U. S. Automatic Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of U . S. AUTODIATIC CORPORATION and FEDERAL UNION
No. 23459 (AFL)
Case No. 8-C--1578.-Decided July 8, 1944'
Mr. _ Russell Packard,, for the Board.
Mr. Richard A. Stith, Hof Amherst, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Alva Kemp, of Elyria, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Harry,H. Kuskin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Federal Union No. 23459, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein, called-the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its com-
plaint dated January 26, 1944, against U. S. Automatic Corporation,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor, practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein' called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance: (1) that since September 3, 1943, the respondent has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment; and (2) that the respondent, by the foregoing acts, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On February 1, 1944, the respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint,, admitting the allegations respecting its business, the status'
of the Union as a labor organization, and the appropriateness of the
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, but denying that it had
57 N. L R . B, No. 25.
124
U. S. AUTOMATIC - CORPORATION ,_, 125
engaged in unfair labor practices . On the same day, the , respondent,
the Union , and the Board entered into a stipulation agreeing upon
a statement of facts to serve as the basis of the Board's Decision and
Order, and expressly, waiving , further hearing , the issuance of an
Intermediate Report, or Proposed Findings of Fact, or other pro-
cedure before the Board . The stipulation provides as follows:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between U.. S. Auto-
matic Corporation , herein called Respondent , Federal Union No.
23459 ( AFL), herein called the Union, and Russell Packard , Regional
Attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, Eighth Region,
herein called the Board , that the following statement of facts and
the exhibits attached hereto shall have the same force and effect as
though witnesses had testified with respect thereto and that said ex-
hibits had been offered and received at a formal hearing on due notice.
I.,Upon a Charge duly filed by the Union, the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region, issued its Complaint dated
January 26 , 1944, against Respondent alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the ' ineaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 5) and Section 2
(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. A copy of said Complaint, accompanied by a Notice
of Hearing, was duly served on Respondent and the Union. On
'February 1, 1944, Respondent filed its Answer to said Complaint, a
copy of which was duly served upon the Union. Service of all said
documents is hereby acknowledged.
II. The parties hereto expressly waive further hearing, Intermed-
iate Report, Proposed Findings of Fact and other and further proceed-
ings of and before the Board. This Stipulation and Agreed statement
of Facts, together with the Charge, Complaint, Notice of Hearing and
Answer of Respondent, shall be filed with the Chief Trial Examiner
of the Board in Washington, D. C., and shall constitute the entire
record in this proceeding. Uppn said record, the Board may make
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and issue a Decision and
Order.
,The record in this matter may be reopened by the Board upon notice
to the parties , provided that, should that occur, the record will,, upon
request of any of the parties hereto, be reopened with respect to any,
or all issues herein.
III. Respondent is an Ohio corporation having its principal place
of business and office at Amherst, Ohio, herein known as the Plant,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of various screw machine pro-
ducts for the direct use of the United States armed forces and the
war effort .. The principal raw materials used by Respondent in the
manufacture of its products are steel , brass and bronze. More than
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fifty percent by value of the raw materials are received at the Plant
from sources outside the State of Ohio. Likewise, more than fifty
percent by value of the finished products are shipped from the plant to
points outside the State of Ohio. The gross sales of Respondent dur-
ing the calendar year 1943 amounted to more than $1,000,000.00 and
its purchases of raw materials during the same period were in excess
of $500,000.00. Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act..
V. For a number of years prior to June 24, 1943, an unaffiliated
labor organization, known as Amhurst Screw Product Workers, Inc.,
herein called ASPW, had been recognized by Respondent as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees, although not certified under the procedures of the Act. On
that date the American Federation of Labor,, herein called the Fed-
eration, filed a Petition with the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region of the Board alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Respondent,
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives.
Thereafter, the Federation filed an Amended Petition with the
Regional Director concerning this matter, known on the dockets
of the Board as Case No. 8-R-1192. On July 8, 1943, the Federa-
tion, the ASPW and Respondent executed an Agreement for Consent
Election among all employees of Respondent in an agreed appropriate
unit consisting of all production and maintenance workers at the
Plant, excluding clerical workers, foremen, and guards. Pursuant
thereto, an election was held on July 20, 1943, among the employees
of Respondent within the appropriate unit. Thereafter, on July 26,
1943, the Regional Director for the Eighth Region of the Board issued
and served upon the parties his Report on Consent Election finding
and determining that the Federation of Labor had been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees in the agreed appropriate
unit as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
within said unit.
VI. Following the determination of the Regional Director of July
26, 1943, that the Federation had been designated the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees involved, as described above,
that organization obtained 'a charter and became known as Federal
Union No. 23459 (AFL), herein called the Union. Respondent ex-
pressly stipulates that the Union is the same organization as, and is
identical with, the Federation with the change of name herein
noted.
VII. Respondent stipulates that the appropriate unit agreed upon
in the said Consent Election Agreement continues as the appropriate
U. S. AUTOMATIC CORPORATION 127
unit of its employees for all purposes of the Act. Respondent fur-
ther stipulates that the Federation represented a majority of its
employees within said appropriate unit in July 1943 and that the
Union continues to represent a majority of Respondent's employees
within the said appropriate unit at the present time.
VIII. On September 3, 1943, Respondent and Federal Union No.
23459 executed an Agreement in which Respondent undertook to
recognize the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining agency of
all employees of Respondent excluding office workers, foremen and
guards. A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto and made a
part hereof as Exhibit A.1 On October 8, 1943, the Union sent a let-
ter to Respondent, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof as Exhibit B. On October 23, 1943, Respondent sent a
letter to the Union, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof as Exhibit C. Acknowledgement of the receipt of said
letters is hereby made.
IX. In its relationship with the ASPW, Respondent recognized
and bargained with it as the exclusive representative of all employees
regardless of whether they were members of the ASPW or were not
members of that organization, said non-membership customarily being
confined to the probationary period of employment. Upon the des-
ignation of the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees within the appropriate unit, as described above, Re-
spondent adopted the policy of dealing with all employees who were
not members of the Union, as individuals and without representation,
participation or intervention by the Union.
X. On and after September 3, 1943, Respondent has negotiated,
bargained and dealt in an individtfal manner, and without permitting
representation, participation or intervention by the Union, with those
of its employees who are not members of the Union concerning wage
raises, promotions, transfers and upgrading. Respondent contends
that such individual bargaining on its part with respect to those of its
employees who are not members of the Unior constitutes "presenta-
tion of grievances" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 9 (a)
of the Act. As a result of such individual bargaining, dealings or
negotiations, Respondent has made final determinations and taken ac-
tion thereon with respect to such matters. Respondent on and after
said date has dealt with those of its employees who are members of the
Union only through the Union, and not individually as has been its
policy since said date with respect to employees who are not members
of the Union.
On and after September 3,1943, Respondent has not given the Union
prior notification of any dealings, bargaining or negotiations had be-
t Only Exhibits B and C, which are referred to in the Stipulation , are set forth in full
in our flndiis of fact, infra; the others are referred to whenever necessary or material.
128 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
"tween Respondent and employees who are not members of the Union;
'permitt'ed the Union to be present at such dealings', bargaining or nego-
tiations; permitted the Union to present its views, negotiate, bargain
,or deal with Respondent concerning any of the issues raised in said
individual bargaining; permitted the Union to participate in consider-
•atiori or settlement of any issues raised in said individual bargaining
or on the final determination with respect thereto; nor has it followed
the procedures set up in Articles I and III of the above-mentioned
Agreement with respect to any employees who are not members of the
Union.
' Respondent stipulates that the only action with respect to the Union
that it has taken, and represents that it will take, concerning such
individual bargaining is to'notify the Union-of the changes made as
the result of such bargaining after they had been made, such action
with respect to the Union being illustrated by the statements of Re-
spondent set forth in Exhibit C hereof.
XI. Respondent represents that, should any grievance be raised in
the future as to additional matters involved in the employment re-
lationship with respect to employees who are not members of -the
Union, it will continue to negotiate, bargain and deal individually with
such employees on all such matters in the manner set forth in Article
X, above, without permitting representation, participation or inter-
vention, by the Union.
XII. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D is a list
of adjustments,or action taken since September 3, 1943, as a result
of individual bargaining with employees in the manner described in
Article X, above.2 ,
XIII. There is no oral understanding or agreement which varies'
from or adds to this Stipulation and Agreed Statement of Facts.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
° FINDINGS OF FACT,
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ti. S. Automatic Corporation, an,Ohio corporation, is engaged at
its plant in Amherst, Ohio, in the manufacture of various, screw ma-
•cbine products for the direct use of the armed forces of the United
States and for the war' effort. During the year 1943 the respondent
purchased for use in its business raw materials valued in excess of
$500,000, more than 50 percent of which was shipped to it from out-
side the State of Ohio. During the same period the respondent's
3 The schedule lists 21 such adjustments or instances of action taken by the respondent,
including 5 increases in rates of pay, 15 promotions combined with increases in pay, and 1
transfer.
U. S. AUTOMATIC CORPORATION .129
gross' sales of finished products exceeded $1,000,000, more than 50
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State. The re=
spondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amherst Screw Product Workers, Inc., unaffiliated, was a labor or-
ganization, and Federal Union No. 23459, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
ILI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit -
The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and main-'
tenance workers at the respondent's Amherst, Ohio, plant, excluding
clerical workers, foremen, and guards, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining: We find further that such
unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and collective `bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.3
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
For a number of years prior to June 24, 1943, Amherst Screw Prod-
uct Workers, Inc., an unaffiliated organization, herein called the
ASPW, had been recognized by the respondent as the exclusive col-
lective bargaining representative of the respondent's employees. On
that date the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Fed-
eration; filed a Petition for Investigation and Certification of Repre-'
sentatives with the Regional Director. Thereafter the Federation filed
an Amended Petition. On July 8, 1943; the respondent, the Federa-
tion, and the ASPW entered into an Agreement for Consent Election
to be conducted among all the employees of the respondent in the unit
heretofore found appropriate. ' In the election held on July 20, pur-
suant to the agreement, a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit designated the Federation as their exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative.' On July 26, 1943, the Regional Director certified that the
Federation had been so designated. Thereafter the Federation, ob-
tained a ' charter and became known as Federal Union No. 23459
(AFL), herein referred to as the Union. The parties stipulated and
we find'that, except for the change of name, the Union is the same
B The respondent stipulated that the unit was appropriate for all purposes of the Act.'
601248-45-vol 57-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'organization as the Federation, and that the Federation' in Jilly, 'and
the Union at all times thereafter, have represented a majority of the
employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. We find further
that at all times since September 3, 1943, the Union has been the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employent.4 '
3. The contract
On September 3, 1943, the respondent and the Union entered into a
maintenance-of-membership agreement in which the respondent rec-
ognized the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representa-
tive of all its employees in-the appropriate unit.5 The contract con=
twins provisions covering seniority, vacations, use of bulletin boards,
length of the workday and workweek, payment of time and one half
for overtime and for holidays on the basis of the "regular rate of pay,"
and allowance of bonuses for the second and third night shift em-
ployees. It makes no mention of existing rates of pay, but expressly
leaves that matter open for further negotiation by providing that
"Articles regarding hours, wages, and special'rules [are] to be nego-
tiated, and, attached to [the] Agreement." Embodied in the contract
is a grievance procedure, the pertinent provisions of which are set
forth in Articles I and III of the agreement. Therein,,the respond-
ent agrees (1) that it will "negotiate with the accredited, representa-
tive of the Union who may be chosen by its members for the pur-
poses of settling any dispute which may arise during the operation
of the Agreement"; (2) that "the Union shall select a Shop Commit-
tee and 'a Shop Steward shall'be selected from each. Department for
'the purpose of handling grievances and to see that the conditions of
this Agreement- are not broken by either- the corporation or the mem-
bers of the Union"; and (3) that the aggrieved employee shall pre-
sent his grievance in the first instance to the department steward for
settlement with the department foreman; that, failing agreement, the
steward shall present it to the shop committee and the manager or his
designated representative; that, if still unsettled, the case shall be
,referred to the president of the corporation and an accredited repre-
sentative of the American Federation.of Labor; and, finally, if no
settlement has been reached after exhausting these 'three steps, the
matter shall be arbitrated.
4 There are approximately 520 employees in the appropriate unit.
' The unit defined In the contract refers .to all employees rather than all production and
maintenance employees, but,lists the same excluded categories of employees as the unit
herein found appropriate . It is clear , and we find , that the unit found herein to be appro-
priate and the one specified in the contract are,identical.
•U. S: AUTOMATIC CORPORATION 131
4. The refusal to bargain
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that since
September 3, 1943,,, the respondent, without prior notification to the
Union, has dealt, .bargained, or negotiated concerning wage raises,
promotions, transfers, and upgrading with individual employees
within the appropriate unit who were not members of the Union and
has granted raises to, and effected transfers, promotions, and upgrad-
ing of, such employees. On October 8, 1943, the Union wrote to the
respondent the following letter of protest concerning the aforesaid
practices : '
We, the members, of Federal Union #23459 of the American
Federation of Labor, not' only request but demand, that all wage
adjustments of production workers be handled properly through
our elected representatives (either department Stewards or
Committeemen). -
We also demand that no Foreman will bargain with any indi-
vidual regarding wages (Union or non-union member) unless
said steward of that department is notified and accompanies said
individual.
We also demand that the management send written notices *to
all foremen regarding these demands.
In being elected the sole collective bargining agent of all em-
ployees, we most sincerely believe that our de2nands should be
granted.
On October 23 the respondent replied by letter, stating its position
with respect to the Union's demands,-as follows :
Inreply to your letter dated October 8th, on the making of wage
adjustments, we are of the same opinion as you where members of
the Union are involved. Interviews on wage adjustments of
Union members are to include the employee, a representative of
the Management and a Union Steward or Committeeman.
But, we cannot agree that a Union,Steward be included in the
discussion- of wages with a non-member employee. 'In the latter
case, however, the Union will of course be.notified that such an
adjustment has•been made. ' •
Wage adjustments resulting either from an employee's request
or from up-grading by the Company will be handled in these,
ways, with final decisions on rates made by the Management.
This reply is based on existing law, the Contract between the
Company and the Union, sighed September 3rd, and the present
wage schedules approved by the Regional War.Labor Board.
It is further stipulated, and we find that, since September 3, 1943,
the respondent has not permitted the Union (1) to be present at such
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dealings, bargaining, or negotiations with non-member employees;
(2) to present its views, negotiate, bargain, or deal with the respond-
ent concerning any of the issues raised in said individual bargaining;
and (3) to participate in the consideration or 'settlement thereof.,,
The respondent concedes, in addition, and we find, that it has not
followed the procedures established in Articles I and III of the
aforesaid agreement with respect to any employees within the unit
who were not members of the Union. Moreover, we find that it has
expressed a fixed intention not to bargain collectively with the Union
in the future. concerning grievances that may arise as to additional
matters involved in the employment relationship of non-member em-
ployees, by stipulating that, should any such grievance arise, it would
continue as heretofore to negotiate and deal with the individual with-
out permitting representation, participation, or intervention by the
Union.
5. Conclusions
The respondent contends that both its contract with the Union as
the exclusive representative of all the employees within the appropri-
ate unit and the Act permit it to bargain on matters covering all
phases of the employment relationship with employees within the
unit who are not members of the Union, for the reason that such in-
dividual bargaining constitutes "presentation of grievances" within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.' The issue thus presented
is whether the respondent has committed an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of the Act (1) by refusing'to negotiate with the
exclusive bargaining agency concerning the disposition of grievances
individually presented by non-member employees, in disregard of an
existing grievance procedure providing for such negotiation, and (2)
by bargaining instead with these individual employees.
We must resolve this issue against the respondent. The stated
policy of the Act is to eliminate and. mitigate the obstructions to inter-
state commerce by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective
bargaining. To this end the Act protects employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through
a representative of their own choosing and imposes upon the employer
the affirmative duty to bargain collectively with such representative.
It is established also that , in its relationship with the ASPW, the respondent had, prior
to June 24. 1943, bargained with it as the exclusive bargaining representative of all em-
ployees regardless of whether they were members of that organization.
7 Section 9 (a) reads as follows :
Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by
the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes , shall be the
exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining in respect to pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment : Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their . employer.
U. S. AUTOMATIC CORPORATION 133.
Thus, once a bargaining representative has been designated by a ma-
jority of the employees in an appropriate unit, the obligation of the
employer to deal with such representative concerning terms and condi-
tions of employment of all those within the unit becomes exclusive
and carries with it a correlative duty not to treat with others. To
disregard the agent selected by the majority as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the whole unit and negotiate with certain employees indi-
vidually, interferes with the rights of the majority of the employees
to .bargain through its representative, violates the essential principles
of collective bargaining, and subverts the process established by the
Act. These are well established principles which recently have been
reemphasized by the United States Supreme Court.'
The existence of a collective bargaining agreement with the exclusive
representative, as is the situation in the ease before us, does not render
these principles inoperative. It is the employer's obligation, as a con-
tinuing part of the bargaining process, to negotiate with the bargain-
ing representative with respect to the application, interpretation, ad-
ministration, or modification of the collective agreements J n fact,
absent any provision in the contract leaving certain areas open to
individual bargaining, the only thing left to individual agreement
is the act of hiring.- No such areas are left open in the agreement
before us. On the contrary, the agreement specifically provides for
a continuation of the collective bargaining process on all disputes aris-
ing out of the employment relationship including individual
grievances."
In the instant case we are confronted with the respondent' s refusal
to deal with the Union concerning grievances as to wages, transfers,
promotions, upgrading, or any other matter involved in the employ-
ment relationship of individual employees within the appropriate unit
who are not members of the Union. Such grievances are normal and
AJ. I. Case v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 332; Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
321 U. S. 678.
"N. L. R. B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U. S. 322, 342; Rapid Roller Co . v. N. L. R. B., 126
F. (2d) 452, 459 (C. C. A. 7), cert. den. 317 U. S. 650; N. L. R. B. v . Newark Morning
Ledger Co., 120 F. (2d) 266, 267 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 314 U. S. 693.
10 J. I. Case v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 332. Matter of Hughes Tool Company, 56 N. L. R. B.,
981.
11 The preamble states : "Recognizing that it is not possible in Agreements of this nature,
to cover every contingency that may arise, the Union hereby agrees that during negotia-
tions for the settlement of any differences that may arise, there shall be no cessation of
work by the employees . The Employer agrees that there shall be no lock-out of employees
during such negotiations."
Article I provides that the respondent "agrees to, negotiate with the accredited repre-
sentative of the Union . . . for the purpose of settling any dispute which may arise
during the operation of this Agreement."
Article III sets out a grievance procedure which provides for direct participation by a
union representative beginning with the first stage.
Article VIII states: "Articles regarding hours, wages, and special rules to be negotiated,
and attached to Agreement." -
134 DECISIONS OF ^ NATIONAL; LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proper subjects-of collective bargaining.12 The respondent itself has
recognized this fact by bargaining with the Union concerning a
grievance procedure, by including a provision covering the subject in
its collective contract with the' Union, and by conceding its obligation
to follow -this provision and to deal with a union representative con-
cerning grievances of employees who are members of the Union. Mat-
ters pertaining to the administration, interpretation, or modification
of the collective agreement normally arise as grievances. Negotiations
on such matters, as on all grievances, are typically conducted through
the grievance procedure established in the collective agreement, pur-
suant to negotiations with the 'exclusive bargaining representative."
This grievance procedure applies to all the employees in the appro-
priate unit and all are entitled to its benefits, which may not be waived
even,by agreement between the individual employee and the respond-
ent.14 The employees therefore have a right, and the respondent is
obligated, to negotiate concerning grievances through a representative
of the Union as provided, in the collective agreement. As. against this
right and obligation, the proviso to Section 9 (a) of the Act extends
to individuals or groups of employees "the right at any time to present
grievances to their employers." To hold, as the respondent contends,
that this proviso permits the respondent to bargain concerning griev-
ances directly with the individual employees within the appropriate
unit who are not members of the Union, would not only be inconsistent
with the exclusive bargaining contract, but would run counter to the
very practice and philosophy of collective bargaining as established in
the Act and interpreted by the courts.15 --
12 See Matter of Cities Service Oil Company, 25 N. L. R. B. 36, 44, enf'd in part, N. L.
R B. V. Cities Service Oil Co, 122 F. (2d) 149 (C C. A. 2), wherein we held that "since
grievances conceiii conditions of, work within the meaning of-Section 9 (a) of the Act, they
are proper subjects for collective bargaining " See also N. L. R B. v. Bachelder; 120 F
(2d) 574, 577-578 (C. C A 7) ; Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills, 2 N. L R. B. 952, 955,'
enf'd as mod., Moorsville Cotton Mills v N L R B, 110 F (2d) 179 (C C A 4) ; Mat-
ter of Wallace Mfg. -Co, 2 N L- R B: 1081,1090, enf'd'N.•L. R.•B. v. Wallace Mfg. Co.,
95 F (2d) 818 (C. C. A 4) ; Matter of The New York Times Company, 26 N. L. R. B.
1094, 1105; and Matter of Corn Products Refining Company, 22 N. L R.. B. 824, 831.
11 See e. g, Clinton S. Golden and Harold I. Ruttenburg, The Dynamics of Industrial
Democracy, p 43; Watkins and Dodd, The Management of Labor Relations, 1938 (1st Ed ),
1p 709; The Twentieth Century Fund, How Collective Bargaining Works, pp. 51, 244, 314,
360, 362. 418, 566, 596, 644, 652, 736, 801, 858 -
14 See J I Case-Compaiiy, supra.
15 As the Supreme Court stated in J I. Case Company, 321 U S. 332.
. . advantages to individuals may prove as disruptive, of industrial peace as
disadvantages. They are a fruitful way of interfering with organization and choice
of representatives ; increased compensation, if individually deserved, is often earned
at the cost of breaking down some other standard thought to be for the welfare of
the group, and always creates the suspicion of being paid at the long-range expense
off.the -group, as,a•whole. Such, discriminations not infrequently amount to unfair
labor practices ' The workman is free, if he values his on bargaining position more
than that of the group, to vote against representation; but the majority rules, and
if it collectivizes the employment bargain, individual advantages or favors will gen-
erally in practice go in as a contribution to the collective result.
See also The Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Incorporated,
321 U. S. 342
U. S. AUTOMATIC CORPORATION 135
In our opinion the only interpretation consonant with the Act,
its legislative history,1e and judicial decisions, is to give the pro-
viso its literal meaning by permitting individuals or groups of
employees "to present grievances to their employer" by appearing
in behalf of themselves at every stage of the grievance procedure
set up in the collective agreement, regardless of whether it so speci-
fies, but entitling the exclusive representative to be present and
negotiate at each such stage concerning its views as to the subject of the
grievance. The extension by employers to individuals or groups of
employees of greater rights than these, would undermine the kind
of collective bargaining which the Act seeks to encourage.
-In refusing to deal with the Union concerning grievances cover-
ing the employment relationship of individual employees and in
dealing, instead, directly with the individual employees, the re-
spondent has refused to bargain exclusively with the Union and
has interfered with the employees' rights to self-organization and to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
Moreover, by taking the position that it will deal with the Union in
respect to grievances only of member employees, the respondent has
failed and refused to accord the Union the exclusive recognition to
which it is entitled under the Act and has thereby also refused to
bargain with it as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the unit. Finally, by establishing a different grievance proce-
dure for employees in the unit who are not members of the Union,
the respondent has unilaterally modified the collective agreement.
The respondent recognizes the binding effect of the agreement by
conceding its obligation to deal with the Union in respect to griev-
ances of member employees in accordance with the procedure em-
bodied in the agreement. However, this grievance procedure is
binding upon the employer and all the employees within the appro-
priate unit. The agreement itself, contemplates negotiations with
the Union on "any contingency" or "dispute which may arise." 17
The Union therefore had a right to be consulted and to bargain
about any proposed changes in the grievance procedure'" Conse-
quently, the respondents' conduct in changing the grievance proce-
dure established in the collective agreement , without consulting and
negotiating with the Union, also constitutes a refusal to deal exclu-
sively with the duly chosen representative.
16 See 74th Cong., 1st Seas., H. Rep. No. 1147, p. 20 ; 74th Cong ., 1st Sess., on H. R. 6288,
p. 211; 74th Cong., 1st Bess., S . Rep. No. 573 , p. 13; 74th Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 1958,
pt. 3, p. 321.
17 See footnote 11, supra.
See The Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency Incorporated, 321
U. S. 342; Consolidated Aircraft Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 141 F. ( 2d) 785 (C. C. A.
9) ; Matter of George E. Carroll, an individual d/b/a Carroll's Transfer Company et al..
56 N. L . R. B. 935.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
We find that, by refusing,to bargain with the Union concerning
grievances covering the employment relationship of employees in
the appropriate unit' who are not members of the Union, by bar-
gaining -with individual non-member employees on such grievances,
by refusing to recognize .the Union as the 'exclusive representative
of all the employees within the apropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining on such grievances, and by changing the
grievance procedure established in the collective agreement, without
consultation or negotiation with the Union, the respondent has
refused and is refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit,
and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees' in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
i
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICER, UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above] occurring in 'connection with the operations of the
respondent as described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce' among the'
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease, and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Since,we have found that the respondent has failed to bargain
collectively with the Union, we shall order it, upon request, to bargain
collectively with the Union • as the exclusive representative of its
employees within the appropriate unit. Since we have found also
that the respondent has bargained individually with employees who
were 'not members of the.Union as a, means of thwarting the rights
of its employees under, the' Act, and since we consider such bargaining
to constitute an obstacle to the full exercise of the right to collective
bargaining, we find it necessary in, order. to. effectuate the policies of
the Act, to require the respondent to notify its foremen and each
employee with whom it has bargained. individually since September
3, '1943,, that the respondent will 'not thereafter bargain with any
of its employees, with respect to any matter involving the employ-
ment relationship so long as the Union or 'any other,agency shall be
the 'exclusive bargaining representative- of its, employees. •
U. S. ' AUTOMATIC CORPORATION 137
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and. upon- the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following : _ I
4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amherst Screw Product Workers, Inc., unaffiliated, was a labor,
organization, and Federal Union No. 23459, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the. Act.
2. All production and maintenance workers at the respondent's
Amherst, Ohio, plant, excluding clerical workers, foremen, and
guards, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of, collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Federal Union No. 23459, affiliated with the American'Federa-
tion of Labor, was on September 3, 1943, and at all times thereafter
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the , meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively' with Federal Union No.
23459, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and'coercing its employee's 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 (1). of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions' of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, U. S. Automatic Corporation, Amherst, Ohio, and its' offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist, from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Federal Union No. 23459,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive
-representative of all production and maintenance workers at the
respondent's Amherst; Ohio, plant, excluding clerical workers, fore-
men, and guards;
138 DECISIONS-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Engaging in any like or -related acts or conduct interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its,employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
'Federal Union No.'23459, affiliated 'with the 'American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or, protection,-as'b aranteed in Section 7 of the'Act. ` .
2. Take the following affirmative action which the *Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Federal Union ' No.
23459, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as, the ex-
elusive representative of all production and maintenance workers at
the respondent's Amherst, Ohio, plant, excluding clerical workers,
foremen, and guards, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Give separate written notice to its foremen and to each of its
employees -with whom it has'bargained individually since September
3, 1943, stating that it will not thereafter bargain with any of its
employees with respect to any matter involving the employment re-
lationship so long as the Union or any other agency shall be the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in
Amherst, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating :
(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of this
Order; and (2) that the respondent will- take the affirmative action
set'forth iii paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to. comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order. '