Indiana Limestone Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 697 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC . 697
• On April 6 Miller and Tittle filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board
against Respondent Union, Meehleis, and Yuba .4
Thereafter Miller returned to Meehleis and Yuba on April 17. Rex Rogers at
Meehleis, project superintendent who did the hiring for Meehleis, told Miller, who
did not identify himself when he asked for a welding job,5 that Meehleis did not
need any welders at that time .6
This same process was repeated at Meehleis on May 18 and 26 and on June 5,
23, and 30.
On April 24 Miller returned to Yuba at the same time that National Labor
Relations Board Attorney Crawford happened to be in the Yuba office investigating
Miller's charge. Crawford introduced Miller to Office Manager Snow and sug-
gested that Yuba give Miller the welders' test, a suggestion Snow passed on to
Yuba Welding Superintendent Gray who gave such tests.
Miller returned to Yuba on April 26 and asked Gray to give him the welders'
test. According to Miller, Gray refused to do so on the ground that Miller did not
belong to Local 321 and so he could not give Miller the test.
Despite this alleged refusal Miller was back at Yuba on May 1 again asking Gray
to be given the welding test. Miller testified that he still thought that be "might
be able to talk" Gray into giving him the test.7 In fact Gray did give Miller the
welders' test that day. Miller failed the test.
Miller returned to Yuba and saw Gray again on June 5, Gray stated that he
could do nothing for Miller. A welder on the Yuba project had to carry his certi-
fication as a welder with him at all times during work so that said certification could
be inspected by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. No welding could be done without
that certification. Without such a certification Gray could not employ Miller as a
welder.
On June 5 Gray gave Miller the welding test again. Again Miller failed.
The Conclusions
The evidence in this case affirmatively proves that: (1) No illegal "arrangement"
existed between the Respondents; (2) no illegal "practice" was maintained among
the Respondents; (3) Respondent Union was not the "sole source" of welders for
Respondent Companies; and (4) Miller could not, and did not, qualify for the only
job he was asking for on this project, to wit, welding.
For the above reasons, the Trial Examiner will recommend that this complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
4 Tittle eventually was employed by Meehleis and dropped his charges
6 Miller testified that he always asked only for a welding job. He admitted that weld-
ing was the only work he could do as lie was not a rodman
C The record shows that Meehleis did not hire a welder until April 24.
7 If Gray had been as definite about the need for union membership in order to give
the test as Miller's testimony of his meeting with Gray on April 26 would indicate, Miller
was either highly optimistic when he returned on May 1 or else his testimony regarding
the April 26 meeting was at least exaggerated The only other references to unions
were supposedly made on March 22 by unidentified individuals
Indiana Limestone Company, Inc. and Federated Council Lime-
stone Trades of Indiana, AFL-CIO
Indiana Limestone Company, Inc. and Local Lodge No. 599,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 25-CA-1282 and 25-CA-1282-2. March 09, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 13, 1961, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
136 NLRB No. 61.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate 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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
and the brief, and finds merit in the Respondent's exceptions. The
Board therefore adopts the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions
only to the extent consistent herewith.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent was a mem-
ber of Indiana Limestone Industry Industrial Relations Committee 1
and had engaged in multiemployer bargaining through the Committee
with the Federated Council Limestone Trades of Indiana, AFL-CIO.2
However, we do not agree that the facts of this case support the con-
clusion that the Respondent therefore violated Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act by refusing to execute the 1960 agreements negotiated by the
Committee and the Council.
For many years the Committee has represented its members s in
collective bargaining with the Council and other labor organizations.
The Respondent was a member of and participated in such bargaining
through the Committee and its predecessor from 1937 through 1946
and from 1952 until July 15, 1960, the date of its disputed withdrawal
in the instant case, with two exceptions set forth below. However,
it is clear that, except from 1955 to 1957, the Committee has had no
authority to bind its members or to execute any agreement on their
behalf; any agreement reached has been subject to approval of each
of the members.4 Similarly, the Council has negotiated on behalf of
its constituent members but any agreement reached has been subject
to the approval of each member. The pattern has been for the Com-
mittee and the Council to agree on terms, after which each polled its
1 Herein called the Committee.
2 Herein called the Council. The Council is composed of International Association of
Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers , Rubbers, and Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters ' Helpers
and Marble Mosaic Terrazo Workers ' Helpers, Local 93 and Local 89, AFL-CIO; Quarry
Workers, D.A L U. #21471, AFL-CIO, and Quarry Workers , D A L U #21469, AFL-
CIO, herein referred to as the two Quarry Workers Locals ; International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 850 , AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Engineers ; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and
Helpers, Local 1059, AFL-CIO ; and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as the IAM.
3 The membership of the Committee has fluctuated , with 18 to 24 companies participat-
ing at various times , of whom approximately 13 apparently participated in all 6 negotia-
tions between 1954 and 1960 Of these 13, the 3 withdrew during the course of one or
more of those negotiations
* In 1955, 23 member companies entered an agreement , the text of which is set forth
in the Intermediate Report, giving the Committee irrevocable authority to bind said mem-
bers in negotiations and to enter into binding contracts on their behalf.
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 699
members to secure their approval, and individual contracts were then
signed between each company and each union which indicated ap-
proval.
Although almost all the participating companies and unions exe-
cuted the resulting contracts, there have been instances throughout the
years when individual companies and unions have refused to do so.
And there have been many withdrawals by both unions and companies
during the course of negotiations, particularly since about 1954. Thus,
in 1954 two companies, including the Respondent, withdrew about
halfway through the negotiations and thereafter negotiated to sepa-
rate contracts with a number of the unions. In 1955 the said two com-
panies again participated in group bargaining but, notwithstanding
that the 1955 binding authority agreement was in effect, the Respond-
ent met and bargained separately with the two Quarry Workers
Locals, who were also acting separately although members of the
Council; the Committee and the other unions then went along with
the contract reached by such separate bargaining, but one company
refused to sign. In 1957 the Committee negotiated with the two
Quarry Workers Locals and the Journeymen Stonecutters Associa-
tion : the two Quarry Workers Locals were not represented by the
Council, although members thereof ; the Stonecutters is not a member
of the Council. In 1958, the Committee negotiated for 24 companies
with 4 unions, including the Engineers, a member of the Council;
agreement was reached with 3 unions but not with the Engineers; the
Engineers thereupon struck 18 of the companies, the other 6 having
signed separate contracts.
The alleged violation involved herein occurred during the course
of the 1960 negotiations. At that time the Committee represented 23
companies, including the 6 which had signed separately with the En-
gineers in 1958; and the Engineers were again represented by the
Council. Negotiations began May 2, and one company withdrew on
May 12. The Respondent withdrew on July 15. On July 25, nine
other companies withdrew and negotiated separate contracts with the
Stonecutters, although they apparently signed the contracts negotia-
ted by the Committee with the Council. -
In addition to the above facts, it is undisputed that shortly before
the 1960 negotiations, a council representative discussed with a com-
mittee representative the advisability of having a more binding ar-
rangement within each group and between the two groups. The
committee representative indicated that the companies probably could
not get together,' while the council representative indicated that he
thought all the unions except the two Quarry Workers Locals could
5 On September 17, 1959, preparatory to the 1960 negotiations , the Committee's mem-
bers had overwhelmingly rejected a formal proposal that the Committee bind the mem-
bers and execute a contract.
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agree. Further, before indicating its agreement to the proposed con-
tract terms on July 15, 1960, the Committee polled all its members,
and when the Council was informed of the acceptance of those terms
and of the Respondent's withdrawal, it was also told that another
company had not yet agreed because of the absence of its president
from the city. Also, throughout the 1960 negotiations there were
frequent open comments which the Council never challenged, to the
effect that any company had the right to withdraw. These included
the statement by Respondent's president, Mr. Hauck, at the meeting
on June 22, affirming the Respondent's support of the Committee but
indicating that he, Hauck, would fully inform himself later concern-
ing the negotiations and make such decisions as he felt would be in
the Respondent's best interests.
Finally, the Council was fully aware at all times that the Respond-
ent was unwilling to agree to certain work crew or work restriction
clauses which were under discussion or to a wage increase and that its
acceptance of any ultimate agreement was dependent on the exclusion
of such provisions. There is no contention that this position was not
taken in good faith or that it was taken solely to avoid reaching an
agreement with the Councils And the Council knew that the Re-
spondent's withdrawal and its refusal to execute the agreements were
grounded on the inclusion of those very clauses.
On the basis of the above facts and the record as a whole, we are
convinced that the parties had negotiated with the understanding
that each company and union had retained the right to withdraw from
group bargaining at any time and to approve or reject any agreement
reached. The Respondent's exercise of this right in accord with such
mutual understanding cannot be held to be inconsistent with its duty to
bargain in good faith.' Accordingly, the Respondent's refusal to exe-
cute the 1960 agreements negotiated by the Committee does not consti-
tute a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.' We shall therefore
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
8In fact , the Respondent ultimately reached separate contracts with the Council mem-
bers, "subject to an inconsistent order of the Board "
° We do not find that the fact that Respondent ' s personnel officer , Stigall , continued
to act as a member of the negotiating committee after the Respondent withdrew is in-
consistent with such withdrawal , under the circumstances of this case At no time did
Stigall purport to have authority to bind the Respondent and he was paid for his services
by the Committee.
8 Rice Lake Creamery Company, 131 NLRB 1270 (IR)
g Anderson Lithograph Company, Inc and Jeffries Banknote Company, 124 NLRB 920,
relied on by the Trial Examiner , is inapposite . For, there the company' s withdrawal was
equivocal , it continued as part of the multiemployer group thereafter , and its attempt
to reserve the right of individual approval or rejection of any agreement reached was
unilateral and was not in accord with the past practice or the understanding of all
parties to the negotiations.
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC . 701
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before Alba B. Martin,
the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Indianapolis, Indiana, on complaint of the
General Counsel and answer of Indiana Limestone Company, Inc., the Respondent.
The issue litigated was whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by refusing to sign contracts negotiated by a committee of employers with
a group of unions. With permission Respondent and the General Counsel each filed
several briefs, which have been carefully considered. An order to show cause,
dated March 31, 1961, has been placed in the original exhibit file as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit No. 1. A copy of my telegram to the parties dated April 10, 1961, has
been placed in the original exhibit file as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 2. A stipula-
tion by the Respondent and the General Counsel covering substitutes for several
mislaid exhibits has been placed in the original exhibit file as Trial Examiner's
Exhibit No. 3. The substitute exhibits have been placed in the original exhibit file
in place of the mislaid exhibits, and the duplicate substitute exhibits have been sent
to the Regional Office for the duplicate exhibit file.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, an Indiana corporation,
with its principal office and place of business located in Bedford, Indiana, with
various plants, quarries, mills, and other facilities in Lawrence and Monroe Counties
in Indiana; and is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged at said plants,
quarries, and locations in the quarrying, milling, processing, fabrication, sale, and
distribution of building stone and related products. During the year ending June 30,
1960, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, produced,
sold, and shipped from its Indiana operations finished products valued in excess of
$1 million directly to points outside the State of Indiana. Respondent admitted,
and I find, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The following are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act: International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and
Sawyers, Tile and Marble Setters' Helpers and Marble Mosaic Terrazzo Workers'
Helpers, Local 93 and also Local 89, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Local 93 and
Local 89; Quarry Workers, D.A.L.U. #21471, AFL-CIO; Quarry Workers, D.A.L.U.
#21469, AFL-CIO; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 850, AFL-
CIO, referred to herein as Engineers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 1059, AFL-CIO, referred
to herein as Blacksmiths; and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as the Machinists.
Federated Council Limestone Trades of Indiana, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Federated Council, is an association of unions in the limestone industry of Lawrence
and Monroe Counties in Indiana. The above-named seven unions comprise its
membership. The Federated Council negotiates contracts with employers and
groups of employers, including the Committee, described below, and holds regular
monthly meetings. Each affiliated union pays a per capita tax to the Federated
Council for each of its members.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The controlling facts
For many years Respondent has bargained on a multiemployer basis with other
employers in the limestone industry in Indiana. Prior to 1937 there was a Stone
Club In 1942 the Stone Industry Industrial Relations Committee was formed. In
1949 this was changed to the Indiana Limestone Institute Industrial Relations Com-
mittee. In 1951 this was changed to the Indiana Limestone Industry Industrial
Relations Committee (herein called the Committee and the Industry Committee),
under which name the Committee has functioned since 1951. Respondent partici-
pated in group bargaining through the Committee and its predecessors from 1937
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through 1946, and from 1952 until July 15, 1960, with certain exceptions mentioned
below. Since 1957 Respondent's personnel director, Thomas 0. Stigall, has served
as a member and secretary of the Committee, which since 1959 has consisted of 5
men elected by the 18 companies represented at a meeting held September 17, 1959,
to get organized for the 1960 negotiations. Respondent is one of the most substantial
companies in the group, employing approximately one-half of the employees em-
ployed by the group.
Customarily through the years of joint collective bargaining through the Committee
with the Federated Council, after terms of agreement have been arrived at, the
contracts have been written up by the Committee as individual contracts between each
employer and each union and these documents have then been signed by the respec-
tive employers and unions. A representative of the Machinists, Logsdon, testified
that in 1958, all of the companies which participated in the joint bargaining signed
the contracts with the Machinists and the "Millworkers" (Local 93 and/or Local
89). Another representative of the Machinists, Mundy, testified that the negotiations
end up-without reference to any particular year-with a different document signed
by each separate company. H. Max Hanna, a member of the Industry Committee
for some 5, 6, or 7 years, testified that he did not remember any company withdrawing
from negotiations (prior to 1960) after the terms of contracts had been agreed
upon between the Committee and the Federated Council-except in one instance
which is mentioned below. Hanna testified further in substance that at the official
signing of the contracts by the Committee and the Federated Council, the union
representatives signed an additional 50 or 60 copies, which either the Committee
or the unions then presented to the employers for their signatures and return to the
appropriate union. From a record which exhaustively treated withdrawals from
group bargaining by both unions and companies through the years, it is a fair in-
ference, which I reach, that the record contains all of the withdrawals during the
long period covered. Upon the above evidence, this inference, and the entire record
considered as a whole, .1 conclude that for many years almost all of the companies and
unions which entered into joint bargaining through the Committee and the Fed-
erated Council from year to year remained in the joint bargaining until the end and
executed the written contracts which resulted therefrom. From this it follows, and
I conclude, despite certain evidence and Respondent's contentions discussed below,
that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proved that the employer
group in the industry unequivocally manifested a desire to be bound in collective bar-
gaining by group rather than individual action. This conclusion places heavier
weight upon the actions of the employer group than upon its words, and heavier
weight upon the positive aspects of its behavior-remaining in group bargaining
throughout-than upon the negative aspect-withdrawing.
During the 1960 negotiations Respondent and 22 other companies participated
in multiemployer bargaining through the Committee in 12 bargaining sessions with
the Federated Council. Bargaining sessions, most of which except the first lasting
several hours, were held on May 2, 12, and 19, June 2, 9, 10, 16, 22, 23, and 29, and
July 14 and 15. The preceding contracts expired June 30 but by mutual agreement
were extended 2 weeks. At the conclusion of the July 15 session, as it was being an-
nounced in effect that a meeting of the minds had been reached, it was also announced
that Respondent did not agree with the negotiated contracts, was withdrawing from
the joint negotiations, and wished to bargain individually with the Federated Council.
Refusing to negotiate on that basis the union struck Respondent, and the Federated
Council and the Machinists filed the charges herein. All the other companies in the
joint negotiations signed the negotiated contract. The General Counsel contended
that Respondent's withdrawal was untimely, was not unequivocal, and that its refusal
to sign the negotiated contract was a violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
In planning for the 1960 negotiations Respondent and the other 22 employers
had signed a document dated September 17, 1959, stating: "The following companies
will be represented by the Indiana Limestone Industry Industrial Relations Committee
for the 1960 negotiations," and on March 22, 1960-shortly prior to the opening of
negotiations on May 2-the Committee's secretary had sent this list of 23 employers,
including Respondent, to 1 member of the Federated Council's negotiating com-
mittee with a covering letter stating:
Attached is the list of companies to be represented by the Indiana Limestone
Industry Industrial Relations Committee requested by you in our conversation
of yesterday.
Further, early in the negotiations, during May or early June, when the question
arose as to just which companies the Committee was representing, the chairman of
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 703
the Committee had shown the committee representing the Federated Council the
document of September 17, 1959, quoted above, bearing the signatures of the 23
employers, including Respondent.
Respondent's affiliation with the Industry Committee was not confined to the
joint bargaining. It paid agreed-upon dues to the Committee through July 15, 1960,
and since 1957 its personnel director, Stigall, has been a member of and secretary
to the five-man Committee. He participated in all the 1960 bargaining sessions up
to Respondent's withdrawal on July 15; and thereafter, while Respondent was
concurrently seeking individual bargaining with the unions through the Federated
Council, he helped prepare the written contracts for the Committee and was present
at the appointed time for the contract signing ceremony. Stigall continued as a
member of and as secretary of the Committee at least until the time of the hearing
herein, which was held in November 1960. For his services as a member of the
Committee he received (as did each of the members) the sum of $1,000 per year."
This stipend was not tolled when Respondent withdrew from group bargaining on.
July 15, 1960.
In early June 1960 three members of the Committee, including the chairman,
John Fuller, called on Respondent's President Hauck and told him that because
of the insistence by Stigall during the negotiations that Respondent was unable to
accept work restriction clauses being discussed, they were fearful that Hauck would
withdraw his company from the Committee and negotiate alone on its behalf. Hauck
told them that up to that point he was satisfied with the Committee's conduct of the
negotiations but that he reserved the right to withdraw in the future if he was no
longer satisfied. Fuller asked him to notify the Committee prior to doing so. No-
body informed the Federated Council of this conversation From early June to July
15 there were eight bargaining meetings during which, despite any reservations Hauck
had, Respondent bargained on a group rather than a single basis.
In addition to the above evidence that Respondent unequivocally manifested a
desire to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than individual action
during the 1960 negotiations, the action and statement of Respondent's new president
at the June 22 bargaining session , which was well along in the negotiations, tended
to confirm this. Respondent's president, General C. J. Hauck, Jr., who had as-
sumed that office February 16, 1960, appeared at the June 22 session at the request
of the president of one of the other group-bargaining companies (whose personnel
manager was one of the five-man Committee). Hauck was requested to appear
on the ground that an earlier alleged statement of Hauck's to two union representa-
tives tended to undermine the prestige of the Committee in the negotiations-one of
which representatives was on the negotiating committee of the Federated Council.
The alleged statement (which on the witness stand Hauck denied making, was in
substance that he would let Stigall holler and shout and carry on at the negotiations
until a strike was imminent and then he would step in himself and try to settle the
matter and get a contract for his company because he did not want a strike. Some
10 witnesses testified concerning what Hauck said to the 2 bargaining committees at
the June 22 meeting, the testimony differing principally as to whether Hauck's re-
marks related only to the present or also to the future. On the entire record I find
that Hauck expressed the following ideas: that he had been misunderstood and
wished to correct the misunderstanding; that although he was not then fully in-
formed concerning the bargaining negotiations, Stigall was Respondent's representa-
tive and he fully supported Stigall and the Committee; and that sometime in the
future he would inform himself more fully concerning the negotiations and would
then make such decisions as he felt would be in the best interests of Respondent.
Thus in this appearance, unsolicited by the union representatives, Hauck announced
to them his support of the Committee and thereby his support of group bargaining,
and his reference to the future did not detract from that endorsement. His appear-
ance was designed to strengthen the hand and spirit of group bargaining and that is
what he accomplished.
A principal bone of contension throughout the 1960 negotiations was the inclusion
or exclusion of certain work crew or work restriction clauses. Another issue was the
question of a wage increase. Respondent's consistent position, frequently expressed
at the negotiations by Stigall, was in opposition to the work restriction clauses. Re-
spondent was also opposed to a wage increase. It was the inclusion in the settlement
arrived at July 15 of both the work restriction clauses and a wage increase that
caused Respondent on July 15 to refuse to accept the settlement arrangements.
On the evening of July 14, after that day's bargaining session , the chairman of
the Committee, Fuller, and the principal spokesman for the Federated Council, Logs-
don, met , discussed, and arrived at a possible formula for settling the differences
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between the two bargaining groups. This formula included both work restriction
clauses and a wage increase. That evening and the following morning Fuller ascer-
tained that all the employers except two would accept that formula-one being out
sailing, the other being Respondent. To be kept in mind is that the 2-week extension
of the expired contracts ended July 14 or 15.
The following morning, July 15, shortly before the beginning of that day's bargain-
ing session , Stigall delivered to Fuller a letter from Respondent's President Hauck
to Fuller, dated July 15, reading as follows:
DEAR MR. FULLER: Mr. Sakel i called me last evening and advised me in
substance that you had had a meeting with certain of the International Union
representatives, and believed a settlement could be effected if the Industry
would agree to the following conditions: certain additional work restrictions
similar to those now contained in the Monroe County Quarry Workers' con-
tract; a salary increase of approximately Five Cents (5¢) per year for the current
year, and one or two years thereafter; and the agency shop. Bert asked me
to let you have my views on this before ten o 'clock this morning.
I have considered the matter most carefully, and cannot agree to these con-
ditions.
To me the issue of work restrictions is basic. The Stone Industry will survive,
and the prosperity of the Oolitic Stone Belt grow, only to the degree methods,
machinery and labor agreements are modernized. In this way alone can costs
be reduced to the point where Indiana Limestone will once again be a highly
competitive building material.
Present work restrictions at present wages are sufficiently discouraging to
getting the work our industry and communities need. Additional restrictions, or
higher wages with present restrictions, can only result in eventual destruction
of our industry, with widespread loss of jobs and spendable income throughout
the District
I am equally as anxious as you and members of your committee to reach
a settlement with the unions; a work stoppage helps no one. Therefore it is
with genuine regret I cannot accept the terms which the unions apparently
agree to at this time. Should you and the members of your committee decide
to agree to these proposals, it will be necessary for the Indiana Limestone
Company to withdraw from the Employers Industry Bargaining Group, and
negotiate in its own interests with the various labor unions
Fuller immediately read this letter to the Committee, including Stigall, but the Com-
mittee decided not to announce Respondent's withdrawal at this time because that
migh "cause a hardship" upon the Committee in its bargaining with the Federated
Council.
The negotiations that day revolved around the Fuller-Logsdon formula of the
night before. A Federal mediator was present, and several recesses were taken for
each side to consider its positions. Work crews and wage increases remained an
issue. Finally, about 4 p.m., a settlement was achieved which involved give and take
on both sides, and which included a wage increase and work crew clauses unaccept-
able to Respondent. At the end Fuller made an announcement to the representatives
of the Federated Council which included three points. The order of presentation
of the three points was hotly contested in the evidence. In the light of the entire
record considered as a whole, I conclude that it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict,
inasmuch as all three points were part of the same announcement and were made
at virtually the same time in the negotiations. Without regard to order, Fuller:
(1) Read a portion of Hauck's letter given above-presumably the last paragraph-
and said in substance that Respondent was withdrawing from the joint bargaining;
(2) said that he could not speak for Terry Edgeworth (president of one of the com-
panies ) because he was out sailing; and (3) said in substance that the Committee had
contacted all the rest of the companies and that the final understandings between the
Committee and Federated Council were acceptable to all of them. At this point one
union representative said they would file an unfair labor practice charge against
Respondent for refusing to bargain in good faith. Stigall replied that Respondent
had not refused to bargain, that Respondent would meet further with the Unions
and continue to negotiate.
July 15 being Friday, the following Monday, July 18, all of the Unions bargaining
jointly through the Federated Council struck Respondent. Respondent's brief stated
that the strike was terminated on November 21, 1960, "and contracts between
1 On July 15 Sake] was a member of Respondent's board of directors. Until succeeded
by Hauck, lie had been president of Respondent
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 705
(Respondent) and all of the charging unions were agreed to on November 18, 1960,
subject to any inconsistent order of the Board."
The General Counsel contended Respondent's withdrawal was untimely because
it came after the other parties had reached a meeting of the minds. Respondent
countered that the withdrawal was timely because a meeting of the minds was not
reached on July 15 and not until differences between the parties were ironed out in
subsequent conferences.
Between July 15 and 28, Stigall and Sebright, another member of the Committee,
put into written contracts their version of the understandings reached at the close
of the July 15 negotiation session. On July 28, Stigall and Sebright met with repre-
sentatives of the Federated Council and handed them the proposed contracts for
"proof reading." At this meeting, according to an admission in a letter written by
Stigall to Respondent's attorney (Respondent's Exhibit No. 28), the Federated Coun-
cil's principal spokesman, Logsdon, said, "We will take these and go over them;
want to get Pete [Harold Lehnen] and Blacksmiths down to have signing of con-
tract. However you can expect us to live by them effective today." Respondent's
admission through Stigall's letter continued as follows: "Mr. Logsdon further advised
would take these copies back to respective Union Hall, study them, and call John
[John Fuller] for signing."
On August 1, the two sides met again (Stigall was absent) and, at the request
of the Unions, a number of "corrections" were made in order that the written con-
tracts correctly reflect the understandings arrived at on July 15. As proof that
there was no meeting of the minds on July 15, Respondent pointed to the substantive
changes in the written drafts before they were signed.
At a last meeting on August 5, the unions and some of the companies met and
signed the contracts as corrected at the August 1 meeting. Then, during the next
few days, the contracts were presented to the other companies represened by the
Committee, for signature. All signed except Respondent.
In the meantime Respondent and the Federated Council met several times but
made no progress. The unions insisted that Respondent sign the contract negotiated
for it by the Committee, and Respondent offered to bargain on the basis of proposed
contracts offered by Respondent on July 28.
Respondent's witness, Sebright, admitted that at the conclusion of the July 15
meeting, the two sides had reached a tentative agreement and that he personally
"felt that we would get a contract." The chairman of the Committee, John Fuller,
testified that at the conclusion of the July 15 meeting, there was no question in his
mind that they would be able to work out agreements with the unions. In substance
J. Max Hanna, another member of the Committee, testified that at the conclusion
of this meeting he understood that the parties had reached a meeting of the minds.
Respondent admitted in its answer that on July 15 "certain tentative agreements
respecting new contracts" were reached.
Like waves on the sea, negotiations build up to a crest and then fall. At the
conclusion of the July 15 meeting, the negotiators knew that the crest had been
reached, that the parties had reached agreement of the minds on the big issues,
and that signed contracts would follow. So certain was Logsdon, the chief negotiator
for the group of unions, that all trouble was past that when he took the written
contracts on July 28 and before studying them, he was talking about scheduling a time
for a signing ceremony and talking about the unions living by them. Under all the
circumstances I conclude that although changes were made in the Stigall-Sebright
drafts of the agreements, some of them substantive changes, the basic meeting of the
minds in the negotiations was achieved on July 15.
B. Additional facts
In substance Respondent contended that Respondent had a right to withdraw from
joint bargaining at any time at least through July 15 and that this right was pre-
served through Stigall's several assertions at the bargaining sessions that any company
could withdraw and through a statement by the Committee's chairman early in the
negotiations that any company could withdraw? At the September 17, 1959, meeting
of the employer group, attended by some 20 to 25 employers, a proposal that for
=Fuller's comment occurred in connection with the "withdrawal" of the Edward
Edinger Company. The Committee had bargained for this company in all the negotiations
since 1954, and although this company did not sign the September 17, 1959, document, it
nevertheless wrote the Committee on April 27, 1960, reserving the right to withdraw.
About the May 12 session Fuller told the negotiators Edinger had withdrawn All
negotiators impliedly consented to the withdrawal. This was far different from Respond-
ent's later withdrawal, when the unions did not consent.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the 1960 negotiations all employers agree to be bound by the results of the Com-
mittee's bargaining and that the Committee "sign for the industry" was overwhelm-
ingly defeated, the employer group assuming that unless they agreed among them-
selves to be bound by the results of joint bargaining they were not thusly bound.
There was no evidence that the results of these deliberations were ever conveyed to
the unions of the Federated Council. Shortly prior to the beginning of the 1960 nego-
tiations, there were conversations among the union group and a conversation between
one of the union representatives and Stigall as to the advisability of having what they
considered to be a more binding arrangement within each group and between the
two groups. The union representative indicated he thought all the unions except
the Quarry Workers' Locals could get together. Stigall indicated he did not think it
was possible for the companies to get together.
This feeling of impossibility, and Respondent's contention that the scope of the
appropriate unit must properly be confined to each single employer rather than the
group of employers, grew out of the history of withdrawals, the "in-and-outism" in
the negotiations since about 1954.
The facts are not in dispute. At no time did all of the employers or all of the
unions in the industry in the area join in the joint bargaining. Apparently one
union, the Journeymen Stonecutters Association, always bargained separately from
the Federated Council.
In 1954, 18 companies bargained through the Committee; in 1954-55, 23 em-
ployers; in 1956, 23; in 1957, 24, in 1958, 23; in 1960, 23. Of this group of com-
panies, 13 were in all 6 negotiations, 5 were in 4 negotiations, 5 were in 3 negotiations,
and 1 was in 2 negotiations.
About halfway through the 1954 negotiations,3 two employers, Respondent and
Heltonville Limestone Company, withdrew from group bargaining, which continued
on, and then those two companies bargained to contracts with a number of unions
The following year both of these companies were back in group bargaining without
penalties being levied against them and without charges being filed against them.
I conclude that the integrity of the multiemployer units was not destroyed and that
the withdrawals were with the consent of all parties.
In March 1955 some 23 companies signed a 3-page "Indiana Limestone Industry
Employer Agreement on Labor Relations" running until January 1, 1960, providing
inter alia, that for 2 years the Committee be given irrevocable authority to bind
them in negotiations and to enter into binding contracts on their behalf. The several
clauses of the preamble provided that:
WHEREAS, the Employers recognize that each of them has a duty imposed by
statute to bargain collectively in good faith . . . and that the selection of the
. Committee . as the sole and exclusive representative of the Employers
and each of them for such purposes is the most effective, economical, expeditious
method of fulfilling this duty; and
WHEREAS, in contract negotiations . . of any Employer it is determined
to be in the best interests of the Employers that all such negotiations . by
and on behalf of said Employers or any of them . . . be by the . . . Com-
mittee . as the sole and exclusive representative of said Employers and
each of them... .
During the first negotiations under this employer agreement, in 1955, while ne-
gotiations were proceeding under a subcommittee, the chairman of the subcommittee,
Stigall, and two members of the Committee, including Respondent's then president,
met separately and bargained to a contract with the two Quarry Workers Locals
Then the companies bargaining through the Committee and the other unions went
along with this settlement and executed contracts-all except one company, Bedford
Stone Service, which refused to sign the contracts As Bedford Stone Service was
back in group bargaining in 1956 and 1957, with no penalties or charges made
against it for withdrawing, I conclude that its refusal to sign the 1954 contract did not
destroy the integrity of the multiemployer units
In 1956 the Committee, representing 23 employers, including Respondent, ne-
gotiated with only I union, the Journeymen Stonecutters Association. There was no
withdrawals and all 23 companies signed the negotiated agreements.
In 1957 the Committee, representing 24 employers, including Respondent, negoti-
ated with 3 unions, the 2 Quarry Workers Locals and the Journeymen Stonecutters
s At this time Respondent 's president resigned is chairman and a member of the
Committee.
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 707
Association, whose contracts were up for renewal. During these negotiations the
three unions were not represented by the Federated Council. There were no with-
drawals and all 24 companies signed the negotiated agreements.
In 1958 the Committee, representing 23 employers, including Respondent, was
negotiating jointly with 4 unions, whose contracts were up for renewal, including
the Engineers. On July 30 the Committee and three of the unions reached agreement
of the minds, but on that day no agreement had been reached between the Com-
mittee and the Engineers. On July 30 Engineers struck all of the companies (in-
cluding Respondent) except six, who signed contracts with Engineers and continued
working. Two weeks later Engineers was willing to accept a contract on the basis
of the last offer the companies had made prior to the strike, and, under pressure
from Respondent, the other five companies signed contracts on that basis. As
three of the six companies which abandoned group bargaining, and the Engineers
who also abandoned it, were back in group bargaining in 1960, with no penalties or
charges made against them for withdrawing, I conclude that their withdrawal was
with the consent of all parties and that the withdrawals did not destroy the integrity
of the multiemployer bargaining units.
In 1959 no contracts were up for renewal, and there were no negotiations.
In 1960, more or less concurrently with the Committee's negotiations with the
Federated Council on behalf of 23 companies, the Committee, presumably on behalf
of the same 23 companies, was also negotiating with the Journeymen Stonecutters
Association. On July 25, nine companies withdrew in writing from bargaining
through the Committee "due to the lack of progress in current negotiations." The
record does not reveal how far along the negotiations were at this time. As these
negotiations involved concurrent group bargaining but not the negotiations involved
herein, I do not find that these withdrawals affected the integrity of the multiemployer
unit involved herein.
As has been seen above, except for the withdrawals listed above, the negotiations
resulted in written contracts. Thus in 1954, 16 of 18 companies bargaining with the
"Federated Council group" of presumably 7 unions, concluded negotiations through
the Committee and executed approximately 112 contracts. In 1954-55, although
the settlement was achieved through on-the-side bargaining with 2 of the 6 unions
in the joint bargaining, the Committee on behalf of 23 employers and the 4 other
unions accepted the settlement and approximately 92 contracts were signed. In
1956, 23 executed agreements resulted from multiemployer bargaining with the
Journeymen Stonecutters Association. In 1957, 72 executed agreements resulted
from multiemployer bargaining. In 1958, 69 executed agreements resulted from
multiemployer bargaining. In 1960, 22 of the companies negotiating on a multi-
employer basis with the Federated Council representing 7 unions executed approxi-
mately 154 contracts resulting from multiemployer bargaining, and approximately
14 more contracts resulted from the multiemployer bargaining with the Journey-
men Stonecutters Association. Thus, since 1954, approximately 536 executed con-
tracts have resulted from multiemployer bargaining. The word "approximately"
in this paragraph allows for the fact that some companies did not employ work
classifications covered by contracts with some unions and so did not sign those
contracts.
This approximate number of executed contracts has resulted from group bargain-
ing in some 7 years, despite occasional withdrawals, individual bargainings, and
strikes, as given above. That approximately 536 contracts should have resulted from
multiemployer bargaining , and that a large number of companies , for the most part
the same ones, including Respondent, continued to bargain on a multiemployer basis
the years of and the years succeeding to the irregularities in group bargaining, is
highly persuasive to me of much stability in labor relations and that, as stated above,
viewed historically the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proved that
the Employer group including Respondent who was an active member of that group
throughout the years, unequivocally manifested a desire to be bound in collective
bargaining by group rather than individual action.
Respondent employs employees represented by six of the unions represented in
the Federated Council, namely Local 93, Quarry Workers #21471, Quarry Workers
#21469, Engineers , Blacksmiths, and Machinists. The included categories of em-
ployees represented by each of these unions were listed in paragraphs 6(a) and (b).
8(a) and (b), 10(a) and (b), 12, 14, and 16 ( a) and (b) of the complaint and
were admitted to be correct in the answer At the bearing, Respondent conceded
that at all times material herein each union represented a majority of the employees
641795-63-vol 136-46
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the included categories whether the appropriate unit be groupwide or only em-
ployerwide. This proceeding has no issue as to majority or included categories of
employees, but only the question as to whether the appropriate unit is single employer-
wide or multiemployerwide.
Conclusions
As has been seen above, despite withdrawals from time to time, bargaining in
the Limestone Industry in Monroe and Lawrence Counties, Indiana, has persisted
principally on a group rather than an individual basis-the vast majority of the
companies choosing, for reasons of their own, to continue their bargaining on a group
basis during years some companies withdraw, and choosing to permit without penalty
the reentry into group bargaining of those companies which had earlier withdrawn.
Despite any irregularities by companies and unions from multiemployer bargain-
ing in years gone by and despite their own desires not to be bound by the results of
the Committee's negotiations, the companies, including Respondent, nevertheless
conducted their 1960 negotiations with the Federated Council on a group rather
than an individual basis, thereby manifesting their intent to be bound in group
bargaining during those negotiations, and thereby preserving the integrity of the
multiemployer bargaining unit In advance of the 1960 negotiations the Committee
sent one member of the Federated Council's negotiating committee the list of the
23 employers, including Respondent, who would be "represented" by the Committee
during the 1960 negotiations; and early in the negotiations, when the question arose
as to which companies the Committee was bargaining for, the chairman of the
committee showed the negotiators for the unions the document of September 17,
1959, bearing the signatures of the 23 companies, including Respondent.
When, in early June 1960, President Hauck asserted to three members of the
Committee his approval of the Committee's conduct of the negotiations thus far
and said that nevertheless he reserved the right to withdraw at a future time, Re-
spondent nevertheless continued bargaining on a multiemployer basis for eight bar-
gaining sessions from early June to July 15.
When, early in the 1960 negotiations, the Edward Edinger Company "withdrew"
and Fuller observed to all the negotiators that any company had the right to with-
draw, Respondent did not withdraw but continued negotiating on a multiemployer
basis duringbargaining meetings on June 23 and 29 and July 14 and 15. The unions
consented to Edinger's withdrawal and filed no charge concerning it.
Then, on June 22, in an effort to bolster the hand and spirit of group bargaining,
Hauck appeared before all the negotiators, including the Federated Council's ne-
gotiators, and reasserted his adherence to and support for group bargaining-as has
been seen above. Nothing President Hauck said on this occasion remotely suggested
the possibility that Respondent would refuse to sign a negotiated agreement. There-
after Respondent continued to bargain on a multiemployer basis during negotiation
sessions June 23 and 29 and July 14 and 15.
Throughout the negotiations Stigall had indicated that Respondent was against
inclusion of work-crew clauses. Thus he had taken positions on behalf of his
company. It cannot therefore be said that he was not representing his company at
the negotiations. On July 15, knowing the contents of Hauck's letter from 10 o'clock
on, Stigall sat through this entire bargaining day, which everybody knew to be
crucial, participating in the discussion, and did not disclose the contents of Hauck's
letter to the union representatives, thus permitting the union representatives to
believe, or at least to hope, that Respondent, "the largest employer in (Limestone)
belt," 4 would, despite its opposition to the work-crew provision throughout the
negotiations, capitulate or at least adjust and, with the rest of the companies (as
the unions hoped), accept and sign contracts which resulted from the joint bargaining.
Thus, Respondent continued during this entire crucial day's bargaining and up
to the point that the two sides reached a meeting of the minds, to bargain on a
multiemployer basis.
As has been seen above, a principal point of contention throughout the negotia-
tions was the question of inclusion or exclusion of work-crew clauses, the unions
being for inclusion and Respondent being for exclusion. Still Respondent did not
withdraw from multiemployer bargaining but by continuing in group bargaining
showed its intention to take its chances that in the end it would prevail and keep
the work-crew clauses out of the contract.
A At the bottom of Respondent's letterhead appears the line, "World's Largest Pro-
ducers of Building Stone."
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 709
Under all the circumstances of this case , and upon the entire record considered
as a whole, I find and hold that Respondent's withdrawal from the 1960 negotia-
tions came too late , coming as it did at the time meetings of the minds for new con-
tracts were reached. As the Board said in Anderson Lithograph Company, Inc.,
et al.,5 " . . to permit an individual member-employer to qualify or reject an
agreement made by the multi-employer group with which he was then affiliated
would render the general and widely recognized practice of multi-employer bar-
gaining virtually valueless."
Further, Respondent's withdrawal was equivocal, at best. It withdrew from the
1960 negotiations, as all understood, but it did not unequivocally withdraw from
multiemployer bargaining. After July 15 its personnel director, Stigall whose
selection and retention as a member of the Committee was obviously related to his
connection with Respondent, was not withdrawn by Respondent and he continued
serving the Committee up to at least the hearing herein.6 He helped draft the
negotiated agreements for the other companies to sign even though his company
had indicated it would not sign; and he attended two of the three 7 meetings between
the Committee and the Federated Council after July 15, including the signing
ceremony. Although Respondent ceased paying dues to the Committee as of July 15,
it did not inform the Committee that it was withdrawing from the Committee for
future years. Further the record strongly suggested (but did not completely prove)
that in 1960, after July 15, Respondent continued to be represented by the Com-
mittee in the latter's negotiations with the Journeyman Stonecutters Association.
From past practice in the industry, all knew of the great likelihood that Respond-
ent would be back in group bargaining the next time there was group bargaining.
On the entire record, I conclude that Respondent did not make it clear that it was
withdrawing from multiemployer bargaining in the future (but only for the present)
and that its withdrawal was not, therefore, unequivocal. At most Respondent's
withdrawal was temporary only, and its sole motivation was to avoid the results of
the group bargaining, to avoid accepting and signing the agreements which resulted
from the group bargaining. Under all the circumstances I find that Respondent
was estopped 8 from contesting the appropriateness of the multiemployer unit and
was estopped from withdrawing from the 1960 group negotiations just to avoid its
obligation to accept and enter into the negotiated contracts. Section 8(d) of the Act
requires the "execution of a written contract incorporated any agreement reached
if requested by either party.. . ." Accordingly, I find that by purporting to with-
draw from group bargaining on July 15, 1960, and by refusing to sign and adhere
to the appropriate contracts executed by the other companies represented by the
Committee, on August 5, 1960, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
A question in the 1960 negotiations was the inclusion or exclusion of so-called
"agency shop" clauses in the contract. The record does not reflect that this question
5 124 NLRB 920, enfd sub nom. N L R B. V. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F. 2d
893 (C A 9).
BAs has been seen above, when Respondent withdrew in 1954, its president resigned as
chairman and as it member of the Committee.
7 He did not attend the August 1 meeting at which the Committee and the unions
ironed out their differences over what stood between them and contracts For reasons
undisclosed by the record Stigall was not Informed that this meeting was taking place.
Nor was there any evidence in the record that Stigall ever made It clear to the union
representatives that when he helped draft the contracts and attended the signing
ceremony he was In no way representing Respondent Perhaps the other parties sus-
pected he was representing Respondent and his presence would somehow impede chances
of concluding written contracts
8 See Cosmopolitan Studios, Inc, 127 NLRB 788, and cases cited In footnote 5 therein
See also Detroit Window Cleaners Union, Local 139 of the Building Service Employees'
International Union, AFL-CIO (Daelyte Service Company), 126 NLRB 63, 65
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attained the status of a major issue. It did, however, hang in doubt until sometime
during July 15 when as a part of the overall settlement it was decided to include
the clauses.
Insofar as the record reflects, Respondent did not contend during the 1960 bar-
gaining that the "agency shop" clause being discussed was an illegal clause in
Indiana, a "right-to-work" State, nor was any such claim made during the hearing
herein or in Respondent's original, thorough, 86-page brief. Never until a supple-
mental brief and a reply brief filed with permission long after the hearing did
Respondent attempt to inject the alleged illegality of the "agency shop" clause as a
substantive defense to the refusal to bargain complaint. This was no doubt oc-
casioned by the fact that the Board's "agency shop" decision 9 was handed down
after the expiration of the time for filing briefs herein. Whatever the reason, the
General Counsel was surprised and properly protested the injection of that defense
at that late date. As under the circumstances this desired defense was not litigated
and the General Counsel was not afforded an opportunity to litigate it with evidence,
cross-examination, and oral argument; and as Respondent by its conduct waived any
claim based on this defense, I have not included this defense in my consideration of
this proceeding. However, the matter does bear upon the remedy.
The normal remedy in a situation such as the present is that Respondent redress
the situation by signing the contracts negotiated on its behalf by the Committee.io'
Here the negotiated contracts included "agency shop" clauses, but clauses which
differed from the specific clause considered by the Board in the General Motors
case. I take official notice of the fact that as of the time this is written a motion for
reconsideration is now pending before the Board in the General Motors case.
Under the present state of the law the burden is upon the unions to decide in the
first instance whether the "agency shop" clauses in the negotiated contracts were
unlawful and if so to withdraw them or alter them to make them lawful. In order
to remedy the unfair labor practices found above to have been committed by Re-
spondent I shall recommend that upon request by the unions Respondent shall
sign the contracts covering its employees executed by the other companies covering
employees in the same categories, on August 5, 1960, providing that such contracts
include no "agency shop" clauses which are in fact unlawful.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Indiana Limestone Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations named in section II, above, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act; and at all times material herein each of them has been the exclusive
representative for purposes of collective bargaining of the respective categories of
employees listed in paragraphs 6(a) and (b), 8(a) and (b), 10(a) and (b), 12, 14,
and 16(a) and (b) of the complaint-employees of all the employers, including
Respondent, on whose behalf the Committee negotiated with the Federated Council
during 1960. The employees of all these employers for whom each union is the
exclusive representative constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act-six appropriate
units in all.
3. On or about July 15 and August 5, 1960, and thereafter, by purporting to
withdraw from group bargaining, and by refusing to accept as binding upon it and
by refusing to sign and adhere to the contracts negotiated on its behalf by the Com-
mittee with the Federated Council, Respondent has refused and is refusing to
bargain within the meaning of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
4. 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.]
0 General Motors Corporation, 130 NLRB 481.
10 See, e.g, Anderson Lithograph Company, Inc., et al, 124 NLRB 920; Cosmopolitan
Studios, Inc., supra.