General Electic Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 14 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Electric Company and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 705. Case
8-CA-5591
October 16, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On May 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Harold X.
Summers issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief
in answer to the Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
party in this kind of dispute. I would dismiss the
complaint.
i We hereby correct the Trial Examiner 's inadvertent error in referring
to the filing date of the unfair labor practice charge as October 27, 1969,
instead of September 16, 1969.
2 While we agree with our dissenting colleague that an employer's
obligation to supply relevant and necessary information does not also
entail the obligation that such information be made available in the exact
form requested by a union , we fail to see how the application of this
principle can serve to resolve the issue before us In the present case, the
Trial Examiner recognized that the Union had no right to insist that the
information be provided in the precise manner and form requested.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner found it necessary to determine whether
or not the video tapes offered by Respondent would have served as a
reasonable substitute for the in-plant job evaluations requested by the
Union In passing on this question , the Trial Examiner , on the basis of the
credited evidence, concluded that the video tapes would not constitute a
necessarily reliable and reasonably expeditious substitute for an in-plant
evaluation We can perceive of no legitimate basis for overturning this
finding of the Trial Examiner and, as a consequence , we are constrained to
conclude that there was no justification for Respondent 's refusal to comply
with the Union's request.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HAROLD X. SUMMERS , Trial Examiner: In this proceed-
ing, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board,
respectively) issued a complaint' alleging that General
Electric Company (herein, Respondent), at its so-called
Dover Wire and Fabrication Operation, had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). The answer to the complaint admitted some
of its allegations and denied others ; in effect , it denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to
notice, a hearing was held before me at New Philadelphia,
Ohio, on December 16, 1969; all parties were afforded full
opportunity to call and examine and to cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and thereafter to submit briefs.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case, including my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based upon my
observation of their demeanor, I make the following:
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that Respondent, General Electric Company, New
Philadelphia, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting:
I had thought the rule of law to be that while an
employer must supply relevant and necessary infor-
mation to a union, he need not supply it in precisely
the form requested. Here the Respondent offered
video-tapes as a substitute for the union proposal of
on-site evaluation. The Union's summary rejection of
the offer is what brought this case to issue. Had the
Union observed the tapes, this entire dispute might
have been avoided. I do not see that the Act is best
effectuated by encouraging adamant stands by either
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a New York corporation with enterprises
in various States of the United States. This proceeding
involves the plant it operates at Dover, Ohio, known as the
Dover Wire and Fabrication Operation (herein, Dover
plant), where it is engaged in the manufacture of
i The complaint was issued on October 27, 1969 . The unfair labor
practice charge initiating the proceeding was filed on September 16, 1969
2 On or about January 6 , 1970, Respondent filed a "request " for certain
corrections in the transcript of hearing herein and, on March 31 , I issued
an order to show cause why the transcript should not be corrected in
specified respects some but not all of which corrections were contemplated
by Respondent 's request. No good cause to the contrary having been
shown , the corrections indicated in the order to show cause (which is
hereby received in the record as Trial Examiner 's Exhibit 1) are hereby
ordered made, with the following exceptions the correction proposed by
the show-cause order at page 51 , line 9 ("R-18" for "R-17") will not be
made , in addition to the corrections proposed by the order , "contested" is
hereby substituted for "concluded" at page 14, line 22, and "manners" is
hereby substituted for "matters" at page 83 , line 9 Respondent 's request is
(Continued)
186 NLRB No. I
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 15
molybdenum wire and fabricated molybdenum parts for
the lamp and electronic industries. Each year, in the course
and conduct of its business operations at this plant,
Respondent ships manufactured products valued at more
than $50,000 directly from the Dover plant to points
outside the State of Ohio.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION
The charging party herein , International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC,
and its Local 705 (herein called the Union 3), is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Setting
Between 1966 and 1969, there was a "National Agree-
ment" between General Electric Company on the one
hand, and the International and various of its locals on the
other, covering the working conditions of employees in a
number of bargaining units represented by the Internation-
al and/or those locals. The agreement, by its terms, went
into effect for the original signatories as of October 3, 1966;
was to apply to other bargaining units when and if the
International and/or other locals acquired appropriate
Board certifications; and was to be effective for at least 3
years.
Article XIII 2(b)(2) of the contract concerns the second
step of the grievance procedure and states as follows:
Meetings between representatives of the Local and
local management shall be arranged at mutually
agreeable times for the purpose of discussing such
grievance. In those cases where it is mutually agreed by
Management and Local representatives that an inspec-
tion of the job would be helpful in settling the case, a
sub-committee of the Local with Management repre-
sentatives shall be allowed to make an inspection of the
job. Local representatives may include the Business
Agent or his Assistant or officers of the Local.
On or about April 27, 1967, the International-which, at
the Dover plant, acted through Local 705-was certified by
the Regional Director for Region 8 of the Board as
exclusive bargaining agent for a unit consisting of:
All production and maintenance employees [at the
Dover plant] including group leaders and production
plating specialists, excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, engineering technicians, shipping and receiving
clericals and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act,
hereby granted to the extent it seeks corrections which have been made by
this order, in all other respects, it is denied
3 Except when it becomes necessary to distinguish between the
International and Local 705
4 The Union's joinder in the stipulation was without prejudice to its
contention-being made in other Board proceedings now pending-that a
multi-General Electric-plant umt is likewise an appropriate bargaining unit
5 Unless the contrary is indicated, all dates referred to herein fall within
1969
6 Throughout the hearing, different names were used for the jobs in
question The General Counsel and his witnesses continually referred to
and thereupon, pursuant to the terms of the National
Agreement, the Union became a party thereto.
I find, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties,4 that the
unit described above is appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
B. Chronology of Events
On May 19, 1969,5 Local 705, through a steward, filed a
grievance concerning the wages being paid for two jobs
being performed at the plant, jobs "in the Fabrication
Department, namely Grinding and Set-up Punch Press." In
effect, by its action, Local 705 was seeking to restore the
pay for the first job, now rated at "R-16" on Respondent's
pay scale, to the R-17 rating from which it had been
downgraded in 1965, and to upgrade the second job from
its present R-17 to R-19; and it requested a written answer
by next day. On the 20th, Respondent, through several
foremen, responded: "We feel the General Operator and
Set-up Fabrication and General Operator and Set-up
forming rates are proper."6
The grievance having been thus denied, Local 705 caused
it to be referred to local plant management (Step 2 of the
established grievance machinery), and a meeting between
plant officials and Local 705 representatives was held on
July 7. The former explained, with respect to the grinders'
job, that the downgrading from R-17 to R-16 had resulted
from a reshuffling of functions-the elimination of certain
duties and the assignment of other duties to a group leader;
the latter, in effect, disputed that there had been any real
change. As for the set-up punch press man's job, the Local
representatives contended that his rate was below that
prevailing for similar jobs in the area, a contention which
was not acquiesced in by management.
The meeting ended with a request by Local 705's
president, Emmet Schide, for another meeting with an
International representative in attendance; he expressed
the need "for someone better qualified."
Paul Rinaldi, International representative, was apprised
of the matter at the July meeting of Local 705's executive
board. (He had not been aware of the grievance earlier.)
Learning also that-apparently by inadvertance-the
grievance had now been referred to the Union's "National
Officers" in New York City for discussions with Respon-
dent's top management (Step 3 of the grievance procedure),
he took steps, by agreement with Respondent, to have the
matter referred back to Step 2; and a second meeting was
scheduled for August 28.
Rinaldi was present at the second meeting, at which, once
again, the merits of the grievance were discussed.
During this meeting, company representatives pointed
out that, with respect to the grinder's job, the work
the "grinders" and the "set-up punch press man" while Respondent, in
references by counsel and in explanations by witnesses , characterized the
jobs as parts of the categories of "General Operator and Set-Up
Fabrication" and "General Operator and Set-up Forming," respectively
But it is clear, and I find, that there was no confusion in the parties' minds
as to which jobs were involved, they were, in fact-throughout the
discussions which are noted below and throughout this hearing-concerned
with two specific, clearly identifiable, and identified jobs at the plant For
convenience sake, I shall here refer to them as those of "grinder" and "set-
up" punch press man "
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performed had, prior to 1965, been in a new operation and
on a limited basis; when it was decided that the volume of
business warranted a continuation, a redefinition and
reevaluation took place which resulted in the reduction in
grade-all prior to the Union's certification as bargaining
agent. As for the punch press job, Local President Schide
furnished some, but incomplete, information with respect
to his survey of area rates. In the course of the discussion,
Elsworth, an industrial relations officer of Respondent, said
that the current grades for the two jobs had been set only
after they had been compared with other jobs in the plant
and fitted into the occupational structure; but, asked for
any documentary material relating to such a study, he said
he knew of no such material.
Rinaldi indicated that the Union could not properly
process the grievance without having examined thejobs in
question in order to compare them with others; and he
asked permission to come into the plant for this purpose.
Elsworth denied the request at this time; it was against
company policy, he said, to allow "outsiders" in the plant,
but he would check into the matter.
Several days later, Harold Ramsey, who, as the Dover
plant's employee and community relations supervisor, had
attended both grievance meetings, gave Schide Respon-
dent's answer to Rinaldi's request: it would not permit him
to enter the plant for the purpose indicated. At or about the
same time, Ramsey showed Schide a job analysis form
covering the grinders' reduction of which, he said, Elsworth
had been unaware at the time of the meeting, and he invited
Schide to make a copy for himself.
On or about October 14, Schide met with Ramsey.? The
circumstances of the grievance were reviewed for the third
time. In the course of the discussion, Ramsey expressed a
willingness to abide by the Board's final decision in a
pending case,8 but Schide was not willing to wait. The issue,
he said, boiled down to whether Respondent would
increase the rates as requested or would permit Rinaldi to
conduct an in-plant evaluation. At or about this point,
Ramsey offered to make and to furnish a video tape of the
operations on the two jobs, a tape which could be studied
by Rinaldi. At meeting's end, Schide said he wanted to
review this suggestion with Rinaldi.
Next day, having discussed the video tape offer with
Rinaldi, Schide told Ramsey that it was not acceptable.
This was the parties' last contact on the subject. The
unfair labor practice charge initiating this proceeding was
filed on October 27 9
C. Discussion-Conclusions
It is well settled , and Respondent concedes, that , absent
an effective waiver , Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an
° The meeting was set up at Schide's request, upon his having heard that
Respondent would like to make further attempts to settle the matter "at the
local level ." (Rinaldi did not attend )
B The reference was to a case involving Respondent's Youngstown,
Ohio, plant , a proceeding in which a Board decision has since issued See
infra
9 Meanwhile, the 3-year period constituting the term of the collective-
bargaining agreement referred to earlier herein had ended on October 26.
Shortly thereafter , no new agreement having been reached , the employees
at the Dover plant (along with those at other of Respondent 's installations
for which the International or one of its affiliates acted as bargaining
employer, upon request, to furnish all information relevant
and necessary to a bargaining representative's intelligent
performance of its function, among others, of policing and
administering an existing agreement . And the "furnishing
of information" includes the granting of permission to
conduct in-plant time studies.io
Respondent here contends, first, that the Union has
waived its statutory right herein by virtue of Article XIII
2(b)(2) of the collective-bargaining contract, quoted supra,
in the subsection on "Background and Setting." (At no
point in their discussion-I find-did either Union or
management representatives suggest resort to this aspect of
the grievance machinery.) But the Board has already passed
upon this contention, based upon the identical clause: the
second-step joint inspection of a job was designed to help to
settle a grievance and was no substitute for a union's need
for information to help evaluate a grievance and to
determine upon future action; neither the provision nor the
negotiations which led to its adoption constituted a waiver
of the statutory right to information.ii There has been no
waiver here.
Next, Respondent contends that a union timestudy of the
job of set-up punch press man was not relevant to the
Union's performance of its duties as bargaining representa-
tive. Since the Union's asserted basis for this aspect of the
grievance was that the rate was out of line with community
rates, a resolution of the issue-the argument runs-would
not be furthered by an on-the-job evaluation of the set-up
punch press man's duties. The argument ignores the fact
that, since (I here find) the present rate on the job was set
after an on-the-job evaluation by Respondent's representa-
tive, a similar operation by a union representative might
well furnish the Union with information which would
bolster its community-rates position or which would,
indeed, cause it to abandon its position.12 I find that the
requested timestudy was relevant to the processing of this
aspect of the grievance.
Finally, Respondent contends that the General Counsel
has not established the necessity for the requested in-plant
job evaluation. Encompassed within this general contention
are a number of subarguments: (a) There is no per se right
on the part of a bargaining representative to make such a
study, as claimed by the charging party; it may or may not
be necessary, depending on the circumstances. (b) The
request was made by the Union, assertedly without giving
the basis therefor, even though other methods of acquiring
the necessary information had not been explored. (c)
Assuming, without conceding, that Article XIII 2(b)(2) did
not amount to a waiver, the on job inspection which it
afforded might have provided all the information the
Union needed to process the grievance. (d) Respondent did
not finally reject the Union's request. It made several
agent) went on strike The strike was still in effect at the time of the instant
hearing
10 Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg Co, Inc, 169 NLRB No 82
11 General Electric Company (Hickory North Carolina plant), 173 NLRB
No 22, enfd 414 F 2d 918 (C A 4) (filing of the grievances in question
preceded the adoption of the clause), General Electric Company
(Youngstown Lamp Plant), 180 NLRB No 13 (filing postdated adoption of
clause)
12 See Fafnir Bearing Co, 146 NLRB 1582 (enfd 362 F 2d 716 (C A 2)),
at 1587
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 17
counterproposals, including the offer of the video tape,
counterproposals the effectuation of which might have
given the Union whatever information it needed. (e) The
Union precipitously rejected Respondent's offer to furnish
a video tape, without reason other than "total unacceptabil-
ity," even though, assertedly, the tape, viewed and
discussed with the incumbents of the jobs, would either
furnish all the information the Union needs or, at the least,
form the basis for further discussion with Respondent. (f)
Lastly-and this pervades all the other subarguments-the
Union's agents, by their summary rejection of all proposals
except their insistence upon an in-plant evaluation,
prematurely closed off all approaches to their supposed
objective. Under the circumstances , Respondent submits,
there had been no refusal to bargain on its part.
The resolution of the problem lies in the proper
interpretation of the word "necessary," as used in the
present context. 13 In agreement with Respondent, I do not
believe a job evaluation is "necessary" merely because a
bargaining representative claims or even believes that it is
necessary. On the other hand, I am not persuaded that, in
order for the evaluation to be considered a necessity, it need
be shown that there is no alternative. The test, I submit is
whether under the circumstances, the action proposed is the
only reliable and reasonably expeditious device for
accomplishing an objective of the Act-making it possible
for a bargaining representative intelligently to precess a
grievance.
Here, I find, there were no officials of Local 705 who
were able to make an evaluation of the two jobs in question,
whether by in-plant inspection or otherwise; it was
"necessary" that the evaluation be made by someone who
was qualified, such as Local 705's designee, Rinaldi.
Furthermore, I find, in agreement with the General
Counsel, that Respondent's offer to furnish video tapes of
the jobs to Rinaldi did not, constitute a necessarily reliable
and reasonably expeditious substitute for an in-plant
evaluation. For one thing, opportunity abounds for the
camera to be selectively deficient, by design or otherwise, a
disability which might or might not be detected by a
workman unversed in job study; for another, a tape,
however skillfully produced, must of necessity omit much
of the contextual surroundings in which the job is
performed. (Significantly, Respondent had established the
rates on the jobs in question as a result of visual inspection
by more than one trained official, not by tapes.) 14 In my
opinion, Rinaldi's examination of the tapes, at best, could
only lead to further inquiries, a circumstance which could
only delay discussions on the merits of the grievance. I find
that the in-plant job evaluation was "necessary."
Indeed, the Board has passed 'upon the question in its
decisions relating to Respondent's Hickory and Youngs-
town plants.15 It found requested timestudies to be both
relevant and necessary to enable the union intelligently to
process grievances. I find that the distinctions between
those cases and this which have been pointed out by
Respondent are not differences in substance.16
In sum, on what I consider to be a fair preponderance of
the evidence, I find and conclude that Respondent failed
and refused to bargain collectively with the bargaining
representative of its employees on and after August 28,
1969.
Upon the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, I
come to the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. On and since August 28, 1969, by refusing the
Union's request to permit its International representative to
enter Respondent's Dover plant for the purpose of
conducting job evaluations relevant and necessary to the
processing of grievances, Respondent has refused and is
refusing to bargain with the Union within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid acts are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce 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 , I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case
13 Most of the cases on the subject have concerned themselves with the
relevance of the information in question , but the requirement of necessity
has been injected , perhaps by indirection , in a number of decisions. For
example, in N.L. R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 384 U.S. 432, 435, the Court,
in deciding whether a union was entitled to be furnished with certain
information although arbitration was available , said "There can be no
question of the general obligation of an employer to provide information
that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance
of its duties." In Hamburg Shirt Corp.,v N.LR.B., 419 F.2d 1275, 1276, the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that "The Company's
disclosure (of information about its one time studies should not forclose
the Union from obtaining its own time studies.... The Union's need for
this linformation is apparent ...... The Court of Appeals for the
finding that the employer 's refusal to permit a union to make a piece rate
study violated the Act, said , at page 836: "If needed during the
performance under an existing contract, [the information to be derived
from the study] may be of even more significance in negotiations looking
toward the making of an agreement ." Finally, in Timken Roller Bearing v.
N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 746, 751 (C.A. 6), the court, in deciding whether the
union 's right to the information in question derived from a contract or
from the Act said that "the Union's right to wage information it needed to
administer the bargaining agreement was a right which it had under
Section 8(d) of [the Act] ...." (Emphasis supplied in all cases.)
14 In the course of his testimony , John Donahue, general manager of
forming and fabrication at the Dover plant and a witness : called by
Respondent, said : "[How long it took to observe these jobs ] would depend
on actually setting down and putting all this together . It is a matter of
watching . You can't just look at the machine and evaluate it, from that
aspect . You have to look at it from the start , looking at the machine and
observing it in operation."
15 Citations at footnote 11, supra.
16 Also, see General Electric Company (Ohio Lamp Plant), , 179 NLRB
No. 122; Hamburg Shirt Corp.,,175 NLRB No. 48, enfd. 419 F.2d 1275
(C.A. 8); and Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 166 NLRB 101, enfd . 403 F.2d 832
(C.A. 5).
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
recommend that the Board issue the following:
ORDER 17
General Electric Company, at its Dover (Ohio) plant, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 705, by refusing to permit
the Union, through its International representative, to enter
its Dover plant for the purpose of conducting job
evaluations relevant and necessary to the processing of
grievances.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any
and all such activities except to the extent that such right (to
refrain) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, permit the Union, through its
International representative or other representative of its
own choosing, to enter Respondent's Dover plant for the
purpose of conducting job evaluations relevant and
necessary to the processing of grievances.
(b) Post at its plant at Dover, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.19
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
18 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 8 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 705, as the
statutory bargaining representative of our production
and maintenance employees at our Dover (Ohio) Wire
and Fabrication Operation by refusing to permit the
Union, through its International representative or other
representative of its own choosing, to enter our plant for
the purpose of conducting job evaluations relevant and
necessary to the processing of employee grievances.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively on
behalf of our production and maintenance employees.
ELECTRIC COMPANY
(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
date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1695
Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland,
Ohio 44199, Telephone 513-684-3686.