
At the October 18 meeting the parties continued to dis-
cuss comparative wage rates with other trades, with l.even-
son arguing that SGG compared avorably because the?
had permanent jobs instead of a hiring hall. The Union
altered its wage proposal to 80 cents per ear for a 2-sear
contract. which the Company rejected. There was conlin-
ued discussion of the Company's proposed modified juris-
diction of work clause, hut no agreement was reached on
this or the two-zone proposal which the C('ompanN contin-
ued to demand.
At the October 22 meeting Levenson stated that the
Company had hired replacements who had proven satistc-
tory. lHe said that the strike replacements were "better men
for less money" and thus the Company was not inclined to
raise its wage offer. Cohen responded that the parties were
down to "the nitty gritty." the critical issue was wages, and
he thought the other issues could be resolved. Cohen re-
minded Levenson that the Union had moved several times
from their original position, and that it was now up to the
Company to move. However, the Company made no re-
vised wage offer. Levenson mentioned the possibility of of-
fering the Lewiston men some sort of superseniority. but the
Union talked in terms of an integrated seniority list with a
preference for Lewiston work, as long as no one was laid
off. Although there is no evidence that any agreement was
reached on this issue as a result of this discussion. Levenson
testified that he concluded the Lewiston closing issue was
settled. I find that it was not. At the conclusion of the meet-
ing Cohen said he was flexible and wanted another meeting.
but Levenson responded that if' Cohen was flexible he
should put his proposal in writing and then another meet-
ing would be scheduled.
In any event another meeting was held on November 22.
After a number of subjects were discussed. Cohen asked the
Company for wage information on those employees Re-
spondent had hired after the strike began to do bargaining
unit work, in order to justify the Company's wage position.
After some discussion concerning whether or not the Union
had a legal right to this information, Levenson told Cohen
to put the request in writing, and he would respond. Thus.
Cohen wrote to Levenson on November 23 as follows:
This will confirm my request made during yesterday's
negotiating session held at Commissioner LaPoint's of-
fice that the Company furnish or cause to be furnished
to me on behalf of the Union as soon as possible and in
any event prior to December 9. 1976, which is the
scheduled date for the next negotiating session, infor-
mation showing for each laborer-employee ( 1) the em-
ployee's name. (2) classification. job description, title
or the like. (3) his or her hourly wage and average
number of hours worked weekls as of February 21.
1976 and April 22. 1976. (4) any change in hourly
wage or average number of hours worked weekl at
any time since April 12. 1976 specifying the date(s) of
such change(s), the amount(s) of change(s) in hourly
wage and/or average hours worked weekly. and (5)
any changes since April 12, 1976 in any and all benefits
specif'ing all particulars of and relating to such
changes. The term "laborer-employee" as used herein
is intended to include, but not hby way of limitation. all
auto glass workers, inside glass workers, helpers and
glaziers. his information is requested with respect to
all laborer-employees of Soule Gilass Industries, Soule
Glass and Cilazing Co.. Soule Gilass Replacement C(o.,
Presque Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing. and
Soule Glass Replacement Co. Ihe purpose of this in-
Ibilation request and the need ftor such information is
to permit the Union to bargain intelligently with the
(ompany as to wages and benefits and, with respect to
same, to understand, evaluate and discuss with the
C(ompany at the next scheduled and any further nego-
tiations its wage and benefit position as explained by
you at yesterdays negotiating session.
At their final bargaining session on December 9 esen-
son gave the Union his written reply. as fllows:
This is in response to your November 23. 1976, letter
to me concerning the above.
I have reviewed the request carefully and have the
following comments onl it. As ou will recall, this re-
quest by you came at the very end of the November 22
negotiating session. It was prompted by the position
taken by myself that Soule Glass and Glazing Com-
pany during the strike had been able to hire better men
for less money and that. from a strictly economic point
of' view of supply and demand, it did not make any
sense to pay any more than ,ur last offer when, in fact.
we had found that it was possible to acquire a better
labor frce for even less than the current rate. I think
that, at the time. I indicated what I meant by better
was in regard to spirit and productivity if not necessar-
ily glazing expertise.
In assessing your request for more information, the
company has had some doubts concerning the purpose
of the request particularly coming as it did after eight
months of a strike and as the parting shot on the six-
teenth meeting. This is also particularly true in light of
the numerous unfair labor practices the union has filed
against the company, including the one now pending
on appeal. At the same time, if your clients are sincere
that the request is to more "intelligently" bargain with
the company. we would like to be able to accommo-
date them. and also quite trankly, we do not want to
give them ammunition for indeed another unfair labor
charge.
At the same time, we have a ery great obligation to
protect the new men hired from coercive conduct and
harassing tactics such as the union agreed not to fur-
ther continue in its posting notice in case number I
CB -3412.
We have. therefore, concluded that we will provide
you with the wages presently received by the men now
employed by Soule (ilass and Glazing without specifi-
cally naming the men. If there is any question about
the eracity of the wage rates herein related, we are
prepared to offer the names along with substantiating
material to an independent third party so that it can be
,erified. With regard to our request for hours, to do
an nalssis of each individual man would inolve a
great deal of difliculth in time and effort in preparing
such a list. We have. however, as a preliminary step.
prepared a list of the total overtime hours per week on
a weekls basis from April 18. 1976. to date along with
799
I)DECISI()NS OF NATIONAI IABOR REL.ATIONS BOARI)
the number of men that were employed by the com-
pany that week. By dividing the same, you can get a
pretty good average as to the number of hours worked
per man. We think that, at this stage of the proceed-
ings, this should be sufficient for you to bargain intelli-
gently.
With regard to the parent company, Soule Glass In-
dustries, and the sister company, Soule Replacement
Company, as you know the men of both of these com-
panies decertified the union in separate elections in
March, and we do not understand that the law requires
any disclosure of information concerning these compa-
nies. For your information, the supervision and the
physical headquarters are both separate from Soule
Glass and Glazing and each company has a distinct
and separate identity. For these reasons, unless you
can demonstrate either a legal precedent or a rational
motivation for information, our inclination is to not
make disclosure.
With regard to the specific questions asked, the com-
pany, during the striker period, has not classified any
new employees. If you had to call them something,
perhaps the best description would be strike replace-
ments. During the term of the strike, the company has
not made any changes in benefits. The remaining infor-
mation is attached.
It is my hope that this information will be satisfac-
tory.
Attached to the document were two lists. The first con-
tained a week-by-week listing of the total number of over-
time hours worked by nonsupervisory SGG employees,
without any names. The second list, which also did not
contain names, and was simply numbered I through 34,
was a list of wage rates under a heading entitled "Present
Wage Rates of Soule Glass and Glazing Employees." No
further information was furnished to the Union until March
18, 1977, following the settlement of Case I-CA 12549, ap-
proved by the Regional Director on March 4, 1977. On
March 18, 1977, Alan J. Levenson wrote the following let-
ter to David Cohen:
I enclose herewith information concerning the
names and hourly wages of the strikers as of the week
of February 21, 1976. As you know, they did not work
on the week of April 12, 1976, so there are no figures
for that week. Also, please find enclosed the names and
hours per week of each replacement commencing on
the week they were hired up until the week of Novem-
ber 28, 1976. Also, please find enclosed the names and
hours of the employees in Soule Replacement Com-
pany who at any time have done replacement work
during the period you requested.
In the meantime, on March 8, 1977. Cohen wrote to Lev-
enson offering to return the strikers to work and proposing
alternative dates in March for the resumption of negotia-
tions:
I understand from the Region I Office of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board that the settlement
agreement in Case No. 1 CA-12,549 was approved by
the Regional Director on March 14, 1977.
I have been authorized to inform the Company,
through you. that the following striking members of
Glaziers l1ocal Union 1516 hereby make unconditional
application for immediate reinstatement to their em-
ployment positions with Soule Glass & Glazing Co.:
Ralph Adams
David Bates
Owen Bishop
Lester Brown
Ronald Bumpus
Earl Curtis
Walter Dolbow
Harold Douglas
Carleton French
Carl Gaudett
James Huntley
Myron Levine
George Light
Liborio Maceli
Kenneth Macleod
Girard Richard
Joseph Richards
Ronald Russell
Henry Ward
James Wright
Gary Reynolds
Rodney Mallory
I look forward to hearing from you on the matter as
soon as possible.
I also look forward to receiving from you, on behalf
of Soule Glass, without further delay the information
which, by the terms of the settlement agreement, Soule
Glass is obligated to furnish to the Union.
Notwithstanding the Company's stated disinterest in
any further negotiating sessions, the Union is anxious
to arrange another such session. I suggest any of the
following dates beginning at 10:00 in the morning:
March 15. 16, 18, 21. 23 and 25. My office is available
for the purpose. Again. I expect that we will receive
the requested information from the Company within
the next few days and will therefore have adequate
opportunity to review the same before the resumption
of negotiations on any of the submitted dates.
On March 10(), 1977 Levenson responded stating that
Cohen's request "must be considered carefully before mak-
ing a definitive reply." There followed a request by the
Company for Andrew Soule to conduct individual 15-min-
ute interviews with each striker who had applied for rein-
statement on March 14 and 15, after which "the Company
will then be in a position to contact the men with regard to
your application for reinstatement on their behalf'" The
letter ended with a discussion of dates on which Levenson
would be able to resume negotiations, the suggestion that
"both sides come equipped with recording equipment" and
a repetition of a remark ISevenson made at the December 9
meeting to the effect that it did not make any sense to con-
tinue to meet unless the Union modified its position.
On March II Cohen answered Levenson's letter of
March 10. Cohen wrote:
Thank you for your letter dated March 10, 1977. So
that our position is clear, my letter to you of March 8,
1977 requests the unconditional reinstatement, as a
group, of the strikers named therein to their former or
equivalent jobs with the Company. All of them, for all
relevant purposes, have been and are unfair labor
practice strikers. As such, they are entitled to reinstate-
ment as a matter of right. For this reason, these strikers
decline the Company's personal interview request, con-
tained in your letter, at this time. To the extent that
submission of the strikers to such personal interviews is
800
S()tUL (GLASS A\N) Gi.AZIN(G (CO.
intended to be made a condition of reinstatenent bh
the Company, it is the Itnion's position that such a
condition is unla`vful. I might add that the Union
would assert as a separate and distinct basis for object-
ing to the insistence on such personal interviews as a
condition of reinstatement of either unfiir labor prac-
tice strikers or economic strikers the act that neither
the striking employees nor the Union have ever been
made aware of the existence of such a Company policy
or its application to any individual other than one
seeking initial employment, Indeed, on previous occa-
sions when striking members of' this Union have ap-
plied for reinstatement with the (ompany. they have
never been requested to submit to a such interviews.
Accordingly. we continue to await the ('omlpanyl's re-
sponse to the reinstatement application as made.
With respect to the scheduling of another negotiat-
ing session. it' you and the ('omp n are unwilling to
meet earlier than March 28. 1977 at ten o'clock in the
morning, then we will meet then in our empty set of
otlices as you have suggested.
I.evenson anssered this letter on March 21. lie advised
Cohen that the Comlpany had decided it would not rein-
state l.ocal 15 16's President I)avid Bates "because of strike
misconduct." The letter concluded with l.eenson's reject-
ing Cohen's contention that the strike was an unfair labor
practice strike, and insisting" that the circumstances of this
strike have al.avs been motivated b economics." On
March 21 Andrew Soule also wrote a letter to D)avid Bates
stating that he would not be reinstated because of strike
misconduct. In a final letter on March 25. 1977. from l.e-
enson to Cohen the Company withdrew recognition of l.o-
cal 1516 as collective-bargaining agent for the SGG bar-
gaining unit and refused immediate reinstatement of the
strikers. Ievenson statled:
I have been away for the past week and today in
discussing this whole problem with Company officials
in light of your last two letters, and the circumstances
in general. have come to the conclusion that to hold a
meeting on behalf of the Company with the Union on
Monday would be without purpose. I am writing this
to you today so that if Mr. Holcroft intended to attend
from Pittsburgh, this expense could be saved.
The Company doubts that Local 1516 continues to
represent the bargaining unit at Soule Glass & Glazing
Company. Indeed, there is even doubt concerning your
representations as the agent of all of the 22 strikers.
However, even assuming the desire and eligibility of
the 22 in returning, the Company now has many more
than that number of replacements. Our information is
that they have no interest in representation by the
Union. (Indeed, if Mr. Holcroft's characterization of
them on May 25, 1976, as snakes, scabs, etc. is to be
believed, the union has no interest in representing
them.) The Company, therefore, is herewith withdraw-
ing recognition of the Union as the established bar-
gaining representative for Soule Glass & Glazing Com-
pany. For your information, upon proper application.
the Company will reinstate those strikers who so desire
when openings occur under the dictates of the law of
the National Labor Relations Board, for economic
strikers and the settlement agreement which w:as ex-
ecuted.
|;arlier in this Decision I hae found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)( l and (5) of the Act on April 12 bh
gra nting a wage increase to its nonstriking employees (later
also received by the strike replacements} over and above
what had been offered to the Union in negotiations. I fur-
ther find that Respondent i olated Section 8(a)(5)and (I) of
the Act by reneging on its agreement with the Union con-
cerning the three-wage-zone clause, by unilateralls closing
its I.esiston-Waterville operations without full, revealing
anl discussing all the effects of this closure on the employ-
ees, and by unilaterally and permanentl assigning hbargain-
ing unit replacement work to SR Co. without ad.ance no-
tice and bargaining w ith the Union prior to the time this
change was placed in eect. In my view each of these ac-
tions is related to the other. Charles Soule started setting up
replacement centers in late April. his was the real advent
of SR Co. It is clear that by the May 6 collective-bargaining
session Roland Ray was already working for SR ('o.. but
this tfact was concealed from the Union. The Respondent
had already decided to close its L.ewiston-Waterville tfacility
and work the crews from their homes, in order to set the
stage for the day when SR ('o. would become fully opera-
tional and would he in a position to take over S(i(i's re-
placement work. 'his plan. in Respondent's view, required
only two wage zones instead of the three it had originally
proposed and agreed upon. Consequently, at the May 6
meeting the Respondent reneged on its previous agreement.
l.evenson then presented the Ulnion with a iti accomnpli, the
l.ewiston-Waterville closing, with the crews beginning to
work out of their homes. Although the Company then "dis-
cussed with the Union some of the effects of the closing of
l.ewiston-Waterville on the employees, there was no mean-
ingful bargaining since Respondent had unilaterally de-
cided upon the effects as well. Furthermore. Respondent
did not discuss all of those effects, which included its
planned SR Co. operations. Thus, Respondent unilaterally
changed important working conditions of its bargaining
unit employees at Lewiston-Waterville without advance no-
tice and bargaining about all of the important effects of this
decision on its employees. Although the Union suspected
that something unusual was happening because of new
signs on buildings, the Company's resistance to an accertion
clause, and remarks by Levenson that the Company in-
tended to do as it pleased and that they would have to ask
Roland Ray where he worked-the corporate reorganiza-
tion and its effect on the bargaining unit remained con-
cealed until it was completed and sprung upon the Union's
negotiators also as a iil alccomnpli at the August 6 bargain-
ing session. It was then the Union learned for the first time
from Levenson that these changes were in force and that all
of SGG's bargaining unit replacement work had been per-
manently lost to the nonunion SR Co. At this stage con-
cerning this particular topic. it is no wonder that the union
representatives sat stunned and in silence. because there
was little left upon this issue to bargain about, and the
implications, concerning the prospects for successfully con-
cluding the negotiations and ending the strike, were clear.
In my view, Section 8(d) of the Act requires a much higher
standard of conduct. Only by open and full discussion of
80 1
I)I(ISI()NS ()1: NAI'I()NAI. I.ABOR RI.ATION()S B()ARI)
the issues and the full effects of proposals upon the employ -
ees can fair and lasting agreements he achieved and peace-
f'ul labor relations be restored and maintained.
I also find that Respondent violaled Section 8(a)(5) and
(I ) of' the Act b failing and refusing to furnish the Inion
with the information it requested at the November 22 bar-
gaining session. 'hroughout the negotiations the crucial un-
resolsed issue had been wages. 'The Union had been reccl-
ing reports that Respondent's nonstriking employees and
replacements had received wage increases. he [initon hd
been making one wage proposal after anotlher to the ('onl-
paniS. each titiie downward, in ai efforl o find a wage lot-
1ntila the conmpMlny would accept. Responidenll had stood
pat oin its last wage offer made prior to tile start of the
strike. Clearl the information the Union sought was rel-
cant to the perfiornmance of' its functilon s collectlive-bar-
gaininig agent for the employees in the striking uil. FIur--
thermore, the obligation to finish such inforniatioln extenlds
to inlirnmatiou necessar, to enable the collcctlie-hargaiilng
agent to verifN\ or dispute the accuracy of' the iforitia tioi
given. nder these circumstances I.evensotn's response to
Cohen's November 23 request, by handing Cohen the lint-
ited and unveritiable information given at the December 9
meeting, did not satisfy the Employer's obligation under the
Act. l'urthermore, the explanations contained in l even-
son's December 9 letter to the effect that the replacements
were. "better men for less money" and that the Compatnr
declined to furnish more detailed information, because it
feared for the safety of' the replacements in the light of'
alleged strike misconduct, are inadequate when the rel-
evaince and importance of' wage issue to the negotiations is
considered Finally, with respect to the (Companr's furnish-
ing of addition information to the nion on March 18 pur-
suant to the settlement of Case I ('A 12549, it is clear that
this data was furnished at a time too late to be meaningful
or legally significant, for the Company withdrew recogni-
tion from the Union only 7 days later.
During the course of 2 weeks of hearing in this matter.
resulting in a record of 1672 pages and a multitude of ex-
hibits, the totality of Respondent's conduct during the 1976
negotiations was fully litigated. Although it is not specifi-
cally alleged in the complaint, it is implicit in the arguments
made in the General Counsel's brief; and I find, that begin-
ning on April 12 Respondent engaged in a course of con-
duct designed to disparage and undermine the Union and
destroy its majority status, in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1). This conclusion is supported not only by the spe-
cific unfair labor practices which I have found to have oc-
curred in the negotiations themselves, but also by the un-
lawful conduct of Respondent's supervisors away from the
bargaining table. These acts served to highlight a pattern of
conduct in which the Union was placed in a position of
constantly having to reduce its wage proposals while Re-
spondent made no movement at all, and constantly renego-
tiate, at times in the dark, items which had already been
agreed to. Some of these items, as discussed herein. in-
volved major corporate changes with adverse effects to bar-
gaining unit employees. Respondent argues that only eco-
nomics and its corporate survival dictated its actions, and
that the changes it made were simply for the purpose of
getting the work done, but these important factors give Re-
spondent no right to run roughshod over the bargaining
rights of' its employees. Moreover, all this occurred in an
atmosphere where the I nion was constantl being chided
with remarks about how well the strike replacements ,,ere
getting along in their jobhs and how the ompany had floundtl
better men for less pay. In sum. Respondlent's total conduct
placed the I nion in a position which no self-respecting rep-
resentative , ould tolerate. i find that such conduct at the
bargaining table amounts to a otal rejection of' the priici-
ples expressed in Section X8d) "
I further ind that Respondent Iolated Section (a(5)
and (I) of the Act bh withdrawing recognition frolm the
niion on March 25, 1977. he Board has long held that
following the initial certification ear the certified union's
presumption of ' m;torits status ma! be rebutted b,, obec-
tiC e considerations dtemotnstra;ting that at the little of' the
refusal further to recognize the union, it either in lact no
longer had a majorilty or that the eployer's withdrawal of
recognlition was based on a good-lhtith doubt of union's coln-
linuing majiorit' status. Ihere is. however. a further re-
quirenient ofI controlling inmportance in the instant case:
Ihal the question of' the Union's continued majority status
tmust not have been raised in the context of' unfair labor
practices by the tEmployer designed to cause disaffection
with the Uinion or to gain time in which to undermine the
tlnion's majority. (' clelsc (orl ortraliol f ,4tlnriica. 95
NI RB 664. 671 672 (1951): Burreugh.l (orpo7raiom, 180
Nl RB 331 (1969):; ,'-Suthern Dvcing Finishing, Inc.,
and Ilenderson ('omnfling Co., 179 Nl RB 573 (1969). Thus.
against the background of' the unfair labor practlices found
in this Decision Respondent was in no position to withdraw
recognition from the Urnion. and in doing so it violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the ct, Furthermore, at the time recog-
nition was withdrawv n Respondent was obligated to bargain
in good faith with the nion b,, virtue of the settlement
agreements in these cases the last of which was approved in
Case I CA 12549 on March 4 1977. The Board has held
that an employer cannot justify such a refusal to bargain
with a certified union within a reasonable time after the
execution of a settlement agreement acknowledging its obli-
gation to bargain, since the parties must have adequate
time to attempt to negotiate their differences. Poole Foundr,
and Machine Contparnv. 95 NLRB 34 ( 1951).24
C. Strike Misconduct hv Respondents Supervisors
Early in the afternoon on June 25 striking SGG employ-
ees Carleton French and Harold Douglas were picketing
the entrance to Respondent's Hildreth Street facility in
Bangor when a car containing SGG President Edward
:u In view of all the findings of violations of the Act, I find that all the
actions of the Regional Director in setting aside the settlement agreements.
reopening Cases I CA 11856 and I CA- 1964 and consolidating those
cases for hearing constituted a proper exercise of his discretion and author-
ity.
u In view of this finding the testimony of the strike replacements to the
effect that they did not desire t be represented by the Union, and the
testimony by Respondent's supervision that these sentiments had been ex-
pressed to them, is immaterial. Although it is not alleged in the amended
complaint and has not been pursued further by the General Counsel, I note
the existence of a limited amount of testimony by strike replacements assert-
ing that they were interrogated concerning their feelings about the Union by
members of management.
802
SOI.FE G.ASS AND GL.AZING CO.
Churchill, SGG Hampden Superintendent Roland Par-
tridge. and SGG }lampden Manager Edward Tribou drove
up. Patridge went immediately into the plant. but Tribou
and Churchill remained outside. After an exchange of
greetings Tribou began the conversation by asking. "Where
are the rest of the boys?" Douglas answered that the' were
around, picketing. Then Tribou asked where D)ave Bates
and Nick Botzko were, and Douglas answered that the>
were also somewhere on the picket line. About this time
Charles Witham, one of Respondent's nonstriking employ-
ees, came into the parking lot and yelled to Trihou, "Hey.
Ed, where's your sign?" Tribou shouted back that he did
not need one because he was working. Churchill and Tri-
bou got out of their car and came toward French's pickup
truck, which was parked at the side of the street near the
entrance to the Company's parking lot. Tlhe two pickets
were leaning against the truck with a picket sign propped
against the windshield. Tribou walked over to the truck.
grabbed the sign, and threw it as far as he could throw it
into the street. Neither picket responded to this action but.
when Churchill attempted to continue the conversation by
asking how French fell, French responded. somewhat sar-
castically, "What do you mean how do I feel?" Then
Churchill asked, "What do you guys want'? I'd like to take
care of you guys, especially you [)oug. ou're the oldest
man in the office." Then Tribou interjected, "Will you fel-
lows come back for the sames wages you had?" French
answered they would not. Then Tribou asked, "W'ould sou
come back for another 10 cents'?" The men both answered
"No." At this point Churchill said, "This is off the record.
We want you guys to come back to work. You're two valu-
able men. Would you come back for a dollar? You go in
Monday morning, tell Tribou you're ready to go back to
work, and we'll give you a dollar. L.et's go down to the beer
joint and talk this over." Both pickets refused. Then
Churchill offered to return after 5 o'clock and buy them a
beer, to which the two pickets did not respond. Next, Tri-
bou remarked, "Well, we've hired 13 men and we're going
to keep them," to which French retorted. "You hired 13
scabs." At this point Tribou became angry and said, "These
guys have got no backbone. If they did have, they'd come
back to work. They haven't got as much guts as the guys
down there working." Then Churchill interrupted in an ef-
fort to calm the situation by suggesting that they all go
down and have a beer and talk the matter over, but Tribou
persisted. He said, "These guys are not men. Carl French,
you're not man enough to take me on. French and Douglas
both together aren't man enough to take me on. You ought
to go out in the garden, put a stick in the ground, and be a
couple of scarecrows." The two pickets did not answer. At
this point Roland Partridge came out of the plant and
Churchill remarked, "We have no men here. let's go," and
they left.2? I find that the conduct of Churchill and Tribou
during this incident violated Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act.
25 This account of the incident is based on the credited testimony of
French and Douglas. According to Churchill and Tribou. they met Roland
Partridge by prior arrangement at the Merrill ('enter job in Bangor about
10:30 a.m on June 25 and discussed "problems" until noon. The) then had
drinks and lunch at a nearby restaurant and proceeded to Hildreth Street
because of a report that pickets were parked on company property. At the
Hildreth Street facility Churchill testified that they had a "friendly" conver-
sation with French and Douglas. Both Churchill and T'ribou deny that they
offered the two pickets any inducement to) return to work. but both admitted
Following the incident at the Hildreth Stree plant. de-
scribed aboe. Churchill. Trihou, and Partridge drove hack
to the Merrill Center to pick up Trihou's car. hich Par-
tridge then drove to Hampden. Tribou and Churchill drove
in ('hurchill's car, with Tribou driving. to Respondent's
Hlampden facility. According to credited testimon b SGG
striking employee Michael Nadeau. he was picketing at the
tlampden plant with striker Nick Botzko, but about 2:15
p.m. lihe left for a few minutes to get coffee. When he re-
turned Botzko described how two "scabs" had come by and
told Botzko he was not so big when he was alone. The two
pickets decided that these men might return, and Nadeau
hid behind a large compressor 12 to 1S feet away. After a
time ribou drove up with Churchill. and both men got out
of the car. ribou proceeded to throw the picket signs on
the ground, while Churchill grabbed Botzko around the
neck and pulled his head do~wn while posturing as it' he
were preparing to hit Botzko in the face with his right fist.
At this point Nadeau jumped from his concealed position
and asked. "What the hell is going on?" As C(hurchill re-
leased Botzko. Tribou threatened Nadeau that he would
"kick his f a - ," calling him a "frog." After a further
verbal exchange in which Nadeau retorted that they were
getting to them and that the compan\ officials had been
working 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a da I Tribou made
an obscene gesture and the two men left.'2 I credit Nadeau's
testimony, and find that the conduct of Churchill and ri-
bou during the course of this incident constituted a viola-
tion of Section 8(a I) of the Act.
French, Douglas. and Nadeau also credibly testified that
they reported these incidents in detail to the assembled
union membership at the monthly membership meeting a
day or two later.
D. David Ralilc
Following the Union's March 8 offer to return the strik-
ing employees to work, Respondent formally announced its
refusal to reinstate Union President David Bates for alleged
strike misconduct. Bates was also a member of the Union's
negotiating team. According to Andrew Soule. who wrote
that, after some "bantenng back and forth" between Tribou and French,
Tribou told French, "You know damn well you're not supposed to he parked
on company property," after which Tribou grabbed the picket signs off the
truck and threw them nto the street. They also concede that following this
incident about 10 minutes passed before Partndge came out of the plant and
they left, during which time Churchill engaged French in "small talk." I find
that Churchill's and Tribou's admissions tend to support the testimony of
French and Douglas. I do not credit Churchill's and Tribou's testimony that
they did not offer the two pickets money to return to work In this connec-
tion I note that. while Churchill and Tnbou were able to give detailed ver-
sions up to the point in the conversation when these inducements were alleg-
edl) offered, they did not relate the details of what tooxk place during the
remaining 10 minutes in which Churchill engaged in "small talk" with the
pickets.
'1 Both Churchill and Tnbou deny that Churchill assaulted Botzko, or that
Tribou threatened Nadeau. However, Churchill admitted to putting his hand
on Botzko's shoulder while stating. "You old rascal, what are you doing out
here on such a nice day," at which point Nadeau suddenly appeared from a
concealed position. Churchill and Tribou also admitted that an angry ex-
change occurred between Tribou and Nadeau during the course of which
Tribou threw the picket signs into the street. I do not credit their denials
since their admissions tend to support the more detailed testimons of Na-
deau. who impressed me as an honest and forthright witness who possessed
an accurate memory
803
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the letter of rejection to Bates, his decision was based on
reports from Tribou and Richardson concerning four inci-
dents in the Bangor-Hampden area involving Bates and
working employees, which were reported by the employees
directly involved. These incidents are summarized below.
On August 25, as SGG strike replacement Ray Irish left
an SGI warehouse at Hildreth Street, Bangor. picket David
Bates approached his car, which was stopped at the parking
lot entrance prior to entering the street. Bates leaned on the
window and called Irish a scab. Then Bates continued, say-
ing that Irish was playing a "kid's game" and, if he ever saw
him outside the shop, Irish had better bring a few of his
friends because Bates was going to fix him up. Irish re-
sponded that he would not try, and drove away. On the
evening of September 30 about 10:15 p.m. Bates entered
the Mecca Bar where he discovered Irish sitting at the bar.
Bates walked to the bar and hit Irish on the jaw with his
fist, knocking him off the stool and onto the floor. Irish got
to his feet and started to leave as others in the bar re-
strained Bates, but Bates broke their grip and chased Irish
out the door and down the street. The following day Irish
reported the incident to management."
Steven Partridge, the son of SGG Shop Superintendent
Roland Partridge, is employed by SGI to drive a 22 23-foot
18,000-pound glass truck. One Wednesday in May, about 5
p.m.. Partridge left Bangor for Madawaska, a small town at
the extreme northern tip of Maine on the Canadian border.
with three cases of glass on his truck. As he prepared to
turn onto Interstate 95 he saw David Bates pass him
headed in the opposite direction in his Toyota. Bates turned
around and followed Partridge onto I -95. Bates passed Par-
tridge, pulled into his lane in front of the truck, and slowed
down to 3 or 4 miles per hour. When Partridge attempted to
maintain his speed by changing lanes to pass Bates, Bates
also changed lanes in front of the truck while slowing down.
This continued for about 3-1/2 miles after which Partridge
stopped at a phone and reported the incident to manage-
ment. Soon the state police appeared, and thereafter contin-
ued to check on Partridge from time to time during the 5-
hour drive, which passed without further incident. I credit
Partridge's testimony.?
Wayne George was hired on June 17 as an SGG striker
replacement at Hampden. In mid-July George walked to
his truck, about 30 feet from the road, to get some tools.
Bates, who was picketing, called to George, saying George
" Bates admits the conversation with Irish on the picket line, but places it
about a month before the incident in the bar. He did not deny threatening
Irish, but insisted that Ish responded that he was a karate expert and could
whip Bates. Bates further admitted hitting Irish in the Mecca Bar as Irishdescribed. His only addition to Irish's version of the incident was that Bates
tesified he called Irish a "f-- scab, " before he struck him. Richard Green.Insh's roommate, who is not employed in any capacity by any of the Soule
enterprises, witnessed the incident.
20 Bates testified that he did not turn around in the highway to follow
Partridge, but pulled next to him and stopped at a red light on a dual lane
street at the intersection of Ogden Road and Hammond Street in Bangor.
When the light changed Bates said he passed Partridge and pulled in front ofhim to let other cars go by. At this point, according to Bates, his car back-fired and he lost power, slowing down. He then glanced in the mirror and
saw Bates' truck bearing down on him, which caused him to pull back into
the passing lane. According to Bates he then drove to where pickets werepicketing SOAGCO, where he checked his fuel filter and discovered it wasclogged. No evidence was adduced to corroborate Bates' contention concern-ing his fuel filter, a condition which, if true. should easily have been corrobo-
rated. I credit Partridge's version and discredit that of Bates,
was a scab, George should grow up, and if' he ever caught
George with a light of plate glass in his hand, Bates would
break it. Bates denied that he ever threatened George in
this manner but admitted that he threatened to punch
many people. Considering Bates' denial in the light of cred-
ited incidents in which he was involved. I credit George."
Howard Martin, an SGG striker replacement hired July
26 at Hampden. testified that during the month of October
David Bates yelled "f-- scab" at him as Martin parked
his car in the company lot. Martin responded that Bates
should get off his back, whereupon Bates repeated the re-
mark. Then Martin screamed for Bates to shut his mouth,
and advanced across the parking lot toward Bates, while
Bates came onto the company property and faced Martin.
Martin. who had formerly been employed as a bouncer at a
bar and at the time of the hearing had a broken hand from
punching someone, challenged Bates. Martin said that. if
Bates wanted to pick on someone, he should pick on him
because he was closer to Bates' size. Bates answered that if
he did it would jeopardize his position, following which
Martin kept shoving Bates back toward the road. Martin
acknowledged that he was the one who did all the shoving.
and that the only time Bates touched him was to keep re-
moving Martin's hands from his chest. Bates' version of the
incident varies only to an insignificant degree.
I find that the incident involving Harvey Martin, de-
scribed immediately above, is insufficient as a reason for
failing to reinstate Bates, since any serious strike miscon-
duct during this incident was clearly perpetrated by Martin.
and not by Bates. However, in my view, the Wayne George
incident, the Steven Partridge incident, and particularly the
incident in which Bates hit Irish without provocation what-
soever are serious incidents of strike misconduct with would
justify Respondent's refusal to reinstate him unless some
other unlawful reason is proved. The General Counsel con-
tends that Bates was not denied reinstatement because of
the above incidents but because of his union activites. In
support of this position the General Counsel offered the
testimony of Bates concerning four incidents.
Bates has been local union president since May 1973.
Prior to that time he served as shop steward. He also served
on the negotiating committee for the 1973 contract, and
picketed at all three branches in the Bangor area during the
1973 strike. According to Bates, in May 1973 Edward Tri-
bou told him, following the strike, that Bates was the ring-
leader and that he would get rid of him.
In 1974 Bates had an argument with Tribou concerning
using only two men instead of three on a swing stage when
union bylaws called for three men.
In February 1976, followilg the commencement of nego-
tiations, according to Bates, Tribou accused him of instruct-
ing his men not to accept Saturday overtime work after
Bates had been asked to work and had refused. Bates de-
nied the accusation. Tribou responded, "You're going to get
yours one of these days."
Tribou testified that he did not have any dealings with
Bates with respect to his union activities, but did not specif-
2 I also credit testimony of Wendell DeTour that he and Bates exchanged
invitations to fight, and the testimony of Albert Mulldune that he was threat-
ened by Bates. However, neither of these incidents was mentioned by An-
drew Soule as circumstances he considered in reaching his decision not to
reinstate Bates.
804
SOULE GLASS AND GLAZING CO.
ically deny Bates' accusation that Trihou threatened to get
rid of him as the ringleader at the conclusion of the 1973
strike. I therefore credit Bates' tesitmony concerning this
incident.
Tribou testified that the incident involving the swing
stage occurred on the Bangor International Airport job
where Bates and a helper were doing some caulking on the
exterior. Bates at first refused to go on the swing stage be-
cause his union's bylaws called for three men. However,
when Tribou reminded him that their work was governed
by their contract and not by his union's bylaws, Bates re-
turned to work. I credit Tribou's testimony here since it
does not actually conflict with that of Bates and is more
detailed. Concerning the Merrill Center Bank job, Tribou
testified that the incident Bates referred to occurred in
January in below-zero temperatures. It was snowing, and
snow and ice were accumulating inside the unenclosed
building. The building owners and the architect were dissat-
isfied with the progress Tribou's crew was making at enclos-
ing the building. They threatened that, if it were not closed
in by a week from the following day, they would hire some-
one else to enclose the building with plywood and send
Respondent the bill. Tribou went to Bates and told him
they were going to have to work overtime because of this
situation. Although Bates said nothing at the time, the fol-
lowing morning he refused. Tribou asked whether Bates
meant the entire crew, and Bates acknowledged that he did.
Thereafter, pursuant to Tribou's instructions, Roland Par-
tridge checked with the men on the crew and found that
each one had an excuse for not working. No weekend over-
time work was performed, the job was not closed in on
time, and the Company had to pay the bill for enclosing the
remainder of the building in plywood. As a result of this
situation, Tribou told Bates, "Dave, if I find out that you
told one of these men not to work, by god, I'll fire you."
Tribou's version is supported by a memorandum addressed
to Edward Churchill dated January 16, more than a month
prior to the commencement of the negotiations.
The final incident offered by the General Counsel on this
issue occurred on Wednesday of the week before the 1976
strike began. On that day Bates was working on the roof of
the Depositors Trust Building in Bangor. Roland Partridge
approached him near the end of the day and told him to
turn in all the Company's tools at the end of the day, be-
cause he might not be needing them the next week. Then,
according to Bates, Partridge added Bates might not be
needing them again. Partridge testified that at the time of
the 1973 strike the Company had had a problem with re-
spect to employees not turning in their tools. Consequently,
on the day in question, he went to all the employees, includ-
ing Bates, and told them to be sure to turn in their tools
before they left. Partridge denied saying anything to Bates
to the effect that Bates would not be needing his tools any
further. I find Partridge's version of the incident to be more
logical than that of Bates. Partridge is credited.
I find that the General Counsel had failed to prove that
Respondent's true reason, in whole or in part, for refusing
to reinstate David Bates was because of his union activities
rather than the serious incidents of strike misconduct in
which he is found to have engaged. The only evidence
which casts any doubt whatsoever on this conclusion is Tri-
bou's 1973 remark. However, the Act's limitations clause,
Section 10(b), clearly prohibits the use of this evidence as
the basis for finding an unfair labor practice here. More-
over, the rule that evidence outside the limitations period
may be used to shed light on other timely events proving an
unfair labor practice is inapplicable in this instance because
all the evidence within the 10(b) period supports the oppo-
site conclusion. Moreover, the other incidents presented by
the General Counsel in support of his contention that Bates
was rejected because of his advocacy of the Union's cause
not only do not support his position, but also underscore
the fact that Respondent was presented with a number of
legitimate opportunities to discharge Bates prior to the 1976
strike, but did not do so. I therefore find that Respondent
refused to reinstate David Bates because of serious in-
stances of strike-related misconduct, and therefore Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(a)( 1I) and (3) of the Act as to
him.
E. The Strike
In the preceding sections of this Decison I have found
that at the time the Union's strike began on April 12 the
only remaining issue was wages. It is therefore clear and I
find that the strike was called because the wage issue was
not settled and it therefore was an economic strike at the
outset. However, I have also found that later on the da of
April 12 Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) and (5) of the
Act when Charles Soule granted wage increases to Respon-
dent's nonstriking employees over and above what Respon-
dent had offered to the Union. The existence of these wage
increases was almost immediately reported by nonstrikers
to the pickets and shortly thereafter, in accordance with
credited testimony by Walter Dolbow. was discussed at a
union membership meeting. Beginning with the April 12
wage increase Respondent engaged in a course of conduct
designed to disparage the Union in the eyes of its members,
erode its strength, undermine its bargaining position, and
ultimately destroy its majority. This course of action was
highlighted by specific incidents of bad faith which have
been discussed in detail in earlier sections of this Decision.
Consequently, I find that the strike was converted to an
unfair labor practice strike on April 12 by Respondent's
unlawful conduct, and was thereafter prolonged by Re-
spondent's unfair labor practices both at and away from the
bargaining table. Since these unfair labor practices are con-
tinuing, have never ceased, and remain unremedied. the le-
gal principles relating to any argument which might con-
ceivably be made that at some time the strike was
reconverted to an economic strike are inapplicable. I
therefore find that the following persons named in para-
graph 20 of the complaint for whom the Union uncondi-
tionally applied for reinstatement, and to whom Respon-
dent on March 25. 1977, refused immediate reinstatement.
are unfair labor practice strikers. and that by refusing rein-
30 Respondent has argued that he Union's offer of reinstatement is condi-
tional because the list of strikers' names includes Ihat of Dasid Bates. I find
no merit to this contention. At no time did the Union even state that none of
the strikers would return to work unless all of those listed in its March 8 offer
were returned, Furthermore. no such implication can e drawn from the
Union's letter protesting the Company's desire to conduct individual Inter-
views of the strikers before deciding whether or not to reinstate them
805
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
statement to them Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act."
Ralph Adams
Owen Bishop
Lester Brown
Ronald Bumpus
Walter Dolbow
Harold Douglas
Carleton French
Carl Gaudett
James Huntley
Myron Levine
George Light
Liborio Maceli
Kenneth MacLeod
Girard Richard
Joseph Richards
Ronald Russell
Henry Ward
James Wright
Gary Reynolds
Rodney Mallory
CON( IUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a single employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By granting a retroactive wage increase to nonstriking
employees, greater than that which had been offered to the
Union, for the purpose of disparaging the union leadership;
by unilaterally closing its Lewiston-Waterville facilities and
unilaterally making a permanent assignment of bargaining
unit replacement work to employees outside the unit, with-
out affording the Union adequate notice or an opportunity
to bargain fully in advance of the change concerning the
effects of the decision upon employees in the unit; by failing
and refusing to promptly furnish the Union with adequate
relevant information concerning wages necessary to the
performance of the Union's function as collective-bargain-
ing agent during negotiations; by engaging in a course of
conduct beginning April 12, 1976, designed to disparage the
Union's leadership, undermine its effectiveness as bargain-
ing agent during the negotiations, and destroy its majority;
and by withdrawing recognition from the Union on March
25, 1977. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
4. By the conduct of Respondent's supervisors, Edward
Churchill and Edward Tribou on June 25, 1976, in assault-
ing strikers and offering them wage increases to return to
work, Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
5. The strike of Respondent's bargaining unit employees
which began as an economic strike on April 12 was con-
verted to an unfair labor practice strike later on April 12
and was thereafter prolonged by the unfair labor practices
of Respondent.
6. The following named persons are unfair labor practice
strikers to whom Respondent refused reinstatement on
March 25 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Ralph Adams
Owen Bishop
Lester Brown
Ronald Bumpus
Walter Dolbow
George Light
Liborio Maceli
Kenneth MacLeod
Girard Richard
Joseph Richards
3I The list of names omits the name of Earl Curtis, otherwise known as
Tommy Curtis, who returned to work on March 21, 1977, and David Bates.
who was denied reinstatement for strike misconduct. The list includes the
names of George Light and Henry Ward who the record shows were rein-
stated in July 1977 and on October 3, 1977, respectively.
Harold Douglas
Carleton French
Carl Gaudett
James Huntley
Myron Levine
Ronald Russell
Henry Ward
James Wright
Gary Reynolds
Rodney Mallory
7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by refusing to reinstate David Bates, whom Re-
spondent discharged for cause for engaging in serious mis-
conduct directly related to the strike.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects
other than those specifically found.
Timt REMEY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary
to order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has re-
fused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees, in the appro-
priate unit described herein, in certain respects specifically
listed in the section of this Decision entitled "Conclusions
of Law," I shall order Respondent to recognize and, upon
request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
In addition, having found that Respondent unilaterally
changed the working conditions of its bargaining unit em-
ployees by closing its Lewiston-Waterville facilities and per-
manently assigning bargaining unit replacement work to
nonunit employees without adequate and complete notice
and bargaining, I shall order Respondent to restore the sta-
tus quo ante by reopening these facilities, restoring the lost
replacement work to the bargaining unit, and by thereafter
bargaining, following complete and adequate notice, in
good faith concerning any proposed changes affecting the
bargaining unit. In reaching the conclusion that this par-
ticular remedy is appropriate, I have considered the fact
that Respondent continues to maintain facilities in the
Lewiston-Waterville area, some of which continue to be uti-
lized by other phases of Respondent's business, that SGG's
operations in the Lewiston-Waterville area have continued
while the replacement work was simply reassigned to non-
unit employees using some of the same equipment formerly
used by SGG. and the testimony of Andrew Soule that the
Respondent might give future consideration to reopening
SGG's Lewiston-Waterville facilities. I have further consid-
ered the degree of inconvenience to Respondent in reestab-
lishing the Lewiston-Waterville operations. a factor which
the Board has scrutinized in the past in considering whether
or not to order a resumption of operations in similar cases.
It is clear from the record that a resumption of operations
would, for the most part, require some movement of trucks,
glass, metal, tools, and other supplies. I therefore find the
inconvenience to Respondent relatively slight compared to
the effect of Respondent's discriminatory action in taking
806
SOIILE GLASS AND (;I.AZING( CO.
work from its bargaining unit employees N. C (Coastal Mo-
tor Lines. ltc., 219 NLRB 1009 (1975).
Having found that Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to
promptly furnish the Union with relevant and adequate in-
formation relating to the wages of Respondent's employees.
I find it necessary to order that Respondent. upon request.
promptly furnish the Union with information relevant to
the performance of its function as collective-bargaining
agent whenever such information is lawfully required.
Having found that the strike of Respondent's employees
which began on April 12 was on that day converted to an
unfair labor practice strike and prolonged thereafter by the
unfair labor practices of the Respondent. and that there-
after Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act
by failing and refusing to reinstate the strikers listed in the
section of this Decision entitled "Conclusions of Law," I
find it necessary to order that Respondent offer those unfair
labor practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
discharging, if necessary, any replacements in order to pro-
vide work for the strikers, and that it make whol all said
strikers for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them by paying them
backpay computed on a quarterly basis with interest as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).31 from
March 8, 1977. the date of the Union's unconditional offer
to return said strikers, until the date a proper offer of rein-
statement is made."
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices found herein, I find a broad cease-and-desist order
is necessary. In addition Respondent will be ordered to post
an appropriate notice encompassing all violations com-
mitted.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER u
The Respondent, Soule Glass and Glazing Co: Soule
Glass Industries; Soule Replacement Co. and/or Presque
Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing, Portland. Maine.
their officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assaulting employees because of their participation
in a strike or other union or protected concerted activities.
32See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
" Respondent unduly delayed, until March 25., before informing the
Union of its decision to refuse the stinkers immediate reinstatement, during
which penod it sought to impose the condition that each strinker submit to an
individual interview. Harris-7Ieter Super Markets. Inc., 242 NLRB 132
(1979); National Car Rental System, Inc., Car Rental Division. 237 NLRB
172 (1978): Newport News Shipbuilding and D' Dock Compan), 236 NLRB
1637 (1978).
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National abor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted h) the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(h) Offering employees raises or other inducenments to re-
turn to work and cease participating in a strike or other
union or protected concerted activities.
(c) Refusing to recognize Glaziers local Union 1516. In-
ternational Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades.
AL[. (10. as exclusive collective-bargaining agent of the
employees of Soule Glass and Glazing (Co. in the following
appropriate unit:
All glaziers, apprentice glaziers and inside glass work-
ers employed by Soule Glass and (;lazing Co., hut ex-
cluding office clerical emplosees. professional employ-
ees. guards and all supervisors as defined in Section
2( 11 ) of the Act.
(d) Refusing, upon request. to bargain collectiely in
good faith with Glaziers Local Union Union 1516, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. AFL
CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the above named unit.
(e) Granting wage increases to other employees in excess
of what is offered to bargaining unit employees for the pur-
pose of disparaging and undermining the LUnion.
(f) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and working
conditions of bargaining unit employees without prior no-
tice and bargaining.
(g) Failing and refusing to promptlx furnish the Union
with adequate relevant information necessary to the per-
formance of the Union's function as exclusive collective-
bargaining agent of bargaining unit employees.
(h) Discouraging membership in the above-named
Union, or in any other labor organization, by refusing rein-
statement to unfair labor practice strikers upon their uncon-
ditional request.
(i) Engaging in a course of conduct in negotiations de-
signed to frustrate the negotiations, undermine the Union.
and destroy its majorit.
0) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to sell-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing. and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring such membership in a labor organization as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain with Glaziers
Local Union 1516, International Brotherhood of Painters
and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. as the exclusive collective-
bargaining agent of the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages. hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer the following named employees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any person
hired on or after April 12. 1976. and make the following
807
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
named employees whole in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
Ralph Adams
Owen Bishop
Lester Brown
Ronald Bumpus
Walter Dolbow
Harold I)ouglas
Carleton French
Carl Gaudett
James Huntley
Myron Levine
George L.ight
Liborio Maceli
Kenneth MacLeod
Girard Richard
Joseph Richards
Ronald Russell
Henry Ward
James Wright
Gary Reynolds
Rodney Mallory
(c) Reopen the Lewiston and Waterville facilities of
Soule Glass and Glazing Co., previously closed, and restore
the replacement work previously performed by Soule Glass
and Glazing Co. bargaining unit employees to said employ-
ees, and thereafter, following adequate notice, bargain in
good faith concerning any proposed changes in bargaining
unit employees' wages, hours, or working conditions.
(d) Preserve, and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at each of Respondent's facilities in the State of
Maine copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by a repre-
sentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region I. in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
The complaint is dismissed in all respects other than
those specifically found.
35 In the event that this 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 to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law, and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with
Glaziers Local Union, 1516, International Brother-
hood of Painters and Allied Trades. AFL- CIO. as ex-
clusive collective-bargaining agent of the employees of
Soule Glass and Glazing Co. in the following appropri-
ate unit:
All glaziers, apprentice glaziers and inside glass
workers employed by Soule Glass and Glazing Co.,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
WE Wi.l. recognize and. upon request, bargain in
good faith with Glaziers Local Union 1516, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades.
AFL-CIO. as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent
for our employees in the above-named unit and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
WE WII.L. NOT discourage membership in Glaziers
Local Union 1516, International Brotherhood of Paint-
ers and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization, by refusing reinstatement to unfair labor
praitice strikers upon their unconditional request, or
by discriminating against our employees in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure f employ-
ment, or any terms or condition of employment.
WE Wll.l. offer the following named unfair labor
practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and wE WILL make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered as a result of' the dis-
crimination against them.
Ralph Adams
Owen Bishop
Lester Brown
Ronald Bumpus
Walter Dolbow
Harold Douglas
Carleton French
Carl Gaudett
James Huntley
Myron Levine
George Light
Liborio Maceli
Kenneth MacLeod
Girard Richard
Joseph Richards
Ronald Russell
Henry Ward
James Wright
Gary Reynolds
Rodney Mallory
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the wages, hours,
working conditions, and other terms and conditions of
employment of our bargaining unit employees repre-
sented by Glaziers Local Union 1516, International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO,
without prior notice, consultation, and bargaining.
WE WIl.L reopen the Lewiston and Waterville facili-
ties of Soule Glass and Glazing Co., previously closed,
and will restore to our bargaining unit employees the
replacement work which they lost as a result of our
unlawful unilateral action in permanently taking that
work from them.
WE WILL NOT physically assault our employees be-
cause they choose to participate in a strike or other
union or protected concerted activities.
WE WIl.. NOT offer our striking employees wage in-
creases or other inducements to cease participating in a
strike or other union or protected concerted activities.
808
SOULE GLASS AND GLAZING CO.
WE WII.I. NOI grant wage increases in excess of what
has been offered to our bargaining unit employees for
the purpose of disparaging or embarrassing the
Union's leadership in the eyes of those it represents.
WE WILL NOT refuse to promptly funish the Union
with adequate relevant information necessary to the
performance of its function as collective-bargaining
representative, and will upon request promptly furnish
such information.
WE WILL. NOT engage in a course of conduct in nego-
tiations designed to frustrate the negotiations, under-
mine the Union. and destroy its majority.
WE WILl. NOT in any other manner interfere with.
restrain. or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization. to form, join, or assist labor
organizations. to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected b an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act. as amended.
So)U I G ASS AND Gi AZIN; C(): Sot I (il xSS IN-
I)t SIRIIS: Sot i.l Ritl A(iMN I C. ANI)/()R
PRISQI 1. I SItI GI ASS 1)/I/'A SOll.l GI ASS AND
(GLAZIN(;
809