Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS
Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Associa-
tion and International Union of United
Brewery, Flour , Cereal , Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 26-CA-2513 and 26-CA-2532.
June 19,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On March 30, 1967, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified below.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board hereby renumbers conclusion of law
No. 7 as No. 8, and adds the following as conclusion
of law No. 7:
"7. By refusing the Union's request to furnish
pertinent wage and payroll data, and by its
unreasonable delay in furnishing such data,
Respondent has engaged in violations of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Arkansas Rice
Growers Cooperative Association, Stuttgart and
Jonesboro, Arkansas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as herein modified:
1. Substitute a comma for the period at the end of
paragraph 1(b) and add the following: "or
577
unreasonably delaying in furnishing it to the Union."
2. Substitute the word "our" for the word "my" in
the last paragraph of the notice.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN H. EADIE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
held before me in Jonesboro, Arkansas, on December 6
and 7, 1966, on the consolidated complaint of the General
Counsel and the answer of Arkansas Rice Growers
Cooperative Association, herein called the Respondent.'
The issue litigated was whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. After the hearing the
General Counsel, International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the
Respondent filed briefs with me.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT2
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Arkansas corporation. It has
plants at Stuttgart and Jonesboro, Arkansas, where it is
engaged in the milling and marketing of rice and related
products.
During the 12-month period preceding the date of the
complaint herein, the Respondent processed, sold, and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its
Stuttgart and Jonesboro plants, directly to points located
outside the State of Arkansas.
The consolidated complaint alleges, the Respondent's
answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization which admits to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In an election conducted by the Board on November 18,
1965, a majority of the Respondent's Stuttgart employees
in an appropriate unit designated and selected the Union
as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining. In an election conducted by the Board on
March 3, 1966, a majority of the Respondent's employees
in a separate appropriate unit at the Jonesboro plant
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining agent.
The Board certified the Union on February 8, 1966, for the
Stuttgart plant and on May 12, 1966, for the Jonesboro
plant.
The Respondent and the Union met for contract
negotiations at Stuttgart starting on March 30, 1966.
Thereafter, meetings covering Stuttgart were held on
' The charges in Cases 26-CA-2513 and 26-CA-2532 were
filed on August 10 and September 1, 1966 , respectively. The
consolidated complaint issued on September 29,1966.
2 With one exception , there are no material issues of fact in this
case
165 NLRB No. 62
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 5, 6, and 20, May 19 and 24, June 8 and 29, July 26,
August 11, September 22, and November 23. The parties
met for contract negotiations at Jonesboro on July 22 and
27 and September 23. Edward Gerchak, an International
representative of the Union, was the chief negotiator for
the Union. Committees, composed of employees at each
plant, also appeared for the Union at the meetings. Bill S.
Clark, the Respondent's attorney, C. J. Guffin, its
personnel manager, and James Mason, its assistant vice
president and general manager, represented the
Respondent.
At the meeting held on March 30 the Union submitted a
proposed contract. This contract provided for a checkoff
of union dues and a general wage increase of 20 cents. The
Union requested the Respondent to furnish it with
information on job classifications and rates of pay.
At the meeting held on April 6 the Respondent
submitted written contract counterproposals. These
proposals did not provide for a checkoff of union dues or
for a general wage increase. The Respondent presented to
the Union a document entitled, "Labor Classifications-
Stuttgart" The document set forth various labor
classifications and the wage rates applicable to the
particular grades. It requested the Union to keep this
information "confidential" because "it could be easily
misunderstood if it is not adequately explained." The
Respondent orally proposed to retain its existing policy of
granting wage increases based upon merit and an annual
review. Guffin explained the factors taken into
consideration in this connection.
At the meeting held on April 20 the Respondent
proposed that its existing fringe benefits, such as
vacations and holidays, as set forth in its handbook
entitled, "Employment with a Purpose," be retained. In
addition to the handbook it furnished the Union with
copies of interpretive bulletins on these fringe benefits
"that had been written through the years." The Union
agreed to gd along with such fringe benefits, excepting that
senior employees be permitted to exercise preference on
vacations. It continued to demand a general wage
increase, but agreed to the annual review and merit
increases, provided that it had the right to challenge the
Respondent's decisions on such increases. The
Respondent refused to grant checkoff of dues, stating that
it was against checkoff "as a matter of principle [since]
this was doing the Union's work." The Respondent also
gave as a reason for its refusal the cost of changing its
"IBM machine" which printed the payroll checks. The
Union requested a list of names of employees, their hiring
dates, their classifications, their rates of pay, and the dates
of their last wage increases. The Respondent refused to
provide this information. The Union continued to propose
a contract with a term of 1 year. The Respondent indicated
that its proposal was for a 5-year period.
On April 21 Gerchak sent the Respondent a telegram in
which he renewed the Union's demand for information on
individual employees. By letter dated April 29, 1966, Clark
refused to supply the Union with the requested
information, claiming it to be "of a confidential nature."
Either at the meeting held on April 20 or May 19, the
Union proposed that in lieu of checkoff it be permitted to
9 The undisputed evidence shows that for a number of years
prior to the above date insurance agents regularly collected
premiums and "loan sharks" collected installment payments from
make in-plant collection of dues. Gerchak testified that on
May 19 the Union made this proposal; it indicated that
such in-plant collections could be made by "the committee
or officers of the union ... on non-working time in the
lunch rooms, locker rooms and other areas when the
employees were not working"; and when the Respondent
refused to accept this proposal, the Union pointed out that
insurance agents were allowed in the plant in order to
collect premiums from employees.3 During cross-
examination Gerchak was questioned and testified as
follows:
Q. Did you make an offer that the union
representative go down to the plant and collect the
dues in the same manner as insurance agents and
loan sharks?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, what was your proposition?
A. We discussed the problem of a union
representative having access to the plant in relation to
grievances and other union matters. But not to collect
dues as such.
Q. As a matter of fact, we never had any
disagreement about a union agent having access to
the plant to adjust grievances, did we, Mr. Gerchak?
A. No, except you wanted a waiver to save, or
arrange it so the company wouldn't be liable in the
event that he was hurt or something else..
Q. And do you recall the reasons we gave you for
that suggestion?
A. Well I presume that company liability for injury
was the topic of conversation.
Q. Was it our insurance structure; our insurance
company?
A. Something like that, yes.
Q. Now going back to this in-plant collection. My
question was, did you suggest at that meeting that a
union representative could go down to the plant much
the same as an insurance collector or loan shark, and
collect union dues?
A. No, sir. If I remember right I told you they had
other things to do besides going to the plant and
collecting dues.
Guffin testified that at the meeting of April 20 the Union
proposed in-plant collection of dues; Gerchak stated that
he would be the individual who would collect the dues; the
Respondent refused to grant him access to the plant for
this purpose; the question of liability for personal injury in
the plant was discussed in this connection; the
Respondent stated that it had no objection to "employees
on their own time in non-working areas" collecting dues or
conducting other union business; and at the meeting held
on May 19 the Union again proposed in-plant collection of
dues by a "union representative."
Concerning the discussions on in-plant collection of
union dues, Clark testified to the following:
I will state that at Stuttgart I agree with Mr. Guffin
that Mr. Gerchak was the one that was to go down
there and make the collections in the plant because
we specifically discussed his liability and made
comparisons to insurance agents going down there
and so forth.
employees during working time and while supervisors were
present, and that the Respondent banned the practice shortly
after Gerchak made mention of it.
ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS
Here at Jonesboro we had the discussion, it was my
understanding even at Jonesboro, it would be a union
representative other than one that worked in the plant
that was to make these collections. That was my
understanding. But we discussed both aspects of it, I
do recall that, and we did discuss the possibility of an
employee in the plant making the collections.
I can not state definitely whether he said, "I, Mr.
Gerchak would go down there." I can't state that
absolutely, but I can state that it was our
understanding from the suggestion he made that it
would either' be Mr. Gerchak, or in the beginning
there, Mr. Woodall who was working with Mr.
Gerchak, or some outside union representative. Not
one in the plant such as Lawson, the union president.
As to the reason why the Respondent rejected the Union's
proposal for collecting dues, Clark testified:
Well, in Stuttgart-the same reason would apply
essentially in Stuttgart as in Jonesboro-that it would
amount to interference with production. And we did
discuss the fact-it was directed to our attention, but
I will say that we did not realize that it existed to the
extent as presented here yesterday by the testimony,
particularly here in Jonesboro-about insurance
agents and these loan sharks and so forth coming
down, but we distinguished between the insurance
would apply to several employees whereas if you did
that for a union dues, you would have 50 to 60 or
maybe as high as 70 employees involved. And
certainly with that number it would have to interfere
with production. I mean, that's our feeling and our
thinking on it.
As noted above, Guffin testified, in substance, that the
Respondent rejected the Union's proposal because
Gerchak stated that he himself would collect the dues.
Clark testified that it was his "understanding" that
Gerchak was the one who would collect the dues, but that
he could not state "definitely" that Gerchak made such a
statement. He admitted that "the possibility of an
employee in the plant making the collections" was
discussed. Clark's testimony concerning the reason why
the Respondent would not accept the Union's proposal
appears to some extent to conflict with Guffin's testimony
and to corroborate that of Gerchak. Accordingly, I credit
the above testimony of Gerchak.
At the meeting held on May 19 Gerchak again renewed
the Union's demand for wage and classification
information. The Union reduced its demand for a general
wage increase from 20 to 15 cents. At the meeting held on
May 24 the Union indicated that it was agreeable to the
Respondent' s annual wage review, provided that it was
subject to the grievance procedure. Mason stated that
wage increases resulting from the review would be granted
"solely at the company's discretion" and were "none of
the union 's business."
On May 24, 1966, the Union sent the Respondent a letter
in which it made "a continuing request" for the following
information:
A list of all employees in the bargaining unit. Also
the date of hire.
579
Classification of each employee.
Job description of each classification.
Wage rate paid each employee.
The date and amount of last increase in pay of each
employee.
Present method of evaluating each classification.
How are the annual reviews conducted.
What factors are considered in evaluating
employees for the purpose of giving each an increase
in pay.
On May 26, 1966, Gerchak wrote to H. L. Parks, plant
manager at Jonesboro. Gerchak requested substantially
the same information as the above with respect to the
Jonesboro plant.
By letter dated May 30, 1966, Clark advised Gerchak
that the Respondent had no objection to furnishing the
Union with a list of all employees in the Stuttgart
bargaining unit and their dates of hire. Clark stated that
the Respondent refused to supply the remainder of the
requested information for Stuttgart "in view of the
experience that just occurred at Carlisle, Arkansas," and
that it also refused to furnish requested information for
Jonesboro because it had "serious doubts" of the legality
of the certification.4
At the meeting held on June 8 Gerchak referred to
Clark's letter of May 30 and requested the promised list of
employees. Clark said that he did not have it and asked
why the Union wanted the information, claiming that the
Hazen incident showed that the Union wanted it solely for
the purpose of organizing other plants of the Respondent.
Gerchak denied knowledge of the distribution at Hazen.
The Respondent agreed to send the Union the list of
employees and their dates of hire. The parties discussed
checkoff of dues. The Union stated that it did not believe
the changing of the IBM machine would be as expensive
as claimed. The Respondent agreed to bring Carle, its
secretary-treasurer, to the next meeting to explain the cost
involved. In-plant collection of dues was discussed. The
Respondent's position was that it would not agree to
collection of dues "on work time or off work time" as it did
not want its employees "bothered while working." Guffin
explained the Respondent's policies with respect to annual
review and merit increases and outlined the factors taken
into consideration. He advised the Union that the
Respondent had no written policy on this subject and that
such policy would have to be reduced to writing in order to
satisfy the Union's demand for information.
On June 10 the Respondent sent the Union the list of
employees and their dates of hire. By letter dated June 13,
1966, the Union acknowledged receipt of the list and
renewed its request for the balance of the information it
had previously demanded. By letter dated June 24, 1966,
Guffin advised Gerchak that the Respondent refused to
supply the remaining information "upon advice from our
attorney." Guffin stated, "Our approach to making wage
considerations has been fully discussed in our
negotiations , and we have never declined to explain the
details of policy in this area."
Carle was present at the meeting held on June 29. He
explained that it would cost between $30,000 to $50,000 to
change the IBM machine to include checkoff of dues. In
" Hubert Hatfield, manager of Respondent's plant located at letter Clark mistakenly referred to Carlisle. Gerchak admitted
Hazen, Arkansas, testified that during May an unknown person that he had had about 200 copies of this information reproduced
left on a desk at the plant copies of the classification information and that he had distributed them to employees at a union meeting
which the Respondent had supplied to the Union In the above He denied having anything to do with leaving copies at Hazen.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
addition the Respondent reiterated its opposition to
checkoff "as a matter of principle" and still refused to
permit in-plant collection of dues. Clark agreed to furnish
the classification of each employee but not the individual
wage rates. Guffin again explained the Respondent's
method of arriving at wage increases under its annual
review. In this connection the Union argued that the
determinations of foremen should be subject to the
grievance procedure. Mason remarked, "Why do we have
to talk with the union to give a pay raise? We are going to
do what we have been doing, union or not .... Who is
running the Company, Arkansas Rice Growers or the
Union?" Gerchak made a "continuing request" for the
wage information that had not been supplied.
During the early part of July Guffin met with Gerchak.
He furnished Gerchak with the classification of each
employee at the Stuttgart plant, his specific job title, his
date of hire, and the date and percentage of his last wage
increase.
The parties met at Jonesboro on July 22. The Union
presented the same contract proposal that it had proposed
at the beginning of the Stuttgart negotiations. Gerchak
suggested in the interest of saving time "what had been a
matter of discussion in Stuttgart - these items could be
included or accepted as being part of the negotiations in
Jonesboro." The Respondent did not object to this
arrangement. Clark rejected the Union's proposal for
checkoff or in-plant collection of dues.
At the meeting held on July 26 at Stuttgart the
Respondent furnished the Union with the wage data that it
previously had refused to supply.5 The Union agreed that
since it was time for the annual wage review, the
Respondent was free to prepare and present it at the next
meeting. In a letter to Mason, dated July 27, 1966, Gerchak
stated, "The Committee and I urge that however small this
raise is that you complete this so called survey as speedily
as possible and present it to the Union at our next
bargaining meeting scheduled for August 11, 1966. We
assure you that this Union will not hinder the granting of
this wage increase after we have had an opportunity to
study it."
Parks attended the meeting held on August 11. Gerchak
stated that the committee of employees for Jonesboro
should be permitted to participate in the meeting in view
of Parks' presence. The Respondent explained that Parks
was present "because the wage data and factors in the
annual review were identical to those in Jonesboro and he
should be a party to these things so he would know what
occurred in our negotiations when he returned to
Jonesboro." The Respondent then presented lists for both
Stuttgart and Jonesboro, showing the wage increases
arrived at under the annual wage review which were to
take effect on August 12. The Respondent also furnished
the new labor classification wage scale for both Stuttgart
and Jonesboro , a statement of job descriptions, and a
written explanation of the policy and practice "concerning
the payment of compensation to employees." The Union
presented the Respondent with a document signed by
Gerchak and the members of the Stuttgart committee. The
document stated as follows:
The Union at this time on August 11 accepts all of the
company's proposals as discussed today including the
wage increase that will be paid 8-12-1966 and is
The same information was furnished to the Union for the
Jonesboro employees at a meeting held at Jonesboro on July 27
ready to consummate into a one year contract
effective today and that shall be in full force and
effect ... until 8-11-1967 and shall automatically
thereafter renew itself for periods of one year unless
either party serves written notice on the other not less
than 60 days before the initial period or any
anniversary of an extension here of its desire to
terminate or modify this agreement . The undersigned
committee has been empowered to consummate this
agreement.
The Union dropped its proposals for checkoff, for a
general wage increase and for the right to file grievances
on the results of the annual wage review. Clark asked why
the Union was "suddenly changing its position" and
accepting disputed proposals of the Respondent. Gerchak
replied that the Union was interested in negotiating a
contract and that he thought that it was "bargaining in
good faith" by accepting the Respondent's proposals.
Clark stated that the Respondent 's proposals were "on the
basis of a five year contract" and that he had "some
second thoughts" on some of the proposals such as
seniority.
Gerchak met with the Jonesboro committee during the
night of August 11. A telegram, dated August 12 and
signed by Gerchak and members of the committee, was
sent to Parks. It contained a similar proposal to that
presented to the Respondent at the meeting on August 11.
On August 25, 1966, Gerchak sent the following letter to
Mason:6
Confirming the Unions offer made on August 11,
1966, I submit for your signature two copies of an
Agreement prepared by the Union which embraces all
proposals submitted by you in a series of contract
negotiations prior to August 11, 1966 , and these
proposals were accepted by the Union without change
on that date.
Included also are fringe benefits contained in your
booklet (employment with a purpose) and the Union
now incorporated them into the agreement. The
Union offered to accept these existing conditions of
employment on April 20, 1966, without objection by
you.
In addition , the Union has added to the Agreement
your submissions made to us on August 11, 1966.
These items as presented are a document which lists
the names of all of your employees on the payroll on
that day together with his classification job title, date
of hire, and his new wage rate and are made a part of
the agreement.
The other submissions made by you are the
documents which contained job description and
classification and the one which explains the factors
used by you to determine the amount of pay raise an
employee is entitled to in this annual review and you
have indicated that you intend to maintain and
continue this annual review as a condition of
employment . This Agreement is for a one year period
beginning August 11 , 1966, as described on the
signatory page. Please return one signed copy to me
promptly.
Clark sent letters to Gerchak dated August 30, 1966, in
which he acknowledged receipt of the proposed contracts
for Stuttgart and Jonesboro and stated that they were "not
6 Also on August 25 Gerchak sent a similar letter to Parks.
ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS
acceptable to the Company." He stated, "at our next
negotiating session we will outline the Company's reasons
for not accepting it."
The parties met on September 22 in Stuttgart. Clark
outlined the Respondent's reasons for not accepting the
contract. His main objection was that "because of the
factors that go into an annual review or a merit review
were introduced in this proposed contract" such reviews
would be subject to the grievance procedure. He pointed
out that the proposed contract did not cover "working
foremen, physical exams, sub-contracting and overtime."7
Clark stated that the Respondent insisted upon the right
"to give merit increases at any time." He stated that
"whether [the contract] was one year, two years or three
years, the expiration date should be February 1st." In this
connection he explained that the Respondent did not want
a contract with a termination date "right in the heart of the
harvest season." Clark objected to the fringe benefits set
forth in the Union's proposed contract because "they
merely copied, verbatim, the language out of the hand-
book" without reference to "interoffice memorandums
explaining the Company's policy, copies of which [had]
been furnished to Mr. Gerchak." Speaking to the members
of the committee, Clark "criticized" the Respondent's
management rights clause, and asked them if they knew
"how inclusive" the clause was and what they were
accepting.8 Clark stated that he wanted to change the
Respondent's proposals for seniority and grievance
procedure. At the meeting the Union took the position that
the only issue was "whether it is a one year contract or a
five year contract."
The parties met at Jonesboro on September 23. The
positions of the parties on the Jonesboro contract were
substantially the same as on the Union's proposed contract
for Stuttgart. The final meeting was held in Stuttgart on
November 23. Committee members for both Stuttgart and
Jonesboro were present. When Clark stated that the
negotiations for the two plants should "remain separate,"
Gerchak pointed out that Parks previously had attended a
Stuttgart meeting. The positions of the parties did not
change at this meeting.
The General Counsel contends that (1) the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act "by refusing, and then
delaying, the furnishing to the Union of data relating to
rate of pay, wages, and related matters concerning its
employees"; (2) the Respondent violated the Act "by
refusing to negotiate in good faith with the Union
concerning the collection of union dues and related
matters"; and (3) the Respondent "negotiated with the
Union in bad faith and with no intention of entering into
any final or binding collective bargaining agreement." The
General Counsel does not contend that the Respondent
failed and refused to sign a contract which had been
agreed upon, conceding that there was "no `meeting of the
minds' between the parties."
The undisputed evidence shows that the Respondent at
first refused and then delayed the furnishing of requested
information to the Union. At the meeting held on
March 30, the Union requested information on the job
classifications and rates of pay of the employees. On
April 6 the Respondent presented to the Union a
' Guffin testified that "some" of the above items "had come up
at previous meetings " Gerchak testified to the effect that these
were new proposals of the Respondent.
" Clark testified to the above Gerchak testified that Clark told
581
document which broke down job titles in the four labor
classifications and set forth the range of pay for the job
titles within those classifications, and requested the Union
to keep the information confidential. This document did
not list the names of any employees or their rates of pay.
As related above, Gerchak had about 200 copies made of
the document and during May some of these copies
appeared at the Respondent's Hazen plant. Clark referred
to this incident in his letter of May 30 as a reason for the
Respondent's refusal to supply information to the Union.
Thereafter, the Respondent supplied the requested
information piecemeal, with the last of it presented on
August 11.
In view of the fact that at the meeting held on April 20
the Union indicated that it would agree to the
Respondent's oral proposal of April 6 to retain the
Respondent's policy of granting wage increases based
upon merit and the annual review, there can be no
question but that all of the information requested by the
Union was necessary in order for it to bargain intelligently
with the Respondent on the subject. By its unreasonable
delay in providing the information, the Respondent put the
Union in an impossible bargaining position. The Hazen
incident is no defense to this delay. Especially, is this so
since it is undisputed that at the meeting held on June 8
Gerchak told the Respondent's representatives that he
was not involved in the distribution at Hazen and
explained why he made copies of the information
furnished on April 6. Accordingly, in my opinion, the
Respondent's delay of about 4 months in furnishing the
Union with requested information tends to show that the
Respondent was engaging in delaying tactics, with no
intention of consummating a collective-bargaining
agreement. That this is the case is confirmed by other
conduct of the Respondent, hereinafter discussed. It also
is found that the Respondent's outright refusals to supply
information and subsequent unreasonable delay in
furnishing it constitutes separate violations of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
The Union's original contract proposals contained a
provision for checkoff of union dues. The Respondent
rejected this proposal on the grounds that an expensive
change in its IBM machine would be required. The
Respondent also stated that it was against checkoff "as a
matter of principle" since "this was doing the Union's
work." The Union proposed in-plant collection of dues by a
local representative of the Union during nonworking time
in nonworking areas. This also was rejected by the
Respondent on the grounds that it did not want its
employees "bothered . . . on work time or off work time."
The Respondent adhered to this position even though the
Union pointed out that insurance agents were permitted in
the plant in order to make collections of insurance
premiums. The only counterproposal of the Respondent
was that the Union could collect dues "on the street" at
plant entrances.
The Respondent's only proposal covering wage
increases was its oral proposal that its established policy
be retained. Its proposal did not provide for a wage
reopener clause and in effect proposed that wage
increases were subject to the complete discretion of
the committee that he doubted "the integrity" of the Union when
it accepted "such an inclusive management rights clause ." Clark
denied that he "attacked the integrity of the Union."
299-352 0-70-38
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management , since the Respondent would not agree to
have its decisions in this respect covered by the grievance
procedure. In fact, Mason made it clear to the Union that
the Respondent would make its wage adjustments whether
"the Union liked it or didn't like it."
Here again, as in the case of the delay in furnishing
information, the Respondent put the Union in an
impossible bargaining position. After 4 months of
negotiations, the Respondent was adamant on its own
proposals and would not accede to any of the Union's
proposals of consequence. If from the start of the
negotiations the Respondent had deliberately planned to
block agreement on contract, it is difficult to see how it
could have done a better job. Its position on collection of
union dues and wage increases saw to that. On August 11
the Union "surprised" the Respondent. The Union "caved
in" and accepted all of the Respondent's proposals with
the exception of the term of the contract. If the
Respondent had been bargaining in good faith, it would
appear that agreement could have been arrived at quickly.
Instead, it in effect attempted to undermine the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees.
Addressing the employee committee, Clark criticized the
Respondent's own proposal on management rights as
being weighted to the "advantage" of the Respondent. He
also stated that he was not satisfied with, and wanted to
change, the Respondent's proposals for seniority and
grievance procedure. Under the circumstances, I conclude
and find that the Respondent failed to bargain in good faith
and that it engaged in surface bargaining with no intention
of entering into final and binding collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union for either the Stuttgart or the
Jonesboro plants. For the above reasons, I find that the
Respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the appropriate units in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices. I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to bargain with the Union upon request as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the
appropriate units concerning rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment and, if
understandings are reached, embody such understandings
in signed agreements.
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. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act.
3. All employees in the production and maintenance
departments at the Respondent ' s Stuttgart , Arkansas,
facilities , but excluding guards, professional and clerical
employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees including
regular part - time employees at the Respondent's
Jonesboro , Arkansas , plant, excluding all guards,
professional and clerical employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The Union has been the exclusive representative of
all employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in
the aforesaid unit for the Stuttgart plant on and after
November 18, 1965, and in the aforesaid unit for the
Jonesboro plant on and after March 3, 1966, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing on and after March 30, 1966,
to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the
aforestated appropriate units, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I
recommend that the Respondent, its agents, successors,
and assigns, shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate units.
(b) Refusing to furnish to the Union pertinent wage and
payroll data.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-described appropriate units with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and embody in signed agreements any
understandings reached.
(b) Upon request, furnish to the Union pertinent wage
and payroll data within a reasonably prompt time.
ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS 583
(c) Post at its places of business in Stuttgart and
Jonesboro, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, after
being duly signed by the Respondent or his authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken-by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10
Y In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 In the further event that the Board's Order is 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 "
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the following units with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment and, if understandings are
reached, embody such understandings in signed
agreements. The bargaining units are:
All employees in the production and
maintenance departments at the Arkansas Rice
Growers Cooperative Association, Stuttgart,
Arkansas, facilities, but excluding all guards,
professional and clerical employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
All production and maintenance employees
including regular part-time employees at the
Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association,
Jonesboro, Arkansas, plant, excluding all guards,
professional and clerical employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to the above-
named labor organization pertinent wage and payroll
data within a reasonably prompt time.
All my employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining members of any labor
organization.
ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
(Employer)
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
the International Union of United Brewery, Flour,
Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.