Getlan Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 864 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Getlan Iron Works, Inc. and Shopmen 's Local Union
No. 455 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO.' Case 29-CA-72
May 5, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On November 18, 1965, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' adopting the Trial
Examiner's Decision wherein it was held that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in the
following unfair labor practices:
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by its solicitation and promise of benefits,
between July 23 and August 7, 1964, to striking
employees Willy Schaller and Zoltan Gally to
abandon the strike of Local 455 and return to work
and by stating to them it would not agree upon a
contract with that Union.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by its solicitation and promises of benefit,
on August 21' and September 1, 1964, to employee
James McClenic to abandon the strike and return to
work.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (5), and
(1) of the Act by its failure, on and after July 28,
1964, to confer in good faith with Local 455 with
respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment, and by its execution on September 4,
1964, of a collective-bargaining agreement with
Industrial Production Employees Union, Local 42,
herein called Local 42, including a maintenance of
membership provision.
4. By reason of the foregoing unfair labor
practices, the strike was converted into an unfair
labor practice strike on July 28, 1964, and the
strikers continued to be its employees.
5. Respondent early in September 1964, assisted
Local 42 in violation of Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1)
of the Act by requesting employees to meet with the
Local 42 representative who was soliciting
authorization cards of Local 42 and, despite Local
42's lack of majority status, by entering into a
collective-bargaining contract with that organization
and maintaining the union security and checkoff
provisions therein.
On the Board's petition for the enforcement of its
Order involving the foregoing findings, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
May 23 and June 28, 1967, respectively, entered an
'Herein called Local 455
'155 NLRB 1053
'As a result of the Trial Examiner's inadvertence , the date in his fifth
conclusion of law incorrectly appears as August 27
opinion and decree enforcing all portions of the
Board's Order except the requirement that
Respondent bargain with Local 455 and, upon
application, reinstate certain employees." The court
found that there was a lack of substantial evidence
that by July 28, 1964, Respondent had a fixed
determination not to bargain with Local 455. The
court noted, however, that "the evidence . . . might
be sufficient to support a finding of [R]espondent's
determination not to bargain sometime after July
28." [Emphasis supplied.] The court stated it was
therefore necessary to fix the exact date of the
unlawful refusal to bargain in order to determine the
conversion date of the economic strike and the
propriety of the bargaining order. Accordingly, the
court remanded to the Board for reconsideration
"those portions of the Board's Order requiring
Respondent to bargain with Local 455 and dealing
with the reinstatement rights of the strikers ...."
Pursuant to the remand, the Board on October 4,
1967, sent to the parties a notice of opportunity to
submit statements of positions concerning the
following questions:
1. When, if at all, was the economic strike, which
was called on July 22, 1964, converted into an
unfair labor practice strike?
2. Did Local 455 represent a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit on the date of
Respondent's alleged refusal to bargain?
3. When, if at all, did Respondent refuse to
bargain in good faith with Local 455?
Thereafter, such statements and briefs were
submitted by all parties except Local 42.
The Board' has considered its original Decision
and Order, the opinion and decree of the court, the
statements of position and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby makes the following
findings of fact with respect to the issues raised by
the court's remand order.
Respondent is one of a number of "independent"
companies that did not join Allied Building Metal
Industries," an association of about one hundred
employers who have been negotiating a series of
general collective-bargaining contracts with Local
455. In 1959 and 1961, Respondent, without
bargaining separately with Local 455, adopted the
two general contracts negotiated by Allied and
Local 455 for periods ending December 1961 and
June 1964. However, on April 17, 1964, Local 455,
which notified the independent employers that they
would no longer be permitted as in the past to await
the outcome of negotiations with Allied, sent to all
such employers, including Respondent, letters
expressing its desire to negotiate new agreements
'377 F 2d 894 (C A 2).
We have been administratively advised that, pursuant to the court's
decree, a notice was posted by Respondent and there has been full
compliance therewith
'Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 3(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel
'Herein called Allied
175 NLRB No. 138
GETLAN IRON WORKS, INC. 865
with an effective date of July 1, 1964.
Respondent's president, Marvin Getlan, and its
general manager, Walter Loechel, met with
representatives of Local 455 on July 2 and discussed
a 1-year contract which was proposed by Local 455
and was in part agreed to by Respondent. When
Local 455 requested Getlan to sign a stipulation
extending the expired contract to July 10, he refused
to do so because he wished to consult counsel.
About July 15, Local 455 distributed to the
independents a new document entitled "Stipulation
of Settlement," which provided that a modified
version of the proposed July 2 agreement should
become the new contract.
At a meeting on July 22, Local 455, the
representative of all shop employees, voted to strike
those independent employers who had not agreed to
extend the expired contract.' When Getlan arrived
the next morning and found his shop employees
outside the plant, he asked what had happened and
Schaller, the shop steward of Local 455, replied,
"We are on strike. No contract, no work." That
same day, Getlan, who testified that he was annoyed
that some of the other independents had not been
struck by Local 455, said to the picketing
employees, "Why don't you come back to work? All
the other shops [are] working."
While Schaller was picketing during the first or
second week of the strike, Getlan said to him, "I'm
not going to sign with [Local] 455 any more. If you
want to keep working for me you have to drop out
of the Union, and I will give you more money."8
When Schaller refused to quit Local 455, Getlan
responded, "It's been nice knowing you for five
years."
On one occasion during the 2-week period after
the commencement of the strike, Respondent
Manager Loechel approached Schaller and Kunz
and said to them, "Why walk with the pickets? You
can make yourself a couple of dollars. Here is the
key. I will open the door and you can go in."
About a week after the strike began, Getlan came
up to Gaily, who was picketing, and asked, "Why
don't you fellows come back to work?" Gaily
replied that the return to work would take place as
soon as Getlan signed the contract. Getlan then said
he was "never going to sign it," that he was "going
to get out (sic) the Union [Local 455] from the
shop," that he "had so much trouble with the
Union," that he "just paid off seven hundred
dollars," and didn't "like it." When Gaily asked
about his vacation pay, Getlan answered that Gaily
was "on vacation now," that if Gaily came back to
'The parties stipulated that on this day Respondent had eight shop unit
employees , namely, Willy Schaller, Zoltan Gaily , Arthur Kunz, James
McClenic, Frank Casaine, John McClenic, John W . Johnson, and T.
Graham, the first five of whom were members of Local 455. On the
following day , all of these employees except Johnson went out on strike.
'On subsequent questioning by the Trial Examiner , Schaller testified that
Getlan said, "that he will not join, will not sign a contract with Local 455
the way it is."
work Getlan would give him vacation money with
the other union ,' and that Getlan would give Gaily
more raises than Local 455 had obtained for him.
On July 28, Getlan and Loechel negotiated on the
basis of the Stipulation with Local 455, including its
business agent Frank Candelora and its attorney
Belle Harper. Getlan tentatively agreed to some
provisions of the Stipulation but expressed doubt as
to the legality of the union-security clause. In
accordance with her promise, Mrs. Harper on July
31 sent Getlan a copy of the Act and called his
attention to the relevant portions of Section 8(a)(3).
On August 4, Candelora visited Respondent's
plant where he asked Getlan to sign the Stipulation
and put the men back to work. Getlan replied that
he did not need any men because he was having his
work done out of town and that he would have to
see his attorney. According to Getlan, he told
Candelora that he had not yet received the contract
from Mrs. Harper and Candelora responded, "Well
its not acceptable, you will just have to sign the
regular contract." Getlan refused to do so and
stated that he would sign the contract reached with
Allied. However, Candelora refused to guarantee
that Allied's contract would be available to
Respondent.
On August 21, Getlan asked James McClenic,
who was picketing, why he did not come back to
work and received the answer that the employees
were on strike. Getlan then ridiculed several of
Local 455's contract proposals. Getlan stated he
would not "sign anything like that" and again asked
the strikers to come back to work."'
About 2:30 p.m. on August 27, Candelora again
asked Getlan to sign the contract and the latter
unequivocally replied that he was not going to sign
any more contract[s] with Local 455, that he was
"through with Local 455," and that he was "going
to go out of business.""
According to the credited testimony of
Respondent manager Loechel, Getlan introduced
him to Gerald Lasky, president of Local 42, about
August 31, and told him that Getlan and Lasky
were "bargaining for a contract."" When the
employees quit work on September 2, Lasky was on
the street outside Respondent's plant" soliciting
'Gaily testified further that Getlan mentioned "some other union" but
didn't state the number of the union, and that while Getlan did not say
that he already had another union , he did say he was going to have one.
"James McClenic returned to his job and worked full days on August
24, 25, 26, but only the first two hours on August 27 when he was
persuaded to resume picketing by Candelora.
"The record shows that as of the afternoon of August 27, six unit
employees were on strike, namely , Gaily, Schaller, Casaine, Kunz, James
McClenic and Graham . At work at that time were two old employees,
John McClenic and Johnson, and two new employees , Vincent Iacono who
had been working for Respondent since August 17, and William Kauderer
who started with Respondent on the . morning of August 27.
"Iacono testified that about this time Loechel told him that the place
"was going to go union" and that a person was coming down to talk to the
employees . Iacono also testified that when he met Lasky on the street the
latter said that he was bargaining with Getlan for a contract.
"Johnson, the employee who did not go out on strike and was not a
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorization cards for Local 42 from the
employees." As noted above, Respondent on
September 4 executed a contract with Local 42 even
though the latter at that time had not achieved
majority status.
As already indicated, the issues remanded by the
court deal with the conversion date of the economic
strike, the propriety of the bargaining order, and the
reinstatement rights of the strikers.
The General Counsel argued as follows:"
There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of
Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with
Local 455 on August 4, 1964, when Getlan advised
Candelora, business agent for Local 455, that he did
not need any men, i.e., the strikers, as he was
having his work done out of town and that he would
only accept a contract identical to that which might
eventually be negotiated with Allied. Alternatively,
the General Counsel contended that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on August 27 at
which time, in response to Candelora's question as
to when Respondent was going to sign a contract,
Getlan stated he was "through" with Local 455. The
General Counsel stated that the conclusion that
Respondent rejected the principle of collective
bargaining is buttressed by Respondent 's extension
of unlawful assistance to and support of Local 42 in
that union' s organizational campaign in late August
1964, and by its entrance into an unlawful
bargaining relationship with Local 42 on September
4.
The General Counsel further asserted that
Respondent not only lacked a good-faith doubt as to
Local 455's continued majority but engaged in a
campaign to undermine Local 455's majority status.
The General Counsel also took the position that,
despite this campaign, Local 455 in fact maintained
its majority status during the strike. As to August 4,
the General Counsel asserted that Local 455's
majority remained intact because no new employees
were hired until August 15. Regarding August 27,
the General Counsel reasoned as follows: New
employee Iacono was a truckdriver and as such
should not be regarded as a replacement of any unit
employee because the bargaining unit did not
include truckdrivers. As the record does not reveal
which of the 5 striking employees were replaced by
Kauderer, the Board should, in the opinion of the
General Counsel, find that the bargaining unit on
August 27 consisted of the strikers - Schaller,
Gally, Kunz, Casaine, and Graham - and the four
employees - Johnson, John McClenic, Kauderer,
and James McClenic - who were working on
August 27." The General Counsel concluded that
Local 455 still retained its majority as 5 of the 9
member of Local 455, testified that some time before Lasky appeared
Getlan told him that he "would try to get another union in the shop."
"Earlier that day, Loechel received a message "from the office" that
Lasky wanted the men to wait for him and Loechel then relayed this
message to each of the men individually.
"Local 455 took essentially the same position as the General Counsel
employees in the unit on August 27 were members
of Local 455. Finally, the General Counsel would
find that the economic strike was converted into an
unfair labor practice strike no later than August 27.
Respondent made the following argument:
The economic strike was never converted into an
unfair labor practice strike since the original and
continuing purpose of the strike was to get
Respondent to sign the stipulation agreement. No
refusal to bargain in good faith can be found on
Respondent's part as Local 455 brought about the
impasse by its adamant demands for the same
agreement as it signed with other employers.
However, assuming that Getlan's remark to
Candelora on August 27 that he was "through" with
Local 455 constituted a refusal to bargain, the
refusal was not an unfair labor practice as Local
455 did not represent the majority of employees on
that date.
As the economic strike was never converted into
an unfair labor practice strike - so Respondent's
argument continues - the unit should therefore
include the three old employees who were working
on August 27, the two new employees who were
serving as replacements, and the four employees
who were on strike. The action of James McClenic,
one of the five members of Local 455, in crossing
the picket line and returning to work on the
morning of August 27, rebuts the presumption that
Local 455 "could count him as one of theirs."
Accordingly, as only four of the nine employees in
the unit could be considered adherents of Local 455,
that organization, in Respondent's opinion, no
longer had a majority on August 27.
On the basis of the following appraisal of the
evidence, we find that by the afternoon of August 27
Respondent had fully demonstrated its
determination to withdraw its recognition of
incumbent Local 455 and to replace it with Local
42, which we have already found with court
approval was assisted by Respondent in violation of
Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1) of the Act.
It is clear that on a number of occasions
commencing with the first day of the strike on July
23, 1964, Respondent sought to interfere with the
legitimate functions of Local 455 as a labor
organization by a number of unlawful acts. The
evidence is persuasive that Getlan, who strongly
disapproved of Local 455's departure from the
policy of allowing independents like Respondent to
await the outcome of negotiations with Allied and
then to adopt the general contract, had no serious
intention of bargaining separately with Local 455.
Thus, Getlan during the first or second week of the
strike made clear his position when he told Schaller,
the shop steward for Local 455, that he was "not
going to sign with [Local 455]." That Getlan did not
wish to deal with Local 455 is obvious from his
"However , as indicated above, James McClenic resumed striking after
working the first 2 hours on August 27
GETLAN IRON WORKS, INC.
effort to weaken that labor organization by
attempting to induce Schaller to quit by threatening
him with an "unlawful discharge and offering him
"more money." During the same period,
Respondent' s manager, -1.oechel, also resorted to the
unlawful act of- soliciting Schaller and Kunz,
another member of Local 455, to abandon the
strike.
About a week after the strike began, Getlan again
took illegal action in his effort to dissipate the
strength of Local 455 by asking Gally, another
member of Local 455, "Why don't you fellows [the
strikers] come back to work?" Getlan in his
statements made to Gally at this time spelled out
with unmistakable clarity his decision not to sign a
contract with Local 455, his resolution to get that
"union out of the shop," his plan or desire to
replace it with another union , and his promise of
better vacation benefits and more raises than could
be obtained through Local 455.
Getlan's opposition to dealing separately with
Local 455 was underscored on August 4 when he
insisted on reverting to the old practice of adopting
the general contract after it was negotiated with
Allied. On August 21, Getlan went still further in
his campaign to undermine Local 455 by coupling
his unlawful solicitation of James McClenic to
abandon the strike with yet another declaration that
he would not sign "anything like" the contract
proposals of Local 455, Any doubt as to
Respondent' s position was completely eliminated on
the afternoon of August 27 when Getlan asserted he
was "not going to sign any more contract[s] with
Local 455", that he was "through" with Local 455,
and that he was "going to go out of business." In
this connection, we find it significant that
Respondent' s, plan to supplant Local 455 with
another union, which Getlan first announced in early
August, was repeated to Iacono in late August, 7
and was then coming to, fruition as evidenced by
Respondent' s admisiori that Getlan and Lasky,
Local 42's representative, were at that time already
in the midst of negotiating the unlawful contract
that was executed just a few days later.
Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent refused
to bargain on the afternoon of August 27, 1964,
when it announced it would engage in no further
negotiations with Local 455. We turn now to the
question whether Local 455 at that time retained the
majority status which is one of the prerequisites for
finding that a refusal to bargain constitutes an
8(a)(5) violation:
The Board recently held in Pioneer Flour Mills"
that Section 9(c)(3), which deals with representation
matters, is also pertinent to an 8(a)(5) allegation.
The Board therefore decided that replaced strikers19
as well as their replacements , nonreplaced strikers,
and nonstriking employees should be counted as
"As noted above , such a statement was also made to nonstriking
employee Johnson sometime before September' 2.
867
part of, the bargaining unit for the purpose of
determining an incumbent union's majority status in
unfair labor practice cases.
We find in conformity with the above formula
that, for the purpose of determining Local 455's
majority status on the afternoon of August 27, the
bargaining unit consisted of strikers Schaller, Gally,
Kunz, James McClenic, Casaine, and Graham, of
Johnson and John McClenic20 who were at work,
and of replacements Kauderer and Iacono.21 As 6 of
the 10 employees in the unit were on strike at the
time of Respondent's refusal to bargain, there can
be little doubt that they were manifesting their
support of the Union by this concerted activity.
Contrary to Respondent who contended that James
McClenic, a member of Local 455, could no longer
be counted as a supporter of the Union because he
was working on the morning of August 27, we find
that this employee reaffirmed his support of the
Union when he resumed picketing that same
morning. Although one of the strikers, Graham,
does not appear to have been a member of Local
455, we find that his participation in the strike
demonstrated that he favored the cause of Local 455
and should therefore be counted as one of its
adherents.22 Accordingly, we conclude that on the
ft noon f A t 27 Lo l 455 ti d ta er ugus cao con nue o
maintain its majority status, and, further, that
Respondent did not at that time have any
reasonable basis for doubting Local 455's continuing
representative status which it had theretofore
recognized." The record shows, moreover, that
Respondent, which argued that Local 455 "brought
about the impasse by its adamant demands," did
not predicate its refusal to bargain on August 27
upon a doubt of majority. In addition, even if we
were to assume, contrary to fact, that majority
doubt was impliedly included as a ground for
Respondent's refusal to bargain, its opposition to
Local 455 and unlawful support of Local 42 show
that this was not urged in good faith. We therefore
find that Respondent on the afternoon of August 27
refused to bargain with Local 455, the majority
representative of its employees, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
"C.H. Guenther & Son, Inc, d/b/a Pioneer Flour Mills, 174 NLRB
No. 174.
"Involved in strikes of not more than 12-month duration
"John McClenic , who, as noted above , went out on strike on July 23,
returned to work at an unspecified time before the morning of August 27
"We do not agree with the General Counsel that Iacono was a
truckdnver and as such should not be regarded as a replacement of a
striking shop unit employee . Although Iacono testified at the hearing on
February 24, 1965, that he was a driver , his authorization card for Local
42, dated September 3, 1964 , only about 2 weeks after he was hired, gives
his position as "welder & installer," which is a shop classification. In any
event , even assuming that Iacono was hired as a truckdriver , we are of the
opinion that this was a unit job as the parties stipulated that truckdnver
Johnson was among those listed in the unit on the eve of the strike
"Cf S & M Mfg Co. 172 NLRB No. 104.
"United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division), 168 NLRB
No. 66; Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 151 NLRB 1482; Celanese Corp. of
America, 95 NLRB 664.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There remains the question of remedy. As
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act on the afternoon of August 27, we hold that the
strike was converted into an unfair labor practice
strike as of that date. As four of the six striking
employees were not replaced by that time and
therefore became unfair labor practice strikers
because of the conversion, we find that they, unlike
the two economic strikers, who were replaced prior
thereto, are entitled to reinstatement. However, as it
does not appear from the record which four of the
six strikers were replaced prior to the conversion, we
shall refer this matter to compliance. We shall
therefore require that Respondent, upon application,
reinstate the strikers who had not been permanently
replaced as of the afternoon of August 27, 1964, to
their former or substantially equal positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges discharging, if necessary, persons hired
since August 27, 1964, and make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered by reason of Respondent's
refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
they normally would have earned less their net
earnings,24 during the period 5 days after the date on
which they apply or have applied for reinstatement
to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement.2S
In view of the foregoing, we shall enter the
following remedial order and notice.26
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board orders that Respondent , Getlan
Iron Works , Inc., its officers , agents , successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
Refusing to bargain with Shopmen ' s Local Union
No. 455 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural , and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representatives of the
employees in a unit composed of all production and
maintenance employees of Getlan Iron Works, Inc.,
employed at its plant , exclusive of clerical
employees , superintendents , foremen who do not
handle material or work with tools, employees who
are represented by any other union with which
Respondent has signed a collective-bargaining
agreement , employees engaged in erection,
installation , or construction work , and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act,
with respect to rates of pay, hours , and other terms
and conditions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policy of the Act:
"See F W Woolworth Corp, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716.
"Southern Beverage Company, 171 NLRB No. 128.
"See fn. 4
(a) Upon application, reinstate to their former or
substantially equal positions, the four of the six
strikers - Willy Schaller, Zoltan Gally, Arthur
Kunz, Frank Casaine, James McClenic, T. Graham
- who were not replaced prior to the afternoon of
August 27, 1964, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges, discharging if
necessary, persons hired since August 27, 1964.
(b) Make whole said employees in the manner set
forth above.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board and
its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records
necessary to assist in the determination of which
strikers were entitled to reinstatement and also to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(d) Notify any of the four nonreplaced strikers
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement, upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local
455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit,
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms of
employment, and if an agreement is reached,
incorporate the same in a written contract.
(f) Post at its plant in Hempstead, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 27
Copies of this notice on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being
duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent upon receipt hereof, 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 such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Decision and Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, and after the Court of Appeals
"In the event this Order is enforced by a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Supplemental
Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order."
GETLAN IRON WORKS, INC.
directed the National Labor Relations Board to reconsider
the part of its order requiring the Company to bargain
with Shopmen's Local Union No. 455 of the International
Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, and to reinstate the strikers, the
Board has now found that the Company unlawfully
refused to bargain on August 27, 1964, and has ordered us
to post this notice and to keep our word about what we
say in this notice.
WE WILL, upon request, meet and confer in good
faith and bargain collectively with Local 455 as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described below , and if an
understanding is reached, embody it in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of Getlan
Iron Works, Inc., employed in its plant, exclusive of
clerical employees, superintendents, foremen who do
not handle material or work with tools, employees
who are ' represented by any other union with which
Respondent has signed a collective-bargaining
agreement , employees engaged in erection,
installation, or construction work, and all supervisors
as described in Section 2(11) of the Act.
After the Board agent checks the Company's records
and finds out which four of the six strikers - Willy
Schaller, Zoltan Gally, Arthur Kunz, Frank Casaine,
James McClenic, T. Graham - were not replaced before
the afternoon of August 27, 1964, the Company will offer
to reinstate to their old or similar jobs the four
nonreplaced strikers, without changing their seniority and
their rights and privileges, and discharging, if necessary,
869
persons hired since August 27, 1964.
WE WILL give backpay plus 6 percent interest to any
of the nonreplaced strikers who were or are unlawfully
denied reinstatement from 5 days after their application
to return to work.
WE WILL notify the four nonreplaced employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from
becoming or remaining members of Shopmen's Local
455 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
Dated By
GETLAN IRON WORKS,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street,
Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone
212-596-3535.