St. Cloud Tool & Die Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 598 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Cloud Tool & Die Company and District Lodge No.
165, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2806
May 20, 1970
i DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN AND JENKINS
On January 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohl-
baum issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support of its excep-
tions. The General Counsel filed a letter opposing the
consideration by the Board of certain letters attached
to the Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of 'Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, brief, the General Counsel's opposition,'
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , the Board hereby adopts as
its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner
and orders that the Respondent , St. Cloud ' Tool &
Die Company , St. Cloud, Minnesota , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order.
' The Respondent attached to his exceptions and brief copies of
eight letters allegedly mailed to the Respondent by the Union and/
or his employees and three letters allegedly mailed by the Respondent
to certain of its former employees The General Counsel objects to
consideration by the Board of these attached letters since they were
not offered in evidence at the hearing and there is no showing and
no contention that the letters are newly discovered evidence We agree
with the General Counsel that these letters should not be considered
for the above- stated reasons
Moreover, even if we were to consider these attached letters, we
conclude that they would not alter our determination herein The letters
do not affect nor relate to the status of any of Respondent's employees
during the critical period involved in this case
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM: Trial Examiner: This pro-
ceeding under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.; "Act"), on com-
plaint of the Board's Regional Director for Region 18
(Minneapolis, Minnesota) dated October 22, 1969, based
upon a charge filed with him July 11, 1969, by the
above Union, was tried before me in St. Cloud, Minneso-
ta, on November 18, 1969. The basic issue is whether
Respondent, St. Cloud Tool & Die Company,' has since
about March 31, 1969, refused to bargain collectively
with the above Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of an appropriate production and main-
tenance bargaining unit of Respondent's employees.
All parties participated throughout the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to present evidence and
contentions , examine and cross -examine witnesses, pro-
pose findings and conclusions, and file briefs or other
written communications expressing their positions. Sub-
sequent to the trial, a memorandum was received from
counsel for General Counsel, and a written communica-
tion in letter form was received from Respondent. These,
together with the record as made at the hearing,2 having
been carefully considered, together with my observations
of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following-
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II. PARTIES; JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent St. Cloud Tool
& Die Company has been and is a Minnesota corporation
operating a tool and die shop in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
In the course and conduct of its said business, during
the representative 12-month period ending December
31, 1968, Respondent sold and shipped from its said
shop, directly in interstate commerce to places outside
the State of Minnesota, finished products valued at
$1,600; and , during said period , in said business,
Respondent sold and distributed products manufactured
at its said plant valued at $210,000, of which products
valued at $94,265 were furnished to Franklin Manufactur-
ing Company (a manufacturing business in St. Cloud,
Minnesota), which during said period sold and shipped
more than $50,000 worth of said merchandise directly
in interstate commerce to customers in places outside
of Minnesota.
I find that at all material times Respondent has been
and is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; the
above Union has been and is a labor organization as
Secretary' treasurer and general manager of Respondent corporation.
s Trial transcript corrected in respect to obvious and typographical
errors set forth in attached "Appendix A " [Appendix A omitted from
publication ]
182 NLRB No. 81
ST. CLOUD TOOL & DIE
defined by Section 2(5) of the Act; and that assertion
of jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper.
Ill. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts as Found
Respondent operates a tool and die shop with about
t -dozen employees, in St. Cloud (1960 U.S. census
population about 34,000), approximately 65 miles north-
west of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The National Labor Relations Board, through its
Regional Director for Region 18, on March 9, 1953,
certified the Union as the statutory bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's production and maintenance
employees. The Union has had a collective agreement
with Respondent every year since then. In the latest,
May 1, 1968-May 1, 1969, union shop collective agree-
ment, a final provision (numbered "3" on p. 11, G C.
Exh. 3) states:
This contract shall be null and void should it become
necessary for the Company to compete with non-
union shops, with any customer having an agree-
ment with the Machinist Union.
On February 26, 1969,3 the Union sent Respondent
a 60-day contract reopener letter proposing to modify
the existing collective agreement upon its expiration
on May 1. On March 31, Respondent wrote the Union
declaring the existing collective agreement (May 1,
1968-May 1, 1969) void under proviso "3" quoted above,
stating as the reason:
We regret very deeply the need for this action.
However, we cannot" compete with the unorganized
shops, which is a situation that evidently is beyond
the capability of the Union.
Bids of $2000.00 less than our employees can prod-
uce for, is less than fair competition.
No question is here raised as to the propriety or validity
of Respondent's action in thus cancelling the May
1968-May 1969 collective agreement.
On April 30, the Union wrote Respondent requesting
a meeting for negotiation. No reply being received,
on May 27 the Union filed with the Federal and state
mediation and conciliation ^ services a notification that
a subsisting collective agreement would expire on June
1. At an ensuing meeting between the Union and the
Employer before a state conciliator on June 10, Respond-
ent took the position (for the first time, according to
credited testimony of Union Business Representative
Juaire) that the Union must "show us that you represent
a majority and go through an election and we will
sit down and bargain." On June 18, at a second meeting
with the conciliator, Respondent formally stated its posi-
tion to be:4
Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, all dates are 1969
° The evidence establishes that Respondent has at all times since
June 18 maintained the same position, and that all of the Union's
bargaining endeavors and requests have continued to be unavailing
599
1. Agreed the Working Agreement [i.e., collective
agreement May 1, 1968-May 1, 1969] between the
Union and the Company is null and void.
2. Union recognition is part of the contract, and
is therefore no longer binding.
3. An election of the shop employees is necessary
to determine representation.
4. Contract negotiations will proceed after determi-
nation of representation.
According to Union Business Representative Juaire,
to and including at least June 18, 1969, the Union
represented, and pointed out to Respondent that it repre-
sented, all of Respondent's unit employees. The Union's
records establish that almost without exception these
were current in their union dues payments. Tables I
and II [Appendix C] recapitulate the union membership
and representation status of the unit employees.
As is apparent from Appendix C, at all of the critical
dates here involved, commencing with the Union's con-
tract reopener negotiation request (February 26) through
the date of the parties' final abortive meeting with the
official conciliator (June 18), the Union represented an
overwhelming majority of Respondent's unit employees.
As has been shown, at all of those times Respondent
has nevertheless refused to bargain with the Union
B. Concluding Findings and Rationale
Respondent seeks to justify its conceded refusal to
bargain with the Union upon the ground that its March
31 cancellation of its May 1968-May 1969 collective
agreement with the Union terminated its obligation to
bargain with the Union since, in Respondent's words,
"Union recognition is part of the contract, and is there-
fore no longer binding." In this, Respondent is entirely
in error, since its obligation to bargain with the Union
existed by reason of the Union's Board-certified status
as bargaining representative of the unit employees.
Respondent's duty to bargain with the Union is statutory,
not contractual. Thus, its cancellation of the contract-
which is not here questioned-did not erase its statutory
obligation to bargain.' Whether or not Respondent was
or would have been obligated to bargain with the Union
on the subject matter of the provision (i e., right to
cancel contract in event of competition from ununionized
shops)" is likewise beside the point here, since Respond-
ent has concededly consistently refused to bargain with
the Union on any subject at all since its March 31
cancellation of the contract.
Respondent's remaining alleged justification for refus-
ing to bargain with the Union since its March 31 cancella-
tion of the contract, is that the-Unidn no longer represent-
ed the unit employees and that a new representation
election was necessary to ascertain the representation
Indeed, according to uncontradicted testimony of the Union's bar-
gaining representative who negotiated the collective agreement first
containing the cancellation provision in question (1967-1968), it was
expressly explained to Respondent at that time that any cancellation
of the agreement would leave the bargaining obligation ,ummpaired
'' Cf., e.g ., N.L.R.B. v Davison et al, dlbla Arlington Asphalt
Company, 318 F 2d 550 (C A. 4) ,
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desires of those employees. In this contention Respond-
ent is likewise in total error. To begin with, the status
of the Union as exclusive collective-bargaining represent-
ative'of Respondent's unit employees was conferred
by the Board's certification in 1953, and has apparently
been unquestibned since that time' There is, for example,
no evidence of any petition to the Board by Respondent
or, otherwise to decertify the Union or for an election.
There is here an uninterrupted history of collective
agreements between the, parties since the Board's,certi-
fication in 1953. Under these circumstances, as has
many times been pointed out, there exists a presumption
of the continuance of the Union's representative status.
See Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96; N.L.R.B. v.
Gu'Ifmont Hotel Co., 362 F.2d 588 (C.A. 5); New England
Lead Burning 'Company, Inc., 133 NLRB 863, 867.
Although the Union could here well have rested upon
that presumption, since it was not effectively rebutted
by Respondent, nevertheless the Union saw fit affirma-
tively to establish its continued representative status
through'its records. The Union thus established by sub-
stantial credible proof, as shown in the data tabulated
in Tables I and II, its continuing majority, which is
overwhelming.'
Under the circumstances shown, involving a previous-
ly established bargaining relationship, there is neither
right nor need for an election to establish the clearly
demonstrated fact of the Union's continuing representa-
tional status, as to which Respondent in fact entertained
no good-faith doubt"' and had no privilege to withdraw
recognition without valid objective cause. See, e.g.,
Celanese Corporation of America, 95 NLRB 664, 671-3;
Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 151 NLRB 1482, 1484,
enforcement denied on other grounds, 359 F.2d 799
(C.A. 7); Terrell Machine Co., 173 NLRB No. 230;
N.L.R.B. v. Gulfmont Hotel Co., 362 F.2d 588 (C.A.
5); N.L.R.B. v. The Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.,
7 It will have been noted that in 1969 until June, of the unit employees
in Respondent's active employ it was unanimous As of the end of
June, the only such exception was Wayne Visneski, the son of Respond-
ent corporation 's Vern N Visneski , who seemingly is its guiding spirit
and principal While ordinarily (Marriello Fabrics, Inc , 149 NLRB
333, 345, Bridgeton Transit, 123 NLRB 1196, 1197; The Colonial Craft,
Inc, 118 NLRB 913, 914, P A Mueller and Sons, Inc., 105 NLRB
552, 553),' although perhaps not inevitably (Chernn Corporation v
N L R B , 349 F 2d 1001 (C A 6), cert denied 382 U S 981), a sole
corporate stockholding principal's or partner's child falls within the
exception of" "any individual employed by his parent" in Section 2(3)
of the Act's definition of "employee," there is an absence of evidentiary
showing in the record here as to the share ownership of Respondent
Nor is there evidentiary warrant for finding that Wayne Visneski enjoys
special status because of the family. (i e , not necessarily parent-child)
relationship (cf Uyeda v Brooks, 365 F 2d 326 (C A 6), Kern County
Broadcasters, Inc , d/b/a KERO Radio-TV, 116 NLRB 194, International
Metal Products Company, 107 NLRB 65, 67, with which, cf Dan
Howard Mfg. Co., 158 NLRB 805, 807, 814, modified on other grounds
390 F 2d 304 (C A 7) and Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc , 152 NLRB
132, 155), or has supervisory functions
" In this connection, it may also be observed that by its, May 1968
collective agreement Respondent had recognized the Union for the
ensuing year, but that, when it cancelled that contract in March 1969,
Respondent did so fora reason unrelated ' to any claim on its part
that the Union no longer represented its employees It was not until
the following June 10 that Respondent for the first time assigned that
as a reason for its refusal to bargain with the Union
414 F.2d 1084 (C.A..8); and cf. United States Gypsum
Company, 157 NLRB 652.1 Respondent has failed to
sustain the Employer's burden (ibid.) of proving such
cause.
In this situation, it is apparent that Respondent's
failure and refusal since February 26 to bargain with
the Union as the statutory bargaining representative
of its unit employees, has been and continues to be
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."'
I so find.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record,
I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. St. Cloud Tool & Die Company„ Respondent here-
in, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. District Lodge No. 165, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
Charging Party herein , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Assertion of jurisdiction herein is proper.
4. On and at all times since February 26, 1969, as
well as prior thereto , the following was, has been,
and, is a unit of Respondent ' s employees appropriate
for collective bargaining purposes:
All production and maintenance employees
employed by St. Cloud Tool & Die Company;
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act as amended.
5: On and at all times since March 9 , 1953, the
Charging Party (Union) herein has been and is the Nation-
" With regard to the principles governing initial, as distinguished
from previously established, bargaining relationships, cf N L R B v
Gissell Packing Company, 395 U S 575 Whatever may be said to
be the rule concerning the necessity for recognition in an attempted
initial bargaining relationship (cf Gissell, supra, fn n), mere absence
of independent unfair labor practice in an existing bargaining relationship
does not gain for an employer the right to an election to allay his
professed doubt as to the incumbent union ' s continued representational
status unless the doubt is real, convincingly established by the Employer
to rest 'upon an objective basis in fact and to be reasonable See
Celanese and other cases cited in text, supra
"' According to the Union, Respondent gave as its reason for refusing
to bargain, following its March 31 cancellation of the collective agree-
ment, that the Union had failed to organize some of Respondent's
competitors This is of course no justification for refusing to bargain
with a statutory representative as required by the Act Finally, Respond-
ent now also urges that at the present time the Union does not represent
a,majority of the unit employees since, among other things , Respondent
has recently hired three new employees who have not been shown
to belong to the Union Whatever the situation may be at the present
instant, it is clear that the Union represented the overwhelming majority,
if not all, of the unit employees at the times shown when , in clear
violation of the Act, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union
Although Respondent has failed to rebut the showing and presumption
of continued union representational status, even assuming, arguendo,
that the Union at the present time no longer commands a majority,
Respondent's unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with the
Union as shown require that it bargain now See, e g , Franks Bros
Co v- N L R B , 321 U S 702, 704-6, Laystrom Manufacturing Co ,
151 NLRB 1482, 1484-85, enforcement denied on other grounds 359
F 2d 799 (C A 7), and cf NLRB v Gissell Packing Company,
395 U S 575
ST CLOUD TOOL & DIE
al Labor Relations Board-certified exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the said unit described in Conclusion of Law numbered
"4," supra
6 By its failures and refusals, and each of them,
since February 26, 1969, to meet with and bargain collec-
tively with the above Union, as such representative
of said unit employees, as requested by said Union,
with regard to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment
of said unit employees, Respondent has been engaged
and is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices,
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act as amended
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
said Act
8 Respondent has failed to establish, in fact or in
law, any defense to the violations of the Act alleged
in the complaint
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged and is
continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation
of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to repair those violations so as to
effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
recommend that the National Labor Relations Board
issue the following
ORDER
Respondent St Cloud Tool & Die Company, its
officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to meet and bargain collectively in good
faith with District Lodge No 165 , International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
as the statutory bargaining representative of Respond-
ent's production and maintenance employees, with
regard to their rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with
the rights of Respondent's employees to bargain collec-
tively with Respondent through said Union as their
statutory bargaining representative
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request , meet and bargain collectively in
good faith with District Lodge No 165, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the statutory bargaining representative
of Respondent ' s production and maintenance employees,
with regard to their rates of pay , wages , hours of employ-
ment , and other terms and conditions of employment,
and embody in a signed writing any agreement reached
601
(b) Post at Respondent's shop in St Cloud, Minneso-
ta, copies of the notice to employees hereto attached
marked "Appendix B "" Copies of said Notice, on
forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for
Region 18, shall, after being signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for a period of 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from receipt of this Decision and recommended
Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith 12
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and recommended Order
shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
Order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the Notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Regional
Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order as
to what steps have been taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to present
evidence and arguments, a decision has been announced
by the National Labor Relations Board that we, St
Cloud Tool & Die Company, have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act We are posting this notice to our employees
in accordance with the Order of the National Labor
Relations Board
The National Labor Relations Act, among other things,
guarantees to employees the right to bargain with their
employer collectively through a representative of the
employees' own choice
WE WILL respect this rightlof yours
WE WILL, upon request of your Union, District
Lodge No 165, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO bar-
gain with that Union as your designated bargaining
representative, concerning your rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and we will sign any agree-
ment reached
(This Notice applies to the bargaining unit consisting
of our production and maintenance workers )
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dated By
ST. CLOUD TOOL & DIE This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
COMPANY days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
(Employer)' defaced, or covered by any other material.
(Representative) (Title) Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions , may be directed to the Board's
This is an official notice and must not be defaced Office, 316 Federal Building , 110 South Fourth Street,
by anyone. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2611
APPENDIX C
Table I
Employment Dates and Union Dues Payment Status of Unit Employees
z ameb
Date or
Approx.
Date Hirede
Date or
Approx.
Date Termin-
Latest
Union
Dues
Payment
In Resp.
Employ as
of Date
of Hearing ?I emarksg h
atedc,' Datee Yes No
1 Apgar, Ed 1965 10/1/69 9/2/69 x Retired
2 Beauchamp, John 1967 "Around" 3/68 (9/27/68, Quit while in
to 6/68 reinstated layoff status''
8/2/69)
12/26/69 x
3 Fisher, Joe 4/29/55 9/16/69 x
4 Grosser, Ray 1962 or 1963 "Around" 10/68 x Quit
5 Hoffman, Larry 1963 "Around" 5/68 4/30/69 x Quit while in
or 6/68 layoff status'
6 Leeseberg, Harley 9/20/69 x
7 Novak, Herb 8/30/55 7/25/69 x
8 Oman, Rod 1965 ' 6/69 110/28/69 x Allegedly
fired for
cause
9 Philippi, John 11/18/69 x
(Continued)
ST CLOUD TOOL & DIE
Table I (Concluded)
Employment Dates and Union Dues Payment Status of Unit Employees
1
602 A
z Nameb
Date or
Approx
Date Hiredc
Date or
Approx
Date Termin-
Latest
Union
Dues
Payment
In Resp
Employ as
of H Date
r ng^t
emarksg "
atede d Date° Yes No
10 Prom, Syl 1966 "Around" 6/68 9/27/68 x Quit while in
layoff statush
11 Ruhoff, Dennis 1965 "Around" 8/69 6/30/69 x Quit while in
6/69, or 5/69 layoff status''
12 Schlomer, Jerry 1966 "Around" 7/68 3/21/69 x Quit while in
layoff statush
13 Statema, Jim 1967 "Around" 2/68 7/15/68 x Quit while in
layoff statush
14 Stuck, Robert 8/14/69 x
15 Thole, George 4/22/63 9/30/69 x
16 Visneski, Wayne 4/20/66 2/28/69 x Son of
possible
principal, 21
years old,
full-time
employee'
17 Wachman, Norm 1966 "Around" 5/68 x Quit while
in layoff
statush
& For reference purposes only
b From Appendix to 1968-69 collective agreement (G C Exh 3) except for later hires (Leeseberg Philippi and Stuck)
From testimony of Respondent s witness Vern N Visneski Some different employment termination dates are mentioned by Visneski in an unsworn
posthearing letter intended to serve the function of a brief While those divergences may be considered to affect Visneski s credibility they are
without effect on the result
d No contention is here made that any employment was terminated contrary to the Act
I From Umon s records as of date of hearing ( 11118169) Union dues are payable monthly directly to the Union (there being no checkoff
under the collective agreement) Union membership extends for at least 3 months after the dues payment date with seniority rights for an
additional 20 days beyond the 3 months
I e November 18 1969
Based on uncontradicted testimony of Respondent s witness Vern N Visneski
h It was conceded at the hearing that under the parties collective agreement laid off employees have recall rights for 12 months and
that none of the employees in layoff status was recalled or notified in accordance with the contract terms as to job reavailability
' See fn 7 infra
602 B
I
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Table II
Union Representation Status of Unit Employees in Respondent's Employ on Various Dates]
Date Paid-Up Union Members0 Not Union
Unit Employees Over 50%
Union Members?
(969) Members4
Total Union Non- Yes No
Union
Feb 26k Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%)
Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski
Mar 31' Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%)
Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski
Apr 30"' Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%)
Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski
May 20° Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman, 7 7 0 x(100%)
Ruhoff, Thole, W Visneski
Jun 100 Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman,r W Visneski 7 6 1 x(86%)
Ruhoff, Thole
Jun 18P Apgar, Fisher, Novak, Oman,r W Visneski 7 6 1 x(86%)S
Ruhoff , Thole
Based upon data contained in Table I supra
I e date of Union s contract reopener negotiation request letter
I e date of Respondent s letter voiding subsisting (May 1 1968-May 1 1969) collective agreement
" I e date of union bargaining request letter
n I e date of union bargaining request letter
° I e date of parties first meeting with Conciliator
I e date of parties second meeting with Conciliator
Includes Wayne Visneski son of possible principal inclusion or exclusion does not affect result See Table I fn I supra and fn 7
r Allegedly discharged for cause in June 1969 Included as employed since Respondent failed to establish date of discharge However
inclusion does not affect result in view of (1) arithmetic involved (2) Franks Bros Company v N L R B , 321 U S 702 q v that such
fluctuations do not aviod the requirement for continued recognition under the circumstances shown
' Inclusion of all 14 original unit employees shown in the Appendix to the 1968-69 collective agreement (G C Exh 3) some of whom
according to Respondent quit while in layoff status would not disestablish a Union majority on any of the dates here shown or at any of
the times here involved