Washington Stair And Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1987

285 N.L.R.B. 566 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

566 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Washington Stair and Iron Works , Inc. and Interna-
tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Or-
namental Ironworkers , Shopmen 's Local Union
No. 486 , AFL-CIO. Cases 5-CA-17034 and 5-
CA- 17269
31 August 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 4 November 1986 Administrative Law Judge
James J. O'Meara issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions, a
supporting brief, and a brief in response to the
General Counsel's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs i and
has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2
and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.
1. THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING CONTRACT3
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement
between the Respondent and the Union expired on
I The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
The Respondent has attempted to renew its motion made in its post-
hearing brief that, pursuant to Sec, 102 37 of the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, the judge be disqualified Although acknowledging the judge ex-
pressed no outward bias, the Respondent contends the judge made sever-
al ill-considered and premature rulings that had the effect of denying the
Respondent its right to a fair trial
At the outset we note that this motion was untimely raised inasmuch as
the Respondent failed to comply with the procedural constraints of Sec
102 37 of the Board's Rule's and Regulations Sec 102 37 requires that
any party wishing to request a judge to withdraw from a case must do so
before the filing of his decision by filing with the judge promptly on the
discovery of the alleged facts, "a timely affidavit setting forth in detail
the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification " The Re-
spondent did not file such an affidavit and raised the issue for the first
time in its brief to the judge Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence
that the judge prejudged the case, but is replete with evidence that the
Respondent continued its attempt to relitigate the issue of whether the 15
November 1984 settlement agreement constituted a contract The judge
based his rulings on the previous finding by the Board that the settlement
agreement constituted a contract We therefore find no merit in the Re-
spondent's contention that the judge prejudged this case Accordingly,
we find no basis on which to disqualify the judge
2 The General Counsel excepts, inter alia, to the judge's failure to seg-
regate from the transcript of the hearing the matters introduced by the
Respondent as an "offer of proof" We find no merit in this exception as
the failure to segregate the offer of proof does not constitute prejudicial
error
The judge inadvertently stated that the attempt to rescind the agree-
ment violated "Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)" when it is clear in context that
he meant to find that the Respondent violated "Section 8(a)(1) and
8(a)(5) "
3 The facts set forth in this portion of the decision are based on uncon-
troverted testimony in the record
30 September 1983. The parties negotiated for a
new contract through the latter part of 1983, but
failed to reach an agreement. On 15 November
1984, however, the parties signed a settlement
agreement which, inter alia, incorporated by refer-
ence their most recently expired agreement and set
forth the changes and modifications to that agree-
ment agreed on by the parties.
At the end of December 1984 the Union pre-
pared a written contract that incorporated in final
form the provisions of the 15 November agreement
and delivered the written contract to the Respond-
ent for signature. The Respondent refused to sign
the written contract.
The judge noted that in Case 5-RD-874 the
Board found the 15 November settlement agree-
ment to be a valid and binding collective-bargain-
ing agreement. The judge, however, found that the
Respondent, having signed this agreement, was not
also obligated to sign the December 1984 written
contract.
Contrary to the judge, we find that the Respond-
ent's refusal to execute the December 1984 written
contract violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Section
8(d) imposes on either party to a collective-bar-
gaining agreement the duty to execute a written
contract incorporating in one document the provi-
sions agreed to, if so requested, by the other
party.4 In December 1984 the Union simply re-
quested that the Respondent satisfy this 8(d) obliga-
tion. The Respondent refused. In refusing the
Union's request, the Respondent failed to comply
with the duty imposed on it by Section 8(d) and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).5
II. ALLEGED CHANGE IN ACCESS POLICY
The complaint alleges that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by promulgating a
policy that forbids union agents access to its facili-
ty, contrary to section 22 of its collective-bargain-
ing agreement. Relying solely on the text of section
22 the judge found the violation after having con-
cluded that the alleged policy change was a rule
contrary to this section of the collective-bargaining
agreement. For reasons set out below, we find that
the evidence presented by the General Counsel is
insufficient to establish that the Respondent's con-
duct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The record indicates that, after the expiration of
its collective-bargaining agreement on 30 Septem-
ber 1983, the Respondent ceased deducting union
dues from its employees' paychecks. After the par-
4 Kennebec Beverage Co, 248 NLRB 1298 (1980), see generally Cloth-
ing Workers v NLRB, 324 F 2d 228 (2d Cir 1963)
5 Diplomat Envelope Corp, 263 NLRB 525, 540-541 (1982)
285 NLRB No. 70
WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WOR:{S
ties entered into the 15 November 1984 settlement
agreement, which reinstituted the union-security
clause, the union president, business agent, financial
secretary, and treasurer, Ray E. Owens Jr., notified
the Respondent's general manager, Richard Tacik,
that he would be making plant visitations. On 4
January 1985 Owens visited the Respondent's plant
and informed Werner Umlandt, the plant manager,
that he was there to meet with the employees
during their lunchbreak to get them to fill out
union membership applications and union dues-
checkoff authorizations. Umlandt consented.
Owens testified that on 25 January 1985 he re-
turned to the plant in an effort to reach those em-
ployees who were not present during his earlier
visit and to ask any of the employees if they had
any problems that they would like to discuss. He
stopped at the office and told Umlandt that he was
there "to meet and visit with the employees," to
which Umlandt responded, "No, you cannot meet
with the employees any more, [you will] have to
call them to the union hall. [You will] not be al-
lowed on the premises to meet with the employ-
ees." Owens left the plant without further discus-
sion and without speaking to any of the employees.
Armond Garcia, one of the Respondent's em-
ployees and another General Counsel witness, testi-
fied with the aid of an interpreter that, at the em-
ployee meeting held during the afternoon of 25
January, Umlandt told the assembled employees
that "there would be no further representations of
the Union in the cafeteria while the affair of the
contracts was not settled."6 Garcia also testified
that in the past union representatives had not met
with the employees in the company cafeteria, but
would come in and leave bulletins on the board to
notify employees of matters pertaining to the Com-
pany.
Section 22 of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment states:
An authorized representative of the Union
shall be permitted to visit the office of the
Company at all reasonable hours and after no-
tifying a representative of the Company, desig-
nated by it for such purpose, will be permitted
to visit the Company's shop during working hours
to investigate any matter covered by this agree-
ment, but he shall in no way interfere with the
progress of the work. [Emphasis added.]
6 With respect to the 25 January meeting , Umlandt testified that "I
told everybody at this meeting that as for signing up and the union busi-
ness that was going on for the last couple of weeks that caused interrup-
tions in production and all the rest of it, that I would not allow any more
mass meetings in the lunchroom and that these interruptions the way we
had them before are going to be eliminated no matter what I had to do,
and that if Roy Owens operates like he does then he will not be allowed
to come back to the plant "
567
Relying solely on the text of section 22, the judge
found the violation after having concluded that the
alleged policy change was a rule contrary to this
section of the collective-bargaining agreement.
In our view, section 22 of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement limits union visits to investigations
of matters arising from the collective-bargaining
agreement. Owens' attempt to gain signatures on
membership or checkoff forms, the acknowledged
reason for his visit to the company plant on 25 Jan-
uary, does not qualify as an "investigation." Ac-
cordingly, we find that by denying Owens permis-
sion to meet with the employees on 25 January
1985, the Respondent did not, contrary to section
22 of the collective-bargaining agreement, promul-
gate a policy forbidding access to the Respondent's
facility. Accordingly, we dismiss this allegation of
the complaint.7
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW"
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 4.
"4. The Respondent bypassed the Union and
dealt directly with its employees in the unit by
promising and then granting them a wage increase
and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraphs 5 and
6.
"5. The Respondent rescinded the settlement
agreement of 15 November 1984 and thus violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
"6. The Respondent refused to execute the col-
lective-bargaining agreement prepared pursuant to
the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement be-
tween the Respondent and the Union and thus vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall require
that the Respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and that it take affirmative action
' Member Babson would adopt the judge's conclusion that the Re-
spondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by promulgating a
policy forbidding the Union access to its facility Member Babson finds
his colleagues ' reading of sec 22 of the parties' collective-bargaining
agreement is unduly restrictive and inconsistent with the Respondent's
practice Moreover, it appears from a literal reading of the Respondent's
denial of access that the Union would be denied all access until the issue
of the contracts was settled
Chairman Dotson and Member Johansen , on the other hand, note that
the record, as summarized above, is at best ambiguous as to the Respond-
ent's practice with respect to union access to the plant Moreover, con-
trary to Member Babson's characterization, the record evidence set forth
above indicates that the Union would not be denied all access to the
plant, but only such access that tended to interrupt production
8 The judge failed to include in his Conclusions of Law his findings
regarding the Respondent's rescission of the November 1984 agreement
and its direct dealing with employees
568 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act.
We have found that the Respondent and the
Union reached an agreement with respect to the
terms and conditions of employment for the em-
ployees in the unit represented by International As-
sociation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486,
AFL-CIO and that the Respondent has failed in its
statutory duty to bargain collectively with the
Union by refusing to execute the written contract
incorporating the terms of their settlement agree-
ment, by bypassing the Union and dealing directly
with the unit employees, by unilaterally implement-
ing a wage increase and, thereafter, by withdraw-
ing recognition of the Union as its employees' ex-
clusive representative.
We will order the Respondent, on request, to
execute the collective-bargaining agreement em-
bodying the terms of the 15 November 1984 settle-
ment agreement, to comply with all provisions
thereof retroactive to 15 November 1984,9 and rec-
ognize and, on request, bargain collectively with
the Union, and to make whole all its employees for
any losses they may have suffered as a result of the
Respondent's failure to sign or to honor the written
collective-bargaining agreement, with interest, in
the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), with interest to be computed in
the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
-tarded. 10
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Washington Stair and Iron Works,
Inc., Glen Burnie , Maryland, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Inter-
national Association of Bridge, Structural and Or-
namental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union
No. 486, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees, in the bargaining
9 The General Counsel has requested that we find that the contract
remains in effect because the agreement by its terms automatically renews
unless either party gives notice of its desire to change or terminate the
contract . We are ordering the Respondent to honor the terms of the con-
tract We find it unnecessary at this stage of the proceeding to determine
the precise effect of the various terms of that agreement.
10 Interest will be computed in accordance with our decision in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Interest on amounts
accrued prior to 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amend-
ment to 26 U.S C § 6621 ) shall be computed in accordance with Florida
Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
The General Counsel requests a visitatorial clause authorizing the
Board, for compliance purposes , to obtain discovery from the Respond-
ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervision of
the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir-
cumstances of the case, we find it unnecessary to include such a clause
Accordingly , we deny the General Counsel 's request
unit described below , with regard to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
(b) Rescinding the 15 November 1984 settlement
agreement.
(c) Failing and refusing to execute a written con-
tract embodying the provisions agreed on by it and
the Union.
(d) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly
with its unit employees.
(e) Unilaterally implementing a wage increase
without giving the Union
'
notice and an opportuni-
ty to bargain.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies the Act.
(a) On request of International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
Shopmen's Local Union No. 486 , AFL-CIO, exe-
cute the collective -bargaining agreement embody-
ing the terms of the 15 November 1984 settlement
agreement.
(b) Retroactive to 15 November 1984, give effect
to the terms and conditions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement embodying the terms of the 15
November 1984 settlement agreement and make
whole its employees for any losses suffered by
reason of the Respondent 's failure to honor the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
(c) Recognize and, on request, bargain collec-
tively with International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shop-
men's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and , if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All production and maintenance employees en-
gaged in the fabrication of iron , steel and
metal products , or in maintenance work in or
about the Respondent 's plant, or plants located
at 521 DiGiulian Boulevard , Glen Burnie,
Maryland and vicinity, but, excluding all office
clerical employees, draftsmen , engineering em-
ployees, watchmen , guards, supervisors, and
employees engaged in erection , installation or
construction work.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WORKS 569
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Glen Burnie, Maryland,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 5, after being
signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
i i If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
the collective-bargaining agreement embodying the
terms of the 15 November 1984 settlement agree-
ment and we will make whole our employees for
any losses suffered by reason of our failure to
honor the collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, forthwith
execute the written contract embodying the provi-
sions agreed on by us and the Union.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain col-
lectively with International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shop-
men's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO as the ex-
clusive representative of employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit with regard to their wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
All production and maintenance employees en-
gaged in the fabrication of iron, steel, and
metal products, or in maintenance work in or
about the Employer's plant or plants located at
521 DiGiulian Boulevard, Glen Burnie, Mary-
land and vicinity, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, draftsmen, engineering employ-
ees, watchmen, guards, supervisors, and em-
ployees engaged in erection, installation or
construction work.
WASHINGTON STAIR AND IRON-
WORKS, INC.
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
with International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local
Union No. 486, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of our employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below with regard to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute a writ-
ten contract embodying the provisions agreed to
by us and the Union.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal direct-
ly with our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement a wage in-
crease without giving the Union notice or an op-
portunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL give effect retroactive to 15 November
1984 to the terms and conditions of employment of
Carol A. Baumerich , Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gary L. Lieber, Esq., of Washington, D C., for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES J. O'MEARA, JR., Administrative Law Judge.
Upon a charge filed on 15 February 1985 by Internation-
al Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No 486, AFL-
CIO (the Union) a complaint was issued in Case 5-CA-
17034 against Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc.
(Respondent) A second complaint, Case 5-CA-17269,
based on a charge filed by the Union against Respondent
on 20 May 1985, was ordered consolidated and was tried
as a consolidated complaint. Each complaint alleged vio-
lations by Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
The Respondent, in its answer, denied that it had vio-
lated the Act, and affirmatively alleged that it had a
good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority
of the employees in the previously established bargaining
unit
The cases were heard by me in the city of Washing-
ton, D C. on 21 January 1986 and on 12, 13, and 26
March 1986. The parties were given an opportunity to
570 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present evidence and argue their respective positions At
the termination of the hearing, the parties waived oral
agrument and filed briefs, which have been received and
duly considered
Based on the evidence of record , including the testi-
mony and demeanor of the witnesses , and in consider-
ation of briefs filed by the parties I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The General Counsel has alleged , the Respondent has
admitted , and I find that the Respondent is a Maryland
corporation with place of business in Glen Burnie, Mary-
land
During the preceding 12-month period , which I find to
be a representative period , the Respondent , in the course
and conduct of its business operations , sold and shipped
from its Glen Burnie , Maryland facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
the State of Maryland.
I find that the Respondent is now , and has been at all
times material , an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I further find that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
If. THE UNION
The Union is, and at all times material was , a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE LIMITATION OF PROOF
The Respondent has answered the complaint of the
General Counsel by a denial of material allegations and
the pleading of an affirmative defense The affirmative
defense so pleaded alleges that the Respondent has a
"good faith doubt that the union continued to represent a
majority of the employees in the previously-established
bargaining unit" and that the good -faith doubt privileged
the employer from negotiating with the Union and per-
mitted its withdrawal of recognition On motion of coun-
sel for the General Counsel , it has ordered that the Re-
spondent 's newly discovered evidence would not be per-
mitted to relitigate the issue of the validity of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 between
the parties. (Respondent contends no newly discovered
evidence be available to this record.)'
The existence and validity of a binding collective-bar-
gaining agreement, which has been adjudicated by the
Board in a previous preceeding , cannot be the subject
matter of a here resolved legal issue . Therefore, the
motion of the General Counsel is granted , the second de-
' The Regional Director's letter of 9 January 1985 , Board's Order in
Case 5-RC-874 Counsel for the Respondent asked for leave to make an
offer of proof, choosing to do so by the Q and A method This was
granted, over the objection of counsel for the General Counsel, who
argued that this method constituted a retrial of the validity of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 The General Counsel
applied for leave to appeal to the Board , which was allowed, and her
appeal was upheld Respondent 's offer of proof was denied and the evi-
dence relating to the validity of the execution of the collective-bargaining
agreement was excluded
fense of Resondent is dismissed, and the Respondent's
offer of proof is denied
IV THE COMPLAINT
The complaint alleges that the Respondent has refused
to execute a written contract embodying the settlement
agreement of 15 November 1984 and including, by refer-
ence, the written agreement under which the parties had
operated . These documents comprise the signed settle-
ment agreement together with the collective -bargaining
agreement that was incorporated into the settlement
agreement by reference . The two documents must be
construed as one and considered as one The document
labeled as the "Settlement Agreement " between the par-
ties is dated November 15, 1984, and signed by the
Union and the executive vice president and general man-
ager of the Respondent It incorporates by reference the
provisions of the collective -bargaining agreement be-
tween the parties, which had immediately preceded it. It
is this agreement that the Board has ruled to be a valid
collective-bargaining agreement between the parties. The
signing , by the Respondent's officer, of that document,
which has been adjudicated to be a valid and binding
collective -bargaining agreement between the parties, is
compliance with the requirement of Section 8(d) that the
agreement be reduced in writing on demand of either
party . Therefore, the refusal to sign a second document
does not constitute a violation of the Act and the Re-
spondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in its
refusal to sign the presented agreement
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally rescinding the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 A de-
certification petition was filed by the employees of Re-
spondent The General Counsel argues, correctly, that
the valid and binding collective -bargaining agreement is
a "contract bar" to the decertification petition and any
challenge to the union majority . Thus the unilateral reci-
sion by Respondent on 13 December 1984 of the agree-
ment is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
A further allegation contained in the complaint alleged
that the Respondent dealt directly with the employees
about a pay raise and informed them of a pending pay
increase thus bypassing the Union, and also, about 1 Feb-
ruary 1985, by implementing such increases, all without
negotiating with the Union as the existing contract re-
quired
About 25 January 1985 Plant Manager Werner Um-
landt held a meeting with employees. This was a meeting
for Respondent 's employees to go over general prob-
lems. Umlandt announced at the meeting that the Re-
spondent would give all employees a 3-percent wage in-
crease to be effective 1 February 1985 This was not a
merit raise because all received it and it was of the same
amount to each employee This wage increase was like
no prior increase given by the Company Its prior in-
crease in wages was for "merit" allowed by the terms of
the existing contract It is an across-the -board raise,
which was given here without notice to the Union or op-
portunity to bargain on the matter, and Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) as well.
WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WORKS
The complaint also alleges a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) in that on or about 25 January 1985, con-
trary to section 8(22) of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment , Respondent promulgated a policy forbidding
access by union agents to its facility. The collective-bar-
gaining agreement provides as follows.
An authorized representative of the union shall be
permitted to visit the office of the company at all
reasonable hours and after notifying a representative
of the Company, designated by it for such purpose,
will be permitted to visit the Company's shop
during working hours to investigate any matter
covered by this agreement , but it shall in no way
interfere with the progress of the work.
Previously it was determined that the collective-bar-
gaining agreement is currently binding on the parties,
therefore any rule of the Company to the contrary is a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The Respondent has raised the issue of the validity of
the collective-bargaining agreement and its binding effect
on the parties. The General Counsel correctly argues
that, if valid, the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the parties becomes a "contract bar" to any decer-
tification petition or an attack on the union majority. The
Board in "General Counsel's Request For Special Per-
mission To Appeal" ruled the contract valid and bind-
ing.2
The question of the validity of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement is resolved by ruling of the Board.
The resolution by the Board of this issue requires that
the action of Respondent be evaluated and interpreted in
consideration of the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect at the time.
The act of attempting to rescind the agreement, which
the Board has ruled is valid, is, standing alone, a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (5).
The validity of the agreement of 15 November 1984,
characterized as a "settlement agreement" incorporated
all unchanged provisions of the most recently expired
collective-bargaining agreement , bore the uncontradicted
signature of the executive manager and plant manager,
and constituted full compliance with any demand for a
571
"written documentation ." Thus, paragraph 311 of the
complaint is unproven , and shall be dismissed
Dealing directly with the employees on matters cov-
ered by a collective-bargaining agreement is a violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1). Umlandt held a meeting with
employees to discuss production at the plant . He told
them about the pending increase in wages Subsequently
an increase in wages was granted "across-the-board" at 3
percent Respondent 's attempt to characterize this as a
merit raise allowed by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment was not compelling, and I find it was not a merit
raise, but an unplanned raise, a matter about which the
Union was entitled to notice and to an opportunity to ne-
gotiate The direct dealing with the employees on this
subject is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the
Act
The collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November
1984 provided, among other things, for "plant visitors."
The plant visitors were contemplated to be union repre-
sentatives , and the Company promulgation of contrary
rules without union participation is a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act in
several ways, especially Section 8(a)(5) and (1), (a) with-
drawing recognition of the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees within the
appropriate bargaining unit and thus refusing to bargain
with the Union, (b) promising a wage increase to said
employees, (c) granting a wage increase to said employ-
ees, and (d) prohibiting access to the employees in
accord with the contract, the Respondent will be or-
dered to cease and desist from interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in any like or related
manner with respect to their rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the Act. Respondent shall be further or-
dered to affirmatively recognize and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such
understanding in a signed agreement and to post at its fa-
cility copies of the attached notice all pursuant to the
order
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2 General Counsel filed a request for special permission to appeal the
administrative law judge's ruling permitting respondent to present,
through an extended offer of proof its entire position regarding the valid-
ity of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15 Nos ember 1984 Re-
spondent filed opposition to General Counsels special appeal Having
duly considered the matter, and noting that Respondent's contentions re-
garding the validity of the collective-bargaining agreement and the need
for a hearing on this issue have already been considered by the Board in
a request for review in 5-RC-874, and in connection with Respondent's
previous request for special permission to appeal the judge's quashing of
Respondent 's subpoena, the Board is of the opinion that all matters that
Respondent seeks to present through its entended offer of proof have
been or could have been presented earlier, and that the offer of proof in
the format permitted by the administrative law judge will serve only to
unnecessarily delay processing of the instant case Accordingly, the ad-
ministrative law judge is reversed and the judge is directed to exclude
the evidence that Respondent seeks to present in the form of an extended
offer of proof By direction of the Board
1 Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) and (6) of the Act.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No.
486, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 The Respondent has withdrawn recognition of the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15
November 1984 and thus of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
4. The Respondent promised wage increases to its em-
ployees without notifying the Union, in violation of the
572 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984,
and thus violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The Respondent granted an increase in wages to its
employees without notice thereof to the Union , in viola-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15 Novem-
ber 1984 , and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
6. The Respondent promulgated a "no access" rule,
which had the effect "no access " to the plant by union
collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984,
and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]