Chase Manufacturing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 886 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chase Manufacturing, Inc and Carpenters District
Council of Milwaukee County and Vicinity Case
30-CA-1821
December 13, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On May 31, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Ivar
H Peterson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Administrative
Law Judge's ruling, findings, and conclusions, as
modified herein
1 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Respondent, in furtherance of its effort to avoid
future contacts and dealings with an incumbent
Union, violated Section 8(a)(1) The record shows
that President Chase told employees on various
occasions that he intended to drop the Union, to get
in another union, to get rid of the Union entirely, or
to go nonunion He also stated to employees that he
would hire new employees at less than contract rates
and that he would notify the Union that on
expiration of the current labor agreements he would
not sign another contract These statements by Chase
clearly conveyed to employees his intent to decide
unilaterally what union, if any, would represent
them, to refuse to abide by the terms of the
applicable contract, and to discontinue dealing with
the established bargaining representative after the
expiration of the current agreements Consequently,
we find that by this conduct Respondent interfered
with and restrained its employees in the exercise of
their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
2 As the Administrative Law Judge states in his
Decision, Respondent concedes that it violated
Section 8(a)(5) in dealing directly in October 1970
with employees Behnke and Peschl, rather than with
the Union, concerning those employees' rates of pay
1 The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19, 1972
2 The complaint not only alleges that the wage cut violated Sections
8(a)(5) and (1) and 8(d) of the Act but also 8(a)(3) on the grounds that
Behnke and Peschl s wages were discriminatorily reduced because of those
We find that such conduct violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1), and requires an appropriate remedy
The General Counsel would, however, have us
further find that such unlawful dealings resulted in
Respondent's cutting Behnke and Peschl's wages
below the rates specified in the applicable bargaining
agreement, and that Respondent thereby further
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act Respon-
dent argues that said conduct merely involves a
breach of contract best resolved in a grievance-
arbitration proceeding We find no merit in Respon-
dent's position, for as the facts fully demonstrate, the
wage reductions were part and parcel of an unlawful
course of conduct whereby Respondent intended to
rid itself of the established bargaining relationship
and its attendant obligations of which the contract
wage rates were but a part Consequently, the issue
before us is not limited to the propriety of remedying
a breach of contract, but rather one that concerns
Respondent's complete rejection of the principles of
collective bargaining, and the self-organizational
rights of employees Accordingly, and in this context,
we find that the unilateral cuts in wages of Behnke
and Peschl here violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act 2
3 The Administrative Law Judge found that the
discharges of Behnke and Peschl on January 6, 1971,
violated various sections of the Act We find merit in
Respondent's exceptions to this finding for the
discharges were not alleged to be unlawful and there
is, moreover, no evidence that they were Conse-
quently, we find that the discharges of Behnke and
Pesch' did not violate the Act
In view of the foregoing, we make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Chase Manufacturing, Inc, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee
County and Vicinity is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By telling employees in effect it intended to
cease dealing with the Union or intended to
recognize another union and by stating to employees
that it would hire new employees at less than
contract wage rates, and that it would notify the
Union it would not enter into another contract,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4 By dealing directly with employees concerning
their rates of pay rather than dealing with the
employees membership in and sympathies for the Union There is
however no support for such 8(a)(3) allegation , for the record is clear that
the wages were cut for economic reasons only that is for reasons wholly
unrelated to any union activities of the affected employees
200 NLRB No 128
CHASE MANUFACTURING, INC
recognized bargaining representative, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
5 By unilaterally cutting the wages of employees
Behnke and Peschl in October 1970 below the wage
rates specified in the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
Having found that Respondent unlawfully reduced
the rates of pay of employees Dennis Behnke and
Victor Peschl in October 1970 below the rate
provided in the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement, we shall order that Respondent make
them whole for the loss of earnings resulting from
such illegal reduction, by payment to each of them of
a sum of money equal to the amount he would have
earned under the applicable contract rate from the
date of the illegal reduction until his lawful discharge
on January 6, 1971, less the amount actually paid
him during that period, the backpay to include
interest at the rate of 6 percent on the amount
unlawfully withheld
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Chase Manufacturing, Inc, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with or restraining its employees in
the exercise of their rights protected by Section 7 of
the Act by telling employees that it intended to cease
dealing with their established bargaining representa-
tive or intended to recognize another union, that it
intended to hire new employees at rates of pay below
those specified in their current, applicable agree-
ment , and that it would notify the Union it would
not sign any new contract
(b) Refusing to bargain in good faith by dealing
directly with employees, rather than with their
bargaining representative, concerning their rates of
pay, and unilaterally reducing rates of pay below
those specified in the applicable collective-bargain-
ing agreement
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with or
887
restraining its employees in the exercise of their
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Make Dennis Behnke and Victor Peschl whole,
as provided in the section of our Decision entitled
"The Remedy," for the loss of pay they suffered as a
result of Respondent's unlawfully reducing their
rates of pay in October 1970
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order
(c) Post at its Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "3 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaft-
er, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint insofar
as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found in this Decision be, and it hereby is, dismissed
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will
stop dealing with their Union or that we will
substitute a union of our own choice for the
recognized union, Carpenters District Council of
Milwaukee County and Vicinity, or that we will
hire new employees at rates of pay below those
specified in the applicable labor agreement, or
that we will notify the recognized union we will
not sign another contract with it
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain by dealing
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directly with our employees concerning changes
in their rates of pay from those specified in the
applicable labor agreement and will not reduce
employees' pay below the rates specified in any
applicable collective-bargaining agreement
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, or restrain, our employees in the
exercise of any right guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL make Dennis Behnke and Victor
Peschl whole for their loss of income resulting
from our unlawfully reducing their rates of pay in
October 1970 below the rates of pay required by
the applicable collective-bargaining agreement
CHASE MANUFACTURING,
INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Commerce Building, Second Floor,
744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203,
Telephone 414-272-8600, Extension 3861
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IVAR H PETERSON, Trial Examiner This case was tried
at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 11 and 12, 1972 The
charge was filed by the Union on January 17 and the
complaint was issued on February 28 Briefly stated, the
complaint alleges that on various dates beginning about
September 15, 1971, the Respondent told employees that it
was planning on "dumping" one of the currently effective
agreements with the Union and recognizing and bargain-
ing with some other union, planned to hire unskilled
workers at lower wages than those provided for in its
agreement, discriminatorily reducing the hourly wages of
two employees, Dennis Behnke and Clyde Peschl, because
of their union membership and sympathies, and on various
dates refused to bargain with the Union, all in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), (5) and 8(d) of the Act In its duly filed
answer the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allega-
tions in the complaint and certain other facts alleged, but
denied that it had in any respect violated the Act During
the course of the hearing, I denied a motion that this
proceeding be postponed because of an arbitration
proceeding which was to be heard shortly after the hearing
herein, and which involved the same facts which form the
basis for this unfair labor practice proceeding The
Respondent appealed to the Board which, under date of
April 14, denied the Respondent's request for special
permission to appeal from my ruling
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and counsel for the
Respondent on May 4, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of refrigeration units and coolers at its
facility in New Berlin, Wisconsin During the past calendar
year Respondent performed services and shipped goods
directly to points outside the State of Wisconsin valued in
excess of $50,000 The Respondent admits and I find that it
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act I further find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The narrow issue presented in this case, aside from
certain alleged instances of interference, restraint, and
coercion independently violative of Section 8(a)(1), is
whether the action of the Respondent in dealing directly
with Behnke and Peschl, with the result that they agreed to
work at an hourly rate less than provided in the contract
between the Respondent and the Union, was violative of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
In October 1971 the Respondent had seven production
and installation employees At the time of the hearing only
five employees were on the payroll Since about 1966 the
Respondent had been party to a standard contract with the
Union covering carpenters and a second contract covering
the employees performing millwork in the shop At the
outset of the contractual relationship the wage rate for
carpenters was about $1 50 above the wage of the average
factory worker in the Milwaukee area, and the millworker
rate was 66 cents above the average factory worker's wage
Mr Chase, president and owner of the Respondent,
testified that as of the time of the hearing the rate for
carpenters was $3 71 above the average factory worker rate
and that the rate for millworkers was $2 03 above the
average rate for factory workers
Peschl was employed in January 1971 and terminated the
following January 6 He took workshop while in high
school and after graduation worked some 4 months in a
pattern shop, worked approximately 1-1/2 years in the stair
department of another firm, then spent 2 months as a
cabinet maker assembler for still another woodworking
concern, and finally worked for another similar concern
for approximately 1- 1/2 years where he did formica
laminating, spray painting, truckdriving, and lumber
milling He was interviewed by Mr Chase and after being
employed for about the first 4 or 6 weeks in a semiskilled
classification, he was raised to a skilled job installing
coolers and freezers Early in October, Chase had Peschl
take a general knowledge test which he stated would be
CHASE MANUFACTURING, INC 889
used for screening new employees The test, so Peschl
testified, consisted of labeling various items pictured that
were associated with many other trades besides carpentry
Shortly after taking the test Chase called Peschl into the
office and stated that he and Behnke were going to be laid
off immediately and permanently, stating that Behnke was
too slow and that the Union's rates were too high and he
could not afford to pay them He stated that Peschl
received about 74 or 75 on the test and that Gary Chase
received a grade of 96 and that Gary only made $4 an hour
and it was unfair to him to pay Peschl the higher wage of
$5 48 per hour Chase also stated that his competitors were
driving him out of business and that the highest wage paid
by his competitors was $3 50 or $3 75 an hour Peschl
asked Chase what he would have to do to stay with the
Respondent Chase replied that he would have to take a
cut in wages and in response to Peschl's inquiry how much
of a cut, Chase replied to either $3 50 or $3 75 an hour
After some discussion Peschl asked "Well, do I have a job
at $4 an hour?" Chase replied that $4 would be fine and
that he could go back to work, but should not say anything
to Behnke about his wage rate He was paid that rate 3
months On January 6 he was laid off, while in the middle
of a job So was Behnke The next day Peschl and Behnke
went to Chase and asked how long the layoff might be and
what had happened to the training program that was to be
started Peschl inquired about his "backpay," the differ-
ence between $5 48 and $4 Peschl further testified that
Chase stated that 90 days before the end of the contract he
"was going to present some kind of petition or letter to the
Union, that he was going to go nonunion " Chase invited
them to come back the following Tuesday to discuss a
settlement after Chase had spoken to his wife and his
partner Foreman Ron Peterson told them when they
returned that there would be no settlement of the claimed
backpay They then proceeded to inform the Union of
what had happened
Behnke was employed in April 1969 and terminated on
January 6, 1972 He graduated from a technical and trade
high school where he took a cabinet and carpentry trade
course After graduation he attended night classes in the
cabinet course on his own time for 2-1/2 years He then
worked 6 months as a millwork helper and then for a
nullwork company for about 2-1/2 years, starting as a
helper and progressing to a semiskilled position
After working for the Respondent for about a year he
was increased to the skilled rate and about 7 or 8 months
later he was made a subforeman, in which position he
remained for approximately 6 or 7 months The latter
position paid $5 65 an hour About the middle of
September, Chase told Behnke and Foreman Walter Ode
that he "might have to change the union or drop it
completely, because of his competition, they were out-
pricing him, he was just losing a lot of jobs because of this
He asked our opinion about dropping the Union, and
Walter Ode mentioned about the pension plan, what would
happen to our money that would be in the pension plan, or
in the welfare funds " On October 11, Chase gave
Behnke a test which consisted of labeling different tools or
equipment concerning trades other than carpentry for the
most part Several days later Chase told him that he was to
be let go and Behnke inquired about his seniority rights
and stated that Chase could not lay him off "because his
seniority was enforced by the union, the Millmen's
Union "
John Boduch, who was employed March 1971 until the
latter part of the following January, testified that about
November 25, Chase came to him and stated that the
wages the employees were receiving were too high and that
he did not think the contract that he had signed was a legal
contract, and added that he was experiencing difficulty
competing with other concerns in the area Chase said that
he had several ideas in mind to change from a manufactur-
ing scale to a woodworking scale, "to get a different
union," and, thirdly, to get rid of the Union entirely and
assume the employee benefits Chase mentioned the same
matter to Boduch on several occasions, who reminded
Chase that he had a union contract and he did not think
Chase could accomplish any of the three possibilities that
he had in mind Chase rejoined by saying that before the
contract expired at the end of May of this year he would
give the Union 60 days' notice that he would not sign
another contract
Walter Ode, who had been employed 6 years and has
been a foreman since March 1951, testified to a conversa-
tion he had with Chase early in January 1972 According to
Ode, Chase stated that when the contract came to an end
the shop was going nonunion "or else" Chase did not
elaborate what "or else" meant About 2 days later, so Ode
testified, Chase told him to "forget about our previous
conversation, that he would have to take another route "
On one or two occasions early in January, Chase spoke to
Ode, at a time when the Company was installing some new
production equipment, about utilizing unskilled labor to
operate the machines , thus dispensing with the services of
the skilled employees
Edward Swick, Jr, who had been employed approxi-
mately 3-1/2 years by the Respondent as a carpenter, and
had been a journeyman carpenter for about 19 years,
testified that about the first of December Chase discussed
with ham the high cost of shop labor and showed him a list
of various competitors in the area and their wage scales
On February 22, the Respondent filed a petition (Case
30-RM-248) seeking an election in a unit consisting of all
apprentice and journeymen carpenters , excluding all other
employees This was administratively dismissed by the
Regional Director on February 29 On March 20, the
Respondent filed another petition (Case 30-RM-253)
seeking an election in the same unit , this petition was also
administratively dismissed by the Regional Director on
March 31
President Chase testified that sometime in 1966 the
Union made the first contact with the Respondent It
appears that the Respondent was erecting a cooler in a
small store in West Bend and a union representative came
on the job and later Respondent was informed that it could
not "do any erecting on a job unless" it had a contract with
the Union and that "there is no work on any construction
job that can proceed unless you are a union member and
have a union contract " Henry Kamoske handed Chase a
printed standard contract and told him, "Sign it " This
covered the carpenters Chase was also told that he had to
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign another contract covering the millworkers At that
time the rates for carpenters was about $1 50 above the
average wage of factory workers in the Milwaukee area,
and the millworker rate was 66 cents higher According to
Chase, the Umon stated that the employees were "highly
skilled men," but in his experience most of them had not
attended any apprenticeship program and were not skilled,
in fact, he testified that the men supplied required as much
training as any one hired off the street At the time Chase
testified the current rate for carpenters was $3 71 above the
average factory worker rate and the rate for millworkers
was $2 03 higher than the average factory worker rate in
the Milwaukee area
Under date of August 4, 1970, the Umon reached
agreement with a number of larger millwork concerns in
the Milwaukee area which was ratified by the union
membership on August 7 It provided for increases in wage
rates and the Union informed the Respondent that
employees "who were employed by your Company on June
1, 1970, but whose employment was terminated for any
reason whatsoever since June 1, 1970 to date , are also
entitled to retroactive pay and shall have same mailed to
their last known address immediately " Chase did not sign
the agreement and, under date of September 5, the Union
wrote again "giving final notice that unless we receive the
signed Agreement within ten (10) days, it will be necessary
for our Business Representative to take the necessary steps
to obtain same " Later on Business Representative Ka-
moske visited the Respondent and they, according to
Chase, "got into quite an argument about this, a union
shop, I didn't feel that I should be forcing everybody that
come to work for me to join the Union "
Concerning Behnke, Chase testified that he was "a very
slow worker " About October 14, 1971, Chase called him in
and stated that he was going to let him go because he was
too slow and did not have the ability to Justify the wage he
was being paid Behnke asked if Chase would be willing to
listen to a counterproposal and Chase replied that he
would Previously Chase had shown Behnke a list showing
what his competitors were paying and Behnke stated that
he could not afford to work for $3 50 or $4 and inquired
whether Chase would keep him on at a rate of $4 50 Chase
accepted this proposal With respect to Peschl, the
Respondent's testimony is that he offered to work at the
rate of $4 an hour, which the Respondent accepted
CONCLUSIONS
In his brief, counsel for the Respondent acknowledges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
negotiating directly with the employees rather than with
the Union concerning a change in their wage scale
However, counsel argues that in other respects the
Respondent did not violate the Act
It is uncontroverted that about the middle of September
Chase called employees Ode and Behnke into his office
and stated that the prices of his competitors were too
"stiff" and that he was considering changing or dropping
the Union because he could not afford to pay the scale that
was provided in the contract Employees asked about their
pension and other fringe benefits provided by the millwork
contract and Chase responded that he would have to look
into the matter and see what benefits were contained in the
contracts of other unions It seems clear that by this
statement the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, since Chase expressed the intention of refusing to
recognize and deal with the Union after the contract
expired and, in addition , to unpose upon the employees a
labor organization of his own choosing I so find
Both Behnke and Peschl had taken woodworking courses
in high school and had worked in the trade before being
employed by the Respondent As has been pointed out
above, both were hired at the semiskilled rate and were
given raises by the Respondent to the skilled rate In
addition, Behnke was promoted to subforeman in March
and remained in that classification until October Both of
them were primarily engaged in the manufacture of the
Respondent's products which , as Chase testified, was a
repetitive operation and did not require any special skills
Although he testified that both of them were slow workers,
the undisputed evidence is that neither had ever been told
by Chase or any other supervisor that their work was too
slow
However , on October 11, both of them were summoned
to Chase's office and told to take the test referred to above
They were not advised that the test would have any effect
on their wages or employment status A few days after
taking the test Chase summoned them, individually, into
his office Peschl, the first to enter, was told that he would
be laid off and that Behnke would be laid off permanently
because he was too slow Chase also stated that he could
not afford the wages provided in the Union's millwork
contract and that his competitors were paying a maximum
of $3 50 per hour Peschl replied that he could not live on
that wage rate and inquired what he had to do to avoid
being laid off Chase responded that he would have to take
a pay cut In response to Peschl 's inquiry as to how much
the cut would have to be, Chase proposed $3 50 or $3 75 an
hour After some "dickering" they reached agreement on
$4 an hour Chase stated that he was going to devise a
training program which would allow Peschl to progress to a
higher rate During the discussion Chase stated that it was
unfair to pay Peschl $4 an hour since his brother, Gary,
was getting that rate and had scored 96 on the test In this
connection, it should be noted that the evidence is
undisputed that Gary was involved in the preparation of
the test which Behnke and Peschl took
Chase next summoned Behnke into the office and told
him that he was being released Behnke replied that he had
seniority over other employees and that his seniority rights
were enforced by the contract Chase conceded this, but
replied that other employees had more experience in the
trade Chase complained that labor costs were too high and
that he was going to drop the Union and hire new
employees at $3 50 per hour and that he was planning to
institute a training and apprenticeship program for his new
employees Behnke stated that he could not afford to live
on the $3 50 per hour rate and asked if Chase would permit
him to remain at $4 50 per hour Chase eventually agreed
to that rate
I think it plain that the foregoing statements and conduct
establish that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3),
(5) and 8(d) of the Act The evidence establishes that Chase
CHASE MANUFACTURING, INC
expressed hostility towards the Union to each employee
and that he had little regard for the union contracts and
intended to drop the Union and hire new employees at a
rate lower than provided in the contract It is evident that
Chase was engaging in a campaign to undermine the
Union as the employees' representative and to accomplish,
by illegal means, what he had not attempted to do by legal
means I infer that, despite Chase's contrary testimony, he
did not really intend to lay off or terminate either of the
employees in October, but used this threat and the
statement that he intended to hire new employees at a
lower rate to create an atmosphere of economic coercion
There is no evidence, other than Chase's self-serving
statement, to support the contention that both employees
were slow or incompetent I do not credit Chase's
testimony that it was the employees, rather than himself,
who proposed the reduced rate In view of Chase's
statement that he intended to introduce a training program
which would allow them to work their way up in their
hourly rates, it seems logical to conclude that each
employee understood that the reduction was to be
temporary
In his brief, counsel for the Respondent asserts that this
case "discloses a classic-albeit a sad and disturbing-ex-
ample of the situation which results when a union,
primarily connected with the construction industry, forces
itself upon an employer not engaged in the construc-
tion industry and compels the employer, who is totally
unsophisticated in labor relations matters to accept the
Union's standard construction industry collective bargain-
ing agreement, and a second collective bargaining agree-
ment closely related to the construction industry " He
further states that "on the facts it is apparent that
Respondent's attitude was not, in reality, an anti-umon
attitude, but rather a deep justifiable concern with the
`construction industry' rates which the Union had unposed
upon his non-construction operation to the point that his
economic situation became exceedingly precarious " With
respect to the Respondent's statements that he "might have
to change the Union or drop it completely" and that "when
he got a new system ready he was going to hire new
employees" at "around $3 50 " counsel asserts that "it
is obvious that the conversations testified to by General
Counsel's witnesses were actually nothing more than
conversations relative to a severe economic situation which
faced not only the company but the employees as well "
I find no merit in the Respondent's defense Even
assuming, arguendo, that Behnke and Peschl proposed the
reduced wage rates, the legal effect is that the Respondent
caused a constructive reduction in wage rates This is so
891
because the two employees, when faced with the threat of
termination and replacement by employees at wage rates
lower than those provided by the contract, had no ch6ice
but to make their own counterproposals It would seem
that, if Respondent was in such a poor financial position as
Chase asserted, he would not have agreed to the counter-
proposal made by the employees but would have terminat-
ed them, especially in view of the contention that the
production procedure was simple and repetitive and the
further claim that the employees were incompetent
Based upon the foregoing facts, I come to the conclusion
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Chase Manufacturing, Inc, is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
2 Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee County
and Vicinity, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By terminating Dennis Behnke and Victor Peschl,
because of their support of and activity in behalf of the
Union, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from any
other invasions of its employees' Section 7 rights, and to
take certain affirmative action
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged
employees Dennis Behnke and Victor Peschl, I find it
necessary that the Respondent be ordered to offer these
employees full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a
quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as
prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1960) and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
(1962), from the date of the discharge to the date
reinstatement is offered
[Recommended Order omitted from publication ]