Electric Auto-Lite Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1192 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY and MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, LOCAL #4
Case No. 8-CI-255.-Decided May 8,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 10, 1950, Trial Examiner George A. Downing 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 In-
termediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re--
port. The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied
because the record and exceptions, in our opinion, adequately present
the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 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 Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record in.
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the- case, and pursuant to- Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations,
Board. hereby orders that the Respondent, The Electric Auto-Lite.
Company, Toledo, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs shall :
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the.
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Rerzog and Members Houston and Styles].
2 See, in addition to the cases cited in the Intermediate Report, General Controls Co..
88 NLRB 1341.
89 NLRB No. 145.
1192
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1193'
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with.
Mechanics. Educational Society of America, Local #4, as the exclu-
sive representative of.all salaried employees of the planning depart-
ment in the Respondent's Champlain Street plant, excluding the
planning manager, the assistant planning manager, the secretary to,
the planning manager, and all other supervisors, by failing and refus-
ing to furnish to the afore-named labor organization the current sal-
ary rates for the individual employees in the unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds.
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, furnish to Mechanics Educational Society of
America, Local #4, the current salary rates for the individual em--
ployees in the unit in order to enable the afore-named labor organiza-
tion to discharge its functions as the statutory representative of the-
employees in the appropriate unit;
(b) Post at its plant at. Toledo, Ohio, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked-Appendix A.3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly-
signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ
frig all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said:
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,.
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, LOCAL #4, as the exclusive-
representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit de-
scribed below, by failing and refusing to furnish to said union
information as to the current salary rates for the individual em-
ployees in said unit.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the.
words "DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL FURNISH the above-named union upon request informa-
tion as to the current salary rates for each of our individual em-
ployees in said unit, such as will enable said union properly to
discharge its functions as the statutory representative of the em-
ployees in said unit.
The bargaining unit is: All salaried employees of the plan-
ning department in our Champlain Street plant, excluding the
planning manager, the assistant planning manager, the material
purchasing supervisors, the secretary to the planning manager,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY,
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
Mr. Carroll L. Martin, for the General Counsel.
Mr. James P. Falvey, Toledo, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Mr. Tor Cedervall, Toledo, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed August 17, 1949, by Mechanics Educational Society of
.America, Local #4, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleve-
land, Ohio), issued a complaint dated January 3, 1950, against The Electric
-Auto-Lite Company; herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
-the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and the notice of hearing were
-duly served on the.Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
'that the Respondent, since on or about June 15, 1949, had refused to bargain with
-the Union in that it had refused to furnish to the Union upon request certain
information relating to pay rates and salaries for all the employees in the unit
for whom the Union had been designated as the representative for the purposes
-of collective bargaining and certified as such by the Board, and that Respondent
thereby also interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
'The General Counsel and his representatives are herein referred to as the General
-Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
2 Respondent ' s name as amended at the hearing.
THE EL'E'CTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1195
Respondent admitted by its answer the acts alleged in the complaint to consti-
tute unfair labor practices, but it denied the propriety of furnishing or being
required to furnish to an agent or alleged agent private payroll information
as to the salaries of various individual principals in the bargaining unit.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 17, 1950, in Toledo, Ohio,
before George A. Downing, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence per-
taining to the issues was afforded all parties. The parties were also afforded an
opportunity to make oral argument and to file briefs, proposed findings of fact,
and conclusions of law. All parties participated in oral argument at the con-
clusion of the hearing, but no briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Electric Auto-Lite Company is an Ohio corporation. It engages at its
Toledo, Ohio, plant in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile ac-
cessories. In the course and conduct of its business operations, it causes and
has continuously caused annually in excess of 50 percent of its raw materials,
having a total annual value in excess of $1,000,000, to be purchased, delivered,
and transported from and through the States of the United States other than
the State of Ohio to its Toledo, Ohio, plant ; and it causes annually in excess of-
50 percent of its finished products, having a total annual value in excess of
$1,000,000, to be sold, delivered, and transported to and through the States of-
the United States other than the State of Ohio from its Toledo, Ohio, plant.
On the basis of these facts, which are admitted by Respondent in its answer,.
it is hereby found that the Respondent was at all times covered by the complaint
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local #4, is a labor organization-
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit; representation by the Union of a majority therein.
All salaried employees of the planning department in Respondent's Champlaili
Street plant, excluding the planning manager, the assistant planning manager,
the material purchasing supervisors, the secretary to the planning manager, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
On or about August 11, 1944, a majority of the employees in the said unit, by a
secret election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the.
'There is no issue between the parties as to any of the facts herein found.
:1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-Eighth Region of the Board, designated or selected the Union as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and in August of 1944 it was so
,certified by the Board. During all periods covered by the complaint, the afore-
said unit has consisted of approximately 27 or 28 employees, of whom 25 have
.been members of the Union. The Union was, therefore, at all times covered by the
complaint, the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, of a major-
ity of the employees in said unit and, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, has
been and is now the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for
-the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
a. The evidence
The Company and the Union executed a contract covering the employees in
-the unit on about February 23, 1945. At the time of the hearing there was in
effect a contract entered into on February 11, 1947, together with a memorandum
-supplement thereto executed October 4, 1948.
The contract contained no provisions relating to wages or salaries, but the
supplement provided for a general increase retroactive to May 5, 1948, and
provided further that "No further general increase will be requested prior to
June 15, 1949 . . ." It also provided that the granting of merit increases "will
be entirely discretionary with Management and the Union will not attempt to
negotiate or bargain on merit increases."
Prior to. June 15, 1949, the Union served notice on the Respondent of its
desire to open negotiations concerning a further general wage increase for the
employees in the unit, in accordance with the terms of the supplementary agree-
-went. Sometime in June, subsequent to June 15, the Respondent and the
Union entered into negotiations concerning salary increases for said employees,
-and discussions were held on the Union's proposal concerning a possible salary
increase on a percentage basis for the employees involved. The Union, through
Clarence Peck, chairman of the union shop committee, requested the Respondent,
through Walter Scheiver, planning department manager, to furnish the Union
with the name, job classification, seniority listing, and salary rate for each of
the employees in the unit, stating that he wanted the information in order
intelligently to negotiate increases in the salary rates of the various individuals
.in the unit, and in order to try to police the established salary rate ranges.
Peck also stated that he wanted to know whether the individuals were under,
within, or above the established rate ranges and further said that there had
been three instances in other units of the Company in which the Union represented
the employees and in which the Union had accidentally found out that employees
-were receiving less than the minimum rate for the job; and so the Union wanted
,the requested information for the planning department in order to check to see
whether there were any similar instances -there.
Peck also stated that he wanted the information for the purpose of being
table to discuss salary negotiations then in progress and for use in contract
negotiations which would take place around February of 1950.
Scheiver advised Peck that he had no authority to reveal any such data as
requested and that any authority to give the information would have to come
from Mr. James Falvey, vice president in charge of industrial relations. The
following week Scheiver advised Peck that no authority could be secured to
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1197
?reveal the salary rate information as requested by the Union as he had been
advised that company policy prohibited it.
Peck then made the same request for information to Mr. James Falvey and
:his assistant, Mr. Huebner, and was told by them that company policy prohibited
.giving any such salary rate information as requested by the Union, as the Re-
spondent felt that the salary rates paid the employees in the unit was confidential.
During June and July 1949, various meetings were held between the Union and
the Respondent during which time salary increases for the planning depart-
ment employees in the unit were discussed, but no agreement was reached.
Shortly after the request for information was made in 1949, the Respondent
did furnish to the Union a list of all the employees in the unit together with the
following information : The name, job classification, and seniority listing for the
employees. However, the salaries of individual employees were not disclosed,
.and the Respondent has at all times refused and still refuses to furnish the Union
with the salary rates of the employees in the unit.
There are approximately 27 employees in the unit; they are classified as sen-
ior planning clerks, general clerical senior, general clerical, senior and junior
tabulating machine operators, and typist clerks. All of them are paid on a salary
basis and the Respondent has in existence rate ranges for the various job classi-
-ications, and the maximum and minimum of those ranges are known to the Union.
Falvey testified that the lowest classification was junior typist with a start-
ing rate of $157.50 per month, which advances to $183.50 at the end of 90 days ;
that the highest classification was senior planning clerk with a maximum rate
of $353.50 per month; and that there were minimum and maximum rates for all
-classifications.
b. Concluding findings
In supporting its request for information as to current wage rates, the Union
-had explained that it was necessary (1) to enable the Union to negotiate intelli-
gently on its proposal for a general wage increase, and (2) in order to "police"
the established rate ranges, i. e., to ascertain whether salaries being paid to indi-
vidual employees were under, within, or over the established ranges. As justi-
fying its concern on the latter score, the Union referred to three instances in other
-units of Respondent's employees in which the Union was likewise the bargaining
agent where it had accidentally learned that the employees were receiving less
than the minimum for the job.
These reasons seem legitimate support for the Union's request and in full con-
sonance with its statutory functions. Obviously, it could not intelligently repre-
sent the employees in the bargaining negotiations for a general increase then
under way without knowing their current wage rates.
Furthermore, as the recognized bargaining agent, it was the Union's duty
to make inquiries and investigations as it deemed appropriate in order to deter-
mine whether the salaries and merit increases were within the agreed range. It
would be derelict in its duty if it did less. The Union's responsibility is here in
-fact greater than that which ordinarily rests on a bargaining representative
because the entire matter of merit increases had been left within the discretion
of management. As the Supreme Court has observed (J. I. Case Co. v. N. L. R. B.
321 U. S. 332, 338)
The practice and philosophy of collective bargaining looks with suspicion
on such individual advantages..., They are a fruitful way of interfering
with organization and choice of representatives ; increased compensation, if
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individually deserved, is often earned at the cost of breaking down some other
standard thought to be for the welfare of the group, and always creates the.
suspicion of being paid at the long-range expense of the group as a whole.
The contract itself reflects recognition, through the establishment of a grievance-
procedure, that differences of opinion might arise from the administration of this.
and other of its provisions. The Union's functions under that procedure ob
viously could not be performed without a "policing" of the rate ranges.
We turn then to a consideration of the matters which Respondent asserts as
justification of its refusal to furnish the Union the requested information. Re-
spondent rests its defenses on two main grounds: (1) Such information is
confidential; and (2) the unit was a small one and the Union could readily have
procured the information from the employees. Respondent also argues that it.
could refuse to furnish the information because the individual employees:
(principals) had not authorized it to disclose the information to the Union
(agent).
These issues are now well settled under decisions both of the Board and of
the courts. As the Board recently pointed out, in the Cincinnati Steel Castings
case, 86 NLRB 592:
As we have frequently held, an employer's refusal during bargaining nego-
tiations to furnish necessary information to the representative of his.
employees shows a lack of good faith in bargaining and constitutes in itself'
a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act [citing cases set out in the.
margin] .4
We agree, as the General Counsel contends, that it was necessary for'
the union in this case to have full information as to the names of the em-
ployees in the unit, their wage rates, and their classifications in order for'
it to intelligently represent the employees in the contract negotiations.
The Board's decision in the Aluminum, Ore case and the Court of Appeals'
decision ordering enforcement disposed of the contention that the information!
was confidential. The Board said (39 NLRB at 1297) :
In this situation, an employer bargaining in good faith would not have
withheld the information requested, nor would the employees be privileged.
against its disclosure since the information is essential to the intelligent.
bargaining on their behalf required by the Act.
The Court of Appeals discussed the point more extensively (131 F. 2d at 487) :.
It appears further that when the union expressed willingness to bargain,
upon the basis suggested 'by petitioner, namely, that of related groups, and
when petitioner announced certain increases, the union requested that it be-
supplied with the information contained in petitioner's records of employ-
ment, in order that it might have a complete picture of the wage history of'
the various group-members to whom increases were granted. This, petitioner'
said, was confidential.
Again we do not believe that it was the intent of Congress in this legis-
lation that, in the collective bargaining prescribed, the union, as representa-
tive of the employees, should be deprived of the pertinent facts constituting'
4 Aluminum Ore Companay, 39 NLRB 1286, enforced 131 F. 2d 485 (C. A. 7) ; J. H.
Allison d Company, 70 NLRB 377, enforced 165 F. 2d 766 (C. A. 6) ; cert. denied 335
U. S. 9,05; Vanette Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116; Dixie Manufacturing Company, 75
NLRB 645; National Grinding Wheel Company, 75 NLRB 905; Sherman-Williams Company,.
34 NLRB 651.
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1199
the wage history of its members. We can conceive of no justification for
:a claim that such information is confidential. Rather it seems to go to the
very root of the facts upon which the merits were to be resolved. In de-
termining what employees should receive increases and in what amounts, it
-could have been only helpful to have before the bargainers the wage history
of the various employees, including full information as to the work done by
.the respective employees and as to their respective wages in the past, their
respective increases from time to time and all other facts bearing upon what
constituted fair wages and fair increases. And if there be any reasonable
basis for the contention that this may have been confidential data of the
employer before the passage of the Act, it seems to us it cannot be so held
in the face of the expressed social and economic purposes of the statute.
The contention that the Union could have secured the information from the
(employees themselves was made both in the Aluminum Ore and the Allison cases,
but was upheld in neither. The following observation made in the Allison case
^70 NLRB at 385) is particularly apropos to the present case:
Nor is it any answer for the respondent to urge as it does here that the
Union might have obtained this information from its own members. Since
it is a proper subject for collective bargaining, it is the responsibility of the
respondent to furnish this information and it cannot urge that the Union
seek some other recourse which may under the circumstances prove impos-
sible, or at least inconvenient and embarrassing. That the respondent recog-
nized this is shown by the testimony of its own vice president to the effect
that he realized that some employees might not desire to let the Union know
they had received an individual increase in wages.
The record here contains a corresponding acknowledgment by Respondent's
counsel in oral argument that :
. . . there is a disposition or a tendency on the part of the employees perhaps
to exaggerate the salary they are receiving . . . sometimes they are not dis-
posed to tell a person what their salary is. That is a perfectly natural thing.
The small size of the unit and the fact that 25 out of the 27 or 28 employees
therein were members of the Union is therefore beside the point which Respondent
urges since, as recognized by the Board and the respondent in the Allison case
and by the Respondent here, union members might (as well as nonunion members)
hesitate to inform the Union what individual increases they had received.
The simple, clear fact that emerges is that the only source of accurate and
authentic information as to the employees' current wage rates is the Respond-
ent's payroll records. The small size of the unit is material only as empha-
sizing the reasonableness of the Union's request and the ease with which the
Respondent can comply. There is and can be no claim that compliance would be_
"so burdensome or time consuming as to impede the process of bargaining" (cf.
Cincinnati Steel Casting Co., supra) ; indeed, Respondent's counsel conceded in
oral argument that the information could be supplied in a few minutes.
There remains for consideration Respondent's contention that it could legally
refuse to furnish the requested information because the individual employees,
as principals, had not authorized the employer to disclose it to the Union, their
agent. Such claim is without support in law or logic.
First, it runs counter to the statutory authority of the Union to act as "the
exclusive representative of all the employees in [the appropriate] unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployment, or other conditions of employment." (Section 9 (a).) It likewise-
runs counter to Respondent's own contractual recognition of the Union "as sole
bargaining agent" of said employees "for the purposes of collective bargaining"
in respect to the same matters.
By statute, then, the bargaining agent's authority is fixed, and by contract the
Respondent expressly recognized it. Such authority extended (as held in the
above-cited cases) to the Union's right to request and to receive information
essential to an intelligent representation of its principals, the employees. No
additional and specific authorization in that regard is required from the indi-
vidual employees as argued by the Respondent. The statute supplied all that
was required
Respondent's argument is apparently premised on a confusion of the relation-
ships between the parties. Thus, were the situation one in which the employees
were principals, the Respondent, their agent, and the Union an ordinary third
party seeking information or data in Respondent's possession belonging to or
concerning the employees, Respondent might then urge that it could with pro-
priety require the authorization of its employee principals to disclose the informa-
tion. Indeed only unless some such confusion of relationship by Respondent is-
postulated, does Respondent's argument seem understandable.
Upon a consideration of the entire record, it is therefore concluded and found:,
that Respondent, by refusing to furnish the Union the information requested, has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and.
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in Division III, above, occurring in corr -
nection with the operations of Respondent described in Division I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among.
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing-
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices it,
will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certaia+
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having foundl
that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing.
to furnish the Union the current salary rates of the employees within the unit,
it will be recommended that Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with
the Union by supplying such information to the Union. J. H. Allison and Conn-
pamy, supra; NationatGrinding Wheel Company, supra.
Because of the limited scope of Respondent's refusal to bargain and the,
absence of any evidence that danger of other unfair labor practices is to be
5 Respondent made no contention that any of the employees had requested or directed it.
not to disclose the information sought by the Union. Such claim, if pleaded and proved,
would not appear to constitute a defense, since the Union's authority as bargaining agent
is fixed by the statute and since there is no provision by which, so long as it exists, to
can be revoked in whole or in part by acts of individual employees in the bargaining unit.
THE EL'E'CTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1201
anticipated from Respondent's conduct, it will not be recommended that Respon-
dent cease and desist from the commission of any other unfair labor practices..
J. H. Allison and Company, supra.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the.
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5),
of the Act.
2. All salaried employees of the planning department in the Respondent's.
Champlain Street plant, excluding the planning manager, the assistant planning
manager, the material purchasing supervisors, the secretary to the planning
manager, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap--
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times since August 1944, the Union has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing, at all times since June 15, 1949, to furnish the Union.
with the current salary rates for the individual employees within the unit,
thereby failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
engbged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its-
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of'
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting.
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the.
entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit by failing:
and refusing to furnish the Union with the current salary rates for the individual
employees in the unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act :
(a) Upon request furnish the Union with the current salary rates for the
individual employees in the unit in order to enable the Union to discharge its
functions as the statutory representative of the employees in the appropriate,
unit ;
(b) Post at its plant at Toledo, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and'
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, Re-
spondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the
foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National La-
bor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an
original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the rec-
•ord or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and
,any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately
-upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements
of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the
record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mime-
ographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.55.
As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission
to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to
the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring
tlQ case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.45 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 10th day of February 1950.
GEORGE A. DOWNING,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with -INIECHANIcs EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, LOCAL #4, as the exclusive representative of all our
,employees in the appropriate unit described below, with respect to furnish-
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE COMPANY 1203
ing said Union information as to the current salary rates for the individal
employees in said unit.
WE WILL FURNISH the above-named Union upon request information as
to the current salary rates for each of our individual employees in said unit,
such as will enable said union properly to discharge its functions as the
statutory representative of the employees in said unit.
The bargaining unit is: All salaried employees of the planning depart-
ment in the Respondent's Champlain Street plant, excluding the planning
manager, the assistant planning manager, the material purchasing super-
visors, the secretary to the planning manager, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
THE ELECTRIC AUTO-KITE COMPANY,
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.
889227-51-vol. 89-77