Truitt Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 856 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole Edward J . Ivers, Jr., for any loss of pay and other
incidents of the employment relationship suffered because of the discrimination
against him.
LOCAL 170, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated ---------------- By --------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
TRIIITT MANUFACTURING Co. and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL No. 729, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRONWORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F . L. Case No. 11-CA-670.
November 15, 1954.
Decision and Order
On June 30, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report I
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent failed to
bargain in good faith with respect to wages in violation of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act. We do not, however, mean to imply, nor do we
adopt the statement of the Trial Examiner,' that the Respondent's
failure to substantiate its economic position as to wages obligates the
Respondent to accede to the Union's wage demands. On the other
hand, it is settled law, that when an employer seeks to justify the
refusal of a wage increase upon an economic basis, as did the Re-
spondent herein, good-faith bargaining under the Act requires that
upon request the employer attempt to substantiate its economic posi-
tion by reasonable proof .3 In the present case , we are satisfied that
' The Intermediate Report contains an obvious error which does not affect our conclu-
sions herein Thus, in the paragraph entitled "The Remedy " the word "referred" was
used instead of "refused."
a The Trial Examiner stated in the second paragraph of section j of the Intermediate
Report that "an employer cannot refuse a demanded wage increase on the grounds that
such increase would put him out of a competitive position , even though he were paying
the prevailing wage scale, unless he factually documents this conclusion."
a N. L. It. B. v. Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 196 F. 2d 680 (C. A. 2), enfg. 94 NLRB
1214, 1221-2
110 NLRB No. 143.
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 857
the Respondent has failed to submit such reasonable proof." We shall,
therefore, order that the Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Apt, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Truitt Manufacturing Co.,
Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local No. 729,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron-
workers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all
the Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its Greens-
boro, North Carolina, plant, including checkers, truckdrivers and lead-
ermen, but excluding all guards, watchmen, the head shipping clerk
and shop clerk, office clerical, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering in any other manner with the efforts of Shopmen's
Local No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., to bargain collectively
on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local No.
729, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of
all its employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of
employment.
(b) Upon request furnish Shopmen's Local 729, International As-
sociation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers of Amer-
ica, A. F. L., with such statistical and other information as will sub-
stantiate the Respondent's position of its economic inability to pay the
requested wage increase and will enable the Shopmen's Local No. 729,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron-
workers of America, A. F. L., to discharge its functions as the statutory
representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate by the
Board.
(c) Post at his plant at Greensboro, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said
.'Cf. West Fork Cut Glass Company, 90 NLRB 944, 952-3; McLean Arkansas Lumber
Company, Inc, 109 NLRB 1022
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order"
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Re-
gion shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Lo-
cal No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive
representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit
described below.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the efforts of
the above-named Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the
employees in the unit described below.
WE WILL upon request bargain collectively with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees
in the unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL upon request furnish the above-named Union with
such statistical and other information as will substantiate our po-
sition of economic inability to pay the requested wage increase.
The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our Greens-
boro, North Carolina, plant, including checkers, truckdrivers,
and leadermen, but excluding all guards, watchmen, the head
shipping clerk, and shop clerk, office clerical, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
TRUITT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
859
Upon a charge filed by Shopmen's Local No. 729, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., a labor organi-
zation herein referred to as the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board 1 by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem,
North Carolina), on January 30, 1954, issued a complaint against Truitt Manufac-
turing Co., herein referred to as the Respondent or the Company, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were served upon the other parties to
the proceeding.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that
from on or about September 2, 1953, the Respondent refused, and at all times
thereafter has continued to refuse, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all of its employees in an appropriate unit, and that since July 27, 1953,
the Respondent has refused to grant the wage increases requested by the Union on
the ground that it was financially unable to grant such increases. The Respondent,
in its answer, admits certain jurisdictional allegations and the appropriateness of the
unit as alleged in the complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices, and affirmatively pleads to certain allegations in the complaint. During the
hearing, the complaint was amended by stipulation between counsel for Respondent
and counsel for General Counsel that on or about July 27, 1953, and at all times
thereafter the Respondent refused to grant the wage increases requested by the Union.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Greensboro, North Carolina, on March 16,
1954, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the
Respondent were represented by counsel' and the Union by its representatives. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The parties were given
opportunity to present oral argument before the Trial Examiner and also to file
briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Both counsel made
oral arguments. A brief has been received from counsel for the Respondent and
has been duly considered. On April 8, 1954, General Counsel moved that the Trial
Examiner order that the transcript be corrected in certain particulars involving minor
typographical errors. There being no objection such corrections are hereby ordered
to be accomplished in the official transcript.
Upon the record in the case, and upon observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a North Carolina corporation maintaining its principal place
of business at Greensboro, North Carolina, engaged in the manufacture and sale
of plate work, structural steel, and miscellaneous ironwork. During the year 1953,
which is representative of all times material herein, Respondent manufactured and
sold finished products valued in excess of $1,500,000, more than 50 percent of which,
in value, was sold and shipped to customers outside the State of North Carolina.
During the same period, the Respondent purchased raw materials, supplies, and
equipment valued in excess of $750,000, more than 75 percent of which, in value,
originated outside the State of North Carolina and was shipped in interstate com-
merce to the Greensboro plant. Respondent concedes, and I find, that it has been
engaged and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Shopmen 's Local No . 729, International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America , A. F. L., is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
1 The term General Counsel, as used herein, includes the attorney representing the Gen-
eral Counsel at the hearing, and the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the
Board.
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Bargaining Negotiations
1. The appropriate unit; representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate
unit
It is admitted in the pleadings that all production and maintenance employees at
the Greensboro plant, including checkers, truckdrivers, and leadermen, but exclud-
ing all guards, watchmen, the head shipping clerk and shop clerk, office clerical,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act, as amended. It was further stipulated that at all times here relevant the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the above appropriate unit.
2. The alleged refusal to bargain
a. The background-the correspondence
On October 27, 1950, in an election by secret ballot, conducted under the super-
vision of the Regional Director of the Fifth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board, a majority of the employees in the unit selected the Union under Section
9 (a) of the Act as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
By letter dated June 8, 1953, the Union requested the reopening of the union con-
tract for wage negotiations. These negotiations began on August 4, and on Sep-
tember 2 the Union wrote the Company that it had rejected a proposal of 2i -cents
per hour increase stating: " . . . in the belief your Company can meet the Union's
request of ten (10) cents per hour general increase . . . respectfully requests per-
mission to have a certified public accountant examine such books, records, financial
data, etc. to ascertain or substantiate the Company's position or claim of being un-
able to meet the Union's proposal and/or counter proposals of a wage increase in
excess of two and one-half cents (.021h) per hour."
On September 4, 1953, R. D. Douglas, Jr., attorney for the Company, replied as
follows:
Truitt Manufacturing Company has received your letter of September 2nd,
asking that all financial data, tax records, etc., of the Truitt Mfg. Co. be opened
to the Union in order that the Union might determine whether the Company
is in a financial position to pay what you refer to as "the Union's request of
10 cents per hour general increase."
I have been authorized to state to you that the Company takes the position
that confidential financial information concerning the affairs of this Company
is not a matter of bargaining or discussing with the Union. The Company's
position throughout the recent negotiations and in previous sessions with you
and the Union, has been that the question of granting a wage increase concerns
our competitive bidding for jobs to keep the plant operating.
We have endeavored to point out to you that the average wage of Truitt
Manufacturing Co. is already higher than the average wage of all our com-
petitors in this area. We have stated many, many times that in bidding for
contract work, our bids must be made on the basis of what the labor will cost
to perform these jobs and that we simply cannot get the work if our labor costs
used in our estimates are higher than those of our competitors. The Union
committee has persistently ignored our comparative rates, has made no answer
to our exhibits of how we compare with our competitors, and has continued to
ask for higher pay, on the grounds that the employees need it, and that we are
under the general average of the "Industry," which you apparently define as
being all steel plants in the United States.
We will be glad at any time to show you our books and records regarding
the wages we pay to our employees whom you represent, although we think
you have this information already.
The Union, on September 14, replied to this letter as follows:
We have for acknowledgement your letter of September 4, 1953, in reply
to our letter of September 2, 1953, addressed to the Truitt Manufacturing
Company.
In our letter we pointed out that representatives of the Truitt Manufacturing
Company, during lengthy negotiations, claimed the Company was financially
unable to grant a general wage increase of ten (10 cents) per hour as proposed
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 86 1
by the Union and we requested that the Company submit its financial records
to substantiate its position.
In your letter of September 4th, you say that you have been authorized to
state that the Company takes the position that confidential financial information
concerning the Company' s affairs is not a matter of bargaining or discussion
with the Union. You also state that the Company has advised the Union's
Committee that their present rates are higher than certain of its competitors.
In addition, you offer to show the Company's record regarding wages that are
now being paid the Company's employees.
Please be advised that the Union's Committee is not unmindful of the fact
that the metal fabricating industry is highly competitive. The Union's Com-
mittee has also taken into consideration a statement made by the Company's,
representatives to the effect that some of its competitors are presently paying
wage rates as low or lower than the Company is paying its employees.
It is the opinion of the Union's Committee that other of the Company's com-
petitors are paying wages rates higher than those presently being paid by the
Company and that these competitors are still operating and obtaining con-
tracts on a profitable basis. The Union does not contend that the financial
affairs of the Company are subject to collective bargaining. It does contend,
however, that the Company should submit full and complete information with
respect to its financial standing and profits during the past few years in order
that the Committee, as well as the other members of the Union employed by
the Company, can intelligently decide whether or not they should continue to
press their request for a general increase of ten (10 cents) per hour. Such
financial information is pertinent to collective bargaining. Failure on the part
of the Company to furnish such information has the effect of erecting an insur-
mountable barrier to a successful conclusion of the bargaining.
We respectfully call to your attention a decision of the National Labor Re-
lations Board in the matter of Southern Saddlery Company and Local No. 109,
United Leather Workers International Union (AFL) Case No. 10-CA-636,
July 21, 1950 (90 N. L. R. B. No. 176), (26 LRRM 1322).
If the Company still contends that it cannot afford to grant the wage increase
of ten (10 cents) per hour requested by the Union, we respectfully request that
the Company submit full and complete information and evidence of its financial
status to substantiate its claim, including bonafide evidence as to dividends paid'
by the Company during the past ten (10) years and the breakdown of its manu-
facturing costs.
On September 28, the Union again wrote to the Company's counsel , Douglas,
requesting favorable and prompt consideration of this letter of September 14, and
received the following answer:
I have your letter of September 14th and also your letter of September 28th.
In both of these letters, you request that the Union be furnished with "full and
complete information and evidence of its financial status, including bonafide
evidence as to dividends paid by the company during the past ten years and
the breakdown of its manufacturing costs."
I have read very carefully your letter of September 14th, I am familiar with
the NLRB decision in the Southern Saddlery case. The facts in this case are
entirely different from the facts in the Truitt-Local 729 negotiations , we have
at no time refused to negotiate with you concerning the wages and we are
ready to meet with you or your committee at any time.
I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat that our refusal to grant your
demanded wage increase was based primarily on what such a raise would do
to our competitive position in the industry in this area. The Truitt Company
is willing to discuss with you at any time the problem of how our wages com-
pare with those of our competition. However, the company repeats that the
financial status of the company and the information which you have requested
in both of your recent letters and a former one, is not pertinent to this dis-
cussion and the company declines to give you such information. You have
no legal right to such.
I also wish to call your attention to another matter. It is my recollection
that at our last negotiation session , you were asking for an increase of 5 cents
per hour. Your recent letters refer to a 10 cents an hour increase. I do not
know whether this is a mistake in transcribing your letters, or whether you
have intentionally increased your demand, after we put into effect the 21/2 cents
per hour raise which the company offered.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. The strike
As recited , negotiations began on August 4 and at that meeting the Company
offered a 21h-cent an hour increase , stating that that would be all it would be able
to give at that time and remain in a competitive position . The next meeting was
on August 7 when Union Representative Head advised the Company that the men
had turned down this increase . As a result of this impasse a strike occurred on
August 10 , when the men stayed out a week in support of their demand for a wage
increase . The next meeting was held , during the strike , on August 12, but the
Company remained firm in its offer of a 21-cent per hour increase , and the men
returned to work 5 days later.
c. The Respondent 's contentions
Answering the allegations contained in the complaint , the Respondent admits that
on or about September 2, 1953 , the Union requested the Respondent to furnish the
Union with books, records, and financial data, but it is specifically denied that such
information was demanded for the purpose of substantiating the Respondent 's posi-
tion that it was financially unable to grant the Union 's request for wage increases,
as the Respondent had not denied wage increases on such grounds.
In his brief Respondent Counsel Douglas contends that "an employer can refuse
a demanded wage increase on the grounds that such increase would put him out
of a competitive position with other employers in the same business , without being
required to disclose his financial books and records to the representative of the
employees ." Counsel concedes that there is considerable law to the effect that a
refusal to grant increases because of inability to pay, carries with it the duty to
prove such inability if proof is requested . He argues : "But Respondent contends
that refusal on competitive grounds, while admittedly injecting an economic factor
into bargaining , has never been held by the Board or any Court, to require disclosure
of all financial records. If this were the law , then all friendly bargaining would
cease . No employer would dare explain how increased labor costs would make
him price his product out of the market ; how competitors would outsell him. For
unless he stood ready to open all his confidential financial data to the Union, he
could say nothing but "No" to wage demands, and could give no fair , honest reasons.
Respondent points out that the competitive approach to the question of wage increases
is discussed in nearly every collective bargaining session in the United States, and
neither company nor union has ever dreamed that this would lead to disclosure of
all financial data." [ Emphasis supplied.]
d. General Counsel's contentions
General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) by
failing to substantiate its position that it cannot grant increases requested by the
Union because of business conditions . In this connection he cites the case of Jacobs
Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1214 , enfd . 196 F . 2d 680 (C. A. 2). This case
holds that the respondent upon refusing a union 's request for a raise in wages on the
grounds of business conditions must produce whatever relevant information it has
to indicate whether it can or cannot afford to comply with the union's demand.
This is required by Section 8 (a) (5) and the good -faith requirement of Section 8 (d)
is not satisfied , as the court said , by the bare assertion of a conclusion made upon
facts undisclosed and unavailable to the union , which was not acceptable without a
presentatidn of sufficient underlying facts to show at least that the conclusion was
reached in good faith . The rule, counsel argued , requires whatever relevant infor-
mation the respondent has to indicate whether it can or cannot afford to comply
with the union's demand . Counsel cited that the court in that case went along with
the rationale that the Board had enunciated in Southern Saddlery Company, 90
NLRB 1205 , in which the Board said that the validity of the Respondent 's position
in a case such as this depended upon the existence of facts peculiarly within its
own knowledge , and the respondent is required to furnish the union with sufficient
information to enable the latter to understand and discuss intelligently the issues
raised by the respondent in opposition to the union 's demands.
In the course of refusing to grant the wage increases under discussion here, counsel
charged that Respondent made a number of statements of position as to why it
could not grant the wage increases requested by the Union , citing President Truitt
in his statement that Respondent could not afford to grant the increase because it
was under capitalized . He quoted Counsel Douglas as stating that the margin of
profit in regard to sales and costs is low and as also saying at the November bar-
gaining meeting the Company simply could not get work if our labor costs used in
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 863
our estimates are higher than those of our competitors . He contended that the
Respondent steadfastly refused to give the Union, in spite of its repeated requests,
any accounting or records that would substantiate its assertion . Counsel contended
that it is an element of bad -faith bargaining , and shows lack of give and take in
bargaining negotiations for Respondent to have prolonged this wage reopening and
refused to satisfy the union membership with the production of any relevant docu-
ments substantiating its contention that it is unable to grant any wage raises. He
contended that the means of preventing 6 or 7 months of fruitless negotiations, lay
within the hands of the Respondent to persuade the union membership that the
Respondent could not afford to give the requested wage increase thus constituting
bad-faith bargaining.
e. Two questions
There are two questions involved in this case. The first is whether the Company
pleaded financial inability as the reason for rejecting the Union 's wage demand and
having done so may be required to produce his books and records as contended by
General Counsel ; and the second is whether an employer can refuse a demanded
wage increase on the grounds that such increase would put him out of a "competi-
tive position ," and then substantiate this plea by demonstrating that he was paying
the going area wage scale as contended by Respondent.
Under the Act, both the Company, as the Employer of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit set forth above , and the Union, as the representative of those em-
ployees, were under a duty to bargain collectively with each other (Section 8 (a)
(5); 8 (b) (3 )). This obligation includes "the performance of the mutual obli-
gation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable
times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment , or the negotiation of an agreement , or any question arising
thereunder , and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement
reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either
party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession ...." (Section
8 (d).)
f. Testimony of General Counsel's witnesses
Julian F. Head , special representative for the International Union , testified that
he engaged in bargaining negotiations with Truitt Manufacturing Co. on behalf of
its employees after July 27, 1953. On August 1 the employees' shop committee,
with himself as the representative , met with the Company to discuss a wage issue.
He stated that Mr. Douglas, attorney for the Company, was acting as spokesman at
the meeting and "asked us what did we have in mind and I told him that the men
were wanting 10 cents or better or 10 cents at the minimum ." In response to this,
the Company, by Mr. Douglas, stated that they were paying as much or more as any
of their competitors and they offered the Union a 21/2-cent an hour increase, saying
that that would be all that they would be able to give at this time. He stated: "they
said that that would be almost impossible to do , they stood firm on their position, that
since they were paying as much or paying more than competitors, that if they would
give more than their offer , well, it would put them out of business or put out of
competition of getting business with other competitors ." They met again on August
7: "I told the Company that the men had turned the 21/2 cents down for they felt
like they should have more, and the Company took the same position that day as
they did in the first meeting ." As a result the men went on strike on August 10
and stayed out a week in support of their request for a substantial wage increase.
They met next on August 12 and the officials of the Company again contended that
21/2 cents was all it could give. It appears that no more meetings between the
Company and the Union were held, nor any communications transmitted until a
meeting of November 24, 1953.
Head identified General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3 as a letter written by him to
the Company advising the Company that the members had voted rejection of the
Company's proposal of 21/2 cents and reiterating their belief that the Company
could pay 10 cents; General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4, a letter dated September 4,
1953, from R. D. Douglas to himself which refused the Company's request to be
shown books and records; General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5, a letter from the Union
to Douglas which requested a reply to its letter of September 14; General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 6, a letter of September 28 from Head to Douglas; and followed that
with General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7, a letter from Douglas dated September 29,
1953. Head also identified General Counsel's Proposed Exhibit No. 8-A , a single
yellow sheet of paper headed "Meeting November 24"; General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 8-B, a yellow paper headed "January 13, 1953"; General Counsel's Exhibit No.
8-C, a single yellow sheet of paper headed "January 28 , 1953 "; and also General
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel's Exhibit No. 8-D, a single yellow sheet of paper headed "February 10."
In response to counsel's question Head stated that General Counsel's Exhibits Nos.
8-A through 8-D were notes which he took during the course of meetings with
Truitt Manufacturing Co. on the dates indicated. Counsel Douglas objected to
the introduction of these exhibits stating that they appeared to be entirely self-serving
notes taken by Mr. Head. He argued that in order to refresh his recollection under
the Federal and State rules he could consult the notes but for him to offer as official
exhibits these notes which he had made, were not proper evidence?
Head testified that Mr. Douglas was speaking for the Company in saying that
the Company had just completed the yearly audit, that there were several things
the auditors found wrong and had made suggestions in ways to cut overhead cost,
that some of the office procedure was wrong, some of the changes in the shop should
be made, that the Company found the profits in regard to sales and costs was low,
that labor cost was high and the Company was struggling under a financial strain,
being under capitalized, and that they had just negotiated a loan from a bank to buy
new equipment and to buy an additional lot at the back of the plant that was
needed. Head stated that Douglas suggested that they continue negotiations later
in order to give the Company time to make changes and see "just what the picture
would be later on; although, he said he was not going to promise anything except that
probably they would in one way or another know whether the Company could
give any increase; they would know better at a later date, possibly in January, early
January, just what the position of the Company would be in or what the outlook
might be."
He testified that the next meeting was on January 13 at which time "Mr. Douglas
then kind of reviewed the past meeting, the meeting of November 24, and he
informed us that the changes suggested by the auditor had been made, but the
national outlook seemed predominant in his thinking; he went ahead then-the
newspapers at that time were playing up a bad business year outlook, and he went
into that, stating about the automobile industry and the steel industry in general, it
seems to set the pattern for the whole national picture, and then he quoted several
jobs that the Company had been unsuccessful in their bids about the State, and
I think he quoted 2 or 3 TVA jobs they had been unsuccessful on and Mr. Truitt, Sr.,
said somehow or another they just could not seem to estimate the jobs with the
other shops for they seem always to come out on the big end of the horn, or some-
body could always bid lower; and in spite of that, they said they were going to
go out on a limb and offer us an additional 21/2 cents increase at that time on a
90-day conditional basis."
Head stated that prior to the meeting of January 28 that he gave Wallace Truitt
and Mr. Douglas a copy of the supplemental agreement and asked them to consider
2 The record shows that Julian Head, testifying on behalf of the General Counsel,
refreshed his recollection on the stand with notes identified by him as having been made
by him during certain contract negotiations. The General Counsel offered these into evi-
dence as Exhibits Nos 8-A through 8-D and cited the standaid North Carolina authority
on the law of evidence, "North Carolina evidence by D. F. Stansbury." He referred to
page 48 of this volume.
Page 48 says : "The witness may refresh his memory before the trial, in which case he
need not produce in Court the writings used for that purpose. If the writings are In
Court, however, or the witness attempts to use them while testifying, the opposite party
is entitled to their production for inspection. The writing itself is not admissible in
evidence." [Emphasis supplied.]
The footnote to this statement cites two North Carolina cases, then says : "But see
Carson v. Blount 155 N. C. 103; 72 S E. 90."
The Carson v. Blount case allowed the introduction of several book entries of figures
showing the prices the defendant had paid for cotton, which figures had just been testi-
fied to by a witness The court stated that these exact figures could be used to corroborate
the witness.
The Respondent contends that Stansbury correctly states the North Carolina law and
the Federal law on this matter when he says, "The writing itself is not admissible in
evidence," and further contends that the Carson case, in allowing certain figures from an
account book to be introduced, is not authority for allowing General Counsel's witness,
Head, to introduce notes made by him during collective barggining, not as to exact amounts
or figures, but as to general statements alleged to have been made and his interpretation
of the general statements The Trial Examiner concurs in Counsel Douglas' interpreta-
tion and holds these exhibits inadmissible as evidence. (Cf latest edition of Uniform
Rules of Evidence approved by American Bar Association and American Law Institute,
Sec. VIII Hearsay, rule 63, par. 4, p. 199.)
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 865
it in their next meeting, and "so we met again in January 28; I told the Company
the men felt like they had not made any definite offer, since they wanted to put it
on a 90-day conditional basis, that if at the end of 90 days the Company could
take it away, then the men felt like they was not being offered anything, and they
wanted proof if the Company was not making money, they wanted proof to sub-
stantiate that claim." In answer to the question as to who wanted proof to substan-
tiate that claim Head replied: "the men in the shop wanted proof, because they
said if the Company was not making money, then they wanted to help them make
money."
Stating that the Company would not agree to show proof he testified: "Mr.
Douglas said that although the Union had requested the Company's records to
substantiate the Company's proof that the Company felt like we didn't have any
legal right to such proof or the records of the Company to substantiate that claim,
so we then went into a general discussion of business conditions and reasons or
ways to improve conditions if the Company was not making money, we wanted to
know how; . if the Company were not making money, then the men wanted
to make the Company money, because the Company was not paying as high wages
as they were elsewhere, and the men were simply wanting to make more money
themselves and likewise in making more money they would make the Company
money."
The next meeting was on February 10 at which time Head testified, "Mr. Douglas
went into the charges pending before the Board concerning the wage increase
request, and he still maintained that we didn't have no legal right to the increase,
and he told me the Company had took another look at their bids or their work
schedules and several of the people had withdrawn their plans for jobs and the
general picture didn't look good at all, and in face of that the Company was
withdrawing the offer of 21/z cents." Head stated, "he kinda reviewed the situa-
tion of what we had talked about, the Company's position to give more money
would put them out of the competitive picture, they would be unable to get any
jobs; and I told him that the men still felt like if the Company was not making
money they wanted to know why, and it was hard for the men to see or understand
the overhead and all that stuff, if the Company was not making money then they
wanted to know, wanted to be shown some proof." Head stated that the Company
never did show any exhibits as to how they compared with their competitors, they
merely "quoted" and maintained that it was none of the employees' business nor
did they have any legal right to such records.
Over objections of General Counsel the witness was asked, "Mr. Head, did you
at any time during your negotiations with Truitt Manufacturing Company, on
behalf of the Union, has the Company ever refused to meet with you and your
committee and discuss the issues raised at these meetings." Answer-"No, they,
you have always bargained."
On cross-examination Head admitted that the Comuany spokesman quoted Caro-
lina Steel Company and Peden Steel and Bristol Steel as contended by the Company
to show that they were already paying more than their competitors in the area. Head
admitted that the Company gave exact names and figures and prices of jobs that
it had lost on being underbid, but stated that the Union did not ask for any docu-
mentary proof of that. In this connection he stated, "they stood firm on that, with
the explanation there that if they gave more then it would put them in a position
where they would not be able to get jobs." He stated that on August 7 the Union
repeated its demands and the Company took its same position, and the strike fol-
lowed on August 10. He added that on August 12, during the strike, "the Company
took the same position." At the January 13 meeting the Company repeated its
position with regard to its competitive position in bargaining in bidding, and there-
after showed actual examples of being underbid. Head stated that the position
of the Union was that the Company was in competition with firms in Ohio, West
Virginia, and Tennessee areas, and although places like Akron, Cleveland, Pitts-
burgh, and Birmingham were named he did not admit them to be areas involved
in the wages paid in Charlotte.
Questioned on the meaning of "such books, records, financial data, etc.," Head
testified; "Well, the main thing we were after, Dick [Douglas], was anything to
substantiate the Company's claim that they were not able to give any more than 21h
cents; anything relating to the reason why they were not able." Over objections of
General Counsel on the ground of immateriality Head was allowed to answer what
he meant in his letter of September 2 for "such books, records, financial data, etc-
Did you have in mind, or were you asking that a C. P. A. be allowed to inspect the
Company's books completely and take what he thought was pertinent, or, were you
338207-55-vol 110-56
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asking for the Company to select what it thought was pertinent and furnish that to
your C. P. A.?" Head answered, "I think the Company should, or we wanted the
Company to furnish proof by records, or anything relating to their claim of being
unable of giving any more increase."
In answer to Counsel Douglas' question as to whether or not the Union was ask-
ing its C. P. A. have access to the books and select pertinent data or whether the
Union was asking for the Company to select the data to substantiate its position
and furnish such data to the Union, Head answered, "Well, the only way I know to
answer that, Dick, is that we were wanting anything relating to the Company's
position, any record or what have you, books, accounting sheets, cost expenditures,
what not, anything to back the Company's position that they were unable to give
any more money. I think all that should be laid before an accountant."
In answer to the question as to whether or not it would be the Union's accountant
or an accountant supplied by the Company, Head answered, "Well, we never did
discuss any of that, simply because the Company said it was none of our business,
and we had not discussed anything along that line. Whose or who or what." In
further question, "Now, when you speak of full and complete information with
respect to its financial standing and profits, did you consider that to mean complete
access to the Company's books and financial data?" Answer-"Anything relating
to the Company's position that they were not able to give any more money." Again,
"Mr. Head, in view of your just having stated that you were asking in these letters
for full and complete information and everything in the financial data, if it were
necessary, to substantiate the Company's position; since you have explained you
wanted everything to substantiate the Company's position, I am asking you if, from
start to finish, you have not understood that the Company's position was that it could
not raise wages because it would price itself out of competitive bidding." Answer-
"There was a statement, Dick, I believe along in conjunction with the negotiations,
during the negotiations there was a statement made, well, not only these negotiations,
but I believe you will agree with me that Mr. Truitt, Sr., said that the Company had
never paid dividends, was under capitalized, they didn't have working capital, and
to grant more than the 21/2 cents at this time would simply put them out of business."
Question-"Put them out of business because they could not get the bids, is that
right?" Answer-"Well, you maintained that position that you were in a com-
petitive [position]."
- Explaining to Counsel Douglas further, " it is hard for the men to understand about
overhead and all that stuff" Head testified, "Yes, and I believe you will recall with
me, Dick, that during negotiations the statement was, for the facts were brought out,
we were discussing the work operations, etc., and I told you it was hard for a work-
ing man to realize the actual cost in operating the plant; I said they see material
being processed through the shop, they see it going out, they see trucks back up
and freight cars come in and load and these jobs going out and the Company is
making money"; and Mr. Truitt spoke up and said, "Well, that is not the case, there
is a lot to it than that." In answer to conclusionary question: "Mr. Head, sup-
pose you had had access to all of the Company's financial data regarding overhead
costs, salaries, expense, everything that you apparently were asking for, could you
have analyzed this Company's position with respect to its competitive position if
you did not have similar information from the Company's competitors?" Head
replied that "we were not bargaining with any other" but admitted having no other
information, and added: "I think we could have drawn a conclusion from the data
if it was submitted; I think it was possible we could have drawn our conclusion
whether the Company was able to pay or not."
Testimony of General Counsel's remaining witnesses , set forth below, concluded
his case-in-chief. Henry D. Cole, a member of the union negotiating committee,
testified that when Head, at the August 4 meeting, was putting forward the question
of increase of at least 10 cents Mr. Truitt raised up and said, "it would break the
Company up to give up that much pay raise, and it would put them in a precarious
position."
George F. Beck, a member of the union negotiating committee, testified concern-
ing a bargaining meeting occurring after the strike: "We were still asking for an
increase greater than two and a half cents per hour, and the Company said then
that they could not afford to pay over two and a half cents per hour, and they were
talking about the other companies at this time and they said they just could not
afford it, that they had been losing money on jobs and said, take for instance the
Bethlehem Steel, said they could not compete with them, the big boys, they said."
Asked the reason why Truitt could not compete with the big boys Beck answered:
"They claimed we were asking for too much money, too much per hour rates." He
attributed this statement to President Truitt and he said that Truitt could not com-
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 867
pete with companies like that, like Bethlehem Steel, said they were an old company,
and they had the capital, and said, "we are just a young company, and we don't
have the capital, the working capital, and it would break us up." Beck admitted
that after each company officer spoke against a raise of over 21/2 cents, a reason was
given, among which was: "Well, competitive business was one." Beck agreed that
Douglas, as spokesman , would go ahead and explain it by basing it on "our com-
petitive position in business."
John W. Sandlin , also a member of the union negotiating committee , testified that
at the January meeting they were discussing a 21/2-cent raise for a period of 90
days: "I asked Mr. Truitt, I said at the end of 90 days you can either take it away
or leave it there at the end of 90 days, I said, now, what proof are we going to have
to put before these men, provided you do take it away, what proof are we going
to have that the Company is in financial difficulty that they can't pay it; and Mr. Truitt
put in and said; `John, that just goes to show that you don't believe a word I have
said' . . . I just stated that the reason why I wanted the proof was that the men
were going to ask us at the end of the 90 days and if they do withdraw the two
and a half cents, they were going to want to know why."
g. Testimony of Respondent's witnesses
John R. Truitt, vice president in charge of sales, testified that all of the officers of
the Company including its Counsel Douglas got together in preparation to respond
to the Union's appeal for a contract wage reopening and decided because of "our
competitive position" upon a 21h-cent per hour increase "That was as far as we
could possibly go from the competitive angle." Counsel Douglas was made spokes-
man of such company policy, and the record shows that to be the formula he used.
John Truitt testified that the company wage rates and competitive rates were dis-
cussed with the Union stating: "Presenting the picture across the board , we were
reasonably unsuccessful in getting the shop committee to consider it (comparative
wage data submitted by 4 competitors) favorably or fairly." In discussing particu-
lar jobs which had been bid and lost he contended that "the actual evidence of this
picture was presented" and denied declining or refusing to give the Union any
supporting data of the Company's position . On cross-examination he testified that
the Union offered to support its contention that the Company 's competitors were
paying higher wage rates and operating at a profit but he answered that these were
"fabricating concerns outside of our general area. . . . We have evidence to show
we were paying actually higher rates than all but one of these [local area concerns]
that one being Carolina Steel, with which we were on par; and I might add, needless
to say, they are our chief competition." He admitted that the Union denied the cor-
rectness of this contention , charging that Bristol Steel was paying higher wages. He
explained that his interest in and chief function was from the sales angle to point
out "just where we stood competitively." He cited several specific cases of bids lost
on bid sheets prepared by himself but admitted that he did not personally offer and
hand them to the Union stating, "they were not offered because they were not asked
for." He however admitted that the Company did not present any information on
jobs which they had bid upon successfully.
Wallace B. Truitt, the purchasing agent, testified that he was present when the
comparative rates of pay in the various companies were gone into , and the discus-
sion concerning unsuccessful bids. His recital was that John Truitt brought the
bids into the conference room at a meeting on January 11, 1953 , and when he left
for a prior engagement , the meeting was called to order , saying, "this evidence was
given to the committee in this fashion , our attorney , Mr. Douglas, took them at
random , opened them up with my assistance showing him what was which, read
off the bids of our competitors and our bids , and that was the general procedure of
that presentation." He stated that there was no refusal to give the Union the
documents nor any request for them or for any other documents other than the
request made in the Union's correspondence. He testified, as did his brother John,
that their father, W. B. Truitt, president of the Company, was an elderly diabetic
and may have said, "Well, boys, if we give it to you, we might go broke." Wallace
indicated that his father was in a highly nervous state-"his insulin runs up on
him, he can't think clearly late in the afternoon-he walked out of the room." He
stated that his father's outbursts did not change the official position of the Company-
"the competitive position."
h. Discussion
Actually there are very few factual conflicts and credibility issues involved herein,
as both counsel agreed this case is largely a question of legal interpretation of almost
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed facts. General Counsel contends that the company officials "plead poverty"
throwing the decision squarely under the Jacobs case doctrine, supra, while Respond-
ent counsel contends that the facts present a new and novel situation which thereby
constitutes it a case of "first impression" to the Board and the courts.
It is clear that Respondent's officials worked out their theory or formula imme-
diately after the Union requested the contract reopening for wage negotiations on
June 8, 1953, delegated their attorney to be spokesman, and insofar as possible,
followed the formula-no doubt originated by and upon advice of counsel. It was
not an afterthought. Their syllogism becomes, however, a non sequitor if the
qualification, "admittedly injecting an economic factor into bargaining," vitiates
either the major or minor premise.
From the evidence recited and relied upon, I find that Company Spokesman
Douglas said, after offering 21/2 cents and stating that they were paying as much or
more as any of their competitors that "that would be all that they would be able
to give at this time"; if they would give more than their offer, it would put them out
of competition of getting business with other competitors; that the Company found
profits in regard to sales and costs was low; that the labor cost was high and the Com-
pany being under capitalized was struggling under a financial strain; that the Company
had just negotiated a loan from a bank to buy new equipment and an additional needed
lot. I further find that President Truitt said that the Company had never paid
dividends, was under capitalized, did not have working capital, and to grant more
than 21/2 cents at this time would simply put them out of business, and finally
"it would break the Company up to give up that much [ 10 cents] pay raise, it would
put them in a precarious position." It is difficult to conceive of economic con-
clusions thus expressed more calculated to require financial documentation to a group
of working men than are these undenied assertions, nor a case more illustrative of
a plea of financial inability to grant a requested wage increase. Accordingly I find
that this case falls within the doctrines of Southern Saddlery and the Jacobs case,
supra.
The general rule applicable to requests for financial data and facts is that such
information, if relevant, upon request must be furnished as to all issues properly
the subject of collective bargaining so that the collective-bargaining representative
may intelligently represent the employees in the appropriate unit. N. L. R. B. v.
Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co, 187 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 2). The rejection of
economic demands because of competitive conditions within an industry with no
accompanying effort to prove the assertion or to persuade the Union involved that
competition was the real reason for the rejection of the demands was held to be
evidence of bad-faith bargaining. Stonewall Cotton Mills, 36 NLRB 261, enfd. as
mod. 129 F. 2d 629 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 317 U. S. 667.
In West Fork Cut Glass Company, 90 NLRB 944, 952-3, the Board affirmed a
finding by a Trial Examiner that when a request for the production of such records
as would disclose financial ability or inability to grant a wage increase was rejected,
but the company agreed to open its books to a certified public accountant or a dis-
interested third party, in view of all the circumstances, bad-faith bargaining had not
been established.
In his brief to me, Respondent's counsel attempts, unsuccessfully, to distinguish
this case from Southern Saddlery and Jacobs cases as follows:
In the Saddlery case, the respondent said only that it was financially unable to
pay. The Truitt Company said it would have to put itself out of competitive bidding
and thus could not get business.
In Saddlery, the respondent made no counterproposals, made no "sincere effort to
persuade the Union," and did not give sufficient information for the union to discuss
the issues raised.
The Truitt Company made a counterproposal and offered 21/2 cents; did its best
to explain to the Union, and gave figures to show it already paid more than most
of its competitors, and showed contracts it had lost by being underbid by competitors
paying low wages.
In the Jacobs case, the company said it was "futile to discuss" wages because of
financial inability to pay, and refused to discuss the other issues at all.
The Truitt Corpany met many times to discuss everything the Union wanted to
discuss (except show its books).
In the Jacobs case, the company should have presented "sufficient underlying facts
to show its conclusion was reached in good faith."
The Truitt Company gave the Union the pay scales of its competitors in the area,
reading from lists at the bargaining table, and comparing its own wages. Later,
Truitt told the Union about contracts it had lost from being underbid.
TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. 869
That General Counsel argues that the Truitt Company gave the same reasons as
Saddlery and Jacobs-financial inability to pay-yet witness after witness for the
General Counsel said that the Company gave its competitive position as its reason,
.citing:
Julian Head, principal negotiator for the Union, said:
They stood firm in their position, that since they were paying as much or paying
more than competitors, it would put them out of competition of getting business
with other competitors.
. and the Company took the same position that day as they did in the
first meeting.
. he [Douglas] kinda reviewed the situation of what we had talked about,
the Company's position to give more money would put them out of the com-
petitive picture. . .
Yes sir, they stood firm on that, with the explanation that if they gave more
then it would put them in a position where they would not be able to get jobs.
It is true that there is evidence that W. B. Truitt, president of Respondent Com-
pany, said on 1 or 2 occasions , "We would go broke if we gave that raise." How-
ever, Respondent contends that the officers of the Company had met, established an
official position of the Company, gave its attorney full authority to act as spokesman,
and maintained that position throughout many sessions-the same position referred
to by the union witnesses-and that 1 or 2 outbursts by an elderly diabetic man
whose insulin count was troubling him did not change the Company' s bargaining
position. Respondent points out that the Company never declined to show the
Union its competition figures and its underbid contracts. The evidence shows clearly
that while the Company was quoting figures and rates to substantiate the position
it had taken, the figures and rates were there at the bargaining table, being read a
few feet away from union negotiators , but no request was ever made to see them.
Summing up, the Respondent contends that it substantiated its reason for refusing
the wage demands by submitting facts and figures, and that the Respondent should
not be found to have refused to bargain with the Union.
j. Conclusions
With Respondent's interpretation of the facts and the law, I find myself not in
accord.
The courts and Board have made it clear that the detefmination of whether there
has been compliance with the obligation to bargain in good faith, depends ultimately
on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The testimonies established an underlying financial inability to meet the Union's
demand, and the Company failed to produce books and records to substantiate its
conclusions as required under the law as laid down in Yawman and Erbe, supra, and
in many-other cases decided by the Board. The phrase "competitive position" as
used and relied upon by Respondent amount only to an exercise in legal semantics.
Therefore the two questions raised are answered: (1) The Company did plead
financial inability as its reason for rejecting the Union's wage demand and failed to
produce relevant information to justify such refusal, and (2) an employer cannot
refuse a demanded wage increase on the grounds that such increase would put him
out of a competitive position, even though he were paying the prevailing area wage
scale, unless he factually documents this conclusion.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondents set forth in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found
that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respond-
ent upon request bargain collectively with the Union.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because of the limited scope of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, and because
of the absence of any indication that danger of other unfair labor practices is to
be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past, we shall not order the
Respondent to cease and desist from the commission of any other unfair labor
practices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Shopmen's Local No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Truitt Manufacturing Co. is engaged in interstate commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees, including checkers, truckdrivers
and leadermen exclusive of Respondents employed at their Greensboro plant, ex-
clusive of office clerical employees, guards, and supervisory employees, constitute a
unit appropriate fdr the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Shopmen's Local No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., was on October 27, 1950, and at
all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees of
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on July 27, 1953, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collec-
tively with Shopmen's Local No. 729, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Ironworkers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the above conduct which interferes with, restrains, and coerces its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
AMERICAN REPUBLICS CORPORATION, PETROLEUM BUILDING DEPART-
MENT and STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 707, I. U. OF
0. E., AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-758. November 15,1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John F. Burst, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds :
American Republics Corporation, the Employer herein, is a Dela-
ware corporation engaged in the production of petroleum and related
'On May 12, 1954, the Petitioner filed with the Board its request for permission to
withdraw its petition. The Employer, on May 14, 1954, objected to the Petitioner's re-
quest. In view of our disposition of this case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon this
request.
110 NLRB No. 141.