General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 27
General Electric Company ( Youngstown Lamp Plant)
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case
8-CA-5232
December 12, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On August 5, 1969, Trial Examiner Fannie M.
Boyls issued her 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,' as modified herein.
1. Delete from paragraphs 1(a) and 2 (a) that part
thereof which reads "relevant or necessary to the
processing of employee grievances or complaints,"
and substitute therefor "relevant and necessary to
the processing of employee grievances."
2. Delete from the first substantive paragraph of
the Appendix that part thereof which reads
"relevant or necessary to the processing of employee
grievances or complaints" and substitute therefor
"relevant and necessary to the processing of
employee grievances."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M. BoYLS, Trial Examiner: This case, based
upon a charge filed on November 14, 1968, and a
complaint issued on December 23, 1968, was tried before
me at Youngstown, Ohio, on April 2 and 3, 1969. The
complaint alleged that Respondent had violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
refusing to permit an International Representative of the
Union representing its employees to enter Respondent's
Youngstown plant in order to evaluate and/or time study
the employees working on certain jobs concerning which
the Union had received complaints or grievances about
rates or production requirements Respondent filed an
answer in which it denied that it had engaged in any of
the unfair labor practices alleged Subsequent to the
hearing, the General Counsel, the Respondent and the
Charging Party filed briefs which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and upon my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testified, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner 2 as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
General Electric Company (Youngstown Lamp
Plant), Youngstown, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as herein modified:
'The Respondent contends that the issue in this case , as stated by the
Trial Examiner , was outside the allegations in the complaint, and that the
Respondent had no notice of, or opportunity to defend on, that issue The
Trial Examiner's Decision states that the issue was "whether any
proprietary or other interest of Respondent outweighs in importance the
right of the employees to choose whatever person they wish to represent
them " After careful consideration of the entire record, we find no merit in
the Respondent 's contention that it was denied a fair hearing and due
process
'In the event this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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 "
Respondent is a New York corporation having plants in
various states of the United States, including the
Youngstown Lamp Plant, located in Youngstown, Ohio
(which is the plant here involved), where it is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of lamps and related products.
In the course and conduct of its business, Respondent
annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from
its Youngstown plant directly to points located outside the
State of Ohio. On the basis of these admitted facts, I find
that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and Issues
For a number of years the Union has been the
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
180 NLRB No. 13
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production and maintenance employees employed at its
Youngstown Lamp Plant. The parties are now, and at all
times material herein have been, signatories to a National
Agreement covering these employees. This agree rent
provides for a three-step grievance procedure, the first at
the foreman level, the second at the local management
level and the third at a meeting of the national officers of
the Union and executive officers of Respondent.
Grievances may be initiated by an employee, a group of
employees, a steward or the Local Grievances of a
general nature are initiated at the second step of the
grievance procedure by the chief steward, acting for the
Local. A grievance which remains unsettled after the
completion of the third step is subject to arbitration only
if it involves the interpretation or application of the
contract or a disciplinary penalty.
The issues in this case revolve around employee
dissatisfaction with certain job classifications or
production requirements or standards and Respondent's
refusal to permit the Union's time study expert, an
International Representative, to enter its plants for the
purpose of making a job evaluation or time study of the
job classifications in issue. All of these jobs are hourly
rated, day work jobs The Union does not question the
right of Respondent initially to conduct job evaluations
and set R rates for new jobs without Union participation
in the time or job evaluation studies It is only where a
dispute or grievance thereafter arises over the fairness of a
job classification or the amount of work required of an
employee working on such job that the Union contends it
has the right to have its own expert in job evaluations and
time study, whether he be an employee or nonemployee
expert, conduct a study of the job to determine the
fairness of the rate or of the production standards set by
Respondent. Respondent, while willing to permit its own
employees who serve as Union officers or stewards to
make these evaluations or time studies, is unwilling to let
any nonemployee union representative enter its plant for
that purpose. The issues arise in the context of the
complaints or grievances described below.'
B The General Grievance Filed on October 16, 1968
On October 16, 1968, the Union, acting through its
chief steward, Marvel E. Granberry, filed at the second
step of the grievance procedure a general grievance
protesting the refusal of Respondent to allow an
International Representative of the Union to come into its
plant to evaluate certain enumerated jobs - which are all
of those listed in the complaint except those of Annex
employees S Respondent, through John D. Riegel, its
Supervisor of Employee and Community Relations,
replied in writing on November 7, 1968, as follows: "The
Company does not mutually agree to let an International
Representative of the IUE into the Plant for the purpose
of evaluating the jobs listed in your grievance of October
16, 1968. The Company is willing to meet and go over its
evaluation of these day work jobs with the Union."
'In addition, Respondent contends that even if the Union had a statutory
right to have a nonemployee representative enter its plant to conduct job
evaluation or time studies, it waived this right in the negotiation of its
National Contract during the 1966 negotiations This same contention
regarding the National Contract , however, was considered and rejected by
the Board in General Electric Company. 173 NLRB No 22, and by the
court in General Electric Company v N L R B . 414 F 2d 918 (C A 4)
These decisions are dispositive of the waiver issue in this case
The following job classifications listed in the general
grievance, their rating and the nature of the complaints or
grievances concerning them are now briefly described.
The Poly Card - Blister Pack job classification was
rated by Respondent at R-10. On August 30, 1968,
employee Barbara Grizinski, who was a packer on this
operation, received a warning notice charging her with
"lack of proper job application." She was warned that "If
this condition is not corrected further disciplinary action
w-II be taken " She filed a grievance on October I, 1963,
claiming "continuous harassment by the foreman, who
expects piecework effort for a time work job " She
claimed that the warning notice was discriminatory and
requested that it be rescinded Her foreman replied in
writing on October 2 as follows "As your reviewed record
shows, I am not pleased with your job application and the
primary reason for the warning is to impress on you the
need for improvement With improved performance, the
warning notice will automatically be void in 12 months "
Grizinski's grievance, at the second step, was presented
by the Union's Chief Steward, Marvel Granberry, on
October 7 to Supervisor Riegel On October 18
Granberry, the Local Union's President, William
Connelly, and other employee union representatives met
with Riegel and his assistant, to discuss this grievance
There was a discussion of the foreman's first step oral
agreement to rescind the warning upon a 10 percent
production improvement by Grizinski The union
representatives expressed the view that this was an
incentive type job and asked if a time study had been
made of the job After Riegel replied that a study had
been made, the Union requested the study and the
grievance was tabled until the next meeting at which
Riegel was to produce the study. At further grievance
meetings on October 25 and November 5, the grievance
was again tabled after Riegel stated that he did not have
the study with him. At the November 5 meeting the
parties also discussed the general grievance which the
Union had filed on October 16 protesting Respondent's
refusal to permit an International representative of the
Union to come into the plant to evaluate the Poly Card
- Blister Pack job which Grizinski was performing and
other jobs
At a further meeting on November 19, Riegel told the
Committee that Respondent did not have a study on
Grizinski's job.' He explained, however, that Respondent
expected 90 percent of the 2,000 unit an hour production
which Grizinski' s machine was capable of producing He
stated that the warning to Grizinski was justified Union
representatives again requested that they be permitted to
study the job with an outside representative comparing
Grizinski's operation with an operation on another shift.
Riegel replied that it would not be fair to compare studies
between shifts
The grievance was then appealed by the Union to the
third step of the grievance procedure where it was pending
at the date of the hearing Since the grievance involves
disciplinary action, it is apparently subject to compulsory
arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement.'
'Respondent ' s initial refusal to permit the Union' s International
Representative to come into the plant was apparently in connection with
the processing of a grievance filed on June 3, 1968, relating to the Tuff
Skin operation
'Riegel testified that he subsequently located "an attempted " stop-watch
study on Grizinski's type of work which covered about 2 1/2 hours but
that no study had been completed
'The fact that the grievance can be submitted to arbitration , of course,
does not affect the right of the Union to proceed before the Board in this
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 29
The Auto Pack - Jones Machine jobs were rated at
R-9 The rate for this classification and the number of
employees assigned to operate the machines had been the
subject of a grievance as early as June I, 1966 and
Respondent had rejected the grievance . Another grievance
was filed on October 10, 1968 complaining that three
operators , in being required to work eight moving parts
on four machines , were unable to keep up with the heavy
workload and requesting that another permanent
employee be added On October 16, the Union , believing
that the rate was too low for the job content , listed these
jobs with the others in its general grievance protesting
Respondent ' s refusal to permit an International
representative of the Union to come into the plant to
evaluate the jobs Respondent , through Supervisor Riegel
replied in writing on January 2, 1969, to the October 10
grievance , stating that the three operators assigned to the
four packaging machines on the midnight shift were
assigned in the same manner as employees on the other
two shifts but promising to review the workload again
after some additional mechanical changes were
incorporated into the equipment used Subsequent to the
issuance of the complaint in this case and about 6 weeks
prior to the hearing, Respondent changed the proportion
to 4 employees for 5 m achines instead of 3 employees for
4 machines.
The Improved Method Group jobs were rated at R-11.
Originally when these jobs were set up in about 1956, the
employees in this group shared the work of feeding the
machine and inspecting and packaging the lamps and
received an R-12 incentive rate . After changes in the
operation and in the duties and responsibilities of some of
the employees in this group , their rates were reduced to
R-lI and R -9. On May 21, 1968, the Union filed a
grievance protesting as unfair the reduction of the job rate
which had been R-12 incentive to R- lI timework on the
IMG machines On June 6, 1968 , Respondent replied in
writing that "The Server -Attendant is a new job The
operator no longer performs the inspection and packaging
di-ties We feel the job is properly evaluated within our
wage rate structure " The Union, after processing this
grievance through the third level and losing , requested
Respondent to arbitrate and Respondent refused to do so.
The grievance was at the time of the hearing pending
before an arbitrarial council for a decision as to whether
the compulsory arbitration provision of the
collective-bargaining agreement is applicable
The Union, believing the reduced rates unfair and
desiring to have the job evaluated by its expert
representative , included this classification in its general
grievance filed on October 16
The Dip Coat fobs have been rated at R-10 since 1966.
The Union ' s chief steward , after receiving complaints
from employees in the Dip Coat area that they were
having to do part of the job of a finisher which was rated
at R-I1 and that their job was underrated, included this
job classification in the October 16 general grievance. The
union representatives contended the jobs should be rated
at R-l I incentive and desired their own expert to evaluate
the jobs to determine whether there was merit to the
employees ' complaints.
The Tuff Skin classification was put into operation and
rated at R-10 in about March 1966 On June 3, 1968 the
Union filed two grievances regarding this operation In
one it protested that Respondent had put into operation
unfair labor practice proceeding N L R B v Acme Industrial Co , 385
U S 432
the new Tuff Skin job without negotiating with the Union
as to the job rate and job procedure Respondent replied
on July 3, that "This operation was reviewed with the
Union at the time of start-up, at which time the
temporary rate and job definitions were commented upon
More permanent job definitions and rates were discussed
on June 19, 1968 "
The other grievance filed on June 3 protested against
Respondent "having employees in Tuff Skin work at R-10
job rate and doing finisher's job which is R-11 rate "
Respondent replied on July 3 that "The Packer-Operator
R-10 definition on the Tuff Skin operation was properly
evaluated within our wage rate structure, as brought out
in our meeting of June 19, 1968." When Respondent
refused to permit the Union's International Representative
to come into the plant to make a job evaluation on the
Tuff Skin job, the Union included this job in its general
grievance filed on October 16
The Bulb Loaders operation was rated at R-9.
Respondent originally had two employees operating eight
lanes of bulbs down a conveyor After Respondent
removed one of the two employees and required the
remaining employee to operate eight lanes alone, the
Union contended that the workload was too heavy and
that in any event the rate was too low The Union
therefore included this operation in its general grievance
filed on October 16 Subsequently Respondent returned to
its former practice of having two employees perform this
operation
The S-81 operation was rated at R-l1. In 1965
Respondent's timestudy and job evaluation expert,
Steward Webster, from its Nela Park, Ohio, base, came
to Youngstown and conducted a stop-watch timestudy and
evaluation of this operation As a result of this study, the
workload of each employee was doubled but the rate
remained the same Thereafter the Union received many
complaints from employees in the area that the rate was
too low for the work involved This fob classification was
accordingly included in the general grievance filed on
October 16, 1968.
C. The Grievance Involving Annex Employees
Robert Schmies, Supervisor of Operations in the Coil
Unit, observing that there was some idle time on the Coil
Dissolving Machines in the Annex to the Lamp Plant,
requested Respondent's time study and evaluation expert,
Webster, in Nela Park, Ohio, to come to Youngstown to
study and evaluate that job. As a result of stop-watch
studies and evaluations, Webster recommended a 50
percent reduction in the work-force on the Coil Dissolving
Machines.
On November 4 Respondent's representatives met with
representatives of the Local Union and explained the
results of the study The union representatives questioned
the correctness of the study and at the Union Committee's
request, one of the employees was permitted to attempt to
time study the operation herself After seeking to make
the time study with a stop-watch, the employee reported
back to the Union's chief steward that she was a nervous
wreck and not qualified to perform the time study
At a further meeting between the parties on November
I I1 the Union's International representative, Rinaldi, was
present. After discussing the study made by Webster,
Rmaldi requested that he be permitted to come into the
Annex to make a study of the operation but Respondent
denied him this permission, stating that it was against
Respondent's policy to permit a nonemployee union
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative to come inside the plant and make such a
study
D. Analysis and Conclusions
As the evidence summarized above indicates, in
connection with each of the complaints involving the job
classifications included in the Union's general grievance
filed on October 16, the Union requested and Respondent
refused permission for the Union's International
representative, a time study and job evaluation expert, to
come into Respondent's plant to observe and study the
jobs involved and the bases for Respondent's action or
proposed action in regard to each Respondent also
refused the Union's request that its International
representative come into the plant for the purpose of
making a time study and evaluation of the Coil Dissolving
Machine jobs in the Annex in order to check the fairness
of Respondent's own stop-watch study which resulted in
its proposal to eliminate 50 percent of the employees on
that operation. With respect to each of the grievances
filed, the record amply demonstrates that a live study and
evaluation of each of the jobs involved would have been
helpful, if not necessary, for a satisfactory resolution of
the Union's complaints.
Except for the S-81 and Annex jobs, which involved
stop-watch time studies, all the other operations here in
issue were given hourly rates after the writing of a job
description, an analysis of the job and a comparison of the
job with other existing jobs to which Respondent
considered them comparable
In determining the rates on the latter jobs initially,
Respondent had, in accordance with its usual practice,
first prepared a job description for the proposed job.'
Next it prepared a job analysis sheet, listing five major
factors to be considered, namely, Skill and Mental
Requirements, Responsibility, Working Conditions,
Mental and Visual Concentration, and Physical
Application Most of these factors were broken down into
various elements or subelements.° In order to determine
what it believed would be a fair hourly rate for the new
job, it was then compared with existing jobs which in the
judgment of Respondent's representatives were most
closely analogous to the new job. Before the new job was
actually put into operation, Respondent reviewed with the
Local union stewards and officers Respondent's evaluation
of the proposed job and gave them an opportunity to
object or make suggestions Accordingly, when the
grievances here involved were later filed, the Local union
employee representatives had some familiarity with the
jobs and how they had initially been rated.
'The International representative also requested copies of the data
presented by Respondent or permission to bring in a copy machine to
make copies, but Respondent refused these requests and insisted that
Union representatives would have to hand copy whatever parts of its
350-page study which the Union might want The complaint does not
allege that Respondent' s conduct in this respect constituted bad faith
bargaining and no finding is based upon such conduct
'Although during the first few grievance meetings relating to the Poly
Card - Blister Pack job classification, Respondent' s representative,
Riegel, apparently believed that the rate had been set pursuant to a
stop-watch time study, he later discovered that such a study had never been
completed and that the R -rate on that job had been fixed following an
analysis, evaluation and comparison with other jobs
'The job descriptions do not list all of the duties of the operator but do
describe the main elements
'In connection with the grievances filed, Respondent furnished the Union
Representatives with the pertinent job descriptions but did not furnish any
job analysis sheets because, as Respondent ' s Supervisor of Manufacturing
Respondent's Supervisor of Manufacturing and
Engineering, Putsch, conceded at the hearing that
employee union stewards and officers do not have the
experience and skills possessed by management in
evaluating the jobs. Respondent contends that they are,
nevertheless, sufficiently familiar with the jobs to make
live studies of the jobs, to evaluate them, even the time
study jobs, and to intelligently process any grievance
regarding the jobs. It asserts, therefore, that it is
unnecessary for the Union's International Representative
(who by reason of formal training as well as experience in
this field, is regarded as an expert), to come into the plant
for the purpose of studying and evaluating the jobs in
issue Respondent contends that it has a proprietary
interest in protecting its manufacturing processes and
lamp styles against the possible disclosure by outsiders to
its competitors and that this interest should outweigh the
interest of employees in being represented by their
nonemployee expert in making on-the-spot studies of the
jobs here involved. These contentions must be rejected
There is nothing in the record which would afford any
basis for apprehension by Respondent that the Union's
International Representative, Rinaldi, would be inclined to
divulge to a competitor any information which he might
acquire about Respondent's operations Indeed, I do not
understand Respondent's objection as relating to him as
an individual, it is, rather, to him as an outsider. Rinaldi
was formerly an employee of General Electric at its
Louisville, Kentucky, appliance plant. In the area to
which he is assigned by the International, there are no
lamp manufacturing competitors of General Electric
which he has occasion to service' Respondent, moreover,
has no policy against the exclusion of all outsiders from
its manufacturing area It has permitted tours of such
areas by large distributors and plant customers. Upon
several occasions employees have been permitted to bring
members of their families into the manufacturing areas
Tours of teachers in connection with a training program
have also been permitted, though management would plan
to keep them out of the Dip Coat and Tuff Skin areas
The issue as 1 view it is not, as Respondent suggests,
whether the employee members or officers of the Local
Union are qualified to observe and make the job
evaluations and time studies in question, or even whether,
as the Union argues, their nonemployee International
Representative is better qualified to perform this task. It
is, rather, whether any proprietary or other interest of
Respondent outweighs in importance the right of the
employees to choose whatever person they wish to
represent them. Because employee Union representatives
owe their livelihood and chances of promotion to their
employer, they may well feel some constraint in speaking
out and pressing a fellow employee's complaint as
vigorously as a nonemployce union representative might.
Accordingly, even aside from the Union's argument that
Local employee representatives "do not have the skill and
knowledge necessary to meet sophisticated and persuasive
arguments advanced by trained General Electric experts,"
it is important that the Act's design "to overcome the
inequality in bargaining power between employees and
employers" not be frustrated or hindered by denying to
and Engineering explained , the Union never asked for them The record
does not indicate whether the Union representatives were aware of the
existence of these sheets
'But even if he served the Union at plants of Respondent 's competitors,
this, without more, would not, in my view , disqualify him from
representing the employees in whatever way his skills might demand, at
Respondent ' s plant
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
the employees the right to decide whether a non-employee
representative can more effectively investigate their
grievances and plead their cause.
It is settled that in the absence of unusual
circumstances not present here, the employer may not
refuse to deal with the individual designated by the
employees' chosen bargaining representative'" Under the
circumstances here presented, I find that this right of the
employees to select the representative which they consider
best qualified to represent their interests, in a matter
about which the statute clearly requires Respondent to
bargain, unquestionably outweighs in importance any
proprietary right which Respondent may have to exclude
non-employees from its plant.
It is therefore found that Respondent, by refusing to
grant the Union's request that its nonemployee time study
and job evaluation expert be permitted to enter the plant
for the purpose of observing and studying the jobs which
were the subject of the grievances here in issue, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (l) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing the Union's request to permit its
International Representative to enter Respondent's
Youngstown Lamp Plant for the purpose of conducting
time studies or job evaluations relevant or necessary to the
processing of grievances and complaints, Respondent has
refused to bargain with the Union within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (l) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will require that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to remove the effects of the unfair labor
practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
31
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the
efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it in
behalf of the production and maintenance employees at its
Youngstown, Ohio, Lamp Plant.
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, permit the Union, through its
International Representative or other expert of its own
choosing, to enter Respondent's Youngstown, Ohio, Lamp
Plant for the purpose of making time studies and job
evaluations relevant or necessary to the processing of
employee grievances or complaints
(b) Post at its Youngstown, Ohio, Lamp Plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized 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 said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.' _
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Exanmer" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , it is hereby ordered that Respondent,
General Electric Company (Youngstown Lamp 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, as the statutory bargaining representative
of the production and maintenance employees at its
Youngstown , Ohio, Lamp Plant , by refusing to permit the
Union through its International Representative or other
expert of its own choosing , to enter Respondent ' s plant
for the purpose of conducting time studies and job
evaluations relevant or necessary to the processing of
employee grievances or complaints.
"Sears, Roebuck and Co , Inc., 139 NLRB 471, 475, and cases cited
therein , General Electric Company v . NL R. B., 414 F.2d 918 (C.A. 4),
Waycross Sportswear , Inc. v N.L.R B , 403 F 2d 832, 836 (C.A. 5),
Fafnir Bearing Company v. N L R.B ., 362 F .2d 716 (C.A 2), enfg 146
NLRB 1582, 1586-87
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor,
Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, as the statutory bargaining
representative of our production and maintenance
employees at our Youngstown , Ohio, Lamp Plant, by
refusing to permit the Union , through its International
Representative or other expert of its own choosing, to
enter our plant for the purpose of conducting time
studies and job evaluations relevant or necessary to the
processing of employee grievances or complaints.
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.
GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY (YOUNGSTOWN
LAMP PLANT)
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1695 Federal
or covered by any other material . Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street , Cleveland, Ohio
If employees have any question concerning this notice 44199 , Telephone 216-522-3715.