Goodman Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 369
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union, by
initiating and distributing among its employees in an apropriate bargaining unit revo-
cation of dues checkoff authorization slips and soliciting their signatures thereto for
the admitted purpose of assisting them "to get out of the Union"; by granting them
a 5-cent overall wage increase without bargaining with the Union on the subject
matter; by failing and refusing to give to the Union certain wage information as
regards job classifications of the employees in the appropriate unit; by failing and
refusing to give to the Union a seniority list of its employees in the unit when re-
quested to do so by the Union in the mode and manner provided for in a valid writ-
ten agreement between it and the Union; by refusing to bargain with the Union while
unfair labor practice charges were pending before the Board; terminating its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Union and/or refusing to perform or comply
with the terms thereof in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 (d) (1), (2),
(3), and (4) of the Act; and by terminating its valid written agreement with the
Union and/or refusing to perform the terms thereof for the purpose of undermining
the Union and/or avoiding its statutory duty to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union, it will be recommended below that the Respondent forthwith take
certain affirmative action, and cease and desist from other practices found to consti-
tute a refusal to bargain.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 415, CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, Hexton Furniture Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at the employer's Grand Rapids,
Michigan, plant, excluding office employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. At all times since October 17, 1953, the Union has been the exclusive repre-
sentative for purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By engaging in the conduct fully described above, and particularized in section
V, paragraph 1 immediately above this section of the report, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, and in contravention, and/or total disregard of the pro-
visions of Section 8 (d) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION and LOCAL 1150,
UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA.
Case No. 13-CA-1293. January 928,1955
Decision and Order
After a charge duly filed by Local 1150 in this case and a complaint
issued thereon alleging that the Respondent had committed violations
of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, the Respondent filed with the
Board a motion to redetermine the compliance status of Local 1150's
111 NLRB No. 65.
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union (United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers
of America), and for dismissal of the complaint pending against it
upon the ground, inter alia, that the International's trustees were offi-
cers and that the individuals filling these positions had failed to file
affidavits required of officers by Section 9 (h) of the Act.' Whereupon,
the Board, on June 24, 1953, issued a notice to show cause, ordering
the International to show cause why the Board should not administra-
tively determine that the International was not in full compliance for
the reason just stated. The International timely filed an answer to the
notice to show cause and the Respondent filed a reply memorandum
to the International's answer. Thereafter, on August 6, 1953, the
Board issued its order and administrative determination of compli-
ance status ordering that, good cause having been shown by the Inter-
national why the Board should not determine that its trustees were
and are officers, Respondent's motion in all respects be denied.
On August 31, 1953, a hearing was held on the merits in this case
before Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper. On January 8, 1954, the
Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial
Examiner with the following additions :
In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the Respondent, inter
alia,2 affirmatively alleges that District 11 of the United Electrical
Radio and Machine Workers of America (the District with which
Local 1150 and the UE International are affiliated), is a labor organi-
zation not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of
1 The Respondent also raised the same issues of compliance in its answer to the com-
plaint, in which it admits refusing to bargain with the International Union but defends
upon the grounds of noncompliance by the Union and its affiliates and also upon the
ground that the unit found by the Board in the prior representation proceeding (Case
No 13-RC-2761) is inappropriate.
2 The Respondent continues to argue in its exceptions that the Board erred in its unit
finding in the prior representation proceeding in this matter As this issue was fully
litigated and considered by the Board in the representation proceeding, in the absence of
evidence which was newly discovered or unavailable to the Respondent at the time of the
representation hearing, it is clear that such issue is not properly the subject of relitigation
in the instant proceeding. Clarostat Manufacturing Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 775. Ac-
cordingly, we find no merit in this exception.
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 371
the Act, and that for this reason the complaint should be dismissed.
Because this specific contention was not considered in the above-men-
tioned Board's order and administrative determination of August 6,
1953, the Board on April 12, 1954, issued a notice to show cause why
it should not administratively determine that District 11 is a labor
organization which should comply with the filing requirements of Sec-
tion 9 of the Act for Local 1150 and the UE to be in full compliance.
Both District 11 and the Respondent filed answers to the notice to
show cause. This particular issue has been considered together with a
similar issue in another case 3 which also involved a district (District
9) of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America,
and upon which issue a lengthy hearing was held. In that case, the
Board found that District 9 was not a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act and for that reason its officers were not required
to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act in order
for affiliated locals and the UE to be in full compliance. We take
judicial notice of the fact that the character and function of District
11, here involved, are the same as that of District 9 involved in the
Magnavox case. Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Magnavox
case, we find that District 11 is not a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act and therefore its officers are not required to comply
with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act in order for Local
1150 and the UE to be in full compliance. Because it appears that
both Local 1150 and its affiliate, United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America are in compliance with the filing requirements
of the Act and that the unit involved is appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining, we find that the Respondent has violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by its admitted refusal to bargain with
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America. Accord-
ingly, we shall issue our usual 8 (a) (5) (1) order.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Goodman Manufactur-
ing Company, a corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the United Electrical
Radio and Machine Workers of America as the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the appropriate unit.
s The Magnavox Company , 111 NLRB 379.
344056-55-vol. 111-25
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of the United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America to negotiate for,
or to represent, the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit as
their exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1150, United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's representative be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Local 1150,
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, and
other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees including group
leaders, coal passers, firemen and maintenance men, wood-
workers, shellac men, laborers, factory clerical employees,
timekeepers, and order pickers, but excluding patternmakers
and apprentices , tracers, expediters, time-study men, drafts-
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 373
men and other technical employees, operating engineers,
office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, foremen, assist-
ant foremen, and all other supervisory employees, with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom-
mend such action.
WE WILL NOT engage in any act in any manner interfering with
the efforts of the aforesaid Union to negotiate for or represent
the employees in the bargaining unit described above.
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served , a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, and an answer having been duly filed by Goodman Manufacturing
Company ( hereinafter called Respondent ), a hearing involving allegations of unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act , as amended (hereinafter called the Act), 61 Stat. 136, was held in
Chicago, Illinois, on August 31, 1953, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleges that since on or about September 20, 1952,
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with Local 1150, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America ( hereinafter called the Local), and the
United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (hereinafter called the
International ), as the exclusive bargaining agent of all of its employees in an ap-
propriate unit.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel , were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues , to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact , conclusions
of law, and a brief have been received from Respondent and considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Illinois corporation , having its principal plant, office , and place
of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
electrical mining machinery. During the year 1952, it purchased raw materials val-
ued at more than $7,000,000, of which approximately 65 percent was shipped in in-
terstate commerce to its plant from points outside the State of Illinois. In the same
period, it sold finished products valued at more than $17,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 70 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. Re-
spondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Local and the International are labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of Respondent.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged, the Board found in the previous representation case (13-
RC-2761), and I find that all production and maintenance employees including group
leaders, coal passers, firemen and maintenance men, woodworkers, shellac men, la-
borers, factory clerical employees, timekeepers, and order pickers, but excluding pat-
ternmakers and apprentices, tracers, expediters, time-study men, draftsmen and other
technical employees, operating engineers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards,
foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
2. The International's majority representation
On December 23, 1944, in an election held under the supervision of the Board's
Regional Director, a majority of Respondent's employees in the aforesaid unit, ex-
cludmg the timekeepers, designated the International as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining. Subsequently the International was certified by
the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. On May
26, 1952, the International filed a petition for certification as representative of the
timekeepers, requesting their inclusion in the aforesaid unit. After a hearing the
Board on August 14, 1952, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No.
13-RC-2761, directing a self-determination election among the timekeepers and pro-
viding that if a majority voting cast ballots for the International they be made a part
of the aforesaid unit and the International be certified as their exclusive represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Such election was conducted on
September 9, 1952, and a majority of the timekeepers selected the International as
their representative. On September 17, 1952, the Regional Director certified the
International as the exclusive representative of the timekeepers as part of the unit
of employees which the International then represented. I find that at all times ma-
terial herein the International was, and now is, the duly designated exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
3. The refusal to bargain
All of the facts in this case are admitted. As previously found, the International
has been representing Respondent's production and maintenance employees with the
exception of its timekeepers since 1944. The timekeepers selected the International
at the Board-conducted election. On September 17, 1952, the Board certified the
International as the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the appropriate
unit including the timekeepers. On September 20, 1952, the Local by letter re-
quested Respondent to bargain. Respondent did not reply to this letter. On Novem-
ber 12, 1952, the International by letter requested Respondent to bargain. Respond-
ent did not reply to this letter.
The only issues before me have already been decided by the Board. Respondent
stipulated on the record that it refused to bargain with the International as the rep-
resentative of the timekeepers, as a part of the appropriate unit certified by the
Board. Respondent relies upon two legal defenses, namely, that the unit found by
the Board is not appropriate, and that the International is not in compliance with
Section 9 (h) of the Act and therefore the Board's certification in the representation
proceeding is invalid. It is for these reasons Respondent refused to bargain
with the International as the representative of the timekeepers. On March 4, 1953,
Respondent filed with the Board a motion to redetermine the compliance status
of the International and to dismiss the complaint herein. On June 24, 1953, the
Board issued a notice to show cause to the International why its compliance status
should not be redetermined, pursuant to Section 102 13 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations. On July 3, 1953, the International filed its answer to this notice to
show cause. On July 13, 1953, Respondent filed a memorandum with the Board in
connection with the notice to show cause why compliance should not be redetermined.
On August 6, 1953, the Board issued its order and administrative determination of
compliance status, finding that the International was and had been in compliance
with Section 9 (h) of the Act and denying Respondent's motion in all respects.
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 375
Respondent contends that the inclusion of the timekeepers in the unit was not ap-
propriate . Respondent made this same contention and fully litigated it before the
Board in the representation case referred to above. The Board determined then
that the timekeepers are properly a part of the appropriate unit and accordingly this
issue is not before me . There has been no change in the situation since then, and the
arguments advanced before me why the timekeepers are not appropriately part of the
unit are the same as those advanced to the Board in the representation case. Re-
spondent also contends that it cannot be found to have refused to bargain with the
International with respect to the timekeepers because certain trustees of the Inter-
national are in Respondent 's opinion officers of the International , and hence must file
affidavits in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act . This is the same issue liti-
gated before the Board in its administrative determination of the compliance status
of the International after the issuance of the notice to show cause as a result of the
motion filed by Respondent . All of the arguments advanced before me are those
previously passed upon by the Board when it denied Respondent 's motion. For the
reasons previously stated, there is nothing before me to decide which has not already
been passed upon by the Board. Respondent here seeks to litigate questions of fact
and law already decided by the Board.
Respondent having admitted the facts alleged in the complaint and set forth herein,
I find that it refused to bargain with the International in violation of Section 8 (a)
(5) and ( 1) of the Act.'
Respondent proposed 15 separate findings of fact and 9 conclusions of law. All
of the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by Respondent not specifi-
cally herein found or concluded are herewith specifically rejected.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
2. The Local and the International are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , including group leaders , coal pass-
ers, firemen and maintenance men, woodworkers , shellac men, labors, factory
clerical employees , timekeepers, and order pickers , but excluding patternmakers and
apprentices , tracers, expediters , time-study men, draftsmen and other technical em-
ployees, operating engineers , office clerical employees, watchmen , guards, foremen,
assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees
or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
4. At all times since September 17, 1952, the International has been and now is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing at all times on and after November 12, 1952, to bargain
collectively with the International as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
'The recent decision of the Board in its administrative determination of the compli-
ance of Local 1421 of the UE, 107 NLRB 147, November 24, 1953, where the Board deter-
mined that the said Local was not in compliance because certain trustees were officers
within the meaning of the Act and had not filed the affidavits required by Section 9 (h),
cannot be considered as a precedent here , because the Board, in its administrative deter-
mination of the compliance of Local 1150 of the UE, 96 NLRB 1029, upon an identical
fact situation determined that Local 1150 was not at that time in compliance, and In
making its administrative determination in the instant case that the International is in
compliance , the Board considered its determination in the Local 1150 case and found that
the facts and reasoning applicable therein were inapposite to this case.