Blue Valley Machine & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Blue Valley Machine & Manufacturing Company
and District Lodge 71 , International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO.
Case 17-CA-3805
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On October 22, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E.
Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 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
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
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, the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in bargaining with the Union,
and whether it engaged in various other acts of
interference, restraint and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
In its answer , the Respondent conceded certain facts as to
its business operations , but it denied all allegations that it
had committed any unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of
the hearing and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived
by the parties. On September 4, 1969, able briefs were
submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs
of counsel, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Missouri corporation with a plant
in Kansas City, in that State, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of flanging machines and
circle shears . During the course of the calendar year 1968,
a representative period , it sold products valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State
of Missouri. Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent
concedes , and the Trial Examiner finds , that Blue Valley
Machine & Manufacturing Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner
finds , that District Lodge 71 , International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (herein
called Union or Machinists ), is a labor organization
within the meaning 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 Respondent, Blue Valley
Machine & Manufacturing Company, Kansas City,
Missouri , its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
'In adopting the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, Member Zagoria does not rely on the
considerations set forth in fn. 21 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 9, 1969, pursuant
to a charge duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued
on May 9, 1969, and amended in minor particulars at the
outset of the hearing. The complaint , as amended,
presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner
finds, that all production and maintenance employees at
the Respondent's Kansas City plant, including machinists,
production machinists, machine operators , assemblers, and
utilitymen, but excluding all office clericals, professionals,
and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
On or about February 16, 1968,' when there were 10
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit and after a
third party card check of authorizations, the Respondent
recognized the Union as the majority representative.
Thereafter, over a period of approximately 11 months, the
parties met in a series of collective bargaining sessions.
In July the Respondent filed an RM petition with the
Board, requesting that an election be held among the
employees in the unit. Later it withdrew this petition. In
October, and thereafter, it again questioned the Union's
majority. In January 1969, the Respondent put into effect
'The Union filed the charge on February 17, 1969
'Unless otherwise specifically noted , all dates which appear hereinafter
occurred in 1968.
180 NLRB No. 55
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE & MFG. CO.
an across the board wage increase for all employees in the
unit. Later that month the Union called a strike which
lasted until about May 1.
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent failed
to bargain in good faith on and after October 8, that the
wage increase in January was unilaterally and unlawfully
granted and that the strike resulted from the Respondent's
unfair labor practices. All of these allegations are denied
in their entirety by the Respondent.
B. The Evidence as to the Alleged Violations of
Section 8(a)(5); Findings and Conclusions with
Respect Thereto
1. The issue as to majority in February 1968
Late in - 1967 and early in 1968 the Union conducted an
organizational campaign among the employees of the
Respondent's plant. Marvin L. Tillman, an organizer for
the Machinists, testified that in November and December
1967 several of the employees mailed signed authorization
cards to the union office. According to Tillman, because
some of these cards were not legible and others were not
properly witnessed, he contacted the individuals involved,
as well as other employees, and secured new
authorizations, the execution of which he personally
witnessed. Thus, Tillman credibly testified that on various
dates between November 27, 1967, and January 31, 1968,
he secured signed authorization cards from employees
Donald Lugenbeel, Robert F. Hambel, Woodrow L.
Hackett, Charles O. Holland, Roy E. Butner, W. L.
Haley, Charles E. McClarnan, Dorsey Edward Campbell,
Jr., and Omar H. Lugenbeel.
In a letter dated February 6, Floyd Stone, international
representative for the Machinists, wrote Ernest Johnson,
president of the Respondent, requesting that the Union be
recognized as the bargaining agent for the employees. On
the following day, Stone telephoned the plant to ask if the
letter had been received. Wayne Willard, vice president of
the Respondent, told him that because the letter had been
addressed to Johnson, who was then on vacation, it had
been returned, unopened, to the sender. Thereafter, in a
three party conversation with Willard and Harold W.
Johnston, secretary-treasurer of the Company, Stone
explained the subject matter of the letter and restated for
them the Union's claim to represent a majority of their
employees. Stone also described the mechanics of a third
party card check which the Union proposed as an
expeditious means of resolving any doubts about the
Machinists' claim.
As the result of this conversation and several others,
the parties agreed to a card check to be conducted on
February 12, by the Reverend Ralph E. Hansen, pastor of
a church that was located near the plant. On the latter
date, Stone and Tillman, on behalf of the Union, and
Johnston and Willard on behalf of the Company, arrived
at the rectory of Reverend Hansen. After the union
representatives had given him the authorization cards and
the Respondent ' s officials had given him a list of
employees in the unit, the minister checked the cards
against the latter. Stone credibly testified that after
Reverend Hansen had completed this examination of the
cards and the employee list, he announced to those present
"it appears that the Union has a majority. " In a
letter dated February 16, Reverend Hansen confirmed in
writing that in his card check he had found that a
majority of the employees desired that the Union act as
their representative.3
299
After their meeting in the church office, the union and
company officials returned to Johnston's office at the
plant where Stone asked that Johnston sign a statement
which would grant the Union recognition. Johnston,
however, declined to do so. According to Stone, at this
point Johnston told him that he had gone along with the
card check only to ascertain how much strength the Union
had and, having been satisfied as to that issue, the Union
..can go ahead and have your NLRB election now." At
the hearing Johnston did not contest the accuracy of
Stone's account as to what occurred on this occasion.
According to Johnston, his attitude at that point was
based on a misunderstanding as to Board procedures.
Johnston testified that he subsequently telephoned the
Regional Office and secured further information which
caused him to conclude that the Respondent should
recognize the Union without further ado. In any event, in
a letter dated February 16, the Company recognized the
Union as the bargaining agent of its hourly paid
employees. In the same letter the Company accepted a
union proposal for a date on which bargaining conferences
might begin.'
2. The bargaining conferences
On February 19 the parties met for a preliminary
discussion of the procedure that they would follow in their
collective- bargaining conferences. On February 26 they
met again. Stone and employee Woodrow L. Hackett
represented the Union and Johnston and Willard appeared
for the Company. Stone promised the Respondent's
representatives that they would mail the Company the
complete text of a proposed contract within a few days. In
fact, this proposal was mailed on March 8. At the hearing
Stone testified that the wage proposal in this agreement
was based on the assumption that the duration of any
agreement negotiated would be for+one year. On the other
hand, Stone conceded that the Union did not reduce to
writing a request for a one year contract.
Between March 13 and November 20, 1968, the parties
met for 10 bargaining sessions. The Union was
represented at these meetings by Stone and one of the
employees, either Hackett, Charles O. Holland, or Robert
F. Hambel. Willard appeared at all the meetings, and
Johnston at all except one, as representatives of the
Company. Occasionally, the latter two were joined by
Ernest Johnson, the Respondent's president. At the
hearing, only Stone and Johnston testified as to what
occurred at the bargaining conferences. The General
Counsel did not call any of the employees to testify on
this subject and the Respondent did not call either
Johnson or Willard. The findings set forth below are
based on the credible testimony of Stone and Johnston.
'Reverend Hansen's conclusion that the Union had a majority on
February 12, was borne out by the evidence adduced at the hearing. The
parties agreed that on that date there were 10 employees in the unit,
namely, Hjalmar Lindstrom , Robert F Hambel, Charles O. Holland,
Wilbern L . Haley, Omer H. Lugenbeel , Charles E McClarnan, William C
Hoffman , Woodrow Hackett , Roy E. Butner , and Roy X. Dolt Of that
number, the General Counsel produced valid authorization cards which had
been signed by Hambel, Holland , Haley, Lugenbeel , McClarnan , Hackett,
and Butner . With 7 out of the 10 unit members , the Union had a majority
of 70 percent
Of some relevance to this course of action is the fact that on February
14 the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent,
alleging that the Company unlawfully refused to meet and bargain with its
employee representative After the Respondent agreed to begin
negotiations with the Union, this charge was dismissed
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Insofar as the testimony of those two witnesses is in
conflict, such conflicts are resolved as more fully
explained hereinafter.
March 13• At this meeting Stone explained to the
company representatives that any agreement reached by
the parties would be tentative until ratified by the union
membership. Thereafter, a discussion of the Union's
proposal resulted in the Company assenting to the
provisions on intent and purpose of the agreement, hours
of work, overtime rates, shift premiums, reporting (or
call-in) pay, shop stewards, a portion of the section on
seniority, new job classifications, union representatives,
discharge, discipline, on the job injuries and method of
wage payments. No agreement was reached on a union
shop provision and the Union agreed to redraft the
proposed paragraph on recognition.
March 27: At this meeting the Company presented a
counterproposal which included a management rights
clause. The Union accepted this provision. Agreement was
also reached on terms as to distribution of overtime,
seniority, and grievance procedures. The parties likewise
agreed to a union shop clause with a specific exception on
behalf of one elderly employee.' The company
counterproposal included a wage raise. This would have
provided an increase of 15 cents an hour for certain
classifications to be effective on January 2, 1969. The
Company also proposed that, on the effective date of the
contract, utility workers be given a raise from $2.25 to
$2.65 and on January 2, 1969, from $2.40 to $2 80. In
January 1968, the Respondent had granted an across the
board increase of 15 cents an hour. At the bargaining
sessions in March it contended that since its new proposal
provided for another 15 cent increase the following
January, the Company was really offering a 30 cent raise
over a period of slightly in excess of one year. The Union,
however, would not accept this construction of the
Company's offer. More significantly, at the hearing, Stone
testified that the Union objected to the Company's wage
proposal because it would not be effective across the
board and, as a result, some employees would not receive
any increase at al 1.6 No agreement was reached at this
meeting on the wage issue.'
April 16: At this meeting the Union presented a
proposal on wages which would provide a substantial wage
increase to the employees in June 1968 and another in
June 1969.' The Company rejected the Union's proposal
as unreasonable and nothing further was accomplished at
this meeting.
May 15: At the meeting on this date the parties agreed
upon a provision for vacations and an additional clause on
retention of seniority. Earlier, the Union had asked that
'This was Hjalmar Lindstrom , a 79-year-old employee who had been
with the Respondent since 1935. The Union agreed that upon the effective
date of the contract , Lindstrom would not have to j oin the Union unless he
wanted to do so
Johnston conceded at the hearing that at this meeting the Company
agreed upon the terms of a union shop clause
'Stone testified that this resulted from the fact that the company
proposal set a new rate for various classifications which was 15 cents
higher than that of some employees but not for all of them . The proposal,
however , was qualified by a provision that employees currently getting
more than the proposed new scale would continue at their present rate
Stone credibly testified that because of this limitation at least three of the
employees , whom he named , would get no increase of any kind under the
Company' s proposal
'Of some relevance to later events, is Stone 's concession at the hearing
that at this time the Respondent was seeking a two year contract.
'At the hearing Stone conceded that the Union's proposal was based on
a proposed contract for a 2-year term
the Company present a counterproposal on wages at this
meeting , but the Respondent's representatives had nothing
on this subject when the meeting date arrived.
May 27• At this meeting the Union representatives gave
to the company officials a document captioned "Tentative
Agreement Between the Company and the Union
(5/27/68)." This contained provisions on management
rights, vacations, strikes, lockouts, and clauses on
employment of temporary help, nondiscrimination and
seniority. From the record it appears that there was
agreement between the parties on the issues covered by
the aforesaid provisions. Another document offered by the
Union at this meeting did not meet with such approval.
This was a new proposal on wages. It provided for a scale
approximately 5 cents an hour lower than the earlier
proposal and also for a schedule of wage increases for new
employees that involved a 10-cent wage increase every 6
months for 18 months and after 24 months would put
such employees at the top of the classification rate The
meeting broke up in disagreement over the Union's wage
demand. Stone testified that the crucial issue at this
meeting was not how long the contract would run, but
how much of a wage increase it would provide.'
Johnston's testimony was to the same effect. According to
the latter, the real issue between the parties at this
meeting was the "excessive amount of wages" which the
Union sought. Johnston testified that at this time, the
non-economic issues "were very close to being worked
out." According to Johnston, at the conclusion of the
session Stone told the company representatives "we are
too far apart on wages for us to get together, if you have
a change of heart you call us. If we do, we'll call you."
Upon the conclusion of this meeting, the parties did not
meet again until August. Late in June, Stone telephoned
the company office and in a conversation with Johnston
learned that the plant was shut down for an annual two
week vacation period. Johnston told him that all of the
employees would not be back until about July 19. On the
latter date Stone called the plant again. On this occasion
he spoke to Vice President Willard. According to Stone's
credible and uncontradicted testimony, in this
conversation, after he requested a meeting with the
Company at the earliest moment, Willard told him that
the Respondent had filed an RM petition with the Board
and that, whereas in the meantime the management
officials would not refuse to meet with the Union, in the
event that there was a meeting, no major decisions could
be made until after either a hearing on the RM petition,
or an election. Thereafter, in a letter dated July 20, Stone
reviewed their conversation of the preceding day and
renewed the Union's request for another bargaining
conference at the earliest, possible moment.
On August 15, the Union received a letter from the
Company which requested a resumption of bargaining." It
was signed by Willard and read as follows:
We wish to advise that, although we do have a good
faith doubt as to whether or not your union represents a
majority of our employees and we have previously
bargained with you for more than a reasonable time, in
view of the economics involved in processing our
Petition for election through the N.L.R.B. machinery,
we have decided to resume negotiations with your
Union.
'Stone conceded that the Union 's proposal was based on a contract of at
least 2 years' duration.
"The letter was undated , but Stone 's testimony to the effect that he
received this letter on August 15 was credible and undenied
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE & MFG. CO.
Consequently, please telephone us so that we may set
up a mutually convenient date to begin good faith
bargaining with the sincere hope that an equitable
contract can be worked out between us.
August 20: At a meeting on this date, President
Johnson and Vice President Willard represented the
Company, whereas Stone and employee Robert F.
Hambel represented the Union. The Respondent's officials
requested a review of all the provisions agreed upon up to
that time. Stone did this, to the apparent satisfaction of
the company representatives. Thereafter, Johnson raised a
question with respect to vacations and the Union agreed
to a suggested change of that article. Agreement was also
reached on the classifications which would be included in
the description of the unit in the article on recognition.
Stone credibly testified that the Union then agreed to
accede to the company proposal on holidays and, because
it was well known that the Respondent's business had
declined during the preceding months, the Union also
withdrew its request for jury pay, death in the family
benefits and a cost of living provision. At the close of the
meeting, Johnson asked that the Union prepare a
composite draft of all the provisions on which agreement
had been reached and Stone promised that he would do so
before the next meeting. Stone credibly testified that at
the close of the meeting he told the management officials
that, as far as the Union was concerned, there were only
four unresolved issues, namely, the Company's proposal
that management personnel be permitted to perform work
in the bargaining unit, the Company's proposal on
employees 65 years of age and over, wage rates and
duration of the contract. According to Stone's credible
testimony, none of the company representatives present
raised any objection to his outline of the issues which the
Union felt were still unresolved.
September 16: At this meeting the Company was
represented by Johnston and Willard, President Johnson
being absent on a trip abroad. Stone and Hambel
represented the Union. Prior to the meeting and in
conformity with the commitment made at the preceding
conference, Stone sent to the Company a composite listing
of the contractual provisions on which the parties were
agreed. The Company received this before the conference
on September 16 and at the outset of this meeting, Stone
and Johnston reviewed these articles in seriatim . Johnston
raised one question with respect to the provision on
vacations and the union representatives agreed to a change
in that article so that an employee would have to work a
minimum number of hours to qualify for vacation pay.
Thereafter there was some discussion of the four issues
on which no agreement had been reached at the preceding
meeting and which are itemized, supra. Stone reminded
Johnston that the Company had made no wage proposal
since March 27. According to Stone, the latter replied
that no agreement was possible at that time because his
fellow officer Johnson was out of the country.
At the hearing, Stone testified. that prior to this
meeting the parties talked principally in terms of a two
year agreement, but that on this occasion, because wages
were the crucial issue separating the parties, the Union
offered a wage proposal that would be effective the
following January and be part of a one year agreement.
The Union's proposal made at this meeting was almost
identical with that which the Company had offered on
March 27. Johnston countered this offer with the
statement that the Company' s negotiations as to that
wage scale had been on the basis of a two year contract
and that the Union's proposal would compel the Company
301
to reconsider the basis for all prior negotiations. At this
point the meeting was adjourned.
October 8: This meeting was attended by Stone and
Hambel for the Union and Johnson, Johnston and Willard
for the Company. At the outset of the meeting the Union
agreed to a proposal by the Company with respect to
employees working after age 65. Thereafter, the entire
discussion was concerned with a completely altered course
upon which the Company embarked.
Johnston presented the Union with a list of items which
the Company would insist upon excluding from the
negotiated agreement, and others which it would insist be
included. The first provision which the Respondent
demanded that the parties agree to drop was the union
shop provision. The Union protested violently to this
proposal on the ground that the Company had agreed to
this clause at the meeting on March 27 and that it was,
therefore, a resolved issue and not subject to further
negotiation. Johnston replied that the situation in the shop
had changed and that the number of employees in the unit
had been cut to four. Stone replied that of these four,
three were union men in good standing and that the fourth
had been issued an honorary withdrawal card. Johnston
contended that notwithstanding the Union's position, the
Company now had a good faith doubt as to whether the
Union represented a majority. At the conclusion of the
meeting Johnston proposed a provision for a 15 cent wage
increase effective on January 1, 1969, but only if the
Union would agree to remove the article on a union shop.
Stone protested that neither party had a right to withdraw
a portion of the contract on which agreement had been
reached previously and the meeting broke up with the
Union's protest that the Company was not bargaining in
good faith.
At the hearing Stone testified that prior to October 8
the company representatives had never said anything
about eliminating the provision on a union shop. Stone's
testimony in this respect was credible and undenied At
the hearing Johnston testified that the shift in position by
the Company on the union shop issue came about because
three out of the four employees in the unit told him that
they did not want to be represented by the Union.
October 18: At this meeting the parties were
represented by the same individuals as had appeared
earlier. Johnston reiterated that the Company would insist
upon an open shop. In response to questions from Stone
as to changes which the Company wanted in the contract
as to recognition and the grievance procedure, Johnston
told him that the Company would recognize the Union as
the representative of its members only and that the
Company would not let it participate in grievance
proceedings involving non-members. Stone protested that
the Union could never agree to such a proposal because it
was illegal, that the Union had an obligation to represent
all the members of the unit and that it could not bargain
away an obligation that was imposed on it by law." The
meeting was thereupon adjourned without any change of
position by the parties as to the items in dispute.
November 20: At the meeting on October 8, the
Company had presented the Union with a list of items
which it would insist be made part of any contract. These
would provide that (1) management personnel would be
permitted to work in the shop in any capacity; (2)
employees would have to work a minimum number of
hours to receive vacation pay for the year; (3) new
"The findings in this paragraph are based on the credible and
uncontradicted testimony of Stone as to this meeting
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees would be hired at 25 cents less than their
classification and be brought to the top of the
classification within 18 months ; (4) at its discretion the
Company could terminate an employee at age 65 ; (5) the
term of the contract would be from date of signing to
December 31 , 1970; and (6) the Company would only be
bound by those provisions expressly stated in the
agreement . At the conference on November 20 the parties
discussed the foregoing items.
Stone , whose testimony as to this meeting was credible
and undenied , testified that at the outset of this conference
the union representatives pointed out to the Company that
the Union already had agreed to the proposal on
management personnel , to the proposal as to employees
65 years of age , and to the provision for a lower starting
rate for new employees . At this point the Union
representatives requested a recess to decide on their
position as to the duration date of the contract. Johnston
then stated that before recessing he wanted them to know
that the Company would give a 15-cent increase for all
employees on the effective date of the agreement , another
15-cent increase on January 1, 1969, and an additional
15-cent increase on January I, 1970. The Union
representatives then conferred and upon returning to the
bargaining table announced that they would agree to the
duration date requested by the Company and to the
proposal as to wage rates. Johnston thereupon stated that
the Company would still insist upon an open shop. Stone
responded that this matter had been resolved months
before when on March 27 the Company had agreed to the
union shop clause and a grievance procedure . Stone also
pointed out that on August 20 the parties had agreed on
the terms of a clause on vacations so that these items were
resolved issues. Stone then suggested that in view of what
appeared to be an impasse , the parties should call upon
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service . Johnston
gave a noncommittal reply to this last suggestion and the
meeting ended.
Conferences at the offices of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service : On December 5 and 17 , and at the
Union ' s request , the parties reported to the FMCS office
in Kansas City. There , Mediator Beryl Carley, of the
Conciliation Service , arranged for the union and company
representatives to remain in separate rooms while he
endeavored to secure a mutually acceptable basis for the
resolution of their differences . There were no joint
meetings during this period and at the instant hearing
there was no testimony from any witness for the
Respondent as to what occurred on either of these
occasions. Stone , however, testified with respect to what
occurred when the union representatives were at Carley's
office . His testimony in this connection was credible and
uncontradicted.
Stone ' s testimony with respect to the events on
December 5 was as follows : In a preliminary statement of
positions , Stone told the mediator the Union felt that the
reason for the impasse was the Company ' s withdrawal of
its earlier agreement to a union shop , recognition and a
grievance procedure. Thereafter Carley visited the
company officials and when he returned to the union
delegation he reported that the Company would insist on
December 31 , 1970, as the terminal date for a contract,
that employees would have to work a minimum of 1,700
hours each year to be eligible for vacation pay and that
the parties were not to be bound by any agreement not
expressly set forth in the contract . Stone told the mediator
that the Union had agreed to all of these items at earlier
meetings . Carley then told them of certain additional
material which the Company wanted to include in the
clause on duration of the contract and Stone assured him
that the Union would accept the proposed language.
However, when Carley also indicated that the Company
had not changed its opposition to the union shop,
recognition and grievance clauses , Stone told him that the
Union considered these last three matters as resolved
items as to which agreement had been reached many
months before. Carley left the room to confer with the
company officials once more and returned later to tell the
union representatives that he could offer the parties no
further help at that time in the resolution of their
differences.
On December 17 the parties again went to the FMCS
offices where Mediator Carley resumed his efforts to bring
about a settlement of the dispute. Before conferring with
the company representatives, Carley asked Stone if the
union delegation would accept what he described as a
modified union shop provision" and the latter told him
that they would. Carley then left the room and returned a
short while later to announce that he was unable to offer
any further help in the resolution of the problems
separating the parties.
January 14: On this date, and at the request of the
Union, the parties met at the Company offices. It was to
be their last meeting. Stone's testimony as what occurred
on this occasion was credible and undenied. According to
Stone: At the outset of the meeting the union
representatives asked the Company officials if the
Company position had changed as to the withdrawal of
their earlier agreement to the clauses on recognition, the
grievance procedure, and a union shop and received a
negative reply. Stone then asked for a clarification of
what the Company meant by the exclusion of such items
from any negotiated agreement. Johnston replied, in
effect, that the Company would not agree to a union shop
or a modified union shop provision. He also stated that
insofar as recognition was concerned the Company would
not recognize the Union as the representative of any
employees who were not members and that the Company
would not agree that the Union could process grievances
or participate in any grievance matters involving
non-members among the plant personnel. Johnston closed
the meeting by telling the union representatives that the
Company had just effected a 15 cent raise. According to
Stone, Johnston then said, "I went ahead and gave the
boys a 15 cent raise , . . . you can go ahead and file your
unfair labor charges now if you want to. If you do, I can
always put it back.""
3. The strike
Stone testified that on January 27, 1969, he telephoned
the plant and in a conversation with Vice President
Willard he asked whether the Company still opposed the
clauses on recognition, a grievance procedure, and a union
shop, notwithstanding its earlier agreement to such
provisions. According to Stone, whose testimony in this
respect was credible and neither denied nor contradicted,
Willard told him that there had been no change from the
position which the Company had held on these subjects
for the past several months.
"According to Stone , the proposal, as suggested by Carley, would
require new employees to join the Union but would not require the old
employees to join as a condition of employment.
"The Company conceded that on January 2, 1969, it had put into effect
the raise in question.
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE & MFG. CO.
On the morning of January 28, the Union placed
pickets in front of the plant entrance, according to Stone,
because of the Company's withdrawal of its agreement on
provisions for recognition, grievances , and a union shop.
At the time there were only four employees working at
the plant. These were Hambel, Haley, Hoffman, and Dolt.' °
Hambel was the only employee who picketed the plant,
but the other employees honored the picket line and
remained away from work during the strike.
The Respondent continued to operate the plant
throughout the course of the strike, and hired a number of
new employees while it was in progress. Late in April
several of the strikers sought to return to work.
Apparently they were reinstated, although the record on
this issue is not clear. Hambel, however, was not offered
reemployment.
On May 5, Stone had a conference at the plant office
with reference to Hambel's reinstatement. In addition to
Stone and employee Hambel, the three company officials,
Johnston, Johnson and Willard were present. According to
Stone, the following exchange occurred:
Stone asked the management officials why Hambel had
not been permitted to return to work. Johnston replied
"We asked Bob [Hambel] some questions and he hasn't
given us the right answers ." Stone then asked what
Johnston meant by that statement . In reply, Johnston
asked if the strike had ended. Stone responded that the
Union had officially ended the strike and that he was
making an unconditional request that Hambel be returned
to work. Johnston then told Hambel that he could return
to work immediately if he cared to do so, but then added
"If you come back to work we are going to . . . watch
you and watch you close. There is not going to be any
roaming around the shop and talking to Haley and the
other guys, . . . we are going to watch you and watch you
close." Thereafter, in an exchange with President Johnson,
Stone pointed out that the Union had filed unfair labor
practice charges against the Company. Johnson replied
"Yes, I know, but I don't think that will amount to
anything." Then, in addressing employee Hambel,
Johnson said "Bob, you have been around here 27 years,'s
you should have known that we did not intend to sign a
contract with any union."
Johnston testified with respect to the foregoing incident,
but President Johnson did not.'° Employee Hambel was
never called to the stand by the General Counsel.
Johnston testified that some of the remarks which Stone
credited to him were actually spoken by Willard, the
superintendent. According to Johnston, on the day in
question, Willard addressed all of the employees, both the
returning strikers and the newly hired, and told them all
that henceforth there was to be no loitering on the job or
bothering other employees at work and that all would be
treated alike in this connection. Johnson did not deny
having spoken to Stone and Hambel as the former
testified, and he did not specifically deny having told
Hambel that if the latter returned to work, the
management would "watch him and watch him close."
Johnston denied having heard Johnson tell Hambel that
the employee should have known that the Company would
never sign a union contract. As noted earlier, Johnson
"A fifth employee , one Jerry Banner , was hired on January 27, but,
according to Johnston , Banner quit that same day.
"Hambel was a veteran employee of many years service , but the record
is not clear as to whether he had 17 or 27 years of tenure . According to
one exhibit offered by the Respondent he had been hired in 1952. On his
authorization card , however , an exhibit that was offered by the General
Counsel , Hambel listed his date of hire as 1942.
303
himself did not testify.
Insofar as there was a conflict in the record between
the testimony of Stone and Johnston as to the events on
May 5, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
Stone's account was the more accurate and credible.
4. The issue as to the Union's majority during the
bargaining sessions
Earlier herein, it was found that in February 1968,
when the Respondent recognized the Union, the latter had
secured signed authorization cards from a substantial
majority within the unit.
On July 18, 1968, the Respondent filed an RM petition
with the Board seeking an election, but thereafter it
withdrew this request. On August 15, the Respondent
notified the Union that it would resume bargaining,
notwithstanding a good faith doubt as to the Union's
majority. Later, at the bargaining session on October 8
and thereafter, the Company withdrew its earlier
agreement for a union shop clause on the ground that it
did not believe the Union any longer represented a
majority. At the hearing Johnston testified that
subsequent to the time when the Company originally
agreed to a union shop clause in the contract, 5 of the 10
employees then in the unit came to tell him that they did
not wish to be represented by the Union. He identified
these individuals as Wilbern Haley, William C. Hoffman,
Roy E. Butner, Roy Dolt and Hjalmar Lindstrom. At the
hearing the Respondent called Dolt and Hoffman, but
none of the other three named. Dolt and Hoffman
testified that they never wanted a union to represent them.
Hoffman never signed an authorization card, but Dolt
conceded on cross-examination that he joined the Union
on February 16, 1968, and that he paid dues until October
of that year. Butner signed an authorization card on
January 10, 1968, and Haley signed one on January 4,
1968.
There was no evidence that any of the employees who
signed authorization cards had ever revoked them or
notified the Union to that effect. Stone credibly testified
that at no time during the negotiations did any of the card
signers or members withdraw their membership. He
specifically denied that Haley, Butner or Dolt ever told
him that they wanted to withdraw their membership in the
Union. There was no contrary testimony.
On July 18, when the Respondent filed the RM petition
there were six employees in the unit. These were Dolt,
Haley, Hambel, Hoffman, Charles E. McClarnan, and
Hjalmar Lindstrom." As found earlier, Haley, Hambel
and McClarnan signed authorization cards during the
organizational campaign and Dolt joined the Union in
February 1968. Since there is no evidence that any of
these authorizations had been revoked or withdrawn, the
Trial Examiner concludes that as of July 18, 1968, the
Union had a majority of four employees in a unit of six
From September through January there were only four
hourly paid employees on the payroll. These were Dolt,
Haley, Hambel, and Hoffman. Again, of this number,
Dolt, Haley, and Hambel, not having revoked their
"In explanation of Johnson's absence from the hearing , Counsel for the
Respondent explained that the company president had taken an injured
employee to a hospital for emergency treatment.
'TI'here is some question as to whether Lindstrom should be considered
as within the unit at any time after the spring of 1968 Lindstrom became
ill in January 1968 He was then 79 years old. At the hearing , Johnston
conceded that although Lindstrom was a full time employee prior to his
illness, after mid -January 1968, he never worked again
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization cards, must be held to constitute a majority
within this unit. The Trial Examiner so concludes."
Consequently , on the basis of the foregoing findings, the
Trial Examiner concludes that at all times material herein
the Union had a majority in the appropriate unit.
5. Conclusions with respect to the alleged violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
The General Counsel contends that throughout the
period in question the Respondent was under an
obligation to bargain with the Union, that it did not do so
in good faith and that it, therefore, violated the Act. The
Respondent contends that from at least a point sometime
during the summer of 1968 it had a good faith doubt as to
the Union's majority and that it was no longer under an
obligation to bargain from that point forward.
In the case of a certified union, the Supreme Court has
approved the Board rule that a certification must be
honored for a reasonable period, ordinarily one year in
the absence of unusual circumstances, and this despite any
interim loss of majority. Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348
U.S. 96, 98. Where a Union has been recognized as the
result of a settlement agreement the Board has held that
the obligation to bargain continues for a reasonable time
"without regard to whether or not there are fluctuations in
the majority status" of the union. Poole Foundry and
Machine Company, 95 NLRB 34, 36, enfd. 192 F.2d 740
(C.A. 4), cert. denied 342 U.S. 954. Finally, where as
here, the union was voluntarily recognized by the
employer on the basis of a card check the Board has held
that the parties must be accorded a reasonable time to
bargain and to arrive at a mutually satisfactory contract.
Further, the Board has held that, for such negotiations to
be successful, the parties are entitled to rely on "the
continuing representative status of the lawfully recognized
union for a reasonable period of time," even though, in
fact, the union may have lost its majority in the unit.
Keller Plastics Eastern. Inc., 157 NLRB 583, 586-587.
At the bargaining session on October 8 the Respondent
withdrew its earlier agreement on a recognition clause, a
grievance procedure and the union shop. Then, and at all
bargaining sessions held thereafter , the Respondent
maintained that it would recognize the Union only on
behalf of the Union's members and that the Union would
not be permitted to participate in grievance matters
involving any non-member employees. By this action the
Respondent withdrew its recognition of the Union as the
exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees in the
unit.
The first question to be answered is whether, by
October 8, the Respondent was still obligated to treat the
Union as the statutory bargaining agent . At that point,
almost eight months had passed since the original
voluntary recognition of the Union in February 1968.
During the interim , bargaining had begun late in February
and continued until May 27 at which time negotiations
were broken off by the parties and not resumed until
August 20. Without assessing blame on either side for this
lapse during the summer months, by any construction of
this time sequence it would appear that negotiations had
not proceeded for a total of more than six months when,
on October 8, the Respondent withdrew its recognition of
the Union here involved. Since the parties were bargaining
for a first contract and had no common experience to
"Even if Lindstrom is considered a member of the unit at that time, the
Union would still have a majority of three in a unit of five
draw upon for the expeditious resolution of their
differences, it does not appear to the Trial Examiner that
a reasonable period for the conclusion of the negotiations
had elapsed by October 8, regardless of whether the
bargaining be considered as having covered a period of 8
months from February to October or a total of only 6
months, the time when, in fact, bargaining was in
progress. Cf.., Petropoulos Brothers Appliances, Inc.. 169
NLRB No. 160, TXD. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the Union still had the status of
majority representative for the employees when, on
October 8, the Company announced that thereafter it
would recognize the Union for members only At that
point, since the Union was entitled to the presumption of
a continuing majority,79 and in fact, as the findings set
forth earlier establish, it actually had such a majority
within the unit, the Respondent's conduct then, and later,
cannot be excused by the assertion that the management
had a good faith doubt of that majority. The Trial
Examiner concludes and finds, in view of the foregoing
facts, that the Respondent was not free to assert as it did,
on October 8 and thereafter, that it was no longer under
an obligation to accord the Union the status of majority
representative. Moreover, its conduct during this period,
when it refused to recognize the Union as the
representative of any employees other than its own
members, rather than as the exclusive bargaining agent for
all the employees in the appropriate unit, inevitably led to
the deadlock in the negotiations which quickly followed.,"
By this course of action, which constituted a total
rejection of the basic principles of collective bargaining,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. 31
After October 8, 1968, and throughout numerous
conferences, the Respondent maintained that the Union
was entitled to recognition on behalf of its members only.
Late in January 1969, and after the Respondent informed
"Cf., Aero Engineering Corporation . 177 NLRB No 31, where the
Board stated " ... to permit an Employer to raise a related challenge to
the Union' s majority some It months after granting recognition and
subsequent to a settlement agreement , would be an unstabilizing factor in
bargaining , would unnecessarily undermine the settlement agreement
previously reached , and would constitute an inducement to 'gamesmanship'
which would not effectuate the policies of the Act "
"Since at all times material the Union has a majority within the unit,
the Respondent was not free on October 8, and thereafter , to make the
recognition clause a bargainable issue As the Court stated in
McQuay-Norris Manufacturing Company v N L.R.B, 116 F.2d 748, 751
(C.A. 5); "the recognition required by Section 9 (a) is not a bargaining
matter as petitioner sought to make it . When it was disclosed to petitioner
that Local 226 represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit . the obligation was then fixed upon it to recognize the Local as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent , not only for the members of the
Union, but for all employees . In place of complying with this statutory
requirement , petitioner made it the subject of a long and extended
bargaining process. Neither can the consequences of its refusal to
grant complete recognition be dissipated by the fact - if it be a fact
that it bargained with the Union on all other matters in dispute. In our
view of the situation , there could be no genuine bargaining as contemplated
by the Statute until complete recognition had been granted as the Act
requires." See also , Hess Oil & Chemical Corp. v. N L R B. 415 F.2d 440
(C.A. 5).
"As found earlier , long before October, the Respondent had agreed to
articles on recognition , a grievance procedure and a union shop. The
position which the Respondent took on these issues on and after October 8
constituted a unilateral repudiation of what the parties had negotiated at
conferences as far back as the preceding March . This action by the
Respondent , coming after so many months of negotiations , constituted
further evidence of bad faith , and, by itself, constituted a violation of
Section 8 (aX5). The Marley Company , 150 NLRB 919, 922
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE & MFG. CO.
the Union that it was adhering to this position , the Union
called a strike . Stone testified that the strike was
precipitated by the Company' s withdrawal of its earlier
agreement to clauses providing for recognition, a
grievance procedure and the union shop . In view of the
earlier findings that the Company ' s action at the
bargaining conferences was an unfair labor practice, the
ensuing strike which arose , at least in part , out of that
refusal to accord the Union the recognition which lawfully
was its due, must be, and it is held, to have been an unfair
labor practice strike. Mrs Fays' Pies, Inc.. 145 NLRB
495, 496-497, enfd . 341 F.2d 489 (C.A. 9). All employees
who participated in that strike were , therefore , unfair
labor practice strikers who, at the conclusion of that
strike, were entitled to reinstatement upon application
irrespective of whether their positions had been filled by
the Respondent ' s hire of other employees as replacements
for them.
Late in April several of the strikers requested that they
be permitted to return to work. On May 5, Stone
accompanied employee Hambel to the plant office to
inquire of the Respondent ' s officers why Hambel had not
been reinstated . Mr. Johnston answered this question with
the statement " We asked Bob [Hambel ] some questions
and he hasn ' t given us the right answers ." When Stone
declared that , on behalf of Hambel , the Union was
making an unconditional request that he be returned to
work , the plant president stated that the employee could
return . This concession however , was immediately
followed with a statement by Johnston in which he told
Hambel " If you come back to work we are going to .. .
watch you and watch you close ." Thereafter , and before
the meeting ended , President Johnson admonished
Hambel who had attended many of the bargaining
conferences as the employee member and who was the
sole employee on the picket line, that as an old-time
employee he should have known that the Company would
not sign a contract with the Union . Not surprisingly,
Hambel never returned to work.
The Act requires that an unfair labor practice striker,
upon application , must be offered his former job, or its
equivalent , without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges , It is the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that the Respondent did not satisfy this
requirement with the type of reinstatement which it
proffered Hambel under the circumstances described
above . This offer , made by the company officials,
obviously with great reluctance and accompanied by
comments and admonitions that tended to create an aura
of restraint and coercion , carried an implied threat to the
employee that , if he returned , his tenure might be very
short-lived . The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that
by this conduct the Respondent failed to make a valid
offer of reinstatement to Hambel, and that in so doing it
further violated Section 8(a)(1). Cf. Cello-Tape Company,
143 NLRB 295, 303-304.
C. The Pay Raise; Findings and Conclusions with
Respect Thereto
On January 2, 1969 , the Respondent put into effect a
15 cent an hour pay raise for all employees . The General
Counsel contends that this action was taken unilaterally
and in violation of the Respondent's bargaining
obligation . The Respondent contends that it was free to
take such action because the negotiations had reached an
impasse , the same increase had been offered the Union
earlier , and the increase was in accordance with the
305
Respondent's past practice and custom.
It is true that for several years prior to 1969 the
Respondent had given general wage raises to its
employees. However, there was no long established
pattern pursuant to which the Respondent effectuated
these raises at the beginning of a calendar year. Whereas,
in January 1967 the Respondent granted its employees a
10-cent increase and in January 1968 a 15-cent increase,
in each of the 4 years prior to 1967, general raises,
varying from 8 to 27 cents an hour, were announced in
July. Johnston testified that in prior years when business
was poor the Company sometimes delayed the grant of a
general wage increase for several months. He further
conceded that business for the year 1968 was the worst in
the last five for the Respondent. With that economic
background there was no obvious business purpose to
support the grant of the 15-cent wage increase on January
2, 1969.
There is no merit to the Respondent's argument that it
was free to grant the wage increase because that amount
had been offered to the Union prior to the impasse in
negotiations. Since, as found earlier herein, the deadlock
in bargaining resulted from the Respondent's unfair labor
practices, it was not thereafter free to proceed on its own
unilateral course of action. Safeway Steel Scaffolds, 153
NLRB 417, 418, fn. 3, enforced as to this point, 383 F.2d
273 (C.A. 5); Herman Sausage Co., Inc., 122 NLRB 168,
171-172, enfd., 275 F.2d 229 (C.A. 5). Accordingly, the
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the unilateral
grant of the general wage increase in January 1969, the
Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
N.L.R B v. Benne Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 745-747; The
Colson Corporation, 148 NLRB 827, 829, enfd., 347 F.2d
128 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 382 U.S. 904.
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 operations of the
Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Earlier herein it was found that the strike which began
on January 28, 1969, was caused by the Respondent's
unfair labor practices. Employees engaged in this work
stoppage were, therefore, unfair labor practice strikers,
entitled to reinstatement , upon application , to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, irrespective
of whether their positions had been filled by the
Respondent's hire of other employees as replacements for
them. Since it has been found that Robert F. Hambel, a
returning striker who applied for reinstatement on May 5,
1969, was not offered his former job free of restraint or
coercion, it will be recommended that the Respondent be
ordered upon application, to make a valid,
nondiscriminatory, offer of reinstatement to Hambel. It
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to make whole Hambel for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's failure to reinstate
him nondiscriminatorily, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages during the period from 5 days after the date on
which he applied for reinstatement to the date of a valid
offer of reinstatement, by the Respondent less his net
earnings . Loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. Interest
shall be added at the rate of 6 percent per annum in
accord with the decision of the Board in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of
the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees including
machinists, production machinists, machine operators,
assemblers, and utilitymen at the Respondent's plant, but
excluding all office clericals, professionals, and
supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
3. At all times since February 12, 1968, and at all times
material hereto, the Union has been the exclusive
representative, for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
4. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union as the representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, by unilaterally granting a wage
increase , and by discriminating with respect to the
reinstatement of striker-employee Robert F. Hambel, the
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
5. 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, and
is engaged in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The work stoppage which began at the Respondent's
plant on January 28, 1969, was caused by the
Respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain in good faith
and was an unfair labor practice strike.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Blue Valley Machine & Manufacturing Company, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
concerning wages , hours , and other terms and conditions
of employment with District Lodge 71, International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the following appropriate unit : All production and
maintenance employees including machinists, production
machinists, machine operators, assemblers, and utilitymen
at the Respondent's plant, but excluding all office
clericals, professionals, and supervisors.
(b) Unilaterally granting wage increases or other
benefits without notifying, consulting, or bargaining with
the aforesaid Union prior to so doing
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, to all those employees who
participated in the strike on and after January 28, 1969,
and have not already been reinstated, dismissing, if
necessary, persons hired by the Respondent on or after
January 28, 1969.
(c) Make whole the employees specified above,
including Robert F. Hambel, for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate
them in the manner provided, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as wages during the period from 5 days after
the date on which he applied for reinstatement to the date
of a valid offer of reinstatement by the Respondent less
his net earnings , if any, during said period, in the manner
set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay, if
any, which may be due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(e) Post at its premises in Kansas City, Missouri, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
the said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 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 ensure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, as to
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.23
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE & MFG. CO. 307
provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board
an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with District Lodge
71, International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining
unit described below , with respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours, and other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees including
machinists , production machinists , machine
operators , assemblers , and utilitymen at our plant,
excluding office clericals , professionals, and
supervisors.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally grant wage increases or
other benefits without notifying , consulting, or
bargaining with the aforesaid Union prior to so doing.
WE WILL, upon application , offer immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges , to Robert F . Hambel and to all
our other employees who participated in the strike
which began on January 28, 1969, and who have not
already been reinstated, dismissing, if necessary, all
persons hired on or after January 28, 1969.
WE WILL make Robert F. Hambel whole for any loss
of pay suffered by him as a result of our failure to
reinstate him.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner,
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist the above-named, or any other, labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activites.
Dated By
BLUE VALLEY MACHINE &
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
610 Federal Building , 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City,
Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5282.