American Mirror Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

AMERICAN MIRROR CO.
American Mirror Co., Inc. and United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-
13895
19 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 27 September 1982 Administrative Law
Judge Russell M. King Jr. issued the attached deci-
sion. The General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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 and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.2
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
I The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings.
We correct the following inadvertent errors in the judge's decision:
Throughout the decision, the judge referred to one of the Respondent's
witnesses as Thelma Pope. Her name, as shown in the record, is Thelma
Poe. Also, in sec. 11,A, par. 5 of the decision, the judge referred to a 23
January employee meeting. The correct date of that meeting, as found
elsewhere in the decision, is 23 June.
2 Contrary to her colleagues, Member Dennis would find that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(aXl) when Chairman Morris stated, in response
to a question why employees had not received a wage increase, that it
was because the Union had started "messing" or "fooling around."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL M. KING JR., Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard by me in Galax, Virginia, on July
29, 1982. The charge was filed on November 18, 1981,
by the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(the Union).' On January 12, 1982, the complaint was
issued by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board (the Board) on behalf of
the Board's General Counsel.2 On July 6 the Union was
' All dates hereafter are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
' The term "General Counsel," when used hereafter, will normally
refer to the attorney in this case acting on behalf of the General Counsel
of the Board, through the Regional Director.
269 NLRB No. 188
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining agent
of some 110 production and maintenance employees of
American Mirror Co., Inc. (the Company). s The Union's
organizational campaign had commenced in late March.
The complaint alleges that during the campaign and on
June 23 a co-owner of the Company threatened to dis-
continue customary and general wages increases because
of the union activities of employees, and that on and
after May 18 the Company, without consulting with the
Union, refused to grant such wage increases because the
Union had filed its representation petition on April 30, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).4 The Company defends
on the grounds that there was no pattern or practice of
periodic wage increases, and that no wage increases
were considered during the period invovled for fear of
improperly influencing the employees in the upcoming
union election. The Company additionally defends on the
gound that the Union's charge in the case was untimely
filed, and thus the Board has no jurisdiction in the case.
On the entire record, including my observations of the
demeanor of the witnesses, s and after due consideration
of the briefs filed herein by the General Counsel and
counsel for the Company, I make the following
FINDING OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The pleadings, admissions, and evidence herein estab-
lished the following jurisdictional facts. The Company is
a Virginia corporation with its office and place of busi-
ness (or plant) in Galax, Virginia, where it is, and has
been at all times material herein, engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of mirrors. During the year prior to the
issuance of the complaint, and in the course of its busi-
ness operations described above, the Company sold and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points located outside the State of Virginia. Also during
the same period the Company purchased and received
s Case 5-RC-11514. The representation petition was filed with the
Board on April 30. The Board-conducted election was held June 25.
The pertinent parts of the Act provides as follows:
Sec. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-(l)
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in section 7 .... (3) by discrimination in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor oragniza-
tion .... (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representa-
tive of his employees ....
Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to barain collectively
through represenatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection ....
The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and upon
my observation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have
been derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits
with due regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, and the teaching of NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408
(1962). As to those testifying in contradiction of findings herein, their tes-
timony has been discredited either as having been in conflict with the tes-
timony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of itself incredible
and unworthy of belief. All testimony and evidence, regardless of wheth-
er or not mentioned or alluded to herein, has been reviewed and weight-
ed in light of the entire record.
1091
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 direct-
ly from points located outside the State of Virginia.
Thus, and as admitted, I find and conclude that the
Company is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
Also as admitted, I find and conclude that the Union
is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Summary of Testimony and Evidences
Employee Ricky Widner testified as a present employ-
ee, working as a glass cutter, and had worked for the
Company since August 1976. Widner testified that
throughout the years raises were announced by being
posted on the bulletin board and that he was never given
a performance evaluation before any raises. Widner indi-
cated that by 1981 he came to expect raises but conceded
that the timing and amount of the raises varies from year
to year.7 Widner testified that his last increase was Janu-
ary 29 for 10 cents and that in late March or early April
the Union commenced its organizing campaign. Widner
testified that on June 23, 2 days before the union elec-
tion, the Company held an employee meeting where all
employees were gathered. According to Widner, present
were chairman of the board Tom Morris and his son and
president of the Company Frank Morris, together with
all supervisors. Widner indicated that at this meeting one
employee asked why they had not received their raises
and according to Widner, Tom Morris replied that the
Company "had been giving raises in the past until ....
the union started messing or fooling around." Widner
testified that he was a member of the Union's bargaining
team and that after the election the first bargaining ses-
sion was held on July 27. Widner indicated that at that
session International Union Representative Charles
Thomas, who was also on the bargaining team, asked
President Frank Morris to continue the raises and Morris
replied that the raises would "probably" have been given
if it had not been for the union activities, adding that be-
cause of the union activities and campaign the Company
was not permitted to give any raises. Widner related that
prior to the election the employees had passed out "leaf-
e The following includes a summary of the testimony of the witnesses
appearing in the case. The testimony will appear normally in narrative
form, although on occasion some testimony will appear as actual quotes
from the transcript. The narrative only and merely represents a summary
of what the witnesses themselves stated or related, without credibility de-
terminations unless indicated, and does not reflect my ultimate findings
and conclusions to this case.
I During the contract negotiations after the election the Company vol-
untarily furnished a list of the across-the-board hourly wages increases
the Company had granted employees from 1970 through January 29,
1981, the date of the last increase. This list was also admitted into evi-
dence in this case, without objection. The hourly wage increases appear-
ing in the list are as follows: 1970, 1/29-5 cents, 10/8-5 cents; 1971, 7/7-
5 cents; 1972, 1/13-5 cents, 5/18-5 cents; 1973, 1/11-5 cents, 3/22-5
cents, 8/23-5 cents; 1974 1/24-5 cents, 5/15-5 cents; 1975, 4/30-5 cents,
9/4-10 cents; 1976, 7/3-15 cents, 12/9-5 cents; 1977, 1/20-5 cents, 6/23-
10 cents, 10/27-5 cents; 1978, 2/2-5 cents, 4/27-5 cents, 6/8-5 cents,
9/13-5 cents, 11/23-5 cents; 1979, 2/1-10 cents, 6/7-5 cents, 9/13-5
cents, 11/22-5 cents; 1980, 1/17-10 cents, 5/22-5 cents, 8/4-5 cents,
11/20-5 cents; 1981, 1/29-10 cents.
lets" each week which contained a request to continue
the wage increases. Widner added that in later bargain-
ing sessions the matter of wage increases as again
brought up and that the Company's position was always
that they were not "withoutholding" and did not owe
any raises. Widner testified that at one of the later nego-
tiation sessions he made a claim to the Company on
behalf of the employees for retroactive wage increases
for April or May and for July, that the Company's re-
sponse was that it had not withheld a wage increase
during the campaign, again stating that the Company's
position was that the only wage proposal was that which
was reflected at the bargaining table and in the event a
contract was signed.
Norman Sawyers testified as a present employee of the
Company where he had worked since 1969. Sawyers in-
dicated that raises in the past had been posted and were
granted without evaluations, and that the last raise was
January 1981. He indicated that he also expected to re-
ceive additional raises in 1981. Regarding the June 23
employee meeting, Sawyers testified that chairman of the
board Tom Morris was asked about wage increases and
he replied that the employees had not been getting them
"probably because the union started fooling around."
Sawyers was a member of the union bargaining commit-
tee and testified that at the first session, about July 27,
Union Representative Thomas asked Company President
Frank Morris why the employees had not been getting
raises, and according to Sawyers, Morris replied that he
thought the Company was not supposed to give raises
during the union activity. Thomas, in turn, replied that
they should have been given if they were given in the
past and asked Morris if they would have been given if
there had been no union activity, to which Morris re-
plied "probably." Accordingly to Sawyers, the subject of
the wage increases was brought up at subsequent bar-
gaining sessions but the Company refused to change its
policy. In cross-examination, Sawyers indicated that he
understood the Company's position to be that any fur-
ther raises had to be negotiated.
Charles Thomas testified as the International union
representative who aided the Union in its organizational
campaign commencing in late March, and who partici-
pated in most of the subsequent bargaining sessions after
the union election. Thomas testified that he was aware of
the Company's wages increases over the past several
years from talking to the employees and that he calculat-
ed that another wage increase was due around May. Ac-
cording to Thomas, the employees had told him in April
that they had heard the raises were not going to be given
by the Company. Thomas identified two leaflets that he
prepared for distribution during the union campaign. s
8 From their contents and dates, it appears that one leaflet was pre-
pared in early May and the other approximately mid-May. The leaflet
prepared in early May stated that the Union desired the Company give
the employees their "usual raises" until the Union has a chance to bar-
gain with the Company. This early May leaflet also contains the follow-
ing:
The company is forbidden by law to change the way it pays us
while we are organizing. They have given a raise every three
Continued
1092
AMERICAN MIRROR CO.
Thomas testified that the first session was held July 29
during which he asked Frank Morris to grant the pay in-
creases that were due the employees and that he and
Morris then discussed what "the law was." According to
Thomas, the Union's position was that the increases were
"customary" and should be granted, and the Company's
position was that any increase during the campaign
would be to influence the employees and thus would be
improper. According to Thomas Frank Morris also
stated at the session that had it not been for the Union
the Company "probably" would have given increases in
May or June. Thomas testified that after the first session
of July 29 there followed approximately 10 additional
bargaining sessions and that at most, if not at all of these
sessions, the subject of the wage increases was brought
up, but that the Company always maintained that no in-
creases were due. Thomas added that at the August ne-
gotiating session the Company made a wage offer and
that subsequently an "interim" agreement was entered
into, providing for a 15-cent-an-hour increase effective
March 11, 1982, plus a 5-cent-an-hour increase in both
June and September 1982. According to Thomas, to date
no actual contract has been entered into.
Frank Morris testified as president of the Company.
He is the son of chairman of the board Tom Morris, who
had founded the Company some 25 years ago. Morris
testified that regarding wages in general before granting
increases he considered timing, how business was, and
competitive situations. Morris added that he and his
father would also accomplish at least quarterly invento-
ries, and the results of these inventories would be consid-
ered in possible wage increases. Morris testified that he
learned of the union organizational campaign in late
March and further learned in early April that the Union
would file a petition for representation with the Board.
Morris freely conceded that he was opposed to the
Union, but added at the time he learned the petition
would be filed, the Company had no plans for any future
wage increases. Morris added that the Company has
never had a program of a specific wage increases at any
certain time of the year, and that in the past when he
and his father had decided on increases, they would tell
bookkeeper Thelma Pope, who in turn would implement
the increases and post a notice of the increases on the
bulletin board. 9 Morris related that the last pay increase
was announced for January 29, and again stated that no
plans were made for any increases thereafter. Morris tes-
tified that he attended the first negotiation session in July
when union representative Thomas did bring up wage in-
months in the past and the law says they can't refuse to give it now
and blame it on the union.
The second leaflet contains the following under the subject of
"rumors":
The old rumor that the union is keeping us from getting a raise is
still going around. In fact, the law says the company doesn't have a
right to change anything, including giving scheduled raises. So the
company CAN and SHOULD give a raise now. The purpose of a
union is to help us get a raise, not keep us from getting one.
9 Thelma Pope testified that she was in charge of bookkeeping and
payroll, and also assistant treasurer of the corporation. She indicated that
she was responsible for implementing pay increases after "management"
informed her that there would in fact be an increase. According to Pope,
she never had any standing instructions regarding giving wage increases
at any certain or specific period of time.
creases, and asked that they be implemented. Morris also
conceded that Thomas asked whether the increases
would have been given if there had been no union activi-
ty, and related that his answer was "a possibility."
Morris testified that he felt the Company was not free to
give wage increases during the union campaign and thus
increases were not considered. Morris also added that
during the organizational period, business "wasn't all that
good, and the company was . . losing money." Regard-
ing the January 23 employee meeting, Morris testified
that he and his father first read from prepared text, and
then asked for questions. Morris conceded that there
were questions but he did not remember any specific re-
marks that his father made, including any remark regard-
ing the Union "fooling around' or "messing around."
Thomas H. Morris testified as a current chairman of
the board and chief executive officer of the Company he
had started some 25 years ago. He indicated that at the
June 23 employee meeting, he and son Frank first read
prepared statements to the employees and then the meet-
ing was opened for questions. According to Morris, this
resulted in "confusion" and he never heard a question
asked. Morris denied that he made any comments about
wage increases and denied any remarks about the Union
"fooling or messing around." According to Morris, once
the "confustion" started the meeting was ended. Morris
went on to testify that the Company never had a pro-
gram of periodic wage increases at set times, and that
after the January increase there were no plans or deci-
sions regarding future wage increases. Morris related that
he took no part in the union matter or the negotiations,
all of which was handled by his son. He indicated that
the year 1981 was a "bad" year and inventories were
conducted "about every 60 days."
B. The Defense of Timeliness of the Charge
Section 10(b) of the Act provides that no complaint
shall issue based on any unfair labor practice occurring
more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. The
charge in this case was filed by the Union on November
18 and alleges that the Company withheld customary
wage increases "on or about May 5, 1981 and continuing
to the present .... " The complaint alleges that the
withholding commenced "on or about May 18, 1981,"
and was the result of the filing by the Union of its repre-
sentation petition on April 30. The May 18 date recited
in the complaint is 6 months to the day the charge was
actually filed. The closes wage increases near or in May
the 4 previous years were June 23, 1977, June 8, 1978,
June 7, 1979, and May 22, 1980. The testimony and evi-
dence in the case further reflects that by the first week in
May some employees and the Union at least suspected
that wage increases would not be granted. This fast
became definite at the first bargaining session on July 27
or 29. The Company argues that since the charge recites
that date of May 5 and the Union knew about the with-
holdings about that date, the 6-month limitation period
had expired by several weeks when the charge was actu-
ally filed on November 18.
I find and conclude that the Company's defense re-
garding the timeliness of the charge is without merit in
1093
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case. The alleged unlawful withholding of wage in-
creases was of a continuing nature, lasting at least
thoughout 1981.10 Additionally, I find that the Union
was not actually put on notice, either actively or con-
structively, of the Company's actual position and intent
regarding wage increases until the first bargainng session
in late July. The Board has held that the 6-month limita-
tion period is tolled until such notice or knowledge is re-
ceived. l l
C. The Wage Increase Withholdings During the
Campaign and the Remark at the July 23 Employee
Meeting
The Board has examined the question of wage increase
withholdings during and after the union organizational
campaigns in a multitude of cases over the years. Numer-
ous authorities can be generally cited both for and
against the legitimacy of such withholdings. Thin and
almost subtle distinctions are found in many of the cases.
For example, the Board has held that it is the employer's
legal duty to proceed as he would have done had the
Union not been on the scene, 2 but the Board has also
held that it is not unlawful per se for an employer to
deny wage increases during a union campaign, for other-
wise it may be accused of attempting to influence em-
ployees to decide against being represented by the
Union.13 To threaten employees with complete abroga-
tion of increases has been held to be unlawful,14 and
likewise in the case of withholding an already deter-
mined, announced, and scheduled wage increase.' 6 it
also appears that the Board makes a distinction between
an announced and scheduled increase, considering the
same as an "existing" benefit,' and a possible or expect-
ed increase but one not based on promise but upon in-
creases in previous years where no specific date or
amount could be set with any degree of certainty.17
An attempt to fit this case into the niche of one or
more existing Board authorities has proven most diffi-
cult. The testimony of the Company's president Tom
Morris and his father Frank Morris reflect three some-
what inconsistent reasons for the failure to grant a wage
increase during the campaign, to wit: that one was
simply not planned or considered, economics would not
permit an increase, and it would be improper or unlawful
to grant any increase during the campaign. I find that in
truth, and in fact, no increase was granted because the
Company had been told or had concluded that it would
be unlawful. The Union's position was clear, and exactly
"o NLRB v. Anchor Rome Mills, 228 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1956), enfg. 110
NLRB 956 (1954).
' I Metromedia Inc., 232 NLRB 486 fn. 20 (1977); Hot Bagels, 227
NLRB 1597 fn. 4 (1977).
I Gates Rubber Ca, 182 NLRB 95 (1970).
13 Great Atlantice d Paciic Tea Co., 192 NLRB 645 (1971). Here the
administrative law judge, faced with consistent wage increase programs
over at least a 3-year period, found the withholding a violation. The
Board reversed the administrative law judge.
14 Peterson Builders, 215 NLRB 161 (1974).
15 North Electric Co., 225 NLRB 1114 (1976).
' North Electric Co., supra.
17 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Ca, supra.
opposite.' I find and conclude that the Company's posi-
tion was correct under the circumstances of this case. No
wage increase was determined, promised, scheduled, or
announced. Further, and in my opinion, it cannot be im-
plied, inferred, or concluded in this case that there was
an existing benefit by virtue of the Company's pattern of
wage increases in previous years, which varied as to date
and amount. Thus, I find that there was no denial of any
existing benefit, and accordingly I find that there was no
violation of the Act in this regard during the campaign.
The complaint alleges separately that at the June 23
employee meeting Tom Morris in effect threatened em-
ployees with wage increase withholdings because of their
union activities. Employee Widner and Sawyers testified
that at the meeting an employee question was asked as to
why they had not received a wage increase and Morris
replied essentially that it was because the Union had
started "messing" or "fooling around." Morris denied
any such remark and his son Frank did not remember
any such remark. I credit Widner and Sawyers over
Tom Morris in this instance and find that the remark or
response was made.' 9 However I do not find that
Morris' reply was threating or coercive. Although put
rather indelicately, in my opinion it merely reflected the
true position of the Company as found above, that the
Company could not properly or legally give a wage in-
crease during the campaign. I thus find that the remark
did not violate the Act.
D. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain Over the Raises
The complaint alleges that the Company's failure to
bargain with the Union about the raises both before and
after the Union's certification by the Board as the bar-
gaining agent of the employees violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act. My earlier finding that the failure of
the Company to grant a raise during the union campaign
was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
additionally absolved the Company from any duty to
bargain about the raise during the campaign.
The Union was certified on July 6. Contract bargain-
ing commenced in late July. Throughout the negotiations
the topic of the previous or so-called "customary" in-
creases came up. The Union's position remained the
same, and the Union requested that raises be granted not-
withstanding the negotiations, and independent of any
final contract. The Company took the position that any
raises which would be granted was an issue that was "on
the table," to be negotiated and addressed in a final con-
tract.
I find that once the Union was certified, the question
of raises became a mandatory subject of bargaining. The
duty to bargain collectively under Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act is defined in Section 8(d) of the Act as the duty to
18 The failure of the Company to grant increases after the Union was
certified by the Board as the employees' bargaining agent on July 6 will
be discussed later in this decision.
19 The demeanor of Tom Morris during his testimony reflected at
times a certain vagueness and disinterest. Much of his testimony was gen-
eral, lacking in specifics. He characterized the question period of the
meeting as "confusion" and he likewise displayed a certain amount of
confusion during his testimony.
1094
AMERICAN MIRROR CO.
"meet . . . and confer in good faith with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment . . . but such obligation does not compel either
party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a
concession .... " There is no evidence or allegation in
this case that the Company failed to negotiate in good
faith the matter of wage increases. What the Union
wanted was a continuance of interim or past discretion-
ary raises outside of the contract negotiations. The
Union, in other words, wanted the best of both worlds,
and under the facts of this case I find that the Company
had no legal duty to comply with the Union's request. In
this regard, I note the lack of any evidence or testimony
in the record to indicate that previous wage increase pat-
terns were acceptable by the Union's as future contract
provisions on the subject. I thus find and conclude that
the Company did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act as alleged in paragraphs II11 and 14 of the com-
plaint. 2 0
'0 In my opinion, the above conclusion is not contrary to existing
precedents on the subject. The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Katz, 369
U.S. 736 (1962), held that a discretionary merit wage increase is a subject
of mandatory bargaining. The Court found that an employer's unilateral
change (increase) was a violation of Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act. The Board
has construed Katz as holding that an employer with a past history of a
merit increase program may no longer continue to unilaterally exercise
his direction with respect to such increases, once a union is selected. Pe-
terson Builders, 215 NLRB 161 (1974). However, the Board has also held
that the law does not sanction an employer's discontinuance of its past
practice of a merit increase program, and has stated that what is required
is "a maintenance of preexisting practice, i.e., the general outline of the
program, however, the implementation of that program . . becomes a
matter as to which the bargaining agent is entitled to be consulted."
Southeastern Michigan Gas Co., 198 NLRB 1221 (1972); Oneita Knitting
Mills, 205 NLRB 500 (1973). In Peterson Builders, supra, there was a
preelection threat of complete abrogation of a preexisting program of
annual increases and evaluation, and the Board held this conduct to be
unlawful, citing Southeastern Michigan Gas and Oneita Knitting. In the
case at hand, there is no evidence that the Company threatened to deny
future raises, or refused to negotiate about them. The Company's refusal
to accommodate the Union by granting interim raises, based in some
manner on past discretionary and across-the-board raises of differing
amounts at differing times was, in my opinion, not an unlawful unilateral
change. To find otherwise would be to subject the Company involuntar-
On the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire
record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:21
All production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing assistant foreman and local truckdrivers, em-
ployed by Respondent at its Galax, Virginia facility,
excluding all other clerical employees, over-the-
raod drivers, sales employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
4. The Respondent Employer did not violate Section
8(a)(l), (3), or (5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint,
or otherwise violate the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the fol-
lowing recommended2 2
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
ily to granting some type of interim raises, while facing the obligation to
negotiate yet an additional or different wage program without certainty
in its outcome or economic effects.
si The appropriate unit was alleged in the complaint and so found by
the Board in the representation case (5-RC-11514). The Respondent's
answer does not deny the appropriateness of the unit, and merely recites
that it was not found by the Board.
Is If no exceptions are filed a provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
1095