Hoerner-Waldorf Paper Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 772 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IAM cards are, by concession of the General Counsel, in
no way to be regarded as evidence of majority status. The
evidence establishes that the Company bargained
voluntarily with the Committee but fails to establish that it
was at any time under the statutory obligation to do so.
In addition to the foregoing considerations, the evidence
clearly reveals that the proximate cause of the withdrawal
of recognition from the committee was its affiliation with
the IAM and, in communications to the committeemen,
the Company clearly expressed its doubt that employees
desired such representation in view of the earlier,
repudiated representation by that organization. In this
connection it is noted that the July 23, 1965, refusal to
bargain occurred less than 1 year after the 33 to 7 vote
against IAM representation and certification of the results
of that election. The Company has proclaimed a sincere
doubt of the majority status of the committee-IAM
combines majority status. There are no indicia,
contemporaneous or preterite, of the lack of bona fides of
that doubt and the employer moved promptly to resolve
the question concerning representation by filing a petition
with the Board.
Under all the circumstances of this case I conclude that
the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the
conclusion that the Company engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Cincinnati Gasket Shop Committee is a labor
organization within the purview of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Company is not shown to have engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record herein it is
recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed.
Hoerner-Waldorf Paper Products Co. and
Herman Mohland . Case 19-CA-3409.
March 31,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 30, 1966, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Res,iondent had not
engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
163 NLRB No. 105
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
entire record in this case, including the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the briefs,
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 complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
' We find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to furnish the
Union with certain information regarding A-plus rates, such
information being necessary both for the administration of the
current contract and for future negotiations However, in view of
the fact that Respondent, prior to the hearing in the instant case,
had furnished the Union with the requested information, and that
Respondent had engaged in no other violations of the Act, we find
that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to provide for
a remedial Order against the Respondent
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER , Trial Examiner: This case with all
parties represented was heard in Missoula, Montana, on
October 4, 1966, upon a complaint of the General Counsel
and answer of Hoerner-Waldorf Paper Products Co.,'
herein called the Respondent. The complaint was issued
on July 18, 1966 , upon a charge filed on May 24 , 1966. The
complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Herman
Mohland , the Charging Party, because of his activities on
behalf of Heligate Local 885, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and that Respondent
failed to furnish the Union with data necessary to the
administration of its current labor agreement and for its
preparation for future negotiations , thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act . Respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint as to the alleged discharge of Mohland on
grounds that the matter pending in grievance and
arbitration proceedings pursuant to contract provisions.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by
the Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon
the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I
hereby make the following:
' The name of the Employer, as it appears in all formal papers,
was corrected to show the name to be Hoerner-Waldorf Paper
Products Company rather than Waldorf-Hoerner Paper Products
Company
HOERNER-WALDORF PAPER PRODUCTS CO. 773
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal
offices in St. Paul, Minnesota. It operates a plant in
Missoula, Montana, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of paperboard. During the past fiscal year,
Respondent purchased, transferred, and delivered to its
Missoula plant, wood materials, acids, and other goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were
transported to said plant directly from points outside the
State of Montana.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Hellgate Local 885, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
(1) Whether the Board, for policy considerations,
should decline to consider the matter of the discharge of
the Charging Party in view of the fact that grievance and
arbitration procedure exists and was being utilized.
(2) Whether Herman Mohland was discharged on
May 20, 1966, because of union activities he engaged in, or
whether he was discharged because he refused to carry
out orders and instructions given by Respondent.
(3) Whether Respondent refused to bargain with the
Union by its delay in furnishing certain data requested by
the standing committee of the Union.
B. The Arbitration Proceedings
The contract between Respondent and the Union
provides for a grievance procedure of four steps and then
arbitration by an arbitrator selected from a panel
submitted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service. Mohland filed a grievance on his discharge
shortly before June 6, 1966. This was after the charge was
filed herein, which was filed on May 24, 1966. The
grievance was processed -through the first three steps of
the grievance procedure, the third step having been
completed on June 6, 1966; and by agreement between
representatives of Respondent and the Union, the fourth
step was delayed because of the pendency of the unfair
labor practice case . In September 1966, they agreed to
bypass step four and to proceed to arbitration.
In the latter part of July 1966, Kenneth Sovereign,
industrial relations manager for Respondent, visited the
Regional Director of Region 19 of the Board and requested
that the Board proceedings be delayed until the grievance
and arbitration procedure in the union contract could be
completed. By letter dated September 15, 1966,
Respondent repeated its request to the Regional Director,
and on September 16, 1966, Respondent and the Union
jointly requested the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service to submit a panel of five arbitrators from which list
one could be selected by the parties to hear the dispute.
On September 26, 1966, Respondent filed a formal motion
with the, Regional Director that the Board proceedings be
deferred until completion of the arbitration proceedings.
By telegraphic order dated September 27, 1966, this
motion was denied.
Before a grievance can be submitted to arbitration it
must be considered and arbitration proceedings
authorized by a majority of the union members in
attendance at a union meeting. In view of the fact that the
unfair labor practice proceedings could not be delayed, the
Union and the Respondent agreed to delay further
proceedings on the arbitration until the hearing before a
Trial Examiner in the unfair labor practice case, and an
adjudication of the matter by the Board.
During the course of the hearing herein on October 4,
1966, Mohland while on the witness stand and in answer to
questions by the counsel for General Counsel stated that
he was then and there giving notice to the Union that he
wished to withdraw his grievance and that no further
action be taken under the grievance and arbitration
procedure of the union contract.
The Board, of course, is the tribunal for hearing and
deciding unfair labor practices falling within the
proscriptions of the Act. Where a matter under the Act
and triable before the Board has been submitted to and
determined by an arbitrator, the Board will, as a matter of
policy, honor the arbitrator's decision and not consider the
matter where the arbitration proceedings were fair and
regular, all parties agreed to such proceedings, and the
arbitrator's decision is not clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act.2 In a number of cases the
Board has not been satisfied that this criteria has been
met, as where the arbitrator addressed himself to limited
issues. In these instances the Board has not honored the
arbitrators' decisions and has adjudicated the alleged
unfair labor practices.3
In the instant case the matter of Mohland's discharge
has been through the grievance procedure but has not
been arbitrated; and in fact, has not yet been approved for
arbitration by a vote of the union membership. As the
arbitration proceedings have not been held, th6 Board's
criteria as to fairness and regularity cannot be applied.
Furthermore, Mohland has now withdrawn his agreement
to such proceedings. I reject Respondent's contention that
the complaint be dismissed on grounds of the existence of
the arbitration procedure.
C. The Discharge of Mohland on May 20,1966
Herman Mohland was employed by Respondent on
April 23, 1962, and was discharged on May 20, 1966. He
was a maintenance cleanup man at the time of his
discharge.
On March 11, 1966, Respondent installed new
timeclocks and new timecards. Instructions were posted
to the employees as to how they should complete the new
timecards. They were instructed to fill in, among other
things, the hours worked showing straight time, overtime,
2 Spiel berg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080,
I Oscherwitz and Sons, 130 NLRB 1078
. 8 Monsanto Chemical Company, 130 NLRB 1097, Gateway
Transportation Co , 137 NLRB 1763, Precision Fittings, Inc., 141
NLRB 1034; Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc, 155 NLRB
447, Hotel Employers Association of San Francisco, 159 NLRB
143
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and total time. The reason assigned by Respondent for
Mohland's discharge was his failure to follow these
instructions.
Mohland completed the timecards in accordance with
Respondent's instructions until approximately April 15,
1966. On or about that date he was told by another
employee, Bob Reed, that he (Reed)' had worked on a
Sunday early in April and had not recorded this as
overtime on his timecard and was paid straight time for
that day.4 After this conversation with Reed, Mohland
discontinued filling in the columns of the timecard which
show the straight time, overtime, and total hours worked.
In all respects he completed the timecards in accordance
with the instructions . Mohland repeated to other
employees the information that Reed had given him. While
so doing, he was told by employee Dave Palmer that a
similar incident had happened to him-that he had worked
on Good Friday, which was a holiday, and had recorded
this on his timecard as straight time rather than overtime
and was paid accordingly.5
Nothing was said to Mohland about the incompleteness
of his timecards until Monday, May 16, 1966. During the
period of April 15 to May 16, his timecards were
completed by the maintenance foreman, Norman Carlson.
Around the first part of May, Carlson became aware that
Mohland was repeatedly not completing his timecards. He
mentioned this to his supervisor, Herman Effenberger.
Effenberger suggested that Carlson send Mohland's
incomplete timecards into the office, which would result in
his pay being delayed, and he suggested that Carlson talk
to Mohland. On May 16, Foreman Carlson reprimanded
Mohland about the incompleteness of his timecards and
told him that for the past month he had not been filling in
his timecards as to the number of hours worked. He
explained to Mohland how this was to be done. Mohland
replied that he understood the procedure but added that
"since the Company was making it a practice to cheat the
men," he did not want to accept the responsibility for
mistakes on his timecards. Mohland was not warned that
he might be discharged or otherwise punished for failure
to complete the timecards but was told that his paycheck
might be short some week although he would possibly get
his pay in full eventually.
On that day, Monday, May 16, Mohland filled his
timecard in completely, including the hours worked. On
Tuesday, May 17, however, Mohland did not complete his
timecard as to hours worked. That evening there was a
union meeting . At this meeting Mohland drafted a
resolution, which was presented at the meeting by another
union member , Union Steward Jerald Campbell, that the
timecards not be completed as to hours worked. Mohland
spoke on behalf of the resolution. He told the members
about the timecard errors made by Reed and Palmer and
stated that "if the Company was going to make a practice
of cheating us out of our pay," then the employees should
not complete the timecards because it was the Employer's
responsibility to keep accurate records of all time worked
by employees. The resolution passed by unanimous vote.
On the afternoon of Thursday, May 19, the following
notice was posted by the Union on its bulletin board at
Respondent's plant:
' Reed testified that this matter was corrected later and he
received overtime pay for hours worked on this Sunday He
testified that he did not later communicate this fact to Mohland
NOTICE TO THE MEMBERS OF LOCAL#885
The following resolution has been adopted by Local
#885 of I. B.P.S. and P.M.W.
Members are to punch timecards only. They will
not keep their own time. The members do not want to
assume the responsibility for mistakes in
timekeeping.
As directed by the Local
/s/ Wallace F. Lowell, President
Mohland did not put the hours worked on his timecards
on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday of that week
(May 17, 18, 19, and 20). On May 18 and 19, Foreman
Carlson was absent from the mill, and Martin Hegel, lead
mechanic over the pipefitters, took over his administrative
duties. One was that of verifying and signing or initialing
the timecards of employees under Foreman Carlson. The
timecards of Mohland for these days were returned to
Hegel from the main office as they had not been properly
made out. He then went to his supervisor, Herman
Effenberger, as to what should be done. Effenberger told
him to contact Mohland's leadman and find out what hours
he had worked and finish the cards so that Mohland could
receive his pay for those days. Effenberger then reported
these facts to Production Manager Sallee. Sallee called for
a meeting between company and union representatives to
investigate whether or not Mohland had actually refused to
comply with instruction on the timecards.
At or about 9 a.m. on Friday, May 20, Foreman Carlson
called Mohland from his work and took him to the
company office. Present at this meeting besides Carlson
and Mohland were: Wallace Lowell, the Union's
president; Pat Colyer, the Union's standing committee
chairman; Robert Prouty, Respondent's personnel
manager; and Robert Sallee, Respondent's production
manager. The meeting was opened by Sallee who stated
that the reason for the meeting was to determine why
Foreman Carlson had not been able to get Mohland to fill
in his timecards. He asked Carlson if it were true that he
had talked with Mohland on Monday of that week about
the timecards. Carlson replied that he had. Sallee noted
that Mohland had completed his timecard on that day
(Monday) but had not done so on Tuesday. He then asked
Mohland why he had not filled in his hours worked.
Mohland replied that he had not been filling in his
timecards because the Union adopted a resolution
instructing him not to do so. Sallee stated that he was
talking about Monday and Tuesday of that week which
was prior to the resolution. Mohland then proceeded to tell
the group what he had been told by employees Reed and
Palmer, that they had made mistakes in recording their
hours worked and that the Company "cheated them," and
that according to Palmer a lady in the office said she had
been instructed that if an employee made a mistake on his
timecard, it was his loss and she should pay accordingly.
Mohland stated that he did not want to accept the
responsibility for mistakes on timekeeping. Sallee asked
him if he still felt that way and Mohland replied that he
did. Sallee then asked Mohland if he had read the
instructions Respondent had issued on the matter of the
timecards and Mohland stated that he had and that he
' Palmer also testified that later this was corrected and he
received overtime pay but that he did not later convey this
information to Mohland
HOERNER-WALDORF PAPER PRODUCTS CO. 775
understood them . Sallee then replied , "as much as I regret
to do this, I have no other choice than to discharge you
immediately , exercising our right as guaranteed in the
contract for disobedience . 116 Section 28 of the contract
between Respondent and the Union lists conduct or
causes for immediate discharge . Disobedience and refusal
to comply with posted rules are among those listed.
On that same day, May 20, 1966, Union President
Lowell talked with Production Manager Sallee about the
company instructions on the timecards and the Union's
resolution on the matter . They agreed to use the grievance
procedure to resolve the dispute and that the Union
rescind its resolution . On that day and after the discharge
of Mohland , Lowell posted a notice to employees as
follows:
I ask you to comply with the company regulations on
filling out time cards until further notice. A grievance
is being filed by me to straighten out the time clock
situation . I have been in contact with the
International on this problem.
/s/ Wallace Lowell
Wallace Lowell
President, Local 885
At a labor-management meeting on May 27, 1966, this
grievance was discussed and it was resolved that
thereafter employees would only have to show on their
timecards the total hours worked, and show it on each job
if they worked on more than one job.
D. Other Union Activities of Mohland
The General Counsel contends that Respondent's
discharge of Mohland was motivated by union activities
engaged in by him. Besides the significant role that
Mohland played in the Union's resolution directing
members not to record the hours worked on their
timecards, of which there is no evidence that Respondent
had knowledge, he also took a firm position on the matter
of qualifications of an employee to participate in a training
program for mechanics.
The Union proposed a training program in the
maintenance department for the progression or
advancement of employees to higher ratings. In the fall of
1965 a committee from the Union and Respondent drafted
a proposal in this connection. The proposal contained a
qualification made by Respondent that the trainee be
under the age of 30 years, unless he had had previous
experience that made him qualified for mechanical work.
Respondent had been following a practice of limiting
trainees to age 30 in the maintenance department and in
the papermill since 1961 or 1962. This limitation did not
apply in the pulpmill. Mohland was informed of this
qualification when he transferred to the maintenance
department in December 1965.
In December 1965, the committee's proposal on the
training program with Respondent's age qualification was
taken to the union membership for consideration and
ratification. At the union meeting, Mohland opposed the
age qualification. His age was 34. The Union then drafted a
counterproposal on the mechanic training program which
deleted the qualification that a trainee be under 30 years of
age. The Union's proposal was submitted to Respondent
on January 27, 1966, at a labor-management meeting and
was rejected by it. In the maintenance department the
steps of progression are maintenance cleanup, junior
helper, senior helper, C-rate mechanic, A-rate mechanic,
or journeyman.
In December 1965 there were two other employees in
the maintenance cleanup classification who were over 30
years of age. Respondent offered to transfer the three
employees to other lines of progression. The other two
employees accepted the offer and were transferred to
other jobs. Mohland remained and in January 1966 was the
only employee over 30 years of age in the maintenance
cleanup classification.
At the labor-management committee meeting on
January 27, 1966, the Union strongly objected to
Respondent 's position on the age requirement , asserting
that only one individual was then involved. Production
Manager Sallee objected to the Union's position on the
matter and stated that the Union was in effect throwing the
training program out for one man. He stated that the Union
ought to sell its membership on the training program with
the age qualification included, and that if they would allow
one man to sway their thinking to the point where they
could not accept it, then it was their problem and not
Respondent's. All involved in the discussion were aware
that the one man involved was Mohland.
In April 1966 other employees in the maintenance
cleanup classification were promoted to junior helpers and
Mohland was not. On April 28, 1966, Mohland filed a
grievance contending that he had been denied the
opportunity to progress to the next step in the
maintenance line of progression. The grievance was
processed through the first step of the grievance
procedure and was denied by Foreman Carlson. On the
grievance form, Foreman Carlson stated that the
promotion of Mohland was denied for reasons of "overage
and inexperience in our field of maintenance." The
grievance passed to step two of the grievance procedure
for consideration by the Respondent and union standing
committee. This committee met during the first week of
May 1966. The Union took the position that it did not
recognize age as a basis for denying Mohland's promotion.
Respondent's representative stated that the matter could
not be resolved at this step of the grievance procedure as it
involved a "basic issue." The grievance was then referred
to the third step of the grievance procedure for a meeting
between the plant manager or his representative and the
local union president or his representative. A meeting of
these two was scheduled for May 12 but was postponed to
May 20, 1966, because of the unavailability of the company
representative. As this was the date on which Mohland
was discharged, no further action was taken on his
grievance.
E. Conclusions on Discharge
The General Counsel contends that other employees did
not complete their timecards and were not discharged or
disciplined and that this further evidences that the
discharge of Mohland was discriminatorily motivated.
Employees Wally Tucker and Jace Dove, electricians,
testified that they had not recorded hours worked from
some time in about mid-April 1966 until the second notice
of the Union was posted on May 20, 1966, and that no
disciplinary action was taken. Three other employees
6 I credit Mohland's testimony as to the statements made at this
meeting I was impressed with the clarity and vividness of his
recollection The official minutes of this meeting approved by
representatives of Respondent and the Union did not differ
greatly from Mohland's testimony.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that they did not complete their timecards during
the period of the union resolution directing them not to do
so, and no disciplinary action was taken. Instrument
Supervisor Pat Nelson testified that he handles about 30 or
40 timecards each day and that during the period of the
Union's resolution about 90 percent of these cards were
not completed. He was supervisor over the electrical crew
during the spring of 1966 and was the supervisor of
employees Dove and Tucker. On the 30 or 40 timecards he
handled each day he testified that on different occasions
during the time involved he made many corrections before
forwarding them to the payroll department. He testified
that he did not notice any pattern by any particular
employee, and he questioned that Dove and Tucker could
have turned in incomplete timecards consistently
following mid-April without his having noticed it.7
Prior to the union resolution of May 17, the maintenance
supervisors had discussed among themselves the fact that
during the time worked they had to fill in an occasional
portion of the timecards of almost every employee. They
apparently regarded this as inadvertence and negligence
rather than disobedience. Production Manager Sallee
testified that he did not know of the failures of Dove and
Tucker to complete their timecards, nor did he know of
any employee "refusing" to comply with the timecard
instructions other than Mohland, and the refusal of
employees to complete the timecards following the union
resolution of May 17.
There is no evidence that Respondent had knowledge
that Mohland drafted and advocated the resolution
directing employees not to complete their timecards as to
hours worked a Respondent did, however, know that he
was the one involved in the controversy over the mechanic
training program and that in April 1966 he filed a
grievance alleging that he was denied the opportunity to
progress to the classification of junior helper. The question
is whether he was discharged because of his participation
in and use of union activities, or because he "refused" to
comply with posted instructions and his foreman's
instructions regarding completion of his timecards. I find
that it was the latter. It is true that Mohland was the one
involved in the mechanic training program and apparently
was the factor that obstructed agreement on this program,
and no doubt this was displeasing to Respondent. It is also
a fact that two other employees refused to complete their
timecards from about mid-April, but their supervisor
treated it as timecard errors. Not until the hearing herein
was it known by Respondent to be a "refusal." The mass
refusal of employees to complete timecards following the
union resolution is in a different category because of the
directive to members contained in the resolution.
Mohland's failure to complete the timecards was not an
error but a refusal, and continued to be even after the
reprimand and instructions of his foreman on Monday,
May 16. It is true that Mohland was not warned by any
supervisor that discharge would be a consequence of his
refusal to complete his timecards, and it is true that his
stand on the timecards was supported by the Union, and
that later the Union, in meeting with Respondent, secured
some modification of the timecard instructions. But, prior
to the union resolution of May 17, Mohland's refusal to
complete the timecards was in defiance of posted
' The timecards of Tucker and Dove were not offered in
evidence, and Nelson's testimony on them is indefinite From the
testimony of Tucker and Dove, I find that they had not completed
their timecards from some time in or about mid-April to May 20,
1966
company instructions and on Tuesday, May 17, it was also
in defiance of instructions of his foreman.
There existed machinery under the union contract by
which a grievance on the timecards could be voiced and
resolved, as was done later by the Union. It would have
been more appropriate for Mohland to have pursued the
matter in this manner. I find that Mohland was discharged
for insubordination and not because of his union
activities.9
F. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain
A committee from the Union and a committee from
Respondent meet periodically in labor-management
meetings to discuss problems that may arise in labor
relations. On March 16, 1966, a labor-management
meeting was held. At this meeting, the union committee
requested the following information pertaining to "plus
rates" that are given by Respondent to employees:
1. How many employees have plus rates.
2. The total number of plusses being paid.
3. Who (by name) are getting the plusses and for how
long.
4. What criteria management uses to determine
when and how many plusses an employee could
receive.
Plus rates are rates that are given to journeymen
mechanics to show degrees of responsibility over and
above that normally performed by a journeyman
mechanic.
At this meeting of March 16, the union committeemen
stated that this information was needed for future
negotiations and for administration of the contract. The
Respondent took the position that historically
management had at its discretion granted or taken away
plus ratings, and that by this practice the Union has
conceded to Respondent the right to administer these
rates unilaterally. Respondent stated, however, that if the
Union had a specific problem concerning a plus rating for
an individual, it would be happy to talk to the committee
about it.
At the next labor-management meeting held on May 27,
1966, the union committee again requested the
information about the plus ratings. The Respondent again
declined to give the information stating that it may cause
trouble within the ranks of employees if the information
were given.
Oren Parker, vice president of the International Union,
did not participate in these labor-management meetings
and did not know of the controversy over the plus ratings
until a later date. When he learned of the matter and of the
fact that it had not been resolved, he spoke to Kenneth
Sovereign, Respondent's director of industrial relations,
and told him that in his opinion Respondent would have to
produce the rates and that he was going to make a formal
request for them at the next labor-management meeting to
be held in August 1966, and that if he did not get them, the
Union was going to do something about it. Union
Representative Kendall made a request for the
information at this meeting in August 1966, and on
F It occurs to me that the direction in the resolution might
possibly be interpreted as calling for an "interruption of work" as
the term is used in the no-strike clause of the union contract, but
under the facts of this case this issue is not before me
" Stop & Shop, Inc , 161 NLRB 75
YAZOO VALLEY ELECTRIC POWER ASSN.
September 30, 1966, the information was furnished.
Sovereign testified that he was holding off giving the
union committee the plus ratings until he received more
information as to why they wanted them. The current
contract does not expire until July 31, 1967, and the
committee requesting the information was not the contract
bargaining committee.
The data as to an employee's mechanic rating is in the
same category as his job classification or seniority and
constitutes "terms and conditions of employment" within
the meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act, and therefore data
that is proper and relevant to the collective-bargaining
relationship. Respondent objected to the release of said
data, and a delay of several months occurred from the
initial request therefor until its release. But, the
information had not been sought by the Union in previous
negotiations, and when formal and forceful request for the
data was made by a representative of the International
Union, it was furnished.10 Under the circumstances in this
case, I find that there has been no refusal to bargain in
good faith with the Union. I I
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
10 The refusal-to-bargain charge herein was filed by Mohland
and not by the Union Mohland was not a member of the labor-
management committee
11 Instrument Division, Rockwell Corporation, 142 NLRB 634
The counsel for General Counsel cites the Board's decision in
Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145
NLRB 152, in support of his contention, however, as to the data
furnished by the Respondent in that case, it maintained it had no
legal obligation to furnish it, also, it withheld some of the data
requested The Board, adopting the Trial Examiner's findings and
conclusions, found that "to the latter extent, at least [referring to
the withholding of data] it [Respondent] has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act "
Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association and
Local Union 605 , International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(AFL-CIO). Cases 15-CA-2754, 15-CA-2754-2,
and 15-RC-3215.
March 31, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On December 22, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney D.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
777
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions' to the
Decision 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 1 and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Yazoo Valley
Electric Power Association, Yazoo City, Mississippi,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all allegations of the
complaint not specifically found to be violations of
the Act be dismissed.
' The Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision are in large part directed to the credibility resolutions of
the Trial Examiner We will not overrule the Trial Examiner's
resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all
relevant evidence convinces us that they were incorrect Upon the
entire record, such conclusion is not warranted here Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
1 We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by
temporarily withholding fictitious union dues, fees, fines, and
assessments from each employee's paycheck shortly before the
election, Respondent interfered with the laboratory conditions in
which a free choice may be made However, we find it
unnecessary, in light of Respondent's flagrant 8(a)(1) activities
herein, to pass upon whether such conduct also violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
3 Member Brown, for the reasons set forth in his separate
statement in Dan Howard Mfg Co , and Dan Howard Sportswear,
Inc, 158 NLRB 805, fn 5, would find all the authorization cards to
be valid designations of the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SIDNEY D . GOLDBERG , Trial Examiner : In Cases
15-CA-2754 and 15-CA-2754x2, the complaint ' alleges
that Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association (herein
called the Respondent , the Association , or the Employer)
interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in
i Issued March 31, 1966, on charges filed December 6 and 27,
1965
163 NLRB No. 106