Wonder State Manufaturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 179 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. 179
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to engage in or to refrain from engaging in union activities by
coercively interrogating them concerning their union activities and sympathies,
by warning them of reprisals for supporting Upholsterers' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative, by warning our employees that we will close our plant
to prevent it from becoming unionized, or by requesting and securing any,em-
ployee to engage in surveillance of union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Upholsterers' International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees,
by discriminating in any manner with regard to hire, tenure, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Jessie M. Burgess to her
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges and make her and employees Jack Flowers and Ray-
mond C. Hodges whole for any loss of earnings resulting from our discrimina-
tion against them as provided in the Decision issued by the Trial Examiner of
the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become, or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization.
STANLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify, the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone
No. Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any questions concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Wonder State Manufacturing Company and Lodge 1568, Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. $6-
CA-1539. May 28, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 5, 1963, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his De
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair- labor practices.
147 NLRB No. 23.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision,and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the'hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision , the exceptions and brief , and the entire record
in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found , and we agree , that the Respondent dur-
ing the course of its dealings with the Union since the certification on
September 10, 1962, violated Section 8 ( a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act by
refusing to bargain in good faith with respect to a contract covering
the employees in the appropriate unit and by unilaterally adjusting
labor grades and job classifications to grant wage increases to a sub-
stantial number of employees on May 17 , 1963. Although the Trial
Examiner ,- in accordance with this finding, included in his Recom-
mended Order and notice a requirement that the Respondent bargain
with the Union concerning all terms and conditions of employment,
his Conclusions of Law through an apparent inadvertence do not
include such a broad 8 ( a) (5) finding . We therefore insert the fol-
lowing at the beginning of paragraph numbered 5: "By its refusal
to bargain in good faith concerning a contract covering the employees
in the appropriate unit, and ...."
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent also vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act by unilaterally , and without
consulting the Union , discontinuing payment of the customary Christ-
mas bonus in 1962. The record shows that the Union , upon winning
a representation election in August 1962, wrote to the Respondent
requesting information about the Respondent 's policy on Christmas.
bonuses ( which the Respondent had been paying for at least the pre-
ceding 3 years ), and further requesting the Respondent to maintain
the status quo and make no changes until first negotiating about them
with the Union. The Respondent not only failed to respond to this
part of the request for information about its policy on Christmas
bonuses, but in - addition .it unilaterally discontinued paying the 1962
Christmas bonus, without, advance- notice of any kind to the Union.
...However, :we -do not, agree with the Trial. Examiner's restitution
order. The record shows that in December 1962 the Respondent was
facing serious losses brought about by sharp price reductions to meet
. WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 181
the competition of a rival company which was organized in November
with-a staff recruited in part from the Respondent's key personnel
and work force. Thus, a. net loss loomed in December at the time of
the year when the Respondent came to a decision that business condi-
tions did not warrant a bonus. As it appears that .the Respondent in
any event would have omitted the Christmas bonus in December 1962
because of the serious decline in business and sharply decreasing earn-
ings resulting from the emergence of a rival company, we are of the
opinion that, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to require
the Respondent to pay 'a 1962 bonus. We shall therefore modify the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and notice accordingly.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Rblations Board hereby adoptsas its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondent, Wonder State Manufacturing Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following
modifications:.
Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Recommended Order and the corre-
sponding paragraph of the notice.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
.Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (herein called 'the Act), were heard pursuant
to notice before Trial Examiner Lee J . Best at Jonesboro , Arkansas, on August 7
and 8, 1963, with all parties present . Based upon an original charge filed on
May 21 , 1963, and an amended charge filed on June 13, 1963, by Lodge 1568,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or
Charging Party ), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on
yJuly 12, 1963, issued a complaint against Wonder State Manufacturing Compan
(herein called Respondent) alleging that the Respondent engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5 )- and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. The complaint more specifically
alleges in substance that commencing on or about December 21, 1962, and con-
tinually thereafter , the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the unit
found to be appropriate by the Board in Case No. 26-RC-1800 on August 16, 1962.
The complaint further alleges that commencing in or about May 1963 , and con-
tinuing thereafter , Respondent unilaterally changed existing wage rates of its em-
ployees by granting wage increases and by failing to notify or bargain with the
Union concerning such changes.
Thereafter, on July 19, 1963, the Respondent filed an answer to the complaint
admitting the jurisdictional allegations thereof , but specifically denying all allega-
tions of unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues involved, to argue orally upon the record , and to thereafter file written
briefs with the Triai Examiner . All arguments and briefs have been given due
consideration.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
It
Wonder State Manufacturing Company is a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of Arkansas, having its principal office and plant
at Paragould, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the fabrication and sale of cotton gin
equipment and supplies. During the past 12 months, which period is representative
of all times material in this case, Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped from
its Paragould plant finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points located
outside the State of Arkansas. I find, therefore, and it is admitted that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1568 , International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, and its parent,
International Association of Machinists AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Appropriate Unit
All,production and maintenance employees including working leadmen employed
by the Employer at its Paragould , Arkansas, plant , excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional . employees , engineering department employees , watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Undisputed facts .
Pursuant to an election held on August 30, 1962, in Case No. 26-RC-1800, the
.Board's Regional -Director for the Twenty-sixth Region on September 10, 1962,
issued a certification of representative certifying that International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the international), has been designated
and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9(a)
of the Act, as amended, said organization is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
,pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
On August 30, 1962, Harvey Christian (special representative of I.A.M.) sent
by registered mail a letter to the Respondent, as follows:
Subject: Request for information that is necessary prior to negotiations:
GENTLEMEN: I am respectfully requesting a complete seniority list of all
employees in the Production and Maintenance Unit covered in N.L.R.B.
Case No. 26-RC-1800; including their date of hire, their present classification
and their present rate of pay. I am further requesting a copy of "Company
Policy" in regard to paid Holidays, Vacations, Sick Leave, Christmas Bonuses,
Insurance Plans, travel Pay, Expenses while Working Out Of Town, Overtime
Policy and other Benefits that the employees of Wonder State enjoyed prior
to. the N.L.R.B. Election and/or certification. I would also desire a copy
of all published "Rules and Regulations" that the Company may have in effect
at this time concerning these employees.
This requested information is necessary so that the Union can evaluate and
study prior to its submission of a contract proposal to the Company for the
forthcoming negotiations.
Be advised that the Union is requesting that all matters pertaining to wages,
hours of work and all other conditions of employment of these employees
remain "Status Quo"; and that any desired changes by the Company be made
a matter of negotiations with the Union until a final agreement is reached
between both parties. [Emphasis supplied.]
It is also the Union's request that the Company designate an official who
shall have the authority to accept and adjust. any grievances that may arise
until such time that a permanent grievance procedure is agreed to.
Trusting that you will give this matter your immediate attention.. I remain
In reply thereto, Respondent furnished to Special Representative Harvey Christian
on September 12, 1962, certain data with respect to basic policies concerning its
employee merit rating system, vacations. holidays, overtime, seniority, job classifica-
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 183
tions, rates of pay, and group -insurance plan; and suggested that the International
prepare a proposed contract for consideration at a meeting for. negotiations to be
held on September 26, 1962 . Thereafter , meetings for negotiations between repre-
sentatives of the Respondent and the International were held on September 26,
November 7 and 8, and December 4 and 5, 1962, and on January 15, 16, and 17
in 1963. During the course of these negotiations, the Respondent unilaterally failed
(without notice ) to pay its customary , Christmas bonus to employees in De-
cember 1962.
On January 16, 1963 , the negotiating parties signed a tentative agreement (Re-
spondent's Exhibit No. 13 ), as follows:
It is agreed between the I.A.M. and Wonder State that the Company and
Union as a result of the numerous bargaining sessions have now reached an
agreement on all non-economic issues and all of the contract language except
for who is to be the bargaining agent and the last sentence in paragraph 1:01,
page 1.
The Company's position is that since the international union was and is the
N.L.R.B. certified agent, that the international should be the party to the
contract.
The union desires to substitute local 1568 as the bargaining agent.
A copy of the contract as agreed upon is attached.
Signed this 16th day of January 1963.
Thereupon, the Respondent submitted an economic counterproposal (Respondent's
Exhibit No. 14), which was voted upon and rejected by the membership of Lodge
1568 , as follows:
. The Company's Wage Proposal
1. All economic fringe benefits presently existing are to remain,as is for the
period of the contract.
2. Effective September, 1963, the starting or minimum rate in the plant to
become $1.25 per hour.
3. No wage increase on the signing of the contract; after 18 months from
date of signing an increase of 20 per hour on the 'bottom and top range of the
various labor grades, as well as the 20 applying on each individual employee's
present rate ; 36 months after signing the contract an increase of 30 per hour on
the bottom and top range of the various labor grades; after 54 months from
the date of signing the contract, another 30 per. hour increase on the bottom
and top range of the various labor grades.
4. The contract is to be for a period of five (5) years.
You will recall that,a full story was given to you with facts and figures and
illustrations as to why the contract should be of five (5) years duration, and why
there would be no increase on signing.
We trust that your committee will not only unanimously recommend this
proposal to your members, but that you will relay to the membership the facts
as the Company related them to you.
By registered letter posted on January 23, 1963, the International notified Re-
spondent that the foregoing wage proposal based upon a 5-year contract had been
rejected, protested Respondent's withholding its customary Christmas bonus to em-
ployees for the year 1962, and requested another meeting for negotiations under
the auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Thereupon, the
Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1963, proposed that the next meeting for
negotiations be held at the Green County Library in Paragould, Arkansas, on
January 30, 1963.
In the meantime, the Board's Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth. Region on
January 28, 1963, issued his Supplemental Decision and Order Amending the Cer-
tification of Representative in Case No. 26-RC-1800, thereby, for administrative
reasons, substituting therein the name of Lodge 1568, International Association of Ma-
chinists, -AFL-CIO, but specifically providing that "This is not to be construed as
a recertification."
At the meeting on January 30, 1963, Lodge 1568 assumed responsibility for all
further negotiations, but Grand Lodge Representative W. C. Harris continued to
act as chief negotiator for the certified representative. Participating committeemen
from Lodge 1568 included Bernard Specking (chief shop steward), Grady Horne,
Edgar D. Meredith, and Tom Haynes. Specking was chairman or chief of the local
negotiating committee. Attorney. V.. Lee McMahon at all times acted as chief
-negotiator and spokesman for the Respondent.
'184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Following the meeting of January 30, 1963, Attorney- McMahon on February 7,
'1963, posted a letter to W. C. Harris (representing the International), as follows:
DEAR MR. HARRIS: I have had an opportunity to submit to top management
your offer for a two year contract. It was my understanding that, you asked
for 50 on signing, 30 after six months, 3¢ after twelve months, 30 after 18
months. In addition you asked that the contract include what was agreed to
and for the check-off and for the lock-out provision to :be added to the no-strike
clause.
As I told you there would be no problem on adding the no lock-out provi-
sion if everything else is agreed to. It is conceivable that the Company would
look more favorably upon the check-off if we could get together on the dura-
'tion of a contract and the across-the-board increases. Because of our com-
petitive situation the five year contract is as important to. us as the money
considerations.
The Company finds it necessary to decline your suggestions on settlement.
If you find that you can give us the five year contract and across-the-board
increases as we suggested, or very closely to those figures, we. would be in-
terested in further negotiations with you.
I do feel however that you should know that your offer or anything in that
neighborhood is not acceptable to this Company.
It was a pleasure seeing you again, and I await your wishes in the matter.
Very truly yours,
VLM:mal
V. LEE MCMAHON.
From the foregoing negotiations and the adamant position taken by Attorney
McMahon in his letter of February 7, 1963, it is apparent to the Trial Examiner
'that the Respondent was and is refusing to further bargain in good, faith with the
certified representative of its employees in the appropriate unit unless and until
such representative will agree to a 5-year contract with no wage increases whatever
until such a contract has been effective for a period of 18 months, whereupon the
Respondent would agree to increase its minimum and maximum wage - rates by
2 cents per hour and apply such increase to the present rate of all individual em-
ployees; and to again increase wages to the extent of 3 cents per hour according to
the same pattern at the end of 3 years and 41/2 years, respectively, from the date of
signing such a contract. At the next meeting on March 1, 1963, and at all sub-
sequent meetings the Respondent has refused to recede from 'the position so taken
by its letter of February 7, 1963. Consequently the conciliator withdrew and
closed his file on this case, and Grand Lodge Representative W. C. Harris walked
away in despair from the meeting of March 1, 1963, saying that his was an hon-
orable union and would never enter into such a contract as that proposed by the Re-
spondent. From the testimony of Vice President Cameron it appears that Attorney
McMahon advised the Respondent that, since an impasse in negotiations had been
reached, the Respondent could go ahead with its merit-rating system of granting
wage increases but had a continuing duty to bargain with the Union on these day-
.to-day problems such as merit increases and promotions, etc. Consequently, the
Respondent caused its plant manager, William 0. Vernon, in collaboration with
Shop Foreman Doyle Bailey to evaluate all employees according to criteria pro-
vided in its merit-rating plan and to recommend deserving employees for job- re-
classification and wage increases. From the entire group of 42 employees, Re-
spondent selected 9 employees for job reclassifications that would provide a wage
.increase. By stipulation it appears that,one employee was reclassified from "Helper"
to "Sheet Metal Worker" with a wage increase of 25 cents per hour; another em-
-ployee was reclassified from "Helper" to "Sheet Metal Worker"' with a wage in-
crease of 30 cents per hour; another employee was reclassified from "Sheet Metal
Worker" to "Tinner, Class B," with a wage increase of 28 cents per hour; another
employee was reclassified from "Sheet Metal Worker" to "Tinner, Class B," with
a wage increase of 15 cents per hour; another employee was reclassified from "Tinner,
Class B," to "Tinner, Class A," with a wage increase of 10 cents per hour; another
-employee was reclassified from "Welder, Class B," to "Welder, Class A," with a
wage increase of 10 cents per hour; another employee was reclassified from "Welder,
Class B," to "Welder, Class A," with a wage increase of 15 cents per hour; another
employee was reclassified from "Helper" to "Welder, Class B," with a wage increase
of 10 cents per hour; and another employee was granted a-wage increase of 25 cents
per hour on April 12, 1963, after being employed on a trial basis at a lower rate.
Having unilaterally determined the reclassifications and wage increases to be put
into effect, Vice President Floyd Cameron during working hours on May 16, 1963,
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 185
called Bernard Specking (chief steward and local committeeman) to his office, and
in the presence of Plant Manager William 0. Vernon told Specking that he had
been selected along with certain other employees to receive merit wage increases
by job reclassification, and proposed to make such promotions immediately. Nothing
was said about holding another meeting for negotiations on this subject or notifying
Grand Lodge Representative W. C. Harris; but Specking admits that he raised no
objections sand told Cameron "that as far as myself I thought it was nice." There-
upon, such wage increases were announced and made effective on May 17, 1963.
Presumably without knowledge of such wage increases, Grand Lodge Representative
W. C. Harris on that same day (May 17, 1963), posted a letter by registered mail
from Little Rock, Arkansas, to Mr. Floyd Cameron, Manager, Wonder Manufac-
turing Company, Paragould, Arkansas, requesting that he be furnished with the
names, classifications and rates of pay for all employees in the unit, so that arrange-
ments could be made for another meeting. Attorney V. Lee McMahon replied on
May 24, 1963, to the effect that he had asked the Company to prepare such data
for submission to the Union. Thereafter, Grand Lodge Representative Harris
posted a letter by registered mail on June 10, 1963, to Attorney McMahon, St. Louis,
Missouri, as follows:
DEAR MR. MCMAHON: This will reply to your communication directed to me
under date of May 24, 1963 with reference to my request for information as
to new employees and rates of pay for all employees listed in certification No.
26-RC-1800 so that we could prepare for another meeting with you in regard
to negotiations with Wonder State Manufacturing Company, you stated that
you would have Mr. Floyd Cameron, President,of Wonder State Manufacturing
Company furnish the material to you and you would forward same to me.
I wish to inform you that we are requesting that the Wonder State Manu-
facturing Company carry on no negotiations with any one regarding wages,
hours of service or other conditions of employment unless myself or some other
designated representative be present. In our previous meetings we asked that
conditions remain Status-Quo as they were when we were certified until we bar-
gained with you regarding changes, this not to be construed that an individual
would be deprived of any of his rights accorded to him by law and if any nego-
tiations or agreements are reached between an individual and the Company we
desire to be present when the settlement is made and made fully aware of any
such settlement.
I would appreciate it if you furnished me with dates when you would be avail-
able for negotiations to resume by return mail along with the information
requested.
With best wishes, I remain
Attorney V. Lee McMahon furnished the requested information to the Union by
letter dated June 17, 1963, as follows: I
DEAR MR. HARRIS: Your May 10 request for information reached the Com-
pany when the executives, including Mr. Cameron and his staff, were busily en-
gaged in the actual trial of their law suit against Delta. This caused a delay in
their furnishing the information to me, and it was not received here until
June 10, 1963.
Before I could send it on to you, I received your June 10 letter and I decided
to combine the answers to both your May 10 and June 10 letters. However,
before I could get the letter in the mail, I was informed by the Memphis office
of the Labor Board, by telephone, of the union's failure to bargain charge
against the company dated June 12, 1963. The Labor Board at that time asked
for a meeting to investigate the charge and we met, pursuant to the request, on
June 17, 1963. At that time I displayed to the board agent in Paragould
my suggested letter that had been ready to mail along with the requested
information.
The record' clearly shows that since you were certified, all of your corre-
spondence has been directed to me. I respectfully suggest that, in the future,
in order that these matters be expedited, you refrain from writing anybody in
the Company, except me. Your anxiety and concern, as set forth in your
June 10 letter, is somewhat surprising to me in view of your long silence and
inactivity from March to May 10, 1963. I would think that you would judge
your request and the urgency for answers in the light of that long silence.
1 Negotiations at formal meetings were resumed on July 5, 1963.
186 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contents of your letter of June 10, 1963, came to me'as quite a surprise.
In this letter you requested that Wonder State carry on negotiations with no-
body other than yourself or somebody designated by yourself. As you will re-
call, the International petitioned the Board to change the certified bargaining
agent from the International to Local Lodge 1568 which the Board did. As a
result, the Company is legally obligated to bargain with the Local Lodge. At
all of the previous bargaining sessions, Mr. Specking spoke on behalf of the
Local Lodge is the chief representative of the Lodge, and also as chief steward
of the plant. Moreover, at our last few bargaining sessions, you stated that you
would rather walk away from the plant than sign the type of contract we pro-
posed. As it has been many months since you requested a bargaining session
or we last met to bargain, I assumed that perhaps you had walked away from
the plant. The Company, however, is required by law to bargain over day to
day problems with the bargaining agent, and since we had not heard from you
for so long and since Specking was the Local Lodge spokesman, we handled
what few day to day problems we had with Specking. Your letter indicates
that Specking is no longer the spokesman for the bargaining agent, but rather
you are, and we will, in the future, abide by your new desires, as set forth in
your June 10 letter, and negotiate only through you or your designated repre-
sentative. Even these day to day problems must be handled in keeping with
our tentative agreement reached in the bargaining sessions.
Your letter also states that you had asked the Company to keep the status quo
until you bargained.over changes. This simply is not so! I am sure the
minutes of the meetings will not reflect that you had so requested.
At any rate, it is not possible to run a business on a daily basis and keep the
status quo. Each new day requires some changes. Let me explain to you what
has actually occurred. Some of our employees successfully completed their
apprenticeship period and moved to the classification of journeymen. They
then began earning the journeymen rate. Several other employees were pirated
away from the Company by another Company (the history of which you are
familiar) and as a result, job openings were created. These openings had to
be filled and filled quickly in order to keep operating. Thirdly, the Company
for many years has had a merit increase program which could not be put into
effect at its usual time because of the Union organizational campaign since I
advised the Company that to grant a wage adjustment at such time might be
an unfair labor practice because it looks like the Company is trying to buy
votes. After the Union was certified we were pirated of our top management
as well as many key employees, consequently, it was impossible to properly
review the situation until the Company was back to normal.
I am enclosing the information you request, as to the employees and their
rates and the same information for newly hired employees, and I will be avail-
able to negotiate with you on July 3, 5, 11, and any date thereafter will be
satisfactory as of this writing, whichever best suits your schedule. Looking
forward to again meeting with you and with best wishes.
B. Wage plan of Respondent
It is clear that a monetary Christmas bonus has been a part of Respondent's wage
plan or fringe benefits to employees dating back to the year of 1955 . During the
years 1955 and 1956 the Respondent issued checks for a Christmas bonus to all
employees ranging from $ 10 to $25 each in the discretion of the employer . By rea-
son of crop failures in the operating area, no Christmas bonus was paid to employees
in the years of 1957 and 1958. A Christmas bonus equivalent to 1 week 's pay was
paid in 1959 , one-half week 's pay in 1960 , and I week 's pay in 1961 .2 Following
certification of the International as bargaining agent for employees in September
1962, the Respondent paid no Christmas bonus for that year, although the net profits
for that year amounted to $41,727.27, and were the greatest by far since 1953. It is
contended by the Respondent, however, that during the latter part of 1962 , a crisis
arose within Respondent 's organization which would possibly reduce future profits;
and that this crisis did in fact result in operations at a deficit for the year 1963.
a In addition to a monetary bonus, the Respondent on several occasions presented hams
or turkeys as a Christmas gift to its employees.
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 187
On January 6, 1961, the Respondent adopted a basic plan for the determination of
wages and promotions by posting a notice to all employees, as follows: 3
MEMORANDUM TO ALL FACTORY EMPLOYEES
Heretofore, we have not had any, wage plan which spelled out to you just
where you stand and where you could go on your own merit.
We have given considerable thought to this problem and have developed the
following wage plan for Wonder State:
1. Wonder State urges each employee to acquire further knowledge and
skills which will enable him to be promoted into a higher labor classi-
fication as the company. grows and requires 'more men in these higher
classifications.
2. We have established five (5). labor grades covering all our factory
jobs. We have further ranked each job in the factory to determine which
labor grade applies to it. The different jobs and the labor grade into which
each falls is listed on the sheet attached to this memo. On another sheet
you will find your name and your job classification.
3. We have established rate ranges for each of the five labor grades.
This will show you how high you can go in your present job if you really
merit it.
4. All employees, who are now below the minimum hourly wage for the
labor grade into which their job falls; will immediately be raised to that
minimum.
Remember, this is a wage plan, and it is intended as an indication of relative
worth of all the, jobs in the factory. Wheie you stand- now, or where you will
stand within these ranges is up to you and your foreman's evaluation of your
performance.
If there are any questions in your mind about the plan, by all means ask
your foreman. If you don't understand it completely it won't mean much to
you or the company.
JACK J. BEGLEY,
President.
Later in August 1961, Respondent prepared and posted a revised schedule of
minimum and maximum wage rates applicable to each of its established labor grades
to conform with increases in minimum wages provided by law, as follows:
Effective
Sept. 3, 1961
Labor grade 1---------------------------------------------------
Helper (Sheet Metal or Machine Shop).
Janitor.
Labor grade 2---------------------------------------------------
Parts man.
Painter.
Welder-B.
Sheet metal worker.
Labor grade 3 ---------------------------------------------------
Welder-A.
Machinist-B.
Machine operator.
Tinner-B.
Saw repair man.
Labor grade 4------------------------------- -------------------
Erection leader.
Labor grade 5---------------------------------------------------
Gin and engine repair man.
Machinist-A.
Tinner-A.
$1.15 to $1.40--,---
$1.27 to $1.52------
$1.40 to $1.65------
$1.52 to $1.77------
$1.65 to $1 .90------
Effective
Sept. 3, 1963
$1.25 to $1.50.
$1.37 to $1.62.
.$1.50 to $1.75.
$1.62 to $1.87.
$1.75 to $2.00.
s This memorandum (Respondent's Exhibit No. 5) was accompanied by a list of em-
ployees (Respondent's Exhibit No. 6) showing as to each his job classification and labor
grade.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding Findings
The record in this case shows that the International was certified by the Board on
September 10, 1962, as exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and as such thereafter engaged in negotia-
tions with the Respondent until January 28, 1963. It is admitted that while such
negotiations were in progress the Respondent in December 1962, failed to pay its
employees the customary Christmas bonus without notice to or negotiations with the
duly certified representative . The Board has consistently held that Christmas bonuses
are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining concerning which an employer must
meet , and bargain with the bargaining representative of its employees , and that the
unilateral cessation of such a bonus is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act:
See: Exchange Parts Company , 139 NLRB 710; The American Lubricants Company,
136 NLRB 946 . I am, therefore , constrained to find that by unilaterally discontinu-
ing the payment of its customary bonus to employees at Christmas time in 1962,
without consulting or negotiating with their duly certified bargaining representative
with respect thereto , constituted a,refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
On January 28, 1963, by amendment of the Board's certification , Lodge 1568,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, was substituted as bargaining
agent instead of its'parent organization ( the International ). Such substitution was
simply an administrative function to facilitate bargaining negotiations directly with
the local organization with which employees in the unit had become affiliated, and
was made effective at the request of and by delegation of authority from the Inter-
national without any conflict of interest whatsoever . Grand Lodge Representative
W. C. Harris continued in negotiations as chief spokesman for the labor organiza-
tions involved . Substitution of Lodge 1568 as the bargaining representative was
not a recertification . See: National Carbon Co ., 116 NLRB 488; Bushnell Steel Co.,
96 NLRB 218; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation , 132 NLRB 956; and Swift
& Company, 131 NLRB 1143.
In granting the so-called merit increases to certain employees on May 17, 1963,
the. Respondent followed its established wage plan, which had been in effect since
January 5, 1961. It is clear upon its face that this document did not automatically
or periodically offer merit increases as an economic fringe benefit to deserving em-
ployees, but on the contrary established an overall wage structure in the form of
five (5 )' labor grades within each of which minimum and maximum wages were
unilaterally controlled by the Respondent ; and the so -called merit increases of
May 17, 1963, were made effective only by promoting employees to higher job
classifications within this general wage structure . It is, therefore , clear that these
reclassifications and wage increases were not automatic or periodic merit increases,
but were a subject of mandatory bargaining with the certified representative of its
employees . Respondent had not proposed or offered such wage increases throughout
negotiations with the Union ; but on the contrary was-insisting on a 5-year contract
with no wage increases whatever until 18 months after such contract had become
effective . In the absence of an offer to the certified bargaining representative to
make such reclassifications during formal negotiations , Respondent cannot now be
heard to say that an impasse in negotiations had been reached . Simply calling in
one member of the local negotiating committee to inquire whether he had any objec-
tions to such reclassification of employees including a wage increase for himself does
not constitute good-faith bargaining with the certified representative with respect to
the proposed collective-bargaining agreement . See: Borg-Warner Corporation, 128
NLRB 1035 , 1051; N.L.R.B. v. Benne Katz , et al., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Prod-
ucts Co., 369 U.S. 736; and National School Slate Company, 137 NLRB 925.
I find , therefore, that by unilaterally adjusting the job classifications of certain
employees on May 17, 1963 , in order to grant them wage increases without formally
negotiating with their certified bargaining representative , the Respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the representative of its employees , subject to the provisions
of Section 9(a), within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations described in section I, above, has an intimate and substantial re-
lation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to
labor disputes . burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
189
Having found that Respondent on or about December 21, 1962, and May 17, 1963,
and continuously thereafter, has refused to bargain collectively with the certified
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the unit herein found to be
appropriate by (1) unilaterally discontinuing the payment of a monetary Christmas
bonus to its employees and (2) unilaterally adjusting labor grades and job classi-
fications to grant wage increases to employees, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5), which interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the latest Christmas bonus paid to employees in December
1961 consisted of 1 week's pay, and its appearing that net profits of the Respondent
in the year 1962 were much greater than in prior years, it will be recommended
that Respondent make whole all employees on its payroll at any time during the
month of December 1962 by the payment to each of them in cash or its equivalent
the full amount of 1 week's pay based upon the job classification and labor grade
held by such employee and the highest hourly wage actually paid to such employee
during the month of December 1962, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as
provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. All wage increases
granted in violation of its duty to bargain collectively with the certified bargaining
representative of its employees shall be unimpaired and remain in full force and
effect until such time as the Respondent shall reach agreement otherwise with the
certified representative of its employees in the appropriate unit.
Having found that Respondent has refused and is refusing to bargain in good
faith with Lodge 1568, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusively certified representative of its employees in the appropriate unit; I shall
recommend that the Respondent, upon request, shall bargain collectively, as defined
in Section 8(d) of the Act, with Lodge 1568, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of such employees, and if an understand-
ing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings' of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wonder State Manufacturing Company is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
'(7) of the Act.
2. Lodge 1568, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and its. pa: ent
organization, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees, including working leadmen, em-
ployed by the employer at its Paragould, Arkansas, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, engineering department employees, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and its local Lodge 1568,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is an integrated. organization.
and as such has at all times material to this case been and now is the duly certified
and exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally terminating the payment of a Christmas bonus to its employees
in December 1962, without prior negotiations with International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, and thereafter on or about May 17, 1963, by unilaterally
granting increased wages to certain employees for the purpose of discrediting the
certified representative of its employees, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,,thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section '2(6) and (7) of the Act.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record
in the case, I issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Wonder State Manufacturing Company, its agents, supervisors , successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Lodge 1568, International Association of
Machinists , AFL-CIO, and /or its parent organization , International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargaining representative of its employees in
the unit herein found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) Unilaterally terminating or changing the amount of Christmas bonuses, wages,
fringe benefits , labor grades , job classifications , or any other term or condition of
°employment of its employees within the aforesaid appropriate unit represented by the
Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist
the Union named above, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
-refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Lodge 1568 , International Association
of Machinists , AFL-CIO , and/or its parent organization , International Association
of Machinists , AFL-CIO , concerning the payment of Christmas bonuses, wages,
'hours, fringe benefits, labor grades, job classifications , and all other terms and condi-
'ions of employment pertaining to employees within the appropriate unit represented
by the Union ; and at the request of either party , if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Make whole all eligible employees in the appropriate unit for any loss they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's unilateral termination of the Christmas
(1962 ) bonus payments , in the manner set forth in section V, above, entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Post at its plant in Paragould, Arkansas , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ." 4 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-sixth Region , shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt there-
of, and maintained by it ' for a period of 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 in writing the Regional Director for the Twenty -sixth Region, Mem-
phis, Tennessee , within 20 days from receipt thereof , what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply with this Recommended Order .5
4 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice. If the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be
substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
s If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Lodge 1568, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and/or its parent organization, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the certified representative of our
NEW ORLEANS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 17, ITU 191
employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, including Christmas bonuses, wage in-
creases, job classifications, labor grades, and all fringe benefits incident to
employment.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally terminate or change the nature or amount of
Christmas bonuses, wages, fringe benefits, or other terms or conditions of em-
ployment of our employees within the appropriate unit without bargaining col-
lectively with the aforesaid certified representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL pay to each eligible employee within the appropriate unit a 1962
Christmas bonus amounting to the full amount due and payable for a full
workweek of 40 hours at the highest hourly wage actually paid to such em-
ployee during the month of December 1962, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum from December 21, 1962, until paid.
The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, including working leadmen,
employed by the Employer at its Paragould, Arkansas, plant, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, engineering department
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Seventh
Floor, Falls Building 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone No.
527-5451, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17 , International Typo-
graphical Union , AFL-CIO and E. P. Rivas, Inc. and Local
No. 53, Amalgamated Lithographers of America . Case No.
15-CD-33. June 1, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act follow-
ing charges filed by E. P. Rivas, Inc., herein called the Employer,
alleging that New Orleans Typographical Union No. 17, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the ITU, had,
in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, induced and encour-
aged employees to strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign certain work to employees who are members of
the ITU, rather than to employees who are members of Local No. 53,
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, herein called the ALA, to
whom the Employer had assigned the work in dispute and who are
now performing the work.
147 NLRB No. 21.