Cascade Employers Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1014 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the extent permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Kenneth Tamanaha immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, except
to the extent above stated.
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN, LTD.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Cascade Employers Association , Inc. and General Teamsters
Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America . Case No.
36-CA-915. March 8, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 30, 1959, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and
General Counsel each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following exceptions, additions,
and modifications.
12'6 NLRB No. 118.
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 1015
THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner found, inter ilia, that the Respondent Associa-
tion violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by having caused
its members unilaterally to change, on January 1, 1959, certain work-
ing conditions of their employees in the appropriate unit. These
changes were: (1) Substitution of a flat $2 an hour wage rate for all
employee classifications, which, in effect, constituted an across,-the-
board wage cut, varying between 5 and 35 cents an hour, depending
on the classification affected; (2) substitution of the Association's
welfare plan for that of the Union; and (3) discontinuance of pay-
ments into the Union's pension fund. To remedy this unfair labor
practice, the Trial Examiner recommended only that the Respondent
and its members whose employees are in the unit here involved should
cease and desist from refusing to bargain by making unilateral
changes in working conditions and that they bargain, upon request,
with the Union.
The General Counsel contends that the Board's order should also
provide for restoration of the working conditions unilaterally
changed. We agree.' However, in its brief to the Trial Examiner
and to the Board, the Respondent asserts, in effect, that after the
hearing in this case, matters involved in the unilateral changes were
settled through negotiations with the Union. In view thereof, it
may be that working conditions presently in effect would be preferred
by the employees to those existing at the time the illegal unilateral
changes were made. The Union, as the bargaining representative of
the employees, is in a better position than the Board to make such a
determination. In view of the foregoing, we shall enter a restoration
order but condition it upon the affirmative desire of the affected em-
ployees for such restoration, as expressed through their collective-
bargaining representative .2
The General Counsel, in addition to an order which will operate
prospectively, contends that the Board should order the payment of
backpay to the affected employees-the amount being the difference
between the wages actually paid the employees and the amount they
would have received had the unlawful unilateral reduction in wage
rates not occurred. The General Counsel is, thus, in fact seeking a
retroactive restoration of wages effective as of the date of the uni-
lateral changes. If such retroactive restoration is appropriate with
respect to wage rates, we perceive no reason why it should not also
be applied to the union pension and welfare programs illegally
1 The Press Company, Incoi porated, 121 NLRB 976, 981 ; Herman Sausage Co , Inc.,
122 NLRB 168.
2 See Herman Sausage Co, Inc., supra ; Beacon Piece Dyeing and Finishing Co., Inc.,
121 NLRB 953, 962-963.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
abrogated . The purpose of a restoration order, such as we have found
to be appropriate here, is to prevent a wrongdoer from enjoying the
fruits of his unfair labor practices. Such purpose will not be
achieved by permitting the Respondent to retain its illegally acquired
benefits and advantages gained during the period between the unlaw-
ful changes and the issuance of our order and having our order
operate only prospectively. Accordingly, if the employees, through
their union, desire the restoration of the status quo ante we direct
that such restoration should be made effective as of January 1, 1959,
the date of the illegal changes, that the employees be paid for lost
pay, the amount of such pay being equal to the difference between
what they actually received in wages and what they would have
received absent the illegal reduction in wage rates, and that the Union
welfare and pension funds each be reimbursed in an amount equal to
the sum of the moneys which would have been paid into such funds
absent the illegal termination of payments into such funds.'
The General Counsel further requests that the Board include in its
order a provision that the Respondent "invoke such powers and rights
as it may have" as to each of its member-employers in the unit in
order to discharge its financial obligations under the order and to
insure the cooperation of each such member-employer in effectuating
the terms of the order. The Trial Examiner included the affected
member-employers within the directive of his recommended order.
Were such inclusion proper, the provision now sought by the General
Counsel would be, we feel, unnecessary. However, as the member-
employers were not named as parties respondent in this case nor
served with charge, complaint, or notice of hearing, and as no viola-
tions were alleged or found against them directly, they cannot prop-
erly be included within the directive of our order. We shall, there-
fore, omit them 4 In view of our determination here, we find that a
provision such as the General Counsel seeks is both necessary and
proper for the effectuation of the remedy in this case, and we shall,
in consequence, include such a provision in our order.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cascade Employ-
8 Member Bean would not condition the restoration of benefits unilaterally taken from
the employees , but would unconditionally order such restoration to be applied rectro-
actively in order to restore any financial loss with respect to wages , as well as any dimi-
nution in benefits enuring to such employees under the pension and welfare programs
illegally abrogated.
& International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, et al., 98 NLRB 284, 287-
288.
5 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, et al., supra, 288.
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1017
ers Association, Inc., Portland, Oregon, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain with GeneralTeamsters Local Union No.
324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, as the representative of all truckdrivers
and helpers, levermen, truck mechanics and helpers, lift jitney and
carrier drivers, warehousemen (including parts and tool men), greas-
ers, and tiremen employed by the Respondent's member-employers in
the Salem, Independence, and Corvallis, Oregon, areas, excluding
office, clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment by instructing its member-employers in the
appropriate unit to effectuate unilateral changes in working condi-
tions, or to solicit employees to accept or approve modified conditions
of employment unilaterally effectuated.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in any
like or related manner, in connection with their exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
General Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousmen & Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own free choice, and 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 right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with General Teamsters
Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to labor disputes, grievances,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Revoke the unilateral changes instituted on January 1, 1959,
including the general wage decrease and the application of the
Cascade Employers Group Insurance Program to employees in the
appropriate unit and revert to the wage scale and fringe benefits,
including the Teamsters' health and welfare fund and the Teamsters'
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pension fund existing immediately prior to January 1, 1959, if Gen-
eral Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of the employees, so requests.
(c) Make whole the employees in the appropriate unit for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the unilateral cut in
wages, in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision herein,
entitled "The Remedy," and pay into the Teamsters' health and wel-
fare fund and into the Teamsters' pension fund such sums as would
have been paid into said funds absent the illegal changes in working
conditions if General Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, desires restoration of the working conditions and terms of
employment existing immediately prior to January 1, 1959.
(d) Notify in writing the member-employers in the appropriate
unit of the terms of this Order and invoke such powers and rights
as the Respondent may have as to each of such member-employers in
order to discharge its financial obligations under this Order, and to
insure the cooperation of each such employer in effectuating the terms
of this Order.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amount of
backpay due employees and the amount of the sums to be paid into
the aforementioned Teamsters' welfare and pension funds.
(f) Post at its offices copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all such places where notices
to employees in the appropriate unit are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order "
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1019
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MEMBERS OF THE CASCADE EMPLOYERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., IN THE SALEM, INDEPENDENCE, AND CORVALLIS,
OREGON, BARGAINING UNIT
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, Cascade Employers Association, Inc.,
notifies all employees in the bargaining unit described below that :
THE ASSOCIATION WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with
General Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit defined below, with respect to labor disputes,
grievances, rates of pay, hours of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All truckdrivers and helpers, levermen, truck mechanics
and helpers, lift jitney and carrier drivers, warehousemen
(including parts and tool men), greasers, and tiremen em-
ployed by member companies of Cascade Employers Asso-
ciation, Inc., in the Salem, Independence, and Corvallis,
Oregon, area, excluding office, clerical employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act, as amended.
T[IE ASSOCIATION WILL NOT instruct or otherwise encourage its
member-companies in the appropriate unit to effectuate uni-
laterally changes in working conditions or to solicit their
employees to accept or approve such changes unilaterally insti-
tuted, and it will not in any other manner refuse to bargain
collectively with General Teamsters Local Union No. 324,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America.
THE ASSOCIATION WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees of its member-companies
in the exercise of the right to self organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own free choice, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon request of said General Teamsters Local Union No. 324,
the Association will revoke the unilateral changes instituted on
January 1, 1959, including the general wage decrease and the
application of the Cascade Employers Group Insurance Program
to employees in the appropriate unit and revert to the wage scale
and fringe benefits, including the Teamsters' health and welfare
fund and the Teamsters' pension fund existing immediately prior
to January 1, 1959.
THE ASSOCIATION WILL, if requested by the said Union to re-
establish working conditions as they existed immediately prior to
the January 1, 1959, unilateral changes, make whole all employees
in the bargaining unit for any loss of pay that they may have
suffered as a result of the unilateral pay cut on January 1, 1959,
and it will pay into the Teamsters' health and welfare fund and
into the Teamsters' pension fund such sums as would have been
contributed to said funds if such payments had not been uni-
laterally discontinued on and after January 1, 1959.
THE ASSOCIATION has personally notified in writing each and
every member-company in the above-described bargaining unit
of the terms of this Order and will invoke such powers and rights
as it may have as to such member-companies in order to discharge
its financial obligations under this Order and to insure the coop-
eration of each such member-company in effectuating the terms
of the Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed and served , the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board caused a complaint and notice of hearing to be issued and served
upon Cascade Employers Association , Inc., designated as the Respondent in this
report . Therein, the General Counsel alleged that the Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat . 136. In the
Respondent 's answer, duly filed, the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint were
substantially admitted ; certain factual allegations were also admitted ; but the com-
mission of any unfair labor practice was denied.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to the issues was held at Salem , Oregon,
on April 28 and 29, 1959, before the duly designated Trial Examiner . The General
Counsel and the Union responsible for the charge-designated as the Teamsters in
this report-were represented by counsel . The Respondent was represented by its
executive secretary . Each of the parties was afforded a full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to the
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION , INC . 1021
issues. At the outset of the case , the Respondent 's representative renewed as motion,
previously submitted , that the complaint be dismissed as moot; the motion was
denied. Upon the General Counsel 's objection with respect to the way in which
the Respondent 's answer had been subscribed , a motion to amend this document
was proffered to make clear its essential nature as an answer filed both on behalf
of the Respondent Association and various member employers designated by name
in the complaint 's body. This motion was granted . At the close of the testimony,
oral argument was heard . The representatives of the General Counsel and the
Respondent also indicated their desire to file briefs . No briefs , however, have been
received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND ITS MEMBER FIRMS
The Respondent, Cascade Employers Association , Inc., is now and has been at
all material times an Oregon nonprofit corporation , which maintains its principal
office and place of business at a Portland , Oregon, location . It functions , inter alia,
as the representative of its member firms in the negotiation of trade agreements
with various labor unions, including the Teamsters ' organization privy to the charge
in this case . The Respondent Association , which appears to have been organized
about 11/z years ago , operates as the successor of another trade group , Associated
Concrete Products Manufacturers , Inc., to be designated as Associated in this report.
(The credible testimony of Alfred P. Blair, the Respondent 's executive secretary,
establishes its status as a "continuance" of the designated organization with a changed
name. Associated is no longer in existence .) The predecessor association, also
organized as a nonprofit corporation under Oregon law, with Portland as its prin-
cipal place of business, likewise functioned , among other things, as the representa-
tive of its member employers in the negotiation of collective -bargaining agreements
with various labor organizations , the Teamsters ' local herein included.
Member employers affiliated with the Respondent , engaged in nonretail operations,
do an annual volume of business in excess of $1,000,000 and ship more than $ 50,000
worth of goods , annually, from Oregon to points outside of Oregon , and from
Washington to points outside of that State.
The Respondent argues that the course of conduct challenged in this case did not
involve corporate action on its part , since a group of member employers less than
the association membership within the jurisdiction of the Teamsters ' organization
participated therein; in the light of the latter factual assertion , it is argued that the
General Counsel may not, appropriately, rely upon the business operations of the
Respondent Association 's entire membership , engaged in nonretail business activity,
to establish the Respondent 's involvement in commerce and business activities which
affect commerce.
On their face, these contentions of the Respondent Association appear to challenge
the validity of the General Counsel 's assertion that the Board 's statutory jurisdiction
in this case may appropriately be exercised . Essentially , however, their thrust must
be characterized as dependent upon the validity of the Respondent 's basic conten-
tion with respect to the complaint 's lack of substantive merit . Since the General
Counsel has asserted that the Respondent Association , as a corporate entity, has
committed various unfair labor practices , the activity of its entire membership
roster in commerce must obviously be considered relevant to the jurisdictional issue.
And the contrary contentions of the Respondent must be rejected.
Upon the available evidence and the Respondent Association 's concessions, I find
that Associated was, and the Respondent now is and at all times material has been,
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act, as amended . In the light
of the jurisdictional standards which the Board presently applies-see Siemons
Mailing Service , 122 NLRB 81, and related cases-I find assertion of the Board's
jurisdiction in this case warranted and necessary to effectuate the statutory objectives.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters Local Union No. 324, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended , which admits to mem-
bership employees of the Respondent Association's member firms.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Facts
A. Background
For several years past, at least, Teamsters has maintained contractual relations
with Associated-and with the Respondent as its successor. Their most recent agree-
ment, I find, involved a contract negotiated and executed in the name of Associated
for the various "Sand and Gravel, Ready-Mix and Concrete Products Companies
of Salem, Oregon and Vicinity" holding membership in the designated trade orgamza-
tion. Sixteen employers were listed as privy to the terms of the agreement. Of this
number, 10 appear to have maintained Salem, Oregon, places of business; the other
6 appear to have been located in other Willamette Valley communities. The ter-
mination clause of this agreement provided that it would remain in full force and
effect from January 1, 1956, to December 31, 1958, and from year to year there-
after, in the absence of timely written notice by either party of a desire to change,
modify, or terminate it. In the event of such notice, the contract provided that its
terms would remain operative pending the consummation of a new agreement, and
that any wage scales negotiated would be retroactive to the contract's expiration
date, absent an agreement by the parties with respect to some other arrangement.
The agreement also included a clause which required any nonunion men hired by
the designated employers to acquire membership in the Teamsters' organization after
30 days of employment, and to maintain "dues paying" membership in good stand-
ing with the Union, thereafter, as a condition of continued employment.
The employers bound also agreed to "continue" prior monthly payments into a
fund designated as the "Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund" for each eligible
employee, pursuant to the terms and provisions of a separate health and welfare
agreement made a part of the contract by reference. They also agreed that employers
privy to the contract would, effective with its 1957 anniversary date, make payments
of a designated amount to a fund designated as the "Teamsters Pension Fund," such
payments to be made not later than the 10th of each month, on the basis of each
employee's straight-time hours worked during the month past.
B. The negotiations
On September 20, 1958, Alfred P. Blair, the Association's executive secretary,
advised Teamsters by letter that the Respondent organization-as Associated's legal
successor-wished to terminate the agreement then in effect, as of its December 31,
1958, termination date. Some time thereafter, on a date not set forth, specifically,
in the record, the Union appears to have dispatched a reciprocal notice of termina-
tion. In due course, December 1, 1958, was set by the parties as the date of their
first contract conference. Representatives of Teamsters and the Respondent met
in Salem, Oregon, as scheduled. The labor organization was represented by a
four-man committee; the Respondent was represented by Blair and a five-man
employers' committee. (There is considerable evidentiary conflict with respect to
the nature of the discussion at this first conference, and with respect to the discussion
at subsequent conferences prior to the agreement's scheduled expiration date. Most
of it, however, appears to have involved matters now of collateral significance. No
effort has been made, therefore, to resolve each conflict specifically; my factual
conclusions with respect to the course of the negotiations may be said to rest upon
a synthesis of the available evidence.)
The provisions of the expiring agreement were discussed generally. In behalf of
the employers involved, I find, Executive Secretary Blair presented nine specific
proposals to the union representatives. Among these proposals, the following may
be noted:
1. The Respondent proposed the adoption of its own group insurance program
underwritten by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, in place of the
program offered by the Oregon Teamsters' Security Plan, to which employers
bound by the expiring agreement had contributed; it was also proposed that the
employees covered contribute one-half of the cost of their coverage.
2. The Respondent proposed an agreement that there be no increase in hourly
pay rates during the calendar year to come.
3. The Respondent proposed the termination of employer payments to the Team-
sters' pension program under the expiring agreement, and suggested that 10 cents
per hour be paid directly to the employees instead.
The other proposals presented in behalf of the Association's member employers
may be disregarded as irrelevant in view of the issues now presented.
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC . 1023
There is a testimonial conflict as to whether the Teamsters' proposal with respect
to contract revision was presented, during the first conference, in written or oral
form. I have not attempted to determine this issue ; whatever the facts in that re-
gard, it is clear that certain union demands were presented for the Respondent's
consideration. In pertinent part, these demands included:
1. A proposal that all premium work be assigned to men with the most seniority,
competent to perform it.
2. A proposal that wages be increased 35 cents per hour in every classification.
3. A proposal that the payments of each employer to the Teamsters' health and
welfare fund be raised from $10.40 per month to $15.50 per month, for each
eligible employee, pursuant to the terms and provisions of a health and welfare
agreement to be made a part of any new contract by reference.
4. A proposal that certain language in the agreement about to expire-intended
to permit any employer with contractual privity to lay off men in rotation without
discrimination during slack periods of work-be deleted.
At this conference-or the December 8 conference which followed-the Team-
sters' representatives rejected all of the proposals which the Respondent Association's
committee had previously advanced. It was made quite clear, I find, that the labor
organization considered its own health and welfare and pension programs essential,
and that no alternative proposals would be acceptable.
At a third conference held in Salem on December 16, 1958, I find, the Teamsters'
representatives presented a revised proposal with respect to premium work; their
initial demand was slightly modified to specify Saturday, Sunday, and holiday work
as the work which would have to be assigned on a seniority basis. A modified
wage proposal which called for an increase of 30 cents per hour, across-the-board,
was presented. In regard to health and welfare, the union representatives proposed
that each covered employer make monthly payments into an Oregon Teamsters
Employers Trust in the amount of $11 35 for each covered employee, effective
January 1, 1959; under the proposal, this payment would have been increased,
effective May 1, 1959, to $15.50 for each covered employee. The Union, however,
continued to demand the deletion of contract language calculated to permit employers
with contractual privity to effectuate rotational layoffs without discrimination during
periods of slack work.
The Teamsters' representatives, I find, reported their unwillingness to accept the
Respondent's group insurance program, even if its benefit schedule could be made
"exactly the same" as their own. They were advised by the committee represented
by the associated employers, however, that no payments to the Union's health and
welfare fund or pension fund would be made by covered employers after December
31, 1958, since such employers would be under no legal obligation to continue
payments after that date.
C. Unilateral action
Sometime after December 16, I find several of the employers on the negotiating
committee of the Respondent Association met in Salem to consider a course of
action. As a result of their discussion, I find, certain documents were drafted and
presented to Executive Secretary Blair for mimeographing and distribution. Pur-
suant to the group's request, Blair typed the documents and had them mimeo-
graphed; under his supervision, they were subsequently distributed-presumably
by mail-to 10 employers, in the Salem area. (These employers, designated in
the complaint, included seven firms with places of business in Salem, one located
in Corvallis, and another with an Independence, Oregon, location.) In one of
them-a special memorandum dated December 26, 1958, dispatched under the
Respondent's mimeographed letterhead-the employer recipients were advised that
their negotiating committee for the "Teamsters and Engineers" agreements had con-
cluded that the achievement of acceptable terms would take some time; they were
also advised that the absence of any agreement for the period after December 31,
1958, made it necessary for the employers to have "some" plan under which to
operate. (The record establishes that the sand and gravel, ready-mix, and concrete
products companies of Salem, Oregon, and vicinity, were, in fact, involved in con-
current negotiations with the Teamsters and an Operating Engineers' local; the latter
organization was the recognized representative of their non-Teamster employees.
The record in this case is silent with respect to the course of the Engineer negoti-
ations ; they are mentioned in the present context only because the special memo-
randum noted refers to the negotiations under way with both organizations ) The
negotiating committee of the Respondent Association-identified in the document as
the author of the special memorandum with the December 26 datelines-made cer-
tain specific recommendations. The employers involved were advised, inter alia,
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that copies of a document, forwarded with the memorandum, which purported to
specify the conditions of work to be made effective January 1, 1959, by each firm,
should be posted on "all bulletin boards" at their plants in the Salem area, and
that copies of the posted notice should be sent to the homes of affected employees.
The committee recommended that copies of the Teamsters' demands should also be
posted and be sent to all of the employee members of that organization. Addi-
tionally, the memorandum went on to state that:
In the case of all Teamsters in all of the plants under the jurisdiction of Local
#324, you will also send them copies of the Cascade Employers Welfare Pro-
gram along with application cards for them to fill out and return to you. You
will not be required to make Welfare Payments to the Teamsters Security Fund
for January or thereafter. Instead you will make your contribution to the
Cascade plan at your present rate of premium. On the Pension Program of the
Teamsters be advised that you will make payment on the basis of earnings for
December. This payment should be made as soon after January 1st as possible
and no further payments should be made until further notice. [Emphasis.
supplied.]
The negotiating committee recommended that the new conditions set forth in
the paragraph quoted be made applicable to all the plants under Teamsters' juris-
diction. And the special memorandum closed with an observation that it might be
necessary, at some later date, to broaden the scope of this "austerity" program; the
employers were informed that they would be advised of any such need.
With this memorandum, the employer recipients were supplied with sufficient
copies of the other documents noted to permit posting and distribution pursuant to
the committee's recommendation. The record establishes that copies of these docu-
ments were, in fact, posted by the employer recipients, and that each of their
employees, within the jurisdiction of the Teamsters' organization was sent, by mail,
a copy of the Union's contract proposals as originally presented. In the posted
"Notice of Conditions," dated December 30, 1958, which the firms involved dis-
patched to each employee affected as a covering letter, these proposals were charac-
terized as "absurd and impossible to accept without pricing ourselves out of business";
the employees were advised, accordingly, that a labor dispute existed.
The notice, as posted and sent, went on to indicate that the employers proposed
to furnish work "in so far as possible" after December 31, 1958, under certain
designated conditions, if the conditions were "acceptable" to the employees. They
were itemized as follows:
1. All personnel of this company will be placed under the Cascade Employers
Association Medical, Hospital and Insurance Program effective January 1, 1959.
2. Until such time as we are able to reach an agreement with both the
Teamsters and the Engineers Unions on the terms and conditions of a new
labor agreement all employees under those classifications will be paid at the
rate of . $2.00 per hour. Over time will be paid for at the rate of time and
one half time for hours over forty per week only.
3. All employees will be required to accept work assignments regardless of
seniority or previous work jurisdiction.
4. Whenever it shall be necessary to curtail operations, all employees will
be put on a rotational basis regardless of previous seniority or work jurisdiction
The notice closed with an express of trust that these conditions would meet with
the "approval" of the employees. They were advised that if any of them cared to
discuss the matters involved, collectively or individually, their employer would be
happy to engage in such discussions.
Some of the firms involved appear to have mailed these documents to their em-
ployees in envelopes addressed jointly to the employee involved and his wife; the
record, however, will not sustain a conclusion that this practice was followed by
every one of the employers in the Salem area.
On December 31, 1958, the Teamsters' representatives again met the Respondent's
negotiating committee at a Salem conference. A commissioner of conciliation was
also present, I find, at the Respondent's invitation. The discussion appears to have
been general; in view of the limited issue now presented for determination, it need
not be recapitulated in detail. Upon the entire record, I am satisfied that the Team-
sters suggested, among other things that the employers continue "Pension and
Welfare" payments; they insisted, however, that any plan which envisioned such
payments under a new contract would have to be "their plan" and no other. And
the employer representatives, I find, renewed their contention that-absent any agree-
ment effective after midnight-firms privy to the expired contract were under no
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1025
obligation to continue payments to the pension or welfare funds of the Teamsters'
organization.
The Teamsters ' representatives at the conference appear to have been aware of
the notice posted by the Salem employers , and dispatched by mail to their employees.
They noted their objection , I find, to the attempt of the firms involved to establish
new conditions of employment , unilaterally , after the 1956-1958 agreement's ex-
piration date. These objections , however, do not appear to have been pressed at
the conference . Instead, Ward Graham , the Teamsters ' secretary , filed the charge
which initiated the present case against Cascade Employers Association , Inc., char-
acterizing its unilateral action as a refusal to bargain in good faith , within the
meaning of the statute.
Analysis
A. The appropriate unit
In the General Counsel's complaint, the unit appropriate for a collective bargain
between the Teamsters' organization and the Respondent Association, within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the statute, is defined as follows:
All truckdrivers and helpers, levermen, truck mechanics and helpers, lift jitney
and carver drivers, warehousemen (including parts and tool men), greasers,
and tiremen, employed by members of the Respondent, excluding office, clerical
employees and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Emphasis supplied.]
The answer of the Respondent concedes the correctness of this unit description,
but the contract which the Association and Teamsters terminated by appropriate
notice, previously mentioned in this report, was a contract, clearly, which the
Respondent Association's precedecessor negotiated and executed on behalf of no
more than 16 designated "Sand and Gravel, Read-Mix and Concrete Products Com-
panies" of Salem and vicinity. A threshold issue is presented therefore, with respect
to the appropriate unit's precise scope. The present membership roster of the
Respondent includes 65 employers, approximately; 8 maintain places of business
in the State of Washington, and the remainder appear to be scattered through
Oregon, without limitation to the Williamette River valley. The scope of the unit
with respect to which the Respondent now allegedly refuses to bargain, however,
is clearly limited-upon the entire record-to the employees of a lesser group of
member firms. Their precise number, presently, has never been clearly indicated.
Despite the unit description which the complaint embodies, I find the General
Counsel, Teamsters, and Respondent Association substantially in agreement with
respect to the scope of the unit appropriate for a collective bargain. All of the
testimony presented appears to have been based upon their shared assumption
that the appropriate unit may be limited to the employees of the various "Sand and
Gravel, Ready-Mix and Concrete Products Companies" of Salem, Oregon, and
vicinity. I so find.
Elsewhere in this report, however, it has been noted that various employers
represented by the Respondent Association maintain contractual relations with the
Operating Engineers' organization with respect to some of their employees. The
other job classifications which the terminated agreement between Associated and the
Teamsters' organization purported to cover were never listed, specifically, therein;
reference to the contract's wage schedule, however, will justify a factual conclusion
with respect to the classifications involved. The schedule indicates the agreement
of the parties upon a wage scale for:
Truck drivers (various types), Levermen, Winch truck drivers, Truck mechanics,
Truck helpers, Lift Jitney or Handy Andy drivers, Dump Truck drivers, Transit
Mix truck drivers, Warehousemen (including parts and tool men), Greasers and
Tire Men, Ross carrier drivers, Dumpter drivers, and Motorized Concrete
Buggy drivers.
In the light of the available evidence, there appears to be no variance between this
job classification list and the classifications set forth in the General Counsel's unit
description. Accordingly-absent testimonial conflict-I find the job descriptions
set forth in the General Counsel's unit description consistent with those itemized in
the contractual wage schedule to which reference has been made.
Upon the entire record, therefore, I find that the employee unit set forth below
is now-and, at all times material herein, has been-a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of a collective bargain between the Respondent and Teamsters within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, as amended:
554461-60-vol 126-66
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All truckdrivers and helpers, levermen, truck mechanics and helpers, lift jitney
and carrier drivers, warehousemen (including parts and tool men), greasers,
and tiremen, employed by the Sand and Gravel, Ready-Mix and Concrete
Products Companies of Salem, Oregon, and Vicinity, exclusive of office, clerical
employees and supervisors, as defined in the Act, as amended.
B. The status of Teamsters as an exclusive representative
It is contended by the General Counsel and conceded by the Respondent Associa-
tion that the Teamsters' organization is now, and at all times material has been,
the collective-bargaining representative designated by a majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit. I so find. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the statute, therefore,
Teamsters has been, and now is, entitled to act as the exclusive representative of
the employees within the described unit, for the purpose of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment.
C. The refusal to bargain
1. Contentions
It is the General Counsel's contention that the Respondent, through its individual
member employers, effectuated the modified employment conditions, set forth in
the employee notices, absent any prior consultation with Teamsters, and without
having reached an impasse in contract negotiations. These unilateral changes in
wage rates and proposed conditions of work are alleged to have been made effective
on and after January 1, 1959-with the single exception of the wages paid by one
member employer-and it is alleged that they are still in effect. The Respondent's
course of conduct since December 30, 1958, thus summarized, is alleged to have
involved a refusal to bargain with the Teamsters' organization in good faith; is also
characterized as interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the ex-
ercise of rights statutorily guaranteed.
Initially, the Respondent argues by way of reply that it may not, legitimately, be
held responsible for the course of conduct challenged herein as an unfair labor
practice, since it did not initiate that course of conduct as official association action;
reference is made to the fact that the conduct in question did not involve the par-
ticipation of every association member within the Teamsters' geographical jurisdic-
tion. In the light of this contention, the Respondent would insist that it did not
"cause" any of its member firms to post or distribute the notices characterized by
the General Counsel as improper. The Respondent also denies that employees of its
member firms were invited to "bypass" the Teamsters, or to negotiate independently
of their chosen representatives; reference is made to the negotiations conducted by
Teamsters' representatives and the Respondent Association's committee, before and
after the old agreement's termination date.
Additionally, the Respondent denies that any changes in wages or employment
conditions were instituted on January 1, 1959, through its individual member em-
ployers, without prior consultation with the Teamsters' spokesmen, or in the absence
of a negotiating impasse; the Association's answer includes an assertion, to the con-
trary, that Teamsters was made "aware" of the notices posted and distributed, since
the entire matter was a subject of discussion at their December 31 conference before
the individual employers involved took any action. The Respondent has also chal-
lenged the General Counsel's allegation that the unilateral changes in wages and
conditions of work instituted by its member firms on January 1, 1959, have con-
tinued to remain in effect, with a single exception; it is asserted that none of the
unilateral changes announced prior to that date have been effective since April 1,
1959:
. . . except that the members of the Cascade Association are not now making
payments into the Teamsters Union Security Fund for either pensions or welfare,
however the employees are receiving the equivalent in money for the pension and
the Teamsters Security Plan has been replaced by the Cascade Plan.
On the strength of these allegations, the Respondent, for itself and on behalf of the
individual employers designated in the complaint, denies any refusal to bargain with
Teamsters on behalf of the employees which that organization purports to represent;
it asserts that it has bargained in good faith, and that it is now atempting to do so.
On the basis of its assertion that the status quo has now been restored, except for
pension and welfare fund payments-and on the basis of its further assertion that
bargaining sessions with the Teamsters have not been foreclosed by the Respondent
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1027
Association-dismissal of the complaint is requested since the question presented
ought to be considered moot.
2. Conclusions
The contention of the Respondent Association that it may not be held responsible
for the course of conduct challenged by the General Counsel as an unfair labor prac-
tice must be rejected . The available evidence may indeed establish , absent effective
contradiction , that the employer group which drafted the notice, eventually posted
and distributed to Teamsters ' employees by the Association 's member firms in the
Salem, Independence , and Corvallis area , was not completely representative ; never-
theless, it functioned , clearly, with the Respondent Association 's imprimatur. The
employers involved had not revoked the authority they had previously granted the
Respondent Association to act as their bargaining representative . They do not
even appear to have considered the possible preparation or distribution of the notices
themselves ; drafts of each document now in issue were submitted to the Respondent's
executive secretary for typing , mimeographing , and distribution . And the special
memorandum prepared by the employers group-explanatory of the notices for-
warded-went to all of the plants involved in the Salem , Independence , and Corvallis
area, under the Respondent 's mimeographed letterhead . It was also identified, ex-
pressly, as a memorandum issued by the "Negotiating Committee " of the Respondent
Association . This committee had been elected by a vote of the Association's area
membership , it had been authorized , I find, to negotiate its own "local" agreement
with Teamsters as the Respondent 's official arm. As a witness , the Respondent's
executive secretary conceded that any correspondence from the committee would
`officially" be considered correspondence in the association 's behalf. And despite
the memorandum 's purported character as a set of recommendations , certain aspects
of the course of conduct it outlined were presented in the imperative mood. (1 find
it worthy of particular note, in this connection , that some of the recommendations
made in the memorandum were addressed to firms in the Salem and Independence
area, but that imperatives were used to outline a course of conduct deemed ap-
plicable to every plant within the jurisdiction of the Teamsters ' organization.) In
substance , Executive Secretary Blair of the Association conceded that he was fully
aware of the memorandum 's letterhead , its contents , the representations it contained
with respect to its authorship, and the terms of the proposed notice to employees
which accompanied it, before these documents were forwarded to the employer
recipients ; he did not protest their preparation , or make any effort to disavow their
implicit representations with respect to association sponsorship . Under the cir-
cumstances , I find ample warrant in the record for a conclusion that the Respondent
Association-on or about December 30 , 1958, specifically-caused some of its
members, privy to the expiring 1956-1958 Teamsters ' agreement , to post the notices
challenged in this case , and to distribute identical notices to their Teamsters'
employees.
The fact that such notices may have been posted and distributed by 10 employers
only, privy to the expiring 1956-58 agreement , must be considered immaterial;
an employer may certainly be found guilty of committing an unfair labor practice,
upon evidence legally sumcient to warrant such a conclusion, even though his chal-
lenged conduct may not have affected every employee within a unit appropriate for
the purposes of a collective bargain.
Clearly, the modified working conditions which the negotiating committee of the
Respondent caused its various employer members to adopt were, partially, initiated
without advance notice or prior consultation with Teamsters ' representatives.
Upon the entire record , it may be arguable , at least, that the declared intention
of these employers to make future work assignments without regard to seniority or
previous work jurisdiction-and 'to effectuate layoffs, whenever necessary , on a rota-
tional basis , likewise without regard to previous seniority or work jurisdiction-
represented nothing more than a continuation of past practice . In addition, it may
be arguable that the announced determination of each employer involved to extend
the coverage of the association 's -Medical , Hospital and Insurance" program to
Teamsters ' employees involved nothing more than the unilateral effectuation-sub-
sequent to an impasse in negotiations-of a proposal , previously presented to the
Teamsters ' representatives for consideration , which they had effectively rejected.
See N.L.R.B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U.,,. 217, 223-225. No such
contention , however, can be made-in the light of the evidence available-with
respect to the unilateral announcement by the employers that, pending the achieve-
ment of an agreement with teamsters on the terms and conditions of a new labor
agreement , all of the employees covered by the terminated contract would be subject
to a wage reduction . ( I ne wage schedule of the old agreement had provided for the
payment of rates from $2.05 to $2.45 per hour; it had also provided , inter alia, that
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all work over 8 hours in any 1 day and 40 hours in any 1 week would be compensated
at overtime rates. The unilateral declaration of the employers that all of their em-
ployees with a Teamsters' classification would be paid $2 per hour, and that over-
time rates would be paid only for hours worked over 40 per week, thus represented
a substantial wage reduction.) Nothing in the record will support the conclusion
that an impasse with respect to wages had been reached. This indicated modification
of existing conditions had never been suggested by the Respondent's negotiating com-
mittee at a bargaining conference; the record establishes, instead, that the Associa-
tion's official contract proposal, in this regard, called for the ,retention of the 1958
wage scale-despite a union demand that rates be substantially increased. And
the unilateral announcement of the employers that the reduced rate would be
paid ".. . until such time as we are able to reach an agreement with both the
Teamsters and the Engineers Unions on the terms and conditions of a new labor
agreement . . ." was, of course, reasonably calculated to disparage the Teamsters'
organization and undermine its authority, as the exclusive representative of the
employees affected. See May Department Stores d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v.
N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376, 384, quoted in Great Falls Employers' Council, Inc., et al.,
123 NLRB 974. I so find.
The fact that the Teamsters' representatives may have become "aware" of the
proposed wage reduction on December 31, 1958, or sooner-prior to the effectuation
of the modified rate by the employers involved-cannot be held to vitiate the
soundness of this conclusion. The Stilley Plywood Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 932,
933. The mere announcement of each employer's intention to make the change
cannot be' considered equivalent to "consultation" with the negotiators for the
Ieamsters organization. And the fact that the latter may have expressed their
dissatisfaction in minimal terms, during a brief discussion of the notice which the
employers had posted and distributed, cannot be considered tantamount to ac-
quiescence . Langlade Veneer Products Corporation, 118 NLRB 985, 988. As the
Board has observed, in the cited case, a unilateral announcement with respect to a
wage reduction plan-followed by its effectuation over the protest of an exclusive
representative-must be considered particularly antithetical to the presentation of a
proposal reasonably calculated to provide some basis for a partial or complete
,settlement of any matters at issue between the parties.
Additionally, I find the course of conduct attributable to the Respondent violative
of the statute because it involved the solicitation of some indication by employees of
member firms with respect to their "acceptance" or "approval" of revised conditions
of employment.
An employer's obligation to bargain collectively, pursuant to the statute, has not
been construed to prevent his unilateral modification of employment conditions,
subsequent to the development of an impasse, calculated to effectuate a proposal
with respect to the changes involved-advanced in pursuit of a collective bargain-
which had been left unaccepted or even rejected in negotiations. N.L.R.B. V.
Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., supra. However, the solicitation of employees,
"collectively or individually," to indicate their acceptance or approval of modified
working conditions, despite an expression of opposition by their statutory repre-
sentative, has long been considered violative of the statute. Medo Photo Supply
Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 678, 683-684. As the Supreme Court observed
in the cited case:
The National Labor Relations Act makes it the duty of the employer to
bargain collectively with the chosen representatives of his employees. The
obligation being exclusive, see Section 9(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 159(a),
it exacts "the negative duty to treat with no other." N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laugh-
lin Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 44; and see Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, 300
U.S. 515, 548-549. Petitioner, by ignoring the union as the employees' exclusive
bargaining representative, by negotiating with its employees concerning wages
at a time when wage negotiations with the union were pending . violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act, which forbids interference with the right of employees
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice.
The notice to the employees of the Respondent's member firms did not suggest
a manifestation of their "acceptance" or "approval" with respect to modification of
their working conditions, in any particular form. Presumably, some indication of
their continued willingness to work after January 1, 1959, subject to changed condi-
tions, was the only manifestation expected. (In my opinion, the record will not
sustain a factual conclusion that the "Group Insurance Enrollment Card" of the
Association's insurance carrier, which may have been forwarded by the employers
to each employee, was intended to provide a means whereby employees could
indicate their acceptance of the several changes proposed in the conditions of their
CASCADE EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1029
employment . The legend on the card did, of course, indicate its character as an
application for coverage, under the group policy issued by the insurance carrier.
But testimony proffered in the Respondent 's behalf , which the General Counsel has
not sought to contradict , indicates that employee coverage under these policies
was considered automatic by the Respondent 's member firms , and that the card was
proffered merely to enable each insured employee to designate a beneficiary, thus
forestalling the possibility that the policy proceeds might fall into his estate.) With-
out regard to the validity of this inference, however, the Association's member em-
ployers must be held to have invited individual bargaining by employees , violative
of the statute, when they solicited "acceptance" with respect to the modified condi-
tions under which work would be furnished. In the light of each firm's characteriza-
tion of the Teamsters ' proposals as "absurd and impossible to accept ," this conclusion
would seem to be particularly apt.
Upon the entire record , therefore , I find the course of conduct attributable to
the Respondent , acting through its individual employer members, violative of the
statute. The Respondent Association, I find, has-since December 30, 1958, specifi-
cally-refused to bargain in good faith with the Teamsters ' organization as the
exclusive representative of the employees of its member firms within an appropriate
unit; it has also interfered with , restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights statutorily guaranteed.
The Respondent argues that the modified employment conditions unilaterally
effectuated by its member employers were eliminated by April 1, 1959, except for
the refusal of the member employers to make payments into the Teamsters' Union
security fund for pension or welfare purposes . The employees involved are said to
be receiving, directly, the monetary equivalent of the pension plan payments previ-
ously made by these employers. And since the health and welfare plan sponsored
by the Teamsters' organization has allegedly been replaced by the Association's plan,
it is argued that any statutory violation implicit in the unilateral action of the
employers has been rendered moot.
I find no merit in this contention . The negotiating committee of the Respondent
dild propose the substitution of its own effective group insurance program for the
program previously made available through Oregon Teamster's security plan, in the
course of collective bargaining , and the Teamsters ' representatives did reject the
proposal in negotiations. See N.L.R.B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., supra.
And a similar conclusion may be warranted with respect to the "pension " proposal
of the Respondent's committee. Nevertheless, the record establishes that these fringe
benefits of the employment relationship were modified in a context which tended to
disparage Teamsters as the exclusive representative of the employees , and which
subverted the mode of collective bargaining statutorily ordained. Medo Photo
Supply Corporation v. N.L.R.B., supra. This disparagement and subversion has not
been remedied and must be considered a continuing statutory violation. Addi-
tionally, the effectuation of a wage reduction by the Salem and Independence area
employers , pending achievement of an agreement with the Teamsters ' organizations
on the terms and conditions of a new contract , clearly tended to undermine the
Union 's authority as an exclusive representative ; unilateral restoration of the prior
wage scale by the employers involved cannot be said to have dissipated the threat
of a new unilateral wage reduction , which would inevitably deserve construction as
an infringement of rights statutorily guaranteed . Despite the Respondent 's conten-
tion to the contrary , therefore , the unfair labor practices herein found warrant
characterization as continued practices , calling for affirmative relief of a prospective
character.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , since they occurred
in connection with the operations of the Respondent and its member employers
described in section d, above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and would tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent engaged in and continues to engage
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, including the posting of appropriate
notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended.
In this connection , it should be noted that the complaint charges the Respondent
Association with having "caused" some of its members, privy to a collective agree-
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment with the Teamsters ' organization , to post notices and unilaterally to institute
certain modified working conditions thereafter , absent any prior consultation with
Teamsters ' representatives and without any impasse in negotiations . The Respond-
ent Association has effectively conceded the thrust of the General Counsel's com-
plaint with respect to its member employers by the submission of an answer filed
on its own behalf and on behalf of the individual employers named in the complaint.
Since these employers clearly appear to have been put on notice , then , with respect
to the General Counsel 's challenge to their course of conduct, my remedial recom-
mendations will be made to them, as well as the Respondent Association.
Since it has been found that the Respondent caused certain of its member em-
ployers to take unilateral action , on December 30, 1958, and thereafter, which
reflects a refusal to bargain collectively with the Teamsters ' organization as the
exclusive representative of designated employees , it will be recommended that both
the Respondent Association and its member employers cease and desist from the
course of conduct found herein to constitute a refusal to bargain. And it will be
further recommended that the Respondent , pursuant to its designation as the rep-
resentative of its member firms, bargain collectively with the Teamsters ' organiza-
tion, upon request, as the representative of its employees in the unit found appro-
priate, elsewhere in this report , for the purposes of a collective bargain.
The unfair labor practices relate primarily , in my opinion , to the unwillingness
of the Respondent and some of its member employers to bargain collectively in
good faith with the Teamsters ' organization . Conceivably , it might be argued that
these unfair labor practices reveal a disposition on the part of the Respondent and
the designated member employers to commit other unfair labor practices statutorily
proscribed , so that a danger of their commission in the future may be anticipated
from the conduct of the Respondent and these member employers in the past. Such
a conclusion , however, would be bottomed upon nothing more than suspicion. Upon
the entire record, I am persuaded that the preventive purposes of the statute will be
served, and the policies of the Act effectuated adequately , by an order-if one should
prove to be necessary-requiring Respondent and its member employers to cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and any like or related conduct
Such an order, therefore, will be recommended.
In the light of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , Cascade Employers Association , Inc, is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business activities
which affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act, as
amended.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 324 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act , as amended.
3. All truckdrivers and helpers, levermen , truck mechanics and helpers , lift jitney
and carrier drivers, warehousemen ( including parts and tool men ), greasers, and
tiremen, employed by the Sand and Gravel , Ready-Mix and Concrete Products Com-
panies of Salem, Oregon , and Vicinity , exclusive of office, clerical employees and
supervisors , as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
a collective bargain within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act , as amended.
4. At all times since December 30, 1958, General Teamsters Local Union No.
324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers
of America , has been , and now is , entitled to act as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the above -described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act , as amended.
5. The Respondent , by a course of conduct initiated shortly before December 30,
1958, and continued thereafter , which caused some of its employer members privy
to a trade agreement with the Teamsters ' organization designated above, to post and
distribute certain notices to employees, and to institute , unilaterally , certain changes
in the conditions under which they proposed to furnish work, engaged in a refusal
to bargain collectively with the labor organization designated as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the above -described unit , and thereby committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 5) of the Act,
as amended.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act, as amended.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]