General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 289 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 289
General Electric Co., Circuit Protective Devices
Department, Caribe Plant Operations ; General
Electric Power Products , Inc., General Electric
Circuit Breakers , Inc. and International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Case
24-CA-2820
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On July 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice S. Bush
issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respon-
dents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief.
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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondents, as the Single Employer
of the employees of its component corporations,
General Electric Co., Circuit Protective Devices
Department, Caribe Plant Operations; General Elec-
tric Power Products, Inc., and General Electric
Circuit Breakers, Inc., their officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE S. BUSH, Trial Examiner: The Union herein
won a long hard uphill 3-year battle to obtain certification
as of January 22, 1970, by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of an
appropriate unit of employees consisting of the combined
production and maintenance employee force of the three
above-named Companies at their plants at Palmer, Puerto
Rico. The three Companies under the pleadings constitute a
single employer hereinafter referred to as the Respondent.
The principal issue in the case is whether the Respondent
is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor
Relations Act by its refusal to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the duly designated agent of its said
employees pursuant to the Union's telegraphic request of
February 24, 1970, for a meeting on February 26, 1970,
with the Respondent to commence negotiations for a
collective-bargaining contract to cover wages, hours, and
work conditions of the employees in the unit. Respondent
admits its failure to reply and bargain with the Union, but
in defense pleads "mitigating circumstances," including the
defense that it has commenced bargaining with the Union
since the issuance of the complaint here.
The second issue herein is the location of the principal
office and place of business of General Electric Power
Products, Inc., one of the three corporations here involved
as part of the admitted single Employer or Respondent.
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the said
Company's principal office and place of business is at
Palmer, Puerto Rico. Respondent's denial is tied in with a
motion it makes in its brief for an amendment of the Board
certification of the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the aforementioned appropriate unit.
Respondent's motion is for an amendment of the
appropriate unit so "as to eliminate the name of General
Electric Power Products, Inc., from the certification" on the
ground that that Company had moved from its Palmer
location to an entirely different location prior to the date of
the Board's certification of the Union. The objective of
Respondent's motion appears to be to obtain a ruling that
the removal of the principal office and place of business of
General Electric Power Products, Inc., prior to the issuance
of the Union's certification relieved that Company of the
legal duty to recognize and bargain with the Union, thereby
providing it with a defense against the charges of the
complaint that it is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
for failure to recognize and bargain with the Union.
The third and final issue in the case is whether
Respondent's said motion for a modification of the Board
defined appropriate unit should be granted.
The case was tried before the Examiner on April 10, 1970,
at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. Briefs filed by counsel for
General Counsel and for the Respondent have been
carefully reviewed and considered.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The three Companies here involved, to wit-General
Electric Co., Circuit Protective Devices Department,
186 NLRB No. 46
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Caribe Plant Operations ; General Electric Power Products,
Inc., and General Electric Circuit Breakers , Inc.-are
corporations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with
their principal offices and places of business at Palmer,
Puerto Rico .' The three corporations are part of a single
integrated manufacturing enterprise engaged in the manu-
facture of electrical products . The labor relations policies
for all three corporations are centrally formulated,
controlled , and enforced . All three corporations constitute
a single employer for the purposes of this proceeding2 and
are accordingly referred to hereafter collectively as the
Respondent . The Respondent by its admission in its answer
is an employer engaged in operations affecting commerce
as provided in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES-THE REFUSAL OF
THE RESPONDENT TO MEET WITH THE UNION FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO REQUESTS
By action of the Board in the related representation
proceeding in Case 24-RC-2922, the Union was certified3
on January 22, 1970, as the exclusive bargaining agent of
the appropriate unit4 consisting of all the production and
maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its
plants at Palmer, Puerto Rico, as a result of a third runoff
election held on June 5, 1969. The certification was the
culmination of more than 3 years of effort by the Union to
organize the Respondent's Palmer plants. The Board
conducted four separate elections before issuing the
certification to the Union. There were no winners at the
first election conducted on July 14, 1966, as a result of
which a runoff election was ordered. The Union lost the
first runoff election held on August 4, 1966, but won the
second and third runoff elections held on August 15, 1967,
and June 5, 1969, respectively. A more detailed history of
the representation proceedings leading to the certification
of the Union is set forth in Appendix A hereto based on the
allegations of the complaint as admitted by Respondent's
answer.
Respondent on February 2, 1970, filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Board's certification of the Union as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the unit. The Board
denied the motion on February 13, 1970.5
Commencing with October 28, 1969, Respondent's
operations of its Palmer plants were closed completely for a
period of time by a strike of its employees. Some 1,200
employees were affected by the strike which occurred about
1 The three Respondent corporations named above are the same or
successor corporations of the Respondent corporations mentioned in the
related Board certification in Case 24-RC-2922.
2 The above findings are admitted by the pleadings.
3 As reflected in the Board's "Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representative" in G.C. Exh. 2.
4 The full description of the unit as determined by the Board in said
Case 24-RC-2922 and as admitted in the pleadings herein is set forth
below under "Conclusions of Law."
5 G.C. Exh. 3.
halfway between the third runoff election won by the
Union and the date of the Union's certification as the
exclusive bargaining agent of the unit. Since some time in
January 1970 the Respondent has been operating its Palmer
plants intermittingly with a labor force of 400 to 500
nonstrikers. The strike was still in progress at the time of the
trial of the instant case. In other proceedings the
Respondent has charged acts of intimidation and violence
against the nonstriking employees by the Union in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) 6 During the course of the strike the
Respondent has discharged approximately 40 of the strikers
for alleged acts of violence against nonstriking employees.
Following the Union's certification of January 22, the
Union sent a wire to the Respondent in which it requested,
based on the certification, the "reinstatement of all and
each and every one of said employees [in the appropriate
unit)" and offered the unconditional "return to work of all
and each and every employee, in the same and/or
substantially similar job or classification as previously
had." (Resp. Exh. 2.) Carl Kauffman, president of one of
the corporations here involved and spokesman for the
Respondent, testified that he believed that on the basis of
the aforementioned telegram that the Union in its
subsequent requests for collective-bargaining negotiations
was conditioning such negotiations on Respondent's
reinstatement of the aforementioned 40 discharged strikers
whom it deemed guilty of strike misconduct. However, the
record shows, and Kauffman under cross-examination
admits, that the Union in its subsequent telegraphic
requests to Respondent for the commencement of contract
bargaining negotiations did not demand or impose any
condition of any kind as a condition precedent to the
opening of collective-bargaining negotiations. These re-
quests as will appear from their descriptions below were
simple, straight-forward requests for meetings with man-
agement for the purpose of commencing negotiations for a
collective-bargaining agreement on rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
Shortly after the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive bargaining agent for the unit Respondent sent the
Union a copy of its motion to the Board for a
reconsideration of the certification. The motion for
reconsideration, as heretofore, was denied on February 13,
1970.
Four days later, on February 17, 1970, the Union's grand
lodge representative, Juan L. Maldonado, sent a telegram
to the Respondent. The telegram requested a meeting the
next day, February 18, at 9:30 a.m., with Respondent's
representatives at the offices of the Puerto Rico Depart-
ment of Labor for the purpose of commencing negotiations
for a collective-bargaining agreement with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment. The concluding sentence of the telegram
6 Respondent's charges in Case 24-CB-718 resulted in a decision by
Trial Examiner Vose on April 7, 1970, after a hearing, against the Union
which as of June 26, 1970 , was adopted by the Board in 183 NLRB No.
126. Respondent' s charges against the Union in Case 24-CB-728 are
pending before the present Trial Examiner as a result of a lengthy hearing
therein in April 1970. That case was heard by the present Trial Examiner in
Puerto Rico immediately after the trial of the instant case was concluded
and awaits decision , pending the receipt of the complete transcript of the
testimony therein and the briefs thereon by the parties.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
requests the Respondent to "confirm your availability on
the date and hour above mentioned or suggest an
alternative date and hour."
Respondent admits that it made no reply to Maldonado's
wire of February 17. Testimony by a spokesman for
Respondent that he was unable to reply due to the closing
of the Government-controlled telegraph service in Puerto
Rico because of an intervening holiday is credited but does
not serve as a valid alibi for failure to reply. Respondent
could have replied by sending an agent to the proposed
meeting of February 18, but did not. Respondent's
subsequent conduct as outlined below shows that it had no
intention of meeting with the Union for contract negotia-
tions as requested by the Union.
On February 24, 1970, Maldonado sent the Respondent a
second telegram requesting a meeting to commence
negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement. The
wire requested the meeting to take place on February 26 at
9 a.m. at the offices of the Puerto Rico Department of
Labor.
Respondent likewise admits that it made no reply to
Maldonado's wire of February 24 and did not meet with the
union representative as requested on February 26, 1970.
On February 24, the same day that Maldonado had sent
his telegram to the Respondent, the director of the Bureau
of Conciliation and Arbitration, Puerto Rico, Department
of Labor, sent Maldonado a telegram inviting him "to
initiate conversations relative to collective bargaining
agreement on Wednesday February 25 9 a.m. in our
Conciliation offices Department of Labor 414 Barbosa
Avenue Hato Rey." (G.C. Exh. 8(b).) The testimony of Carl
K. Kauffman president of General Electric Circuit
Breakers , Inc., shows that Respondent also received a
telegram from the director dated February 24 inviting the
initiation of contract negotiations. It is inferred from the
record as a whole that the director's letter to Respondent
was identical in text with the telegram he sent to
Maldonado.7
In response to this request, agents of the Union, headed
by Maldonado, and representatives of management,
headed by Kauffman, met at the conciliation offices on
February 25 at 9 a.m., but as the management group
declined to meet in a same room with the union
representatives, the two groups were placed in separate
rooms, with the director of the conciliation office meeting
first with one group and then with the other.
The conciliation director met with the management
group first at their insistence for an extended period of time
before he met with the union representatives. It appears
from the record that Respondent's agents before agreeing
to discuss anything exacted a letters from the director
reading as follows:
My telegram to you on February 24, 1970 concerning a
meeting to be held today February 25 at the Concilia-
7 Kauffman's testimony that "there was some wording in there [the
director's telegram ] that left some leeway as to the purpose of the meeting"
is not credited. It would be most unusual for a public official desiring to
assist in initiating collective-bargaining negotiations between union
officials and management representatives to send invitations to the parties
of varying texts . Normally the texts of such telegrams or letters would be
identical. It is noteworthy that Respondent did not produce at the trial the
291
tion and Arbitration Office is with the purpose of
considering the letter sent to me by John C. Howe on
February 6, 1970 and all other matters that the parties
decide to express on the situation.
Cordially yours,
Jorge L. Otero
Director
The "John C. Howe" mentioned in Director Otero's letter
is Respondent's stateside attorney stationed at Bridgeport,
Connecticut. Howe had sent the letter to Otero in reply to
Otero's earlier telegraphic and letter requests of February 5,
1970, for the initiation of negotiations for a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union.
In his letter, Howe, notwithstanding the Board's certifica-
tion of the Union, flatly denies "that any union represents
any employees at Palmer, Puerto Rico to which your
[Otero's] letter is addressed," but expresses willingness to
discuss with Mr. Otero only the following matters:
1. Ending the strike at Palmer.
2. Cessation of the violence to which the aforesaid
companies and its employees have been subjected
at Palmer and elsewhere.
3. Consent by the International Association of
Machinists (AFL-CIO) and its agents and
representatives to an injunction permanently
enjoining the union and its agents from the
performance of all unlawful acts at any place or
time affecting or in any way relating to the places
of business of the aforesaid companies in Palmer
or elsewhere in Puerto Rico, or to any employees
of said companies, or to real or personal property
of said employees or to the families of such
employees.
At the meeting of February 25 in Otero's office at which
Respondent's agents refused to meet with Maldonado and
his committee face-to-face, Maldonado requested Otero to
inform Respondent's agents that his committee was there to
initiate contract negotiations as requested by Otero. Otero
transmitted this message to Respondent's agents and by
way of their reply and at their request handed to
Maldonado a copy of the Howe letter. Otero brought back
the further reply to Maldonado's committee that Respon-
dent's agents would meet with them only on the three
matters stated in the Howe letter as set forth above. Otero
also conveyed to Maldonado the refusal of Respondent to
meet with his committee on February 26, the next day, as
requested by Maldonado in his telegram to the Respondent
of February 24. The events described in this paragraph
occurred some 12 days after the Board had denied
Respondent's request for a reconsideration of its January
22, 1970, certification of the Union as the exclusive
bargaining agent for the appropriate unit. Kauffman
admits that he knew at the time under consideration that
telegram it had received from the director.
9 Although the letter (Resp. Exh.^I) is addressed to General Electric
Company, it is obvious that it was intended for the three corporations
herein referred to collectively as the Respondent. From the record as a
whole it is inferred that the three corporations are subsidiaries or affiliates
of General Electric Company of Schenectady, New York.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board's certification was final as of the date of its
issuance on January 22.
Kauffman testified that his committee declined to enter
into contract negotiations with the Union on February 25
pursuant to Otero's invitation for fear of jeopardizing
Respondent's legal contention that the Union was not the
legal representative of the involved unit as at that time
Respondent's top management at Bridgeport, Connecticut,
was still considering the advisability of testing the Board's
final certification of the Union as the exclusive bargaining
agent of the unit, despite the fact that its motion for
reconsideration had been denied. Presumably such
"testing ," if pursued, would have involved an appeal to the
courts. No testimony was offered by Respondent as to why
it did not ask the Union for a reasonable deferment of
negotiations until it had reached a definite decision on
whether or not to test the Board's certification.
Subsequently, in the first part of March 1970, meetings
did take place between representatives of the Respondent
and the Union at the request and intercession of the
Governor of Puerto Rico to higher echelon officers of the
parties . There were three such meetings between top
officers of the Union and Respondent, two in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, on March 4 and 5, and one in Washington,
D.C., on March 11. These meetings were not bargaining
sessions on rates of pay, wages, and other conditions of
employment, but were preliminary meetings to pave the
way for subsequent collective-bargaining negotiations on
these subjects. At the March 11 meeting in Washington, the
top officers of the Respondent and the Union reached an
agreement for the commencement of such contract
negotiations in San Juan on March 24. Seven such meetings
took place between the opening meeting of March 24 and
the opening of the trial herein on April 10, 1970.
However, at such meetings Respondent declined to
engage in any negotiations on behalf of General Electric
Products, Inc., for reasons hereinafter stated, and thus
limited the negotiations at such meetings to discussions
relating solely to the employees of the other two Companies
here involved.
It is found from the texts of the Union's two requests for
bargaining sessions , and from the record as a whole, that
the Union at no time conditioned its requests to the
Respondent for the commencement of contract negotia-
tions on the Respondent's agreement to reinstate the 40
strikers it discharged for alleged strike misconduct.
After the contract negotiation meetings started on March
24, the management representatives took the position that
they had no authority to negotiate for one of the three
corporations here involved, General Electric Power Prod-
ucts, Inc., on the ground that "as of January 30, 1970" that
Company and its employees 9 were no longer at Palmer but
were thereafter located in a new plant at Rio Piedras,
Puerto Rico, a suburb of San Juan.to As a result of this
9 Respondent in its brief gives this date "as January 15, 1970," but the
page record cited by counsel for Respondent shows the date to be January
30, 1970. (Tr. 103-104)
10 In an affidavit attached to the Respondent's brief an effort is made to
show that as of January 15, 1970, all of the employees of General Electric
Power Products, Inc., were transferred to the other two Companies located
at Palmer and that the operations of General Electric Power Products, Inc.,
were transferred to another location in Puerto Rico at some undisclosed
contention, the management representatives at the afore-
mentioned contract negotiation meetings have steadfastly
refused to engage in negotiations in behalf of General
Electric Power Products, Inc. The Union, on the other
hand, takes the position that under its certification it is
entitled to represent the employees of General Electric
Power Products, Inc., as part of the appropriate unit
regardless of where they may be employed.
The issue posed by the pleadings as to the principal office
and place of business of General Electric Power Products,
Inc., as of the date of the Union's certification by Board on
January 22, 1970, was litigated in this proceeding. General
Counsel relies on the documentation in the representation
proceeding in the aforementioned Case 24-RC-2922 of
which official notice is taken pursuant to request and on
certain documentation herein (G.C. Exh. 2, 3, 4, and 5) to
show that the principal office and place of business of the
said Company on the date of the Union's certification was
Palmer and not Rio Piedras as claimed by Respondent. The
Trial Examiner finds that said documentation does show
Palmer to be the Company's principal place of business and
office as of January 22, 1970. The Trial Examiner further
finds that there is a failure of proof by Respondent to show
that the principal office and place of business of the
Company in question had been moved from Palmer to
another location as of or prior to the date of the Union's
certification on January 22, 1970. No testimony was offered
by any official of the involved Company that it had moved
its principal place of business and office from Palmer to
another location prior to January 22, 1970. The testimony
of Kauffman, the aforementioned president of General
Electric Circuit Breakers, that General Electric Power
Products, Inc., has moved its operations from Palmer to
Rio Piedras is credited, but his testimony lacks definiteness
as to the precise date this change of locations occurred.
Respondent recognizes this shortcoming in Kauffman's
testimony and has sought to supply the deficiency by
attaching the aforementioned affidavit to its brief by H.
Earl Gray, vice president and manager of General Electric
Power Products, Inc. Even that affidavit lacks certain
essential detail, but as heretofore noted the affidavit cannot
in any event serve as evidence herein. But even wholly apart
from the factual issue as to the precise date on which the
headquarters and operations of General Electric Power
Products, Inc., were transferred from Palmer to Rio
Piedras, there is a question as to whether the Trial
Examiner has the authority to modify a Board certification
made as requested by Respondent herein for the obvious
purpose of relieving it from a finding of a violation of the
Act for failure to bargain with the Union in behalf of
General Electric Power Products, Inc. This will be
discussed and determined below.
From road maps of Puerto Rico of which official notice is
taken, it is found that the towns of Palmer and Rio Piedras
date and that the present operations of that Company are conducted with a
set of entirely new employees. The affidavit is in support of Respondent's
motion that General Electric Power Products , Inc., be stricken from the
Union's certification as representative of said Company's employees. The
affidavit is obviously unacceptable in this proceeding as findings herein
may be made only on testimony subject to cross-examination and
documents subject to objections. No findings are accordingly made on the
statements made in the affidavit attached to Respondent 's brief.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 293
are approximately within 25 to 30 miles of each other. Rio
Piedras is within the city of San Juan; Palmer (near Rio
Grande) is east of San Juan.
Respondent's spokesman Kauffman testified that at the
time Respondent received the Union's request of February
17 for collective bargaining the parent company, General
Electric Company, was involved with nationwide strikes of
its plants in continental United States. The complaint,
herein, however, does not charge a refusal to bargain as of
February 17, but as of February 24 when the Union sent its
second request to Respondent for the commencement of
collective bargaining. The Trial Examiner takes official
notice of news reports in newspapers and labor periodicals
that the strikes at the stateside plants of General Electric
Company were for all practical purposes ended and the
employees at such plants back to work on or before
February 24, 1970.11 Kauffman's testimony to the extent
that it implies that General Electric was still involved with
nationwide strikes at its plants in continental United States
on February 24 is not credited.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The complaint charges that Respondent "at all times
since February 24, 1970" has failed and refused to
recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining agent of its
employees in the appropriate unit here involved and that it
has "at all times" refused the Union's request that it meet
and confer with representatives of the Union to negotiate
the terms of a collective-bargaining contract to cover
wages, hours, and work conditions of said employees.
The Respondent admits that with respect to one of the
trinity of corporations here involved, General Electric
Power Products, Inc., the above allegations are wholly true.
But Respondent's defense to these admitted allegations as it
relates to General Electric Power Products, Inc., is that that
Company has "not employ[ed] anyone at Palmer as of
January 15, 1970" and that accordingly the Union's
certification of January 22, 1970, should be amended to
eliminate it from the certification, apparently under the
theory that only the Companies with operations at Palmer
at the time of the certification are under compulsion to
bargain with the Union and that any of the involved
Companies which has moved from Palmer to another
location prior to the certification is legally relieved of the
necessity to bargain with the Union despite the fact that the
Company is named in the certification.
Without accepting this thesis, it is evident from the record
even under Respondent's theory, that General Electric
Power Products, Inc., is subject to obligatory bargaining
with the Union under the certification because the record
shows that the Company was in actual operation at the
plant at the date of the certification on January 22, 1970.
Contrary to Respondent's statement in its brief that
General Electric Power Products, Inc., has not employed
anyone at Palmer "as of January 15, 1970," based on the
asserted testimony of Kauffman, the pages of the transcript
on which Respondent relies for this statement (tr. pp. 103
and 104) show that Kauffman testified that General
Electric Power Products, Inc., was "no longer at Palmer as
of January 30, 1970." This carries the inference here found
that the said Company was in operation at Palmer prior to
January 30, 1970. Thus under Respondent's own theory,
General Electric Power Products, Inc., is subject to the
certification herein involved because according to Kauff-
man that Company was still operating out of the Palmer
plant on January 22 when the certification was issued.
However, Respondent's theory that a Board certification
of a union as the bargaining agent of an appropriate unit is
dependent on a continuance of the Employer's operations,
with the same employees as of the date of the certification,
at the address of its plant as shown in the certification is, in
the opinion of the Trial Examiner, wholly without merit as
it is evident that the naming of the location of an
Employer's plant in a Board certification is merely for
purposes of identification and that the personnel of the unit
during the period of certification may change completely. If
the obligation on the part of the Employer under a Board
certification to bargain with a certificated union was
dependent on the Employer's remaining at the plant
location named in the certification with the original
personnel of the unit, he would have it within his power to
vitiate the certification at will by moving his plant to
another location and changing the personnel of the
appropriate unit. Obviously such a circumvention is not
within the intent of the Act.
The certification here involved was issued by the Board.
Only the Board has the authority to amend, modify, or
revoke it. A Trial Examiner has no authority or jurisdiction
to amend a Board certification. Accordingly, the Examiner
denies Respondent's motion for an amendment of the
certification "to eliminate the name of General Electric
Power Products, Inc., from the certification."
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes that
Respondent out of its relationship to General Electric
Power Products, Inc., has at all times since February 24,
1970, engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the duly designated bargaining
agent of the employees working at the plant of General
Electric Power Products, Inc., who constitute part of the
appropriate unit.
Similarly, the Respondent, out of its relationship to the
other two corporations here involved,12 is also found in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by reason of its
refusal to recognize and bargain with the certified Union,
for a period of a month from the Union's request of
February 24 to March 24, 1970,13 when Respondent
commenced its first bargaining negotiations with the Union
but only in connection with the employees in the
appropriate unit who worked at the plants of the said two
other corporations.
Respondent's overall defense for its failure to negotiate in
behalf of these two corporations are what it terms
11 Appendix B is a sample of one such news report by the Bureau of all times since February 24, 1970, refused to recognize and bargain with the
Labor Statistics. Union. The complaint charges that all three of the involved Employers,
12 General Electric Co., Circuit Protective Devices, Caribe Plant constituting a single employer for the purposes of. this proceeding, have "at
Operations, and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc. all times since February 24, 1970," refused to recognize and bargain with
13 As compared to General Electric Power Products , Inc., which has at the Union.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"mitigating circumstances" for which it seeks "some
[forgivable] reasonable delays" in meeting the Union's
requests for negotiations, but cites no precedent or
authority for such a defense. Its chief defense in mitigation
is that it did begin bargaining negotiations with the Union
on March 24, 1970, and has had a number of such
bargaining sessions with the Union since then. Its defense
for not beginning bargaining prior to March 24, 1970, is
that the Union began a strike against its plants at Palmer on
October 28, 1969, that the strike has been marred by
numerous acts of violence as found in Trial Examiner
Vose's Board-adopted decision, and that it was under "the
belief . . . that the Union was conditioning negotiations or
the reaching of a collective-bargaining agreement on the
reinstatement of all the strikers." The mere existence of the
strike is, of course, no excuse for the delay in meeting the
Union's request for the commencement of bargaining as it
is not uncommon for employees to strike for the very
purpose of compelling recognition and bargaining. It
appears from Trial Examiner Vose's Board-adopted
decision that the strike of Respondent's employees did in
fact result from Respondent's refusal to recognize and
bargain with the Union.
Similarly, Respondent's alleged belief that the Union was
conditioning negotiations on the reinstatement of the 40
strikers accused of strike violence cannot be seriously urged
as a mitigating circumstance for Respondent's failure to
recognize and bargain with the Union. This is because there
was nothing in the texts of Union's requests of February 17
and 24 which in any way sets up any advance conditions as
conditions precedent for bargaining as was admitted at the
trial by Kauffman, Respondent's bargaining spokesman.
The requests were simple, straightforward requests for the
initiation of collective bargaining without the attachment of
any strings.
Another mitigating circumstance urged by Respondent
as a defense for its initial failure to recognize and bargain
with the Union is that at the time of the Union's request for
bargaining the parent Company, General Electric Compa-
ny, was involved and preoccupied with strikes at its plants
in continental United States. The record, however, shows
that the strikes at General Electric Company's stateside
plants were virtually over and the employees back at work
at the time the Union herein made its February 24 request
for the commencement of bargaining.
The final justification offered by Respondent for its
initial failure to respond to the Union's February 24, 1970,
request for commencement of bargaining is that Respon-
dent, "during those troubled days of February, had not had
the opportunity to assess its position in order to establish
the course of action to follow with respect to its numerous
problems in Puerto Rico and in the continental United
States ." There can be no doubt that General Electric
Company had troubled days in February, by reason of
strikes at its numerous plants in the States, but as shown
above these were for all practical purposes over on
February 24, when the Union served its request on
Respondent for the commencement of bargaining. Respon-
dent's other contention that it had not had the opportunity
"to assess its position" is likewise not entitled to credence.
At the time of the Union's request, the Respondent had
more than a month to consider its course of action with
respect to the Board's certification of January 22, 1970,
which Respondent's bargaining agent, Kauffman, admitted
he knew to be "final." This was ample time for Respondent
to assess its position. In a more practical sense, the
Respondent had far more than a month to assess its
position. This is because the Company knew as far back as
August 15, 1967, and June 5, 1969, when the Union won the
second and final runoff elections, respectively, that it would
in all eventuality have to face up with dealing with the
Union. Respondent in a sense bought this long period of
time "to assess its position," as well as to defeat the Union,
by filing objections to the two elections and, when these
were overruled, by filing motions for reconsideration and
exceptions to adverse orders. Thus it has had approximately
3 years to assess its position.
Based on its aforementioned claimed mitigating circum-
stances, the Respondent also claims a disavowal of bad
faith in failing to meet with the Union in the indicated
period for collective bargaining. However, the record, even
aside from the claimed mitigating circumstances, reveals a
complete absence of good faith on the part of the
Respondent in failing to respond to the Union's request for
collective bargaining. This is evidenced by Respondent's
complete failure to reply to the Union's requests for the
commencement of collective bargaining, by Respondent's
refusal to meet with union representatives face-to-face in a
meeting called by the Puerto Rico Director of Conciliation
on February 25, 1970, and by its statement to the union
representatives on that date, as transmitted by the director
of Conciliation, that Respondent's position was still the
same as stated in an earlier letter to the director by
Respondent's stateside counsel, to wit, that Respondent
"expressly" denies "that any union represents any employ-
ee at Palmer...... Thus the record reveals that Respon-
dent, some 2 weeks after the Board had denied its motion
for a reconsideration of the Union's certification, was still
denying that the Union was the representative of the
appropriate unit named in the certification. These actions
by Respondent spell out an entire absence of good faith in
meeting the Union's request for contract negotiations.
The only true mitigating circumstance for Respondent's
failure to respond to the Union's request of February 24 is
that Respondent did commence such bargaining on March
24, albeit nearly a month after the Union's requested date
and at the intervention of the Governor of Puerto Rico and
after the issuance of the complaint herein. However, even
that beginning as aforenoted has been limited, on
Respondent's adamant insistence, to negotiations in behalf
of only two of the three corporations here involved.
Respondent has consistently refused and still refuses to
bargain in behalf of General Electric Power Products, Inc.,
notwithstanding the fact that the employees of that
Company are part of the appropriate unit as determined by
the Board in its certification of the Union as the exclusive
bargaining agent for that unit.
The record compels an order not only to require
Respondent as a single Employer to commence bargaining
with the Union in behalf of General Electric Power
Products, Inc., but also to assure the continuation of
Respondent's bargaining with the Union in behalf of the
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 295
other two Companies here involved. Respondent's past
conduct does not inspire confidence that it will continue the
limited collective bargaining it has started with the Union
without further order.
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes that
Respondent at all times since February 24, 1970 , has been
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its
refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining agent of all its employees in the
appropriate unit as certificated by the Board . The Trial
Examiner further finds and concludes that Respondent out
of its relationship to two of the three corporations here
involved has been in technical violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act for its failure during the period February
24 to March 24, 1970, to recognize and bargain with the
Union pursuant to its request of February 24, 1970.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case , the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Electric Co., Circuit Protective Devices
Department, Canbe Plant Operations; General Electric
Power Products, Inc.; and General Electric Circuit
Breakers , Inc., with principal offices and places of business
at Palmer, Puerto Rico , constitute a single employer for
purposes of this proceeding, referred to herein collectively
as the Respondent.
2. The said Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce or in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at its plants in Palmer , Puerto
Rico , excluding all office clerical employees , professional
personnel , laboratory technicians , guards and 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.
5. At all times on and after January 22, 1970, the Union
has been and now is the exclusive representative, for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act, of all of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit.
6. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
on and after January 22, 1970, with respect to all of its
employees in the said appropriate unit, Respondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act.
7. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
for the period January 22 to March 24, 1970, with respect to
the segment of its employees in the appropriate unit as work
in the plants of General Electric Co., Circuit Protective
Devices Department, Caribe Plant Operations, and Gener-
al Electric Circuit Breakers , Inc., Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
at all times since January 22, 1970, with respect to that
segment of its employees in the appropriate unit as work in
the plant of General Electric Power Products, Inc.,
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent has refused at all
times since January 22, 1970, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of such employees
in the described appropriate unit as work in the plant or
plants of General Electric Power Products, Inc., wherever
they be located, it will be recommended that Respondent,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of that part of the said unit
employed in the plant or plants of General Electric Power
Products, Inc., wherever they be located.
Although the Respondent commenced bargaining with
the Union on March 24, 1970, with respect to that segment
of the unit employed at the plants of General Electric Co.,
Circuit Protective Devices Department, Caribe Plant
Operations, and General Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc.,
Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the
Union with respect to that segment of the unit for a period
of approximately 2 months after the Union was certificated
was of such an aggravated character that the Trial
Examiner deems it advisable to recommend an order
requiring the Respondent to continue such bargaining
negotiations with the Union.
In order to insure that all of the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, it
will be recommended that the initial year of certification
shall be construed as beginning on the date the Respondent
has commenced to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative of all the employees
in the unit. Mar Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785;
Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226,
229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd.
350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, the Trial Examiner recommends that Respondent as
the single employer of the employees of its component
corporations, General Electric Co., Circuit Protective
Devices Department, Canbe Plant Operations; General
Electric Power Products, Inc., and General Electric Circuit
Breakers, Inc., together with all the officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , of Respondent and each of the
mentioned component corporations, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all employees of the
Respondent in the appropriate unit as described in the
Conclusions of Law above.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the appropriate unit, including all such employees as are
employed at the plant or plants of General Electric Power
Products, Inc., wherever they may now be located, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Upon request, continue the collective bargaining on
the above-mentioned subject matters with the aforemen-
tioned Union which was commenced on March 24, 1970, in
connection with that portion of employees in the described
appropriate unit which consists of employees employed at
the plants of General Electric Co., Circuit Protective
Devices Department, Caribe Plant Operations, and Gener-
al Electric Circuit Breakers, Inc., at Palmer, Puerto Rico,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the aforementioned Union on the above-mentioned subject
matters with respect to that portion of the employees in the
above-described appropriate unit who are employed at the
plant of General Electric Power Products, Inc., wherever
that plant may now be located, and, if an agreement is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
(d) Post at its plants in English and Spanish copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix C." 14 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 24, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in
writing, within 20 days from this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subparagraph 3 of paragraph
VI of the complaint be dismissed upon consent of General
Counsel to motion of Respondent. Respondent made the
motion when counsel for General Counsel announced that
he would offer no proof in substantiation of the indicated
allegation of the complaint.
14 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 . 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."
15 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 A
HISTORY OF REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING IN
CASE NO. 24-RC-2922 AS SET FORTH BY ALLEGA-
TIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND ADMITTED BY
THE ANSWER.
IV
All production and maintenance employees employed by
the Respondent at its plants in Palmer, P.R., excluding all
office clerical employees, professional personnel, laborato-
ry technicians, guards and 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.
V
1. On June 28, 1966, the Respondent executed a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
pursuant to which an election was to be held among the
employees in the unit described above in paragraph IV
under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director of the Board for the 24th Region, to determine
whether they desired the Union herein involved or Union
de Empleados de la General Electric, Inc., or no union, to
represent them for collective bargaining purposes.
At the election held on July 14, 1966 pursuant to the
Stipulation for Consent Election mentioned above, none of
the three choices on the ballot received a majority of the
votes cast at said election. Thereafter a runoff election was
conducted by the Regional Director on August 4, 1966 at
which time the employees were given the choice between
the Union or no union. At said runoff election, a majority
of the employees voted in favor of no union to represent
them. The Union thereupon filed timely objections to the
conduct of said election. Thereafter the Regional Director
filed a Report and Recommendation to the Board
recommending that the election be set aside and that a
second runoff election be conducted. Thereafter the
Respondent filed exceptions to said Report. On August 15,
1967, the Board issued its Decision, Order and Direction of
New Runoff Election adopting the Regional Director's
Report and Recommendation that the election be set aside,
and a second runoff election be conducted.
2. At the second runoff election which was held on
September 21, 1967, pursuant to the Board's Order of
August 15, 1967, a majority of the employees in the unit
described above in paragraph IV voted in favor of the
Union. Thereafter the Respondent filed timely objections
to the conduct of the second runoff election. The Regional
Director caused an investigation of said objections to be
made and on February 26, 1968 he issued and served upon
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 297
the parties his Report and Recommendation on Objections
to the Second Runoff Election. On February 28, 1968 a
corrected Report and Recommendation was issued. In his
report, as corrected, the Regional Director found that all of
the Respondent's objections to the second runoff election
were without merit recommending to the Board that they
be overruled and that a certification be issued to the Union.
On March 18, 1968 the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendation with
respect to its objections to the second runoff election. On
May 24, 1968 the Board issued an order directing that a
hearing be held on one of the Respondent's objections. The
order stated that the Board was of the opinion that a
hearing should be held on the factual issues raised by
Respondent's Objection No. 2 because it presented a
material issue of fact which could best be resolved by a
record of testimony taken at a hearing. Accordingly, a
hearing was directed for the purpose of taking testimony on
the issues raised by Objection No. 2. Pursuant to said Order
of the Board a hearing was held on July 1, 1968 before
Hearing Officer Robert M. Ziskin. The Respondent and the
Union appeared and participated at said hearing. They
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. After said hearing briefs were filed by the
parties. On November 14, 1968 Hearing Officer Ziskin filed
and duly served on all the parties his Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended that Respon-
dent's Objection No. 2 be overruled, and that the Union be
certified as the collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit mentioned above in paragraph IV.
Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing
Officer's Report and Recommendation and a supporting
brief. On April 30, 1969 the Board issued its Supplemental
Decision, Order and Direction for Third Runoff Election in
which it rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation
and ordered that a third runoff election be held among the
employees in the unit mentioned above in paragraph IV.
3. Pursuant to the said Order of the Board, a third
runoff election was conducted on June 5, 1969 among the
employees in the unit mentioned above in paragraph IV. At
said election a majority of the employees in said unit again
indicated their desire to have the Union herein involved
represent them for collective bargaining purposes. On June
12, 1969, the Respondent filed objections to the third runoff
election. On October 17, 1969 the Regional Director issued
his Report and Recommendation on objections to the third
runoff election recommending to the Board that the
Respondent's objections to said election be overruled and
that the Union be certified as the collective bargaining
agent of the employees in the unit mentioned above in
paragraph IV. On October 27, 1969 the Respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration before the Regional Director.
On October 30, 1969 the Regional Director overruled the
Respondent's motion for reconsideration. On October 30,
1969 the Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report and recommendation on objections to the
third runoff election. On January 22, 1970 the Board issued
its Decision and Order overruling the exceptions of the
Respondent to the Regional Director's Report and
Recommendation on Respondent's objections to the third
runoff election and certified the Union as the collective
bargaining agent of the employees in the unit mentioned
above in paragraph IV. Thereafter the Respondent made a
motion for reconsideration before the Board which motion
was overruled on February 13, 1970.
APPENDIX B
The following news item, entitled "Developments in
Industrial Relations," is from the March 1970 issue of the
Monthly Labor Review of the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
GE settlement
After a strike that lasted more than 3 months, the General
Electric Co., the International Union of Electrical Workers
(IuE) , and the United Electrical Workers (uE) reached
agreement on January 26. The fuE, representing 80,000 GE
workers, and the UE, representing 16,000, ratified the 40-
month contract. Four other unions among the 14 that
bargained with GE accepted similar terms. The four unions
were the Flint Glass Workers, the Plumbers and Pipefitters,
the Sheet Metal Workers, and the Firemen and Oilers. (The
other unions in the 147,000-worker coalition were the Auto
Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Teamsters, Steelworkers, American Federation of Techni-
cal Employees, Allied Industrial Workers, Carpenters, and
the Machinists. These unions remained on strike.)
The Machinists union labeled the settlement as
"inadequate" and recommended that its 14,000 members at
GE reject the package. Unlike the iuE and the uE, the
Machinists and the other unions involved bargain with the
company on a local basis.
The accord was expected to influence bargaining
between Westinghouse Electric Corp. and 9 unions for
80,000 workers. Contracts for some of these unions had
expired in November 1969, but work continued under day-
to-day extensions. In recent years, Westinghouse settle-
ments have been patterned after those at GE .
The GE pacts provided for an immediate general wage
increase of 20 cents an hour, plus 5- to 25-cent increases for
skilled employees, and for 15-cent general increases
effective in February 1971 and April 1972. The escalator
clause was revised to provide cost-of-living increases of up
to 8 cents an hour on October 26, 1970, October 25, 1971,
and October 30, 1972, calculated at 1 cent for each 0.3-
percent rise in the Consumer Price Index during the year
preceding each adjustment. Three cents of the 8-cent
maximum increase in October 1970 was put into effect
immediately to compensate for the cost-of-living rise since
October 26, 1969, when the previous 3-year contracts
expired and the walkout began. Under the previous
contracts the workers received a total of 3.5 percent in
escalator increases.
Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the
Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and based on information from secondary sources available in January.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The minimum pension rates for employees retiring at age
65 was increased to $5-$7 . 50 a month for each year of
credited service , from a flat $4 . 50, further increasing to
$5.50-$7.50 on January 1, 1971, $6-$7.50 on January 1,
1972, and $6.50-$7.50 on January 1, 1973. Other pension
changes included adoption of a $125 -a-month supplement
for some disability retirees , and improvements in credits for
service prior to January 1, 1961, and in the survivorship
option.
The company agreed to assume the full cost of insurance
for employees effective January 1, 1971, increasing the
employees take-home pay by about 1 percent, to provide
for 100 percent of hospital room and board for up to 365
days, and to increase the sickness and accident benefit rate
to 60 percent of normal straight-time earnings (from 50
percent) and the maximum benefit to $ 150 a week (from
$100).
The vacation schedule was revised to provide 4 weeks
after 15 years of service (instead of 20 years) and for a fifth
week after 30 years, effective January 1, 1971. Other
contract terms included adoption of a sick leave-personal
business plan providing for annual accrual ranging from 2
days after 5 years of service to 5 days after 25 years of
service; and improvements in training programs , Income
Extension Aid for laid-off employees, and paid funeral
leave . The unions won a "uniform" expiration for their
contracts , although they did not gain a union shop.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively as a
single employer in good faith with the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers as
the exclusive representative of all our employees
collectively in the following appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement . The appropriate bargaining unit
is:
All production and maintenance employees
employed at our plants in Palmer, Puerto Rico,
excluding office clerical employees , professional
personnel , laboratory technicians, guards and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request , continue bargaining with the
aforementioned Union with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment which was commenced on March 24, 1970,
in connection with that portion of our employees in the
above-described appropriate unit which consists of
employees employed at the Palmer , Puerto Rico , plants
of General Electric Co ., Circuit Protective Devices
Department , Caribe Plant Operations , and General
Electric Circuit Breakers , Inc., and , if an understanding
is reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with the
aforementioned Union with respect to the rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment in connection with that portion of
employees in the above-described appropriate unit who
are employed at the plant of General Electric Power
Products , Inc., wherever that plant may now be located,
and, if an agreement is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
CIRCUIT PROTECTIVE
DEVICES DEPARTMENT,
CARIBE PLANT OPERATIONS;
GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER
PRODUCTS, INC. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CIRCUIT
BREAKERS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT
BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board 's Office,
Seventh Floor , Pan Am Building , 255 Ponce de Leon
Avenue , Box UU, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919 , Telephone
809-765-0404.