Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1168 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent notifies the Regional Director
that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Lumber and Sawmill Workers,
Local Union No. 2924, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging
employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, or in any other manner
discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire, tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Leroy Buxton, Larry K. Deming, William Elliott, Herbert
M. Majors, and Thomas H. Palmer immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or 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 activities, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
SAN JUAN LUMBER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Subregional Office, 612
Lincoln Building, 208 SW. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, Telephone No. Capitol
2-1607, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet &
Fixture Co., Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators
Council of Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada and
Carpenters ' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-3125.
September 14,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 1, 1965, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
154 NLRB No. 106.
BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1169
enga^,-ed in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a reply brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
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 briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.
In finding, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents' refusal
to furnish the requested financial data violated Section 8(a) (5) and
caused the June 8 strike, we rely, in addition to the matters set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Decision, on the uncontroverted testimony
that at the June 4 union meeting the employees discussed the possibility
of accepting some reduction in pay if the Respondents could prove their
claimed inability to pay the wages which the Union sought.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondents, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill,
Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., and Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill
Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
1 The telephone number for Region 20, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix at-
tached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision, is amended to read: Telephone No. 556-0335.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the Act, was heard before Trial
Examiner David F. Doyle at Reno, Nevada, on December 8 through 10, 1964, pur-
suant to due notice to all parties.1 The complaint dated September 17, 1964, was
based on charges filed by the Union on June 10 and amended on August 31 and
1 In this report the Respondents are referred to as the Respondents or the Employers;
Carpenters ' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, as the Union ; the General Counsel of the Board and his representatives at
the hearing as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board as the Board ;
and the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended , as the Act.
206-446-66-vol. 154-75
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 4.2 The complaint in substance alleged that the Respondents had refused
to bargain with the Union as the representative of Respondents' employees in an
appropriate unit, by refusing on April 28, and thereafter, to make available certain
financial data to the Union to substantiate the Respondents' claim that the Employers
were unable to pay an increase in wages or benefits to the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
In its answer and at the hearing, the Respondent contended that the request for
financial data was not relative to the bargaining issues between the parties; that the
request for financial data was not made in good faith; that the information requested
was not needed by the Union to fulfill its bargaining function; and therefore the
refusal of the Employers to supply the requested financial data was not a violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings.
Upon the entire record of the case, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS; THE ASSOCIATION
Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Associa-
tion of Northern Nevada is a Nevada corporation with its principal office located at
Reno, Nevada. At all times material herein the Association has been a voluntary
association of employers engaged in the construction and operation of cabinet and
mill shops in the Reno and Sparks, Nevada, area. The Association exists for the
purpose, among others, of representing its employer-members in collective bargaining
and participating in the negotiation, execution, and administration of collective-
bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-members.
Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, and Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co.
at all times material herein have been members of the Association and are engaged
in the manufacture and the distribution of mill products in the vicinity of Reno
and Sparks, Nevada. The Employers, in the course and conduct of their businesses,
annually sell goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of Nevada and annually purchase and receive goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from places and points located outside
the State of Nevada. It is undisputed, and I find, that the Association and the
Employers are, and at all times material herein have been, employers engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is undisputed, and I find, that the Union is, and at all times material herein has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
There are only minor conflicts in the testimony of the principal witnesses in this
proceeding. These witnesses, who engaged in the various bargaining conferences
which comprise this controversy, were in substantial agreement as to the subject
of bargaining, the bargaining conferences held, and the various positions taken at
various times by the parties.
A. Undisputed facts of background; the problem of outside competition;
the early negotiations
It is undisputed that for many years the Union has been the bargaining represent-
ative for all carpenters engaged in the trade in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area.
Most of these carpenters are engaged in residential and business construction work,
but a small number of men, 20 to 30, are employed by the Employers involved
herein, who engage only in the business of cabinetmaking and millwork, which is
conducted at their mills. In Nevada, where gambling is legal, the cabinet and mill
shops construct and make many specialized items, such as gaming tables and other
furniture and equipment used in the gambling casinos, in addition to the usual type
of cabinets installed in homes and office buildings.
2 All dates in this Decision are in the year 1964 unless specified otherwise.
BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1171
It is undisputed that for many years past the wages, hours, and working conditions
of carpenters in the Reno-Sparks area were determined by successive labor agree-
ments which were negotiated by a committee representing the Union and a com-
mittee of the Home Builders Association of Northern Nevada. These successive
contracts were of a "construction type" because most of the carpenters and the
companies comprising the Association were engaged in construction work. How-
ever, these contracts by their terms also covered those carpenters who were engaged
in millwork and cabinetwork for the Employers. In the spring of 1964, the Master
Carpenters Agreement, which was effective from June 1, 1962, until May 31, 1964,
approached its terminal date. This contract had been signed individually by Bud's
Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co. and by the
Home Builders Association on behalf of many other employers. On March 25,
1964, John O. Morman, business representative of the Union, addressed a letter to
the Employers and the Association notifying them that the membership of the Union
had voted to open the expiring collective-bargaining agreements and that the Union
was ready to meet with the Association at its earliest convenience to negotiate a
new contract. On or about April 15, Robert Robertson, executive vice president of
the Association, met Morman and told him that the Employers, who engaged in
cabinet and mill operations, had formed a separate group within the Association and
would like to meet with the union representatives. Morman agreed to meet with
this group of cabinet mill owners.
The first meeting of the parties occurred on April 28. The Union was repre-
sented by a committee composed of Morman, Bertoldi, and Pruitt, all union officers.
The Employers were represented by Robert Robertson, executive vice president of
the Association, and by Roger Powell, owner of Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co.,
George Sargent of Sargent Showcase and Fixture Co., and Harry Lemon of Capriotti,
Lemon Associates Thereafter at all meetings, Robertson was the principal spokes-
man for the Employers and Morman was the principal spokesman for the Union.
At this first meeting Robertson told the conferees that the cabinet mill owners had
formed a separate employers group of their own and that this group wanted to
negotiate a separate agreement with the Union because the cabinet mill owners were
not engaged in construction carpentry work and had some problems which were
not shared by the construction companies. Robertson told the union representatives
that the Employers had lost a large number of big jobs to mills outside the Reno-
Sparks area, especially to the mills in Sacramento and Southern California. Robert-
son explained that these so-called "foreign" mills paid their carpenters much less
than the Employers and in consequence could underbid the Employers and win
large contracts for work in the Reno-Sparks area. Robertson explained that the
high rate of wages for carpenters under the construction type contracts prevented
the Employers from being "competitive" as regards the Sacramento and southern
California mills. Powell, one of the representatives of the Employers, stated that
examples of jobs in the Reno area which went to foreign competition were contracts
for Harrah's Club, Hawthorn Hospital, Golden Club, Union Federal Building, and
the First National Bank Building.
On behalf of the Union, Morman replied that he would have to consult with the
Union before he could agree to negotiate a separate contract with the Employers.
At a regular union meeting held on May 11, the membership granted authority to
the union committee to negotiate a separate contract with the cabinet mill repre-
sentatives. It should be noted that during this interval the same three representatives
of the Union were conducting negotiations with Robertson and others for a new
Master Carpenters Agreement for the construction carpentry employers in the area.
On May 12, the committees of the Union and the Employers again met. At this
meeting Morman informed the Employers that his committee had authority to nego-
tiate a separate contract. At this meeting the representatives of the parties began
in earnest to negotiate a contract. There is some conflict in the testimony of Morman
and Robertson as to what happened at this and later bargaining conferences. How-
ever, it is notable that the conflict in testimony has to do with the emphasis which
each party placed upon certain statements made at these conferences. Morman
testified that the Employers stated that the high wages of the carpenters contract kept
the Employers from being competitive toward the foreign mills and that the wage
rates paid carpenters were so high that they could not continue to pay the current
wages and stay in business.
Robertson testified that he told the union representative that the rate of wages
prevented the Employers from being competitive in regard to the foreign mills, but
that the Employers could always get a certain amount of local business which would
be sufficient to keep them in business. He denied that the employers ever stated
that they could not afford to pay the current wage rates. Despite this disagreement
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the testimony, as to the accent or emphasis which was placed on the position of
the Employers, it is clear from all the testimony that both parties thereafter engaged
in good-faith bargaining in an effort to solve the problem of the foreign competition
faced by the Employers. At this meeting it was decided that the Employers would
present a "pilot proposal" at a meeting to be held on May 15.
On May 15 the Employers submitted their "pilot proposal," but there was no
real consideration of it until the next meeting. The "pilot proposal" submitted by
the Employers provided for a wage scale with a rate of $3.90 per hour for a classifica-
tion of master mechanic, which was a new designation for journeyman carpenters.
The master carpenters contract which would expire on May 31, 1964, provided for
a rate of pay of $4.60 per hour for journeyman carpenters; thus the proposal amounted
to a reduction in wages of 70 cents per hour for journeyman carpenters. The "pilot
proposal" also carried a rate of wage of $3.40 per hour for the classification of
"mechanic" and a rate of $2.38 per hour for a classification of "helper." These
were new classifications because under the expiring master carpenters contract there
were only two classifications, journeyman and apprentice. The rate for an appren-
tice under the old agreement was a percentage of the journeyman rate depending
upon the length of employment as a carpenter. Under the "pilot proposal" of the
Employers the apprentice classification was retained but the percentages of pay
were lower than in the expiring agreement.
On May 19 the representatives of the parties met again. At this meeting the con-
ferees went over the "pilot proposal" paragraph by paragraph. The union commit-
tee expressed dissatisfaction with the wage rates, the compulsory arbitration clause
of the grievance procedure, the quality craftsmanship clause and the helper classifica-
tion. At this meeting Robertson pointed out that the Sacramento mill operators had
a contract with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Mill-
men's Local No. 1618, which provided for classifications of journeyman mechanics
and machine operators and helpers such as set up in the "pilot proposal" of the
Employers and that the rate of pay for mill carpenters in Sacramento was much less
than that in the expiring Master Carpenters Agreement. He stated that the Employers
wished to have a mill agreement comparable to that of the Union's sister local at
Sacramento, since much of the foreign competition came from the Sacramento area.3
Toward the end of the meeting Robertson stated that the Employers would under-
take to prepare a second pilot proposal which would take care of some of the
Union's objections. From all the evidence it is clear that the conferees devoted a
great deal of time to a consideration of the problem of the Employers in meeting the
inroads of foreign competition.
On May 20 the representatives of the parties again met and the Employers sub-
mitted a second pilot proposal which eliminated the compulsory arbitration clause
and embodied the principles of an acceptable clause for the settlement of various
grievances. At the meeting a seniority clause was worked out which was to be
finally agreed upon at the next meeting. However, the wage rates and the job
classifications and the quality craftsmanship clause, to which the Union's committee
had objected, were still contained in the second pilot proposal.
On May 25 the representatives of the parties again met and accepted in principle
a seniority clause and the Union agreed to drop its demand for a subcontracting
clause. However, the parties again could not reach agreement on the problems of
wages and competition. Morman indicated that the employees and the membership
of the Union were not amenable to a step backward on the subject of wages. How-
ever, Morman agreed, at the request of the Employers, to present the second pilot
proposal to the membership of the Union for consideration. He presented his
proposal to the membership of the Union at a meeting on May 25 and the member-
ship rejected the proposal, especially the wage reductions and the new job classifica-
tions. On May 28, the representatives of the parties again met and Morman reported
that the membership of the Union had rejected the second pilot proposal. According
to Morman, the representatives of the Employers then asserted that their proposal
had not been fairly presented to the membership, because the proposal had been
presented to all the members of the Union and not to only those men who worked
for the Employers. However, at this meeting the parties agreed to suspend nego-
tiations and maintain the status quo until the committees had reached an agreement
on a new Master Carpenters Agreement. Thereafter, the committees reached agree-
ment on a new Master Carpenters Agreement on May 29, 1964.
S A copy of the agreement between the Sacramento Planing Mill Operators Association
and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Millmen 's Local 1618,
was received in evidence and is Respondent 's Exhibit No. 1.
BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1173
B. The bargaining meeting of June 1; the union meeting; the union proposal
The representatives of the parties again met on June 1, and covered substantially
the same ground as had been previously covered. The Employers stated that they
didn't like the manner in which their second pilot proposal had been presented to
the union membership. Morman agreed to call a special meeting of the men who
worked in the cabinet mill shops for that evening and to present the second pi.ot
proposal to those men. The Employers again reiterated that they could not afford to
pay the wages which had been negotiated in the new Master Carpenters Agreement
for that agreement contained a new raise in pay and some additional fringe benefits.
On that evening Morman addressed a union meeting at which all the cabinet mill
workers were assembled. He explained to them the claim of the Employers that
they could not remain competitive when there was a large difference in the rate
of wages between the Reno-Sparks area and the Sacramento and southern California
areas. The men were not convinced that the business of the Employers was as
represented, because several of them pointed out that the Employers were expanding
their facilities and buying new equipment. Finally, a motion was made and carried,
that the Union would make a counterproposal to the Employers which would be
based on a retention of the rate of wages in the expiring contract, with only certain
fringe benefits negotiated for the first year of the new Master Carpenters Agreement
to be included in the Employers' contract. On the next day the Union's committee
offered this proposal to the representatives of the Employers. The Union's offer was
rejected as unsatisfactory by the representatives of the Employers; they said that
the proposal, retaining the old wage rates but with some new fringe benefits, was
entirely out of the question.
C. The two wage offer of the Employers
The representatives of the parties again met on June 4. At this meeting the
Employers presented a letter to the Union which stated that the Employers would
guarantee to the men then presently employed the current wage rates but proposed
that in the hiring of new employees the lower wage rates and the new classifications
of employees contained in the second pilot proposal of the Employers be accepted
by the Union. The union representatives stated that they were skeptical of the
workability of either the "guarantee" of present wages or of a "two wage" system.
The Union resubmitted its proposal that the current wage rate be maintained with
additional benefits of the Master Carpenters Agreement. The Employers again
requested that the union committee present the "two wage" offer to the union
membership, and Morman agreed to do so.
At a meeting of the Union held on June 4, Morman read the "two wage" letter
offer to the assembled employees and informed them that the Union's wage offer
had been rejected. The employees then rejected the Employers' "two wage" letter
offer. Morman testified, that at the meeting he told the men that the only step in
bargaining left to the Union's committee was to request the Employers to furnish
financial data to substantiate their statements that they could not afford to pay the
Union's wages. After considerable discussion, a motion was made that the union
committee would continue to negotiate with the Employers and that the men would
work on the following day, Friday, June 5, but unless some agreement was reached
the men would strike on Monday, June 8.
D. The demand for financial data; the sti eke
On June 5, Morman advised the Employers that the men had rejected their "two
wage" proposal. Morman then stated that he wanted some financial data to prove
that the Employers could not pay the wages they were asking. He told the
Employers that the Union was entitled to this information because the Employers
claimed that they could not pay the wages requested. According to Morman, Robert-
son replied, "That isn't the law and we are not going to do it."
Robertson testified that at the June 5 meeting there was a brief but angry exchange
between the representatives. Robertson testified that he had no recollection of a
request for financial data being made at this meeting, but on cross-examination he
admitted that he could be wrong on that point. Robertson confirmed a statement in
an affidavit which he had given to an agent of the Board on July 1, 1964, that the
request for financial data must have been made at the meeting of June 4. However,
Robertson testified that his best recollection was that the request for financial data
was not made until a meeting on June 12. Robertson testified that when the request
for financial data was made at the later meeting, he offered to submit job bids
which the Employers had lost to support their position but refused to supply any
other data.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is undisputed that other meetings of the parties occurred on June 8, 12 , and 17.
At these meetings , a Federal mediator was present , but the position of the parties
remained substantially the same.
Concluding Findings
A consideration of all the testimony demonstrates that there is no real conflict
between the parties as to the crucial facts of this proceeding . Unon all the evidence,
I find that in the course of negotiations ( 1) the Union requested that the Employers
furnish to the Union certain financial data and ( 2) that the Employers refused to
furnish the requested data, but offered to supply a list of bids lost to "foreign"
competition . The question thus presented is, were the Employers justified in this
refusal, or was it a violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) 9
In N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, the Supreme Court stated that good-
faith bargaining required that claims made be honest claims and that all reasonable
efforts be made to substantiate them; that bargaining was not in good faith where it
was marked by mechanically repetitious claims of inability to pay a wage increase,
without some proof to substantiate this inability when it was requested. In Truitt,
supra, as here, the employer claimed that it was paying higher wages than its com-
petitors and that it was losing bid jobs because of its higher labor costs , and the
employer offered to supply a list of jobs so lost to competitors . The Supreme Court
held that such a claim was tantamount to a plea of inability to pay wages, and that
good-faith bargaining required the employer to furnish to the union , upon request,
such financial data as would support or demonstrate its claimed inability to nay.
In many other cases it has been held that a claimed inability "to stay competitive,"
or a claim that a wage increase would "affect adversely the employer 's competitive
position" was in fact a claim of inability to pay wages, which required supporting
financial data , when requested in collective bargaining .4
If the testimony in this proceeding is viewed in the light of these cases , the so -called
conflicts in the testimony appear to be without legal sienificance. Since it is admitted
that the Union requested financial data and that the Employers rejected the request,
it is immaterial (1) where the emphasis was placed by the parties in early bargaining
sessions, or (2) as to the exact date in early June on which the Union demanded
financial data. On the latter point the testimony of Morman appears to be the
most reliable, so I have credited his testimony.
Upon a consideration of all the evidence and the authorities cited above, I find
that on June 5, 1964 , the Respondents violated Sections 8(a)(5) and ( 1) as alleged
in the complaint by failing to supply to the union financial data to support their claim
of inability to pay wages when requested to do so by the Union. It is also found
that this refusal was the cause of the strike of employees of the Respondents which
began on June 8, 1964.
On February 8, 1964, counsel for the Employers , by written motion duly filed,
requested that the transcript of testimony herein be corrected in eight specified
instances. There being no objection, the order prayed for is hereby granted, and
the motion papers are hereby made a part of said transcript of testimony.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondents described in section 1, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States, and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
* Cincinnati Cordage and Paper Company , 141 NLRB 72; Peerless Distributing Com-
pany, 144 NLRB 1510; Movie Star, Inc., et al , 145 NLRB 319; The Celotex Corporation,
146 NLRB 48
BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO., ETC. 1175
Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co, Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co.,
and Northern Nevada Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Asso-
ciation of Northern Nevada are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Carpenters' Union Local 971, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union named above as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit by failing and refusing to
make available to said labor organization, on request, data as to the Employers'
ability to pay the wages requested by the Union, the Employers have violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above 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, conclusions of law, and the entire
record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondents, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture
Co., Builders Mill, Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., and Northern Nevada Cabinet
and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of Nevada, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters Union Local 971, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of their employees in the appropriate unit by failing and refusing to furnish
to said labor organization on request the financial data as to their ability to pay
the wages requested.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the employees'
exclusive representative to bargain collectively on their behalf.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, make available to the Union the wage data requested by it on
June 5, 1964.
(b) Post at their place of business in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by the Employers for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. The Employers shall take reasonable steps
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Employers have
taken to comply herewith.6
It is further recommended that, unless the Employers shall, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, notify said Regional Director,
in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Employers to take the
action aforesaid.
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 the
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
61n 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 the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Carpenters' Union Local 971,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below,
by failing and refusing to furnish the said Union the financial data requested
by it on June 5, 1964.
WE WILL furnish to the above-named Union the requested financial data
detailed above in order that it may properly discharge its function as the
statutory bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bargain collectively
with said labor organization as the exclusive representative of our employees in
the bargaining unit described below:
All employees of the following named members of Northern Nevada
Cabinet and Mill Operators Council of Home Builders Association of
Northern Nevada, namely, Bud's Cabinet & Fixture Co., Builders Mill, and
Powell Cabinet & Fixture Co., performing carpentry work at their cabinet
shops and mills in the Reno-Sparks, Nevada, area, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
NORTHERN NEVADA CABINET AND MILL OPERATORS COUNCIL OF
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN NEVADA,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
BUD'S CABINET & FIXTURE CO.,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
BUILDERS MILL,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
POWELL CABINET & FIXTURE CO.,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Telephone No. 556-3197, if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Shawnee Plastics, Inc. and District 153 of the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 25-CA-2120. Sep-
tember 14,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyd Leedom 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.
154 NLRB No. 104.