Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 767 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 767
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Local 8-277,
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers , AFL-CIO.
Case 3-CA-4441
March 8, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On September 22, 1971, Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,
findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
ORDER
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner: This is an un-
fair labor practice case litigated under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. 29
U.S.C. 160(b). It was initiated by a complaint issued on June
4, 1971, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, through the Regional
Director for Region 3 (Buffalo, New York) naming Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company as the Respondent. Said complaint
is based on a charge filed on April 22, 1971, by Local 8-277,
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO. In substance
the complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5), and that such conduct affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Pursuant to due notice this case came on to be heard at
Buffalo, New York, on July 22, 1971. All parties were repre-
sented at and participated in the trial, and had full oppor-
tunity to adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, file briefs, and offer oral argument . At the close of the
hearing the parties argued orally. Briefs have been received
from all parties.
This case presents the issues of whether
1. Respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local
8-277; and
2. Whether Respondent's warehouse at Tonawanda, New
York, is included in a production and maintenance unit at its
Niagara Falls, New York plant.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observa-
tion of the sole witness who testified, I make the following:
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Niagara Falls,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting:
I am not persuaded that the facts are sufficient to
show an accretion. While the matter is not free from
doubt, there is evidence that the new warehouse is a
quite independent operation, separately supervised,
and not clearly integrated into the Respondent's
Niagara Falls plant. This being true, I conclude that
the Tonawanda warehouse is a separate unit, as to
which Respondent has no duty to bargain unless and
until the employees therein have freely chosen a bar-
gaining agent . I would therefore dismiss.
' The Trial Examiner found, in substance, that even though Respondent's
initial unlawful refusal to recognize the Union at the Tonawanda warehouse
unit occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge herein,
this proceeding is not barred by Section 10(b) of the Act because Respond-
ent's ,. continued unlawful refusal to extend recognition within the 10(b)
period constitutes a continuing violation of the Act. We find it unnecessary
to rely on the continuing nature of Respondent's refusal of recognition
because on November 5, 1970-a date within the 10(b) period-the Union
again requested , and Respondent again refused, recognition. Moreover, the
record shows that Respondent had no doubt all through the 10(b) period
that the Union was seeking recognition at Tonawanda.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. AS TO JURSIDICTION
Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in manufac-
turing and selling tires and related products. Only its plant
located in Niagara Falls, New York, is involved in this pro-
ceeding. During the past year said plant sold and distributed
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside
the State of New York. During the same period it purchased
and received at said plant goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
New York. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction over Respondent in this proceeding.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 8-277, Oil, Chemical , and Atomic Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Since about 1947 Respondent has recognized the Union as
the collective bargaining representative of all of the former's
"hourly rated production and maintenance employees at [its]
Niagara Falls, New York, plant." See article I of General
Counsel's Exhibit 2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1. This unit
included the warehouse employees employed there. The latest
contract was executed March 16, 1970, for a period of time
ending on March 15, 1973.
Because of a shortage of warehouse space at said Niagara
Falls plant, Respondent in or about 1966 established a ware-
house on Highland Avenue, at Norry, located in the city of
Niagara Falls about 4 miles from said plant, where excess
195 NLRB No. 141
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
products and raw materials were stored. Said Norry ware-
house was leased by Respondent. Respondent recognized the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees at this Norry warehouse and extended to such em-
ployees the terms of the existing collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union. A separate written agreement for
Norry was also executed by Respondent and the Union to
supplement the Niagara Falls agreement. However, said sup-
plement merely concerned a few minor matters, but did not
touch upon wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employ-
ment because these were covered by the existing contract for
the Niagara Falls plant. See Union's Exhibit 2. Said coverage
was mutually consented, to on the ground that the Norry
warehouse, being located in Niagara Falls, was embraced
within the terms of the contract unit referring to employees
at the "Niagara Falls plant."
Only one employee at first worked at the Norry warehouse.
Later others were assigned to work there. They were not in
a separate bargaining unit but were included in the unit de-
scribed in General Counsel's Exhibit 2, that is, the contrac-
tual bargaining unit. They were all transferees from the ware-
house at the Niagara Falls plant. Said employees were
classified as lift truck operators and helpers, such being the
same job classifications used at the Niagara Falls plant ware-
house itself, and performed the same type of work as lift truck
operators and helpers employed at the Niagara Falls plant
warehouse. The employees at the Norry warehouse were sent
there from the Niagara Falls plant warehouse and, when their
duties at Norry ended, returned to perform similar work at
the Niagara Falls plant warehouse. Norry's employees re-
ceived the same wages as the employees in the same job
classifications at the Niagara Falls plant warehouse. They
were also supervised "from the Niagara Falls plant."
Raw materials received at the Norry warehouse were ulti-
mately used at the Niagara Falls plant. Finished products
produced at the Niagara Falls plant were stored at the Norry
warehouse from which point they were shipped to customers
purchasing them. Thus Norry handled raw materials and
finished products only for the Niagara Falls plant, and then
only when storage space therefor became inadequate at the
Niagara Falls plant. All records of Norry relating to receipt
of materials and shipping of finished products were handled
by and kept at the Niagara Falls plant.
When its lease at Norry expired in October 1970, Respond-
ent terminated its warehouse operations there and leased
other warehouse space in Tonawanda, New York. Tona-
wanda, in Erie County, is 11 miles from the Niagara Falls
plant, which is located in Niagara County. Shortly before the
end of October 1970, both the Union's president and its shop
steward asked Respondent whether it would recognize the
Union at the new warehouse location in Tonawanda, but they
were informed that such recognition would not be granted
because the new warehouse was situated outside the city of
Niagara Falls, and consequently, was not part of the contrac-
tual bargaining unit.
When Respondent moved its Norry warehouse operations
to Tonawanda, employee Tom Sobczyk, who worked at
Norry as a "bargaining unit employee," was transferred or
assigned to the Tonawanda warehouse as a "non-bargaining
unit employee," according to Respondent. Employee Sobc-
zyk of the Tonawanda warehouse originally was employed at
the Norry warehouse. While at Norry he was a member of
the Union and his dues were automatically deducted by Re-
spondent pursuant to appropriate clauses in the contract. But
when he started to work at the Tonawanda warehouse no
union dues were deducted from his wages. Yet the Union did
not request that he be discharged for not remaining a member
thereof. Nor was such request made by the Union to dis-
charge the other employees at Tonawanda although such
employees were not members of the Union.
Respondent met with union officials about five times to
discuss recognizing the latter of Tonawanda. At all meetings,
but especially at the second meeting held on November 25,
1970, Respondent expressed a willingness to grant such
recognition and include the Tonawanda warehouse in the
Niagara Falls bargaining unit, provided the Union would
follow "certain conditions." Those conditions involved
changes at the Niagara Falls plant which, in Respondent's
opinion, would accomplish "efficiencies" at said plant. How-
ever, the Union never accepted such conditions, even after
Respondent withdrew some of them at later meetings, and
Respondent never agreed to recognize the Union as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees at the
Tonawanda warehouse. But the parties also discussed some
of the conditions of employment at Tonawanda and whether
these should be the same as or different from those at the
Niagara Falls plant.
Respondent made some concessions and after the fourth
meeting submitted its final proposals to the Union. The
Union, in turn, presented these final proposals to its member-
ship. However the members not only rejected the same, but
recommended that the matter be submitted to arbitration as
a grievance. The arbitrator's award is set forth below. See
G.C.'s Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 for Respondent's proposed condi-
tions before it would recognize the Union at Tonawanda.
Raw materials stored at the Tonawanda warehouse are
destined for use at the Niagara Falls plant exclusively. Said
warehouse also stores only products manufactured at said
plant. Said warehouse has three employees, all lift truck oper-
ators, and one supervisor. Such employees also perform mis-
cellaneous duties, such as cleaning toilets and locker room,
changing light bulbs, and "anything to keep the [warehouse]
in operation." However, the Tonawanda lift truck is the same
one formerly operated at Norry.
A separate payroll is maintained for the Tonawanda em-
ployees. Tonawanda lift truck operators are paid a half cent
an hour more than the Niagara Falls plant warehouse lift
truck operators. Tonawanda employees are paid by checks
made out by the Niagara Falls plant accounting department.
Such warehouse employees have the same working hours as
the employees at the Niagara Falls plant, i.e., 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., and enjoy the same holidays. Further, employees at the
Tonawanda warehouse receive the same fringe, benefits as
those at the Niagara Falls plant except that the former are
covered by an insurance plan (slightly better in benefits than
that applicable to bargaining unit employees in Niagara
Falls) which also is given to salaried, nonbargaining unit
employees at Niagara Falls. No raise is given to Tonawanda
employees without the knowledge and approval of Pollock,
the personnel manager of the Niagara Falls plant.
Although records of raw materials received at Tonawanda
are kept there, the Niagara Falls plant also knows how much
has been received by Tonawanda. In addition, records relat-
ing to the amount of finished products shipped out of Tona-
wanda are kept at Tonawanda. Also, personnel records of
employees at Tonawanda are maintained at that warehouse.
And employee grievances, whether emanating from those at
the Tonawanda warehouse or those at the Niagara Falls
plant, eventually reach the desk of the personnel manager,
John Pollock of the Niagara Falls plant. Although the vaca-
tion plan for employees at the Tonawanda warehouse is com-
parable to that for salaried, nonbargaining unit employees at
Niagara Falls, both plans were designed by said John Pollock.
Hiring of new employees at the Tonawanda warehouse was
accomplished in the following manner: Pollock, the person-
nel manager at the Niagara Falls plant, advertised for help in
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 769
the name of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Such ads
directed applicants to write to a post office box number.
Replies were then processed by Pollock or one of his assist-
ants. Thereafter, applicants were interviewed by Stein, an
assistant of Pollock, and Gidlow, the supervisor at Tona-
wanda. Stein "assisted" Gidlow in selecting the two who were
ultimately hired.
On February 19, 1971, Respondent and the Union were
heard by an arbitrator regarding a grievance. The issue was
whether Respondent properly eliminated "the negotiated
outside shippers job ... in their outside warehouse." Re-
spondent contested the matter on the ground that it was not
an appropriate subject for the grievance procedure under the
collective-bargaining contract, contending that said contract
did not cover Tonawanda employees.
On March 11, 1971, the arbitrator rendered his award. See
Union's Exhibit 1. Among other things he found that "essen-
tially the same functions are performed at the Tonawanda
warehouse as were performed at the Norry warehouse.
Material is received at the Tonawanda warehouse for ulti-
mate use in the Niagara Falls plant; products of the Niagara
Falls plant are stored at the Tonawanda warehouse and
shipped to customers from that point. It is an intermediate
storage area for materials and products for which there is no
room at Niagara Falls." The arbitrator sustained the Union's
position that the Tonawanda warehouse was "an extension of
the warehouse facilities of Niagara Falls to an area close to
the Niagara Falls plant and used entirely by the Niagara Falls
plant ... as an interdepartmental situation." He further
found that the Tonawanda warehouse "is the successor to the
Norry warehouse, performing essentially the same function."
Accordingly, he "held" that the Tonawanda warehouse was
covered by the "current agreement" between Respondent and
the Union relating to the Niagara Falls plant. However, there
was evidence at the trial herein that some unidentified
products were shipped to Tonawanda from Goodyear's
Blackman, Louisiana, plant, and that such products had "no
connection with the Niagara Falls plant."
B. Concluding Findings and Analysis
Upon a careful analysis of the record it is my opinion, and
I find, that the Tonawanda warehouse is included in the
bargaining unit covered by the contract between the Union
and Respondent. It follows that Respondent was under a
legal onus to bargain with the Union upon bargainable sub-
jects relating to the Tonawanda warehouse, and I so find.
Finally, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union regarding
such issues. The foregoing ultimate findings of fact are based
on the entire record in this case and the following subsidiary
facts, which I hereby find as facts.
1. The Norry warehouse was but an extension of, and thus
became a part of, the Niagara Falls plant's warehouse. Indeed
Respondent and the Union bargained over matters affecting
the Norry employees. Since no serious dispute exists as to this
finding, it would be supererogatory to recite the uncontested
evidence which supports this conclusion. The question then
is whether the Tonawanda warehouse supplanted the Norry
warehouse, or whether the former constituted a substantially
different operation' so as to become a separate unit from the
Niagara Falls warehouse. Cf. Scholastic Magazines, Incor-
porated, 192 NLRB No. 64, Levitz Furniture Company of
Santa Clara, Inc., 192 NLRB No 13.
2. The establishment of the Tonawanda warehouse was a
direct consequence of the disestablishment of the Norry ware-
house. Accordingly, I find that Tonawanda"was a replace-
ment or substitution for Norry and did not therefore attain
the status of a separate unit. In effect Tonawanda should be
treated as an accretion to the Niagara Falls plant unit, and
I so find Retail Clerk Union, Local 870, 192 NLRB No. 33.
3. Geographic proximity is an important factor. When
such propinquity is considered in connection with the fact
that there exists a high degree of integration of operations
between Tonawanda and the Niagara Falls plant, it is reason-
able to look upon Tonawanda as an essential and constituent
part of the Niagara Falls plant. Horn &-Hardart, 170 NLRB
988. Respondent's contention that Norry was located in
Niagara County and that proximity is irrelevant because
Tonawanda is located in another country is not well taken.
The fact remains that Tonawanda is but 10 miles from
Niagara Falls and much closer to Niagara Falls than other
cities and towns situated in Niagara County.
Nor is there merit to Respondent's argument that the con-
tract restricts the bargaining unit to employees working in the
city of Niagara Falls. While it is true that the contract men-
tions the unit as "hourly rated production and maintenance
employees at the Company's Niagara Falls, New York,
plant" (art. I, A, of Resp. Exh. 1), this is nevertheless but
descriptive of the manufacturing aggregate involved rather
than a characterization of a geographical location of limited
scope. Hence it is reasonable to infer-and I do so-that all
buildings in close proximity to the central Niagara Falls plant
which are integrated with its processes and managed by its
officers compose "the Niagara Falls, New York, plant."
4. Centralization of operations cannot be overlooked or
disregarded. Thus Tonawanda is supervised by the hierarchy
of officials at Niagara Falls. In addition Niagara Falls officials
participate in the hiring at, set the wage scales and fringe
benefits at, and determine what to store at Tonawanda and
when to deliver finished products therefrom. And Tona-
wanda exists principally to receive the overflow of materials
and finished products which the warehouse at Niagara Falls
is incapable of handling because of lack of space at the
Niagara Falls warehouse. Such centralization points to the
conclusion that Tonawanda is an integral part of the Niagara
Falls plant. Horn & Hardart, 170 NLRB 988.
5. Employees at Tonawanda enjoy interests in common
with those at Niagara Falls. Although the pay scales and
fringe benefits of the employees of said two warehouses differ
slightly, such employees otherwise perform practically the
identical work and have the same working hours. Hence
employees at Tonawanda might properly have been covered
by the current contract between Respondent and the Union
if Tonawanda had been operating when said contract was
executed
6. Although an arbitrator has rendered an award favorable
to the Union on the issue of whether the contract embraces
Tonawanda, I feel I am not bound by his decision. Woolwich,
Inc., 185 NLRB No. 127; Textron, Inc., 173 NLRB 1290;
Horn & Hardart Co., 173 NLRB 1077, 1079, 176 NLRB No.
20, enfd. 439 F.2d 674 (C.A. 2). Hence, I have not deferred
to his award. In my opinion, Collyer Insulated Wire, 192
NLRB No. 150, is distinguishable.
Certain arguments of Respondent advanced in its brief
may be briefly disposed of.
a. Respondent argues that the Union does not represent a
majority at Tonawanda. The evidence so indicates. But this
is immaterial so long as Tonawanda is part of the Niagara
Falls unit. This is because the Union enjoys a majority in the
Niagara Falls unit and Respondent has failed to demonstrate
that such majority has been lost or destroyed by including the
few nonunion employees at Tonawanda. Shamrock Dairy,
119 NLRB 998. See Hexton Furniture Company, 111 NLRB
342.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. Respondent contends that it did bargain with the Union
with respect to the employees at the Tonawanda warehouse.
But the evidence clearly indicates that such bargaining in
substance amounts to no more than a conditional offer to
recognize the Union as the representative of the Tonawanda
employees. But a conditional offer does not satisfy Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. As the Union was a majority representative
it was entitled to be unconditionally recognized as the collec-
tive-bargaining agent of the Tonawanda employees as part of
the Niagara Falls unit. Hence I find that this position of
Respondent fails to defeat the General Counsel's case.
c. It is strenuously urged that the case is barred by the
statute of limitations. Section 10(b) of the Act forbids com-
plaints "based upon any labor practice occurring more than
six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board."
Since Respondent refused to recognize the Union as to the
Tonawanda warehouse beginning with October 15, 1970, and
the charge relating thereto was filed on April 22, 1971, the
present complaint patently is stale as to the October 15 date.
But I regard the refusal to recognize as a continuing unfair
labor practice. On this view of the record I find that the
charge was timely presented to the Board on April 22, 1971.
d. Respondent also insists there is no interchange of em-
ployees between Tonawanda and Niagara Falls. Cf. Textron,
Inc., 173 NLRB 1290, 1291. While not immaterial, neverthe-
less this alone is insufficient to override the other facts above
which I have found render Tonawanda an accretion to the
Niagara Falls unit.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
That activity of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
found to be an unfair labor practice, has a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent transgressed' Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom' and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. However, I find
that Respondent's conduct does not reflect a general disre-
gard or hostility to the Act. Accordingly, I find that a broad
remedial order against Respondent is not warranted. Rather,
I find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to enjoin
Respondent only from repeating the conduct found above to
violate the Act and similar or like activity.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), and is engaged in commerce as defined in Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All hourly rated production and maintenance employees
at Respondent's Niagara Falls, New York, plant, including
its warehouse at Tonawanda, New York, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Sections 8(a)(5) and 9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of those of
Respondent's Tonawanda, New York, warehouse employees
included in said appropriate unit, Respondent has committed
an unfair labor practice condemned by Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing finding of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:'
ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its Tonawanda, New
York, warehouse employees employed in the unit found
above to be appropriate.
(b) In any similar or like manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, including employees in its
Tonawanda, New York, warehouse.
(b) Post at its place of business at Niagara Falls, New York,
and its warehouse at Tonawanda, New York, copies of the
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being
signed by a duly authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily displayed., Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.'
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , recommendations,
and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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 waived for all
purposes
z In the event 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."
' In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees' that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with Lo-
cal 8-277, Oil; Chemical, and Atomic Workers, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain with
said Local 8-277, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees in said bargaining unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
of onditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is ched, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All hourly rated production and maintenance em-
ployees at our Niagara Falls, New York, plant, in-
cluding our warehouse at Tonawanda, New York,
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
771
GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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, Ninth
Floor, Federal Building , 111 West Huron Street, Buffalo,
New York 14202.