J. I. Case Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. All letterpress employees employed by the Employer at its plant
in Apopka, Florida, excluding all other employees and all super-
visors r, as defined in the Act.
5. As the Amalgamated made no showing of interest among ther
letterpress employees at Apopka, we shall not place the Amalgamated
on the ballot for this unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5 The Printing Pressmen contend that one John Hill, classified as a foreman , should be
included in the unit. The record reflects that this individual spends approximately 90
percent of his time in assigning work to other employees and laying out jobs. While he
has no authority to hire or fire employees , he does have the authority to effectively
recommend such action . Under the circumstances , we conclude that John Hill has super-
visory authority , and he therefore is excluded from the unit.
J. I. Case Company (Rock Island, Illinois ) and International
Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , AFL-CIO
J. I. Case Company (Bettendorf Works) and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and Its Local 858. Cases Nos.
13-CA-2200 and 13-CA-2197. July 8,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 26, 1956, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceedings,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel,
and the Union' filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Jenkins].
On January 4, 1957, Respondent moved the Board to dismiss the
complaint, contending that certain members of the International
Union's board of trustees are "officers" within the purview of Section
9 (h) of the Act but have not filed non-Communist affidavits in com-
pliance with that section. The Board has held that the trustees of
i The term "Union" refers to the International Union as the certified representative
at the Bettendorf Works, and also to its Local 806 as the certified representative at the
Rock Island plant.
118 NLRB No. 56.
J. I. CASE COMPANY 521
the International Union, UAW-AFL-CIO, are not officers required
to file non-Communist affidavits under Section 9 (h) of the Act.
Kohler Co., 117 NLRB 321. Moreover, the question as to who are
constitutional officers under a union constitution for compliance pur-
poses can be raised only in an administrative proceeding directed
solely to inquiring into the compliance status of a union. Such ques-
tions are not litigable in representation and complaint proceedings.
Kohler Co., supra; Shoe Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1208.
Accordingly, Respondent's motion is denied.
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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the parties, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent
consistent with the following Decision and Order.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by refusing the Union's requests of
March 15 and 26, 1956, for wage information.
At a meeting held on March 15 to discuss grievances, the Union
requested Respondent to furnish time studies covering tractor line
jobs at the Rock Island plant. Respondent without explanation de-
clined to make these time studies available to the Union. On March 26,
the Union requested the time studies and job evaluation data appli-
cable to a job classified as "turret-lathe vertical" at the Bettendorf
plant, which job had been changed from a single to a two-machine
operation. At a meeting with the Union on April 12, Respondent's
representative read off data from time studies on the turret-lathe
vertical operation. The Union's representatives were dissatisfied with
the information so given and requested that the time-study informa-
tion be supplied them on the forms used by Respondent so that they
could submit the executed forms to the Union's time-study experts for
evaluation. Respondent's representative refused to give the informa-
tion on the time-study forms used by Respondent and also refused
to supply the job evaluation data requested by the Union.
An employer's obligation to grant a bargaining agent's request for
original time studies and job evaluation data applicable to particular
2 Respondent contends in its brief that the charges upon which the complaint was based
were not properly executed in that the declarations to these charges were signed in the
firm name of the attorneys representing the Charging Unions and not by a "person" as
specified by Section 102.11 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The declaration in
Case No. 13-CA-2200 was signed "Katz & Friedman," and the declaration in Case No.
13-CA-2297 was signed "Katz & Friedman by Irving M. Friedman." Section 102.1 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, provides that the term "person" shall have
the meaning set forth in Section 2 of the Act. "Person" as defined in the Act includes
partnerships and legal representatives. It is clear that the declarations satisfy the re-
quirements of Section 102.11. See, moreover, 68 C. J. S. § 147 as to execution of docu-
ments in partnership name.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jobs is well established 3 Contrary to Respondent's contention, the
Union's right to such relevant wage information is not dependent upon
processing a particular grievance through the grievance procedure
adopted by the parties.' Nor is it dependent upon the Employer's use
of such information to substantiate its bargaining position as to
wages. As stated by the Board in the Woolworth 5 case :
The Board, with court approval, has consistently held that an
employer is under a duty to accommodate a union's request during
contract negotiations for relevant wage information.2 Like the
Trial Examiner, the Board finds that such duty continues after
a collective-bargaining agreement has been executed.' The em-
ployer's duty, in either instance, is predicated upon the need of
the union for such information in order to provide intelligent
representation of the employees. 'When administering a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, the union's need for current and
authoritative information is no less real than it was before the
contract was executed. Accordingly, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner's rejection of the Respondent's other contentions with
respect of its duty to furnish wage data, the Board concludes that
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the
Act by refusing to furnish the wage data the Union requested.'
2 See N. L. R. B. V. Otis Elevator Co ., 208 F. 2d 176 ( C. A. 2) ; California Port-
land Cement Co., 101 NLRB 1436, 1438.
9N. L. R. B. V. New Britain Machine Co., 33 LRRM 2461 at 2462 (C. A. 2) ;
N. L. R. B. v. Ilekman Furniture Co., 207 F. 2d 561 at 562 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Leland-Gifford Co., 200 F. 2d 620 at 624 (C. A. 1) ; N. L. R. B. v.Yawman & Erbe
Mfg. Co., 187 F. 2d 947 at 948-949 (C. A. 2).
4 Whitin Machine Works , 108 NLRB 1537.
2. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent further
violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by refusing the Union's request
of March 28, 1956, for wage information covering all jobs in the
bargaining unit at the Bettendorf plant.
By letter dated March 28, 1956, alleging that it needed the informa-
tion "for purposes of collective bargaining and contract administra-
tion," the Union asked Respondent for time studies, job evaluations,
and other materials used to set incentive rates and to classify and
evaluate jobs in the bargaining unit. At a meeting in April, Robert
Burke, industrial relations supervisor for the Bettendorf plant,
3 Otis Elevator Company, 102 NLRB 770, enfd. as mod., 208 F. 2d 176 (C. A. 2) ;
Taylor Forge and Pipe Works , 113 NLRB 693 , enfd . 234 F. 2d 227 ( C. A. 7), cert . denied
352 U. S. 942. However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's statement that
Respondent was obliged to maintain its job evaluation sheets in duplicate . Respondent
could discharge its obligation to furnish the Union with this wage information in any
reasonable manner, including permitting the Union to copy or duplicate the job evalua-
tion records.
4 Ilekman Furniture Company, 101 NLRB 631; Leland-Gifford Company, 95 NLRB
1306.
5F . W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 196, enfd. 352 U. S. 938, reversing 235 F. 2d 319
(C. A. 9).
J. I. CASE COMPANY 523
advised the Union's representatives that Respondent did not consider
itself "obligated" to furnish the requested information.
The requested information was unquestionably necessary to the
Union's intelligent representation of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Without this information, the Union could not compare jobs
and so determine whether a particular grievance had merit and should
be processed. Nor could the Union review Respondent's wage system
for purposes of future wage negotiations or for purposes of contract
administration. Woolworth case, supra.
It does not appear from the record in this case that it would be un-
duly burdensome for Respondent to comply with the Union's request
for all relevant wage data. Respondent never advised the Union that
it would be unduly burdensome for it to furnish the Union with the
requested wage data, nor did Respondent ever discuss with the Union
methods of making this data available to the Union. Respondent, in
fact, did not offer its defense of burdensomeness until the hearing
before the Trial Examiner. It is clear, therefore, that the defense of
burdensomeness was merely an afterthought on the part of Respond-
ent .6 Further, while the time-study data may be voluminous, it is
collected in centralized files and may readily be made available to the
Union for examination or duplication. All that is necessary, therefore,
is for Respondent to enter into reasonable arrangements with the
Union for obtaining the requested wage information 7
3. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent has
not sustained its defense that the Union's requests for wage informa-
tion were made for the purpose of harassing the Respondent. It can-
not be disputed that the requested time studies and job evaluations
were directly related to the setting of wage rates at Respondent's
plants. The Union, accordingly, was under no obligation to show a
specific immediate or prospective need for this information .8 Hence
no inference of harassment can be drawn from any failure on the
Union's part to demonstrate its need for the requested data.' Nor,
in the circumstances of this case, can a purpose of harassment be
inferred from the Union's filing of several unfair labor practice
charges at the Rock Island and Bettendorf plants merely because the
General Counsel did not issue complaints upon these charges.10
° Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U. S. 149, 151-152.
7 Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, supra. See also Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. v.
N. L. R. B., 223 F. 2d 58, 62-63 (C. A. 1), enfg. 110 NLRB 2097. In view of our finding
that it would not have been unduly burdensome for Respondent to have complied with
the Union's request for all relevant wage data at the Bettendorf Works, we will not
include in our order the limitation upon Respondent's obligation to furnish wage data
recommended by the Trial Examiner in section IV of his Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
8 Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., supra.
8 Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, supra.
10 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that an unfair labor practice charge might
be considered sham and frivolous, although permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice,
because no explanation was offered for the withdrawal.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR.'RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. The Respondent, J. I. Case Company (Rock Island, Illinois),
Rock Island, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, its agents or representatives, as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, by refusing to furnish to the Union or its
agents or representatives information and data concerning time
studies.
(2) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, furnish to International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 806, its agents and representatives, time studies and
other wage data and information used by the Company in classifying
or evaluating jobs or fixing rates of employees in the bargaining unit.
(2) Post at its plant in Rock Island, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." " Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be
posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees
11 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order "
J. I. CASE COMPANY 525
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Com-
pany to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
2. The Respondent, J. I. Case Company (Bettendorf Works),
Bettendorf, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, its agents or representatives, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, by refusing to furnish to the Union or its agents or
representatives information and data concerning job evaluations and
time studies.
(2) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, furnish to International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, its agents and representatives, job evaluations and time
studies and other wage data and information used by the Company
in classifying or evaluating jobs or fixing rates of employees in the
bargaining unit.
(2) Post at its plant in Bettendorf, Iowa, copies of notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix B." 12 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted
by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily
12 See footnote 11, supra.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, its agents and representatives,
time studies and other wage data and information used by us
in classifying or evaluating jobs or fixing rates of employees in
the bargaining unit. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, including
leadmen and employees of the experimental and engineering
departments, with the exception of engineers, draftsmen,
clerical and service employees of the departments, and ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, patternmakers and pat-
ternmakers apprentices, watchmen, and supervisory em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
J. I. CASE COMPANY (ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS),
Employer.
Dated----------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
J. I. CASE COMPANY 527
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to International Union, United
Automobile; Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, its agents and representatives, job evalua-
tions and time studies and other wage data and information
used by us in classifying or evaluating jobs or fixing rates of em-
ployees in the bargaining unit. The bargaining unit is:
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees,
excluding all employees in the machine repair department
#784: all maintenance electricians and apprentices; the
following employees of department #783: all tool-and-die
heat treaters, tool-and-die makers apprentices; toolroom crib
attendants and their leadmen, die sinkers, die finishers, in-
spectors on dies, tools, and jigs, tool welders; the following
employees in department #786: all patternmakers and pat-
ternmakers apprentices; all technical, clerical, and profes-
sional employees; all trainees preparing for jobs not included
in the production and maintenance unit, all plant protection
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
J. I. CASE COMPANY (BETTENDORF WORKS),
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
The complaint herein, as amended at the hearing, alleges that the Company has
violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136, by refusing to furnish the Unions with information needed for collec-
tive bargaining, thus refusing to bargain collectively with the designated and recog-
nized collective-bargaining representatives of employees in the respective appropriate
units.
Admitting refusals to supply requested data, the answer alleges with respect to
some or all of the requests that: The information was not needed for collective bar-
gaining; no request to bargain was pending when the data was requested; the pro-
cedure employed in establishing rates was not open to negotiation since the manner
of setting rates was fixed by an agreement then in effect; rates were questioned with-
out compliance with established grievance procedure; the Company was willing to
supply oral information in response to specific inquiries concerning rates which were
being questioned; the information requested was used for internal management pur-
poses only, and not to substantiate the Company's position in collective bargaining;
and the requests were part of a scheme to harass and embarrass the Company. Other
defenses raised were jurisdictional and involved the charges filed; they were em-
braced in motions to dismiss, which were denied, reasons being stated on the record.
A hearing was held before me at Rock Island, Illinois, on October 9 and 10,
1956. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, briefs were thereafter filed by the
General Counsel, the Company, and the Charging Parties, the time to do so
having been extended.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
I. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was admitted and I find that the Company, a Wisconsin corporation with prin-
cipal office at Racine, Wisconsin, and manufacturing plants in Wisconsin, Iowa, and
Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture of farm implement products for manufacture
and sale; at each of its plants at Rock Island, Illinois, and Bettendorf, Iowa, it has
annually purchased materials, supplies, and equipment valued at more than $500,000
and received at said plants from points outside the respective States; at each of said
plants it has manufactured, sold, and shipped finished products in excess of $50,000
annually to points outside the respective States; and the Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It was admitted and I find that the International and its Locals 858 and 806 are
labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
It is agreed that Local 806 has been certified and recognized I for purposes of
collective bargaining as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following
appropriate unit at the Rock Island plant:
All production and maintenance employees, including leadmen and em-
ployees of the experimental and engineering departments, with the exception
of engineers, draftsmen, clerical and service employees of the departments,
and excluding office and clerical employees, patternmakers and patternmakers
apprentices, watchmen, and supervisory employees.
It is further agreed that the International has been similarly certified and recog-
nized as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate
unit at the Bettendorf plant:
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees, excluding all em-
ployees in the machine repair department #784: all maintenance electricians
and apprentices; the following employees of department #783: all tool-and-die
makers, toolroom machine operators, tool-and-die heat treaters, tool-and-die
makers apprentices; toolroom crib attendants and their leadmen, die sinkers,
die finishers, inspectors on dies, tools, and jigs, tool welders; the following em-
ployees in department #786: all patternmakers and patternmakers apprentices;
all technical, clerical, and professional employees; all trainees preparing for
jobs not included in the production and maintenance unit, all plant protection
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
I See also Butler Chemical Company, 116 NLRB 1041, footnote 14.
J. I. CASE COMPANY 529
With respect to the request and, refusal of information on March 15, the minutes
of the meeting between the company and union representatives on that day show that
Valsoano, on behalf of the Union (this term is applied to each and all of the labor
organizations where it is unnecessary to distinguish among them), asked whether
the Company was prepared to make time studies available to the men. He testi-
fied that he had first asked that the information be made available to the Union.
The agenda submitted by the Union prior to that meeting recites that the Union
"insists" that the original time study on a certain tractor line subassembly job "be
made available at this meeting." The employee on that job was not among those
at the meeting, and it appears that the request was that the information be made
available to the union representatives. While that request was limited to 1 job, and
on the subassembly line as distinguished from the tractor line, Valsoano testified
that at the meeting the Union also requested time-study data for the tractor line
jobs, of which there were 14.
Were we to balance the oral testimony, the agenda, and the minutes, we would
have to consider also Valsoano's statement that meetings frequently deviate from the
agenda submitted. We cannot rely on Valsoano's testimony to determine what
occurred at the March 15 meeting. Not only did he not support the agenda, but he
testified variously that the Union asked for the time study on the single subassembly
job and that it asked for time studies on the entire tractor assembly line. While
both may have been requested, he did not so indicate; it developed rather into the
question whether the request allegedly covering the entire assembly line included the
subassembly job, and that Valsoano did not know. On such testimony I would not
base a finding that the Union first asked that the time studies be made available to it,
as alleged, rather than to the employees. Nor does it appear that requests to correct
the minutes covered omission of any reference to a request that the time studies be
submitted to the Union; Valsoano did not himself recall whether he later asked for
correction in the latter respect, and Carlson, the Rock Island industrial relations
supervisor, testified that the Union requested that the minutes of the meeting be
corrected but did not protest that the reference to submission of the time studies to the
men only was inaccurate. (On the issue of relevance or need, reference is made
infra to a request on April 5. Although the variance in dates was pointed out, no
attempt was made to amend, and I base no finding on any request made on April 5.)
This analysis of documents and of oral testimony received can serve only to
show that they have not been "overlooked." The answer admits that, during the
course of a grievance session on or about March 15, 806 requested the Company to
supply "the said union" with the time-study sheets for all jobs on the tractor line.
That admission, neither withdrawn nor explained to any contrary effect (in fact,
company counsel declared at the close of the General Counsel's case that he was
"going to let [his] answer stand"), stands even if not supported by Valsoano or any
other witness. Conceivably the General Counsel may have been able to prove the
request of March 15; any attempt, or additional attempt, was as unnecessary, in view
of the admission, as were the efforts made at the hearing. That the tractor line time
study covers 164 pages does not indicate that the request for information concerning
these 14 jobs was neither oppressive nor burdensome, qualities which are further
considered infra.
With respect to the requests of March 26 and 28 for information at the Bettendorf
plant, the testimony by Arnold, the Union's international representative, was in
greater measure directed to the question of the need for the information and the
other defenses raised. These requests were also made in writing, and were on the
stationery of Local 858 although signed "Geo. Arnold [or Geo. W. Arnold, Int'l.
Rep." Bearing in mind that 806 is the certified representative at the Rock Island
plant but that the International, not 858, has been certified for the Bettendorf plant,
the use of 858 stationery can be looked at in several ways. Even were these con-
sidered to be requests by 858, they were accepted as proper in form, the Company's
stated objection being to the merits of the requests only, as we shall see. Further,
as it was early agreed at the hearing that the International might be considered the
agent of the certified 806, so 858 might be considered the agent of the certified
International. Again, the request might be considered to have been jointly made
by 858 and the International without objection by the Company. But in fact, and
I so find, the request was made by Arnold as international representative, and the
heading on the stationery did not affect that request. Arnold testified without
contradiction that the Company had previously received and "recognized" letters on
858 stationery, as it did here. (Complication and some of the preliminary motions
could have been avoided had the charges and the pleadings correctly listed the re-
spective unions which are the principals in interest as shown by the certifications.)
450553-58-vol. 118-35
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
But it is not sufficient to show that requests were made; surely such requests may
not be capricious or malicious, and we must consider their extent and the amount
of material requested as we note "the circumstances of the particular case." 2
Passing for the moment the question of malice or scheme to harass, which is one of
the defenses raised, we must consider the relevance of the information sought. While
the time might arrive when the Union would in fact require and properly seek all of
the time studies and job evaluations, such arrival would not be signaled merely
by the Union's blanket request regardless of circumstances. This is another way
of stating that the Employer's obligation presupposes a requirement of general
relevance and "also presupposes that the bargaining agent, in this area as in all
others, will seek the wage rate information as a good faith act in the discharge of
its duty as the representative of the employees." 3 The request of March 28 was for
1. all data and time study information and material used in setting the
incentive rates which are currently in effect for all jobs in the UAW Bargaining
Unit at the Bettendorf works.
2. all data, studies, and other information which is used to determine the
value of each job, currently listed in Schedules "A" and "B" and, such data,
studies, and other material used in determining the respective labor grade for
each job as is identified in Schedules "A" and "B" within the UAW Bargaining
Unit.
Bredt, supervisor of the methods and rates department of the Bettendorf plant,
testified that the first item alone would have required production of some 50-odd
thousand rate sheets. Neither the General Counsel nor the Union made any attempt
to show that the circumstances warranted assumption of such a burden. Whatever
attempt may yet be made, there is no connection in the record between this mass
of requested data and any problems or needs which the Union faced. Certainly,
as we consider the number of jobs listed in the schedules mentioned and the number
of sheets whose production was here requested, it is evident that the Union did not
limit that request to material which was in immediate or early prospect for use by
the Union as collective-bargaining agent. This shotgun request, exceeding any
need, existing or prospective, was not covered by the language in the Whitin case.4
I find no violation by the Company in its refusal to supply the material requested
by the Union on March 28. Even were this refusal but another example of a
general uncooperative and unlawful attitude and itself not based on any aspect of
burdensomeness, I would not as a matter of policy include in the remedy, infra, a
recommendation that the mass of material thus requested be submitted. The failure
to bargain is otherwise found and the remedy is otherwise provided.
No such unreasonable aspect attaches to the Union's request of March 26. The
information there sought related to a single classification, and the need arose from
the change in assignment of an employee from a single-machine operation to a two-
machine operation. Arnold explained that the information was needed in connec-
tion with a complaint that the rate of pay did not reflect the change in operation, and
that the Union needed to know the various factors considered in fixing the rates..
This related to proper policing of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect.
Arnold cited an earlier instance in which the Union, with inadequate information,
processed a grievance with the Company with the result that a substantial reduction
was made in pay. He explained further the necessity of comparing several time
studies on a given machine to see whether the same allowances were made on each.
A lengthy job summary by the Company admittedly did not include all of the data
needed to determine whether an employee who complained to the Union was being
properly paid. (In this limited connection, we need not consider the reason cited
for the broader request for information: that it was needed for negotiations for
reopening of the contract in January 1957. While at first blush reference to
negotiation of a new contract or new rates appeared to be most premature, Burke,
the Bettendorf plant industrial relations supervisor, later testified to the commence-
ment of negotiations in or about May 1955 for the current contract, which was
entered into in January 1956.)
In contrast to Arnold's clear testimony concerning the need for the information
requested, Valsoano stated generally that no grievance had been filed because there
N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg . Co., 351 U. S. 149, 153.
a Whitin. Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 , 1541, quoted in N. L . R. B. v. Boston. Herald-
Traveler Corp. , 223 P. 2d 58, 63 ( C. A. 1). The Board has continued to recognize the
element of relevancy . ( Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, 113 NLRB 693 , 694 ; Glen Raven.
Knitting Mills , Inc., 115 NLRB 422.)
4 Cf. Boston . Herald-Traveler Corporation, 110 NLRB 2097 , 21.07.
J. I. CASE COMPANY 531
were so many grievances . But the grievances which he described related to an
earlier failure or delay in setting piecework rates. He did not indicate the relevance
of the information to the administration of the contract . But here again a letter
to the Company , 1 of the 2 dated April 5 , indicates the need for the information in
order to police the collective-bargaining agreement . I find that the requests for
information on March 15 and 26 were reasonable and relevant to proper policing
of the collective -bargaining agreements.
In one of its defenses to the allegations of refusal of requests at the Bettendorf
plant , the Company alleges its willingness to supply oral information in response to
inquiries by the International regarding the details of any job or jobs that were
in question . That the two -machine operation was "in question" is clear. We must
now consider the form and sufficiency of the information supplied. The facts are
not in dispute . Arnold was told that there would be no written reply to the request
of March 26 . At a meeting on April 12, Bredt read and explained some facts
concerning the turret lathe-vertical operation , the union representatives writing the
information down as he read. As Bredt read the time study for the 2-machine
operation and the time study for a given 1-machine operation , without details of
the time-study procedure itself, the union representatives declared that they were not
satisfied with the information . In response to the request for information, Bredt
also drew diagrams on the blackboard , and there was opportunity for questions. The
union representatives were not given the information on the time -study form used
by the Company , and they were unable to submit the form with its information
to the Union 's time-study experts for evaluation.
From the testimony of witnesses for both sides, the Company's industrial relations
supervisors disclaiming understanding of such studies , it is doubtful that, except
for Bredt , anyone present could even ask intelligent questions concerning the method
of setting up piecework rates. The material submitted had to be weighed by experts
on the subject , .and the Union wanted the information so that it could be so con-
sidered. Finally , it stands uncontradicted that Bredt did not supply all of the in-
formation requested on March 26 concerning the turret lathe-vertical classification
as it applied to the specific problem raised concerning assignment of an employee
to a two-machine operation ; and that Burke said that the Company was not required
to supply such information and therefore would not. To the effect that other factors
or elements in addition to time studies and job evaluations are considered on some
jobs, denial of requested information is not thereby justified . Submission of such
information might lead to other proper requests for further information.
Limiting its willingness in supplying information to oral submission of material
which is admittedly technical and difficult to comprehend , and when the Union
did not even have the time -study form which the Company used , the Company did
not meet its "statutory obligation to bargain in good faith ." 5 It further violated
the Act by the additional condition that the information requested be connected with
an item which was being questioned . That condition went even beyond the
requirement of relevance which the court in the Boston Herald-Traveler case
declared need not be found . As we shall soon see, it is lawful and may be quite
desirable for the collective -bargaining agent to request information prior to raising
an objection or filing a grievance : submission of information may prevent
controversy.
This brings us to the defense that the Union did not comply with the grievance
procedure established in the collective -bargaining agreements to question established
rates. The Hekman Furniture case 6 may be sufficient authority in this connection.
The Board there held that the defense of availability of arbitration procedure under
a collective-bargaining agreement was insufficient to support a refusal to supply
wage information:
. "the collective bargaining requirement of the Act" is not satisfied by a
substitution of "the grievance procedure of the contract for its [the Company's]
obligation to furnish the Union with information it needed to perform its
statutory functions."
In the instant case the Union admittedly was not questioning established rates.
It had not gotten that far. It sought information which it needed to determine
whether grievances should be filed . Arnold testified that the Union wants to
"know ahead of time what [it is] doing"; that it had once taken up a complaint
with the result that a number of employees suffered a substantial pay cut; and that
employees had complained that the Company expected work which they ' were
N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra.
6 101 NLRB 631.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not required to do at their rate. We have already noted Arnold's testimony
concerning the need for time-study data before the Union availed itself of the
grievance procedure. Beyond such need, he testified that it is the Union's duty
to investigate before filing a grievance, and that the information requested
concerning the turret lathe operation was necessary to any investigation. The
presence and proper functioning of a union should itself be a check on the number
of grievances filed. But this can be so only if the union has the information
necessary for proper functioning. It would not further industrial peace to compel
filing of a grievance to obtain information sufficient to indicate whether there is
basis for a grievance. In fact, the Bettendorf agreement provides for handling of
grievances after "any difference or dispute arise(s) . . . as to (its) interpretation
and application." The Rock Island agreement also, and naturally, assumes the
existence of a grievance in its provisions for handling grievances.
Nor is the refusal of information merely a basis for the filing of a grievance so
that the Board might refuse to act while the parties were left to a remedy under
their collective-bargaining agreements. Whatever the remedy for a breach of
contract, the right to information is fixed not by the agreements between the parties
but by the Act; and the cases cited supra and a host of others make it clear that a
refusal to supply information, as here, constitutes a violation of the Act.
Another issue raised by the answer is whether, because the agreements set
forth the manner in which rates were to be set, the procedure employed in estab-
lishing such rates was not negotiable. But, aside from any right to negotiate a
new contract and the question of information needed for such negotiations, the
Union was not here attempting to negotiate concerning or even to question the
procedure employed in establishing the rates; it sought to learn what that procedure
was and how the rates were established. This defense is addressed to the right to
question the procedure followed in establishment of rates, while the complaint refers
to refusal of information concerning that procedure. In policing the contracts,
even if there be no right to renegotiate rates, the Union is entitled to information
from which it can determine at least whether the established rates are being properly
applied, and on the basis of which information it can submit to the Company its
proposals or requests for adequate application of the established rates. Further,
where a change is made in a job, as in the turret lathe operation, or in the rate
therefor, the Union is entitled to information from which it can determine whether
the factors considered are valid and whether they have been properly applied.
Still another defense offered is that the information sought is used "for internal
management purposes only, and . not . to substantiate respondent's position
in collective bargaining." It is clear that the job rates are in part determined by a
job evaluation program which the Company has adopted. (Other factors are also
considered.) It is also. undisputed that the Company has never, in union negotia-
tions or discussions, referred to such program or plan to support its position on
rates of pay.
Citation of job evaluations to the Union would of course indicate their relevance
to negotiation and policing of the agreements, as the defense impliedly recognizes.
But such citation or reference is no sine qua non. The material is as relevant if
relied on by the Company even if not cited to the Union, if there is to be intelligent
discussion of the methods followed and the accuracy of their application, not to
mention the conclusions reached. The omission of citation by the Company makes
necessary other proof of relevance; that proof was supplied by the testimony of
Burke and Bredt that job evaluation factors are among those used by the Company in
setting rates. The record indicates that the information is not used for internal
management purposes only; rather, it is relied on to determine rates of pay. This
defense is not supported by the evidence. Nor does the fact that the Company
has only one copy of the job evaluation manual determine the rights of the parties
or the procedure to be followed. As time permits, additional evaluations are
made and reduced to writing from time to time. No reason appears to justify
company failure to prepare these new evaluation sheets in duplicate. Neither does
it appear that it would be unduly onerous to prepare duplicates for the few jobs
concerning which issue has been specifically raised (again distinguishing these from
the coverage of the blanket request considered supra).
The last defense cited by the Company is addressed to Board policy, alleging
that the International (Local 858 is spared in this connection; while it is represented
by the same attorneys, neither 858 nor the attorneys have been cited in the de-
fense) has abused Board processes in a scheme and design to harass and embarrass
the Company in its relations with its employees at these two and other plants. In
support of this defense, the Company has cited 10 letters (I is in memorandum
form) written by union representatives to the Company between 1953 and 1956;
10 charges filed during the same period against the Company by the International,
J. I. CASE COMPANY 533
the Locals herein, or a representative, and another local union which is not before
us, together with correspondence concerning those charges; a recent union circular,
and instances listed by the Company as "Additional Requests for Information."
Not only was the Company told at various meetings that the information requested
in the letters was needed by the Union in connection with its functioning as col-
lective-bargaining representative, but in all but one of the letters, the Union set forth
its reasons for the various requests for information. While this does not preclude
a finding of a scheme to abuse process, there is in form at least the appearance of
good faith. Further, compliance by the Company with various of these requests
has a bearing on the question of the Union's apparent good faith and the Com-
pany's opinion thereof. There was compliance 'r with the first 4 of those requests
(the fourth referred to the first 3) and to the seventh. The most that could be
claimed concerning the fourth is that it was importunate; but it was not excessively
that since it followed its predecessors by 1 month and at a time when negotiations
were pending between the parties. The fifth letter, which was broad in its coverage
and which is the one mentioned above as not citing a reason for the request,
elicited the oral reply that the Company would supply the information as it might
pertain to any pending grievance. The sixth, a month later, narrowed the earlier
request in one respect but broadened it in another by reference to 2 instead of 1
schedule. No conclusion can be drawn from either change: whether the one
represents a good-faith narrowing or an earlier unnecessary request, or whether
the other represents an original good-faith curtailment or a later bad-faith extension.
The Company's response, orally made, to this latter request was that it was not at
that time prepared to answer; it asked for more time to answer, and the matter
was not further pressed. The eighth letter in point of time referred to seniority, and
the information requested was declared by the Union to be necessary to administra-
tion of that provision in the agreement. The Company, in writing, promised to
furnish such information. With respect to the next request, the Company testified
that various job descriptions mentioned were supplied; it has not been argued that
the request was unnecessarily broad or, on the other hand, that the Company failed
to meet it. To the final letter in this series, in April 1956, the Company replied
orally that the seniority lists are available to the Union for copying or inspection
at any time; the Union has since examined those lists. The significance of this
correspondence will be considered with the other evidence cited in this connection
by the Company since the totality rather than any given portion is relied on as
a defense.
Of the 10 charges referred to (these are in addition to the 2 in the instant case),
4 related to the Rock Island plant. The first was filed by 806 and withdrawn without
prejudice early in 1953. No reason being given for the withdrawal, it might be
argued that the charge was itself sham and frivolous. But standing alone in point
of time, it does not suggest any scheme to harass or embarrass. A second charge
covering the Rock Island plant was filed in May 1955 by the International and 806,
and a supplemental charge in the same proceeding in September of that year. The
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint, and the General Counsel for the
Board sustained that refusal. Another Rock Island charge was filed by Valsoano,
presumably on behalf of Local 806, in November 1955. A refusal to issue a com-
plaint was similarly sustained in that proceeding.
In November 1955 a charge was filed by the International and 858. After a
request by the Regional Office for information, a reply by counsel for the Company,
and a second request by the Regional Office, citing a recent Board decision, the
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint. Thereafter the General Counsel
for the Board approved the Union's withdrawal of its appeal from that refusal.
Also offered in evidence by the Company were 5 charges which were filed in
3 proceedings and which related to the Company's Racine, Wisconsin, plant. All
but the last of these charges were filed by Local 180 chartered by the International;
the last by the International and Local 180. Whatever weight might be given to
the charges previously considered, the offer of these last in evidence was rejected.
Evidence being accepted under the claim that there existed a scheme or common
plan, there is no sufficient connection between the Racine plant and those with
which we are here concerned, nor between Local 180 and the various unions here.
The mere organizational relationship between the International and Local 180,
nothing more being shown, and the relations between the various locals to the extent
7 Such compliance is not cited by the Company to show its own good faith. As the
Board declared in Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, 113 NLRB 693, 694, "The overall good
faith of the Respondent is not a consideration where the Respondent' s conduct is in
itself a violation of the Act."
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicated cannot warrant the finding of a common scheme. Nor does the single
charge jointly filed by the International and Local 180 itself tend to show a scheme
by the former . Such remoteness warrants rejection of these exhibits as a matter of
law, the Company 's position on the point to the contrary notwithstanding ; conversely,
and despite the General Counsel's argument , the other charges offered are relevant
to the defense , which is itself prima facie valid.
It may be noted at this point that, to the extent that the defense relies on the
number of charges filed and the fact that only 2 have formed the basis for a
complaint , the history here is quite in line with the Board 's more general experience
as set forth in its most recent annual report, that for the fiscal year 1955, from
which it appears that the ratio of complaints issued and unfair labor practice proceed-
ings closed without formal action is slightly more than i to 11 . Further consider-
ation can be given to the number of charges administratively dismissed and to the
number withdrawn . But whichever figures are employed, and whether in the instant
case we compare the 2 charges herein on which a complaint has been issued with
5 "closed without formal action " or with 10 such (including here the Racine
charges ), the figures alone are not so unusual as to suggest abuse of Board process.
(With greater facilities and curiosity , figures for other years might be considered.
My present impression , which may be erroneous , is that the 1955 figures reflect no
great departure from previous experience .) Nor do the requests for information
and the charges filed during the 3 -year period indicate by their number ( their con-
tent and effect having been considered supra ) an intent to harass or an abuse of
process.
Another item to be mentioned before making a finding on the overall defense of
scheme and design is a circular distributed by 806 on March 27, 1956, at the Rock
Island plant gates. In this, the Union referred to the filing of charges because of
the Company 's refusal of time-study information concerning tractor line jobs. After
a statement that the law is as the Union here claims , i. e., that it is an unfair labor
practice to refuse to supply information which is necessary to prosecute a grievance
effectively , it is further declared that the Union will file a new charge "each and
every time" the Company refuses information which it is legally required to provide.
We do not here pass on the wisdom of statements or the possibility of improving
or exacerbating working relationships . But the statements here considered are
lawful and do not indicate any scheme which is not recognized by the Act , the Board,
and the courts . The further statement that the political climate in Washington now
permits exploitation of labor ( no seasonal variation was indicated ) is not confined
to the exhibit before us ; in the "political climate" which existed throughout the
country at the time of the hearing , the Union was voicing the same complaint in a
larger forum . From my observation of the witnesses and their representatives,
I recognized an element of embarrassment as this latter statement was pointed out
at the hearing. The Union may feel further embarrassment because its statement
is considered here and, whether received or as a rejected exhibit , will be noted by
the Board . But, although I doubt that the Board will be embarrassed , the statement
is directed against the Board . It can certainly not be any embarrassment to the
Company, and it does not support the defense.
Finally, the "Additional Requests for Information" include instances of union
requests for information and meetings of union and company representatives during
an approximately 3-year period between 1953 and 1956. To what extent these
items are similar to the requests for information in the various letters received and
considered supra, is difficult to determine . Certainly , standing alone, requests for
information which was thereafter supplied by the Company and discussions of such
matters do not indicate harassment.
Considering now all of the evidence on the defense that there was a scheme to
harass, we should note the position of the Company 's counsel "that the evidence
concerning the situation directly before us [which he maintains shows no violation
by the Company ], did not itself show harassment . [ It was b]y reference to a history
of proceedings in this connection [ that he undertook to] show a scheme to harass
the company and to abuse the Board's processes ." The conclusion that the evidence
concerning the matter alleged in the complaint does not show harassment is correct.
I find further that the history of proceedings as reflected in the various documents,
formal and informal , taken together with all of the other evidence before us,
does not sustain the defense of a scheme to harass and embarrass the Company, and
that abuse of Board processes has not been shown. The shotgun request of March
28 does not indicate any scheme to harass as we distinguish between the defense
that there was such a scheme and the finding of burdensomeness in that single request.
Certainly the two other recent requests , limited and explained , indicate no more.
In his effort to establish this defense , counsel promised "there is going to be consider-
J. I. CASE COMPANY 535
able of [ such testimony ]." His effort , over the objections of the General Counsel,
were indeed considerable ; but as the pleading 's promise was not performed in the
evidence received , the greater the effort the greater the failure.
Having considered here the various defenses except those which were disposed of
at the hearing , we may summarize the findings to this point . The Company un-
lawfully refused to supply the information requested on March 15 and 26, 1956. No
finding of violation is.made in connection with refusal of the request of March 28,
1956, since such request was unduly burdensome and included material which was
apparently unnecessary . While it was testified that in "one instance" the Union
suggested that it be permitted to borrow the time studies to copy them and return
them the following day, that instance was not further identified . The witness was at
that time being questioned about the request of March 26. Certainly the 50-odd
thousand sheets covered by the March 28 request could not have been copied and
returned within 1 day, and we need not consider this suggestion in connection with
the burden imposed by the latter request.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection
with the operations 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that , by refusing to furnish information and data concerning
job evaluations and time studies, the Company refused to bargain collectively with
the International and Local 806 by their agents and representatives and thereby
interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees . I shall therefore recommend
that the Company cease and desist therefrom and, upon request , furnish to the
International and Local 806 job evaluations and time studies and other data and
information used by it in classifying or evaluating job or fixing rates, to the extent
that , considering the quantity of such information , there is a reasonable possibility
that such evaluations, studies, other data, and information can be examined , keeping
in mind these labor organizations ' facilities for such examination and the avoidance
of disruption of the Company 's business.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, Local 858, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All of the Company's production and maintenance employees at its Rock Island
plant, including leadmen and employees of the experimental and engineering depart-
ments, with the exception of engineers , draftsmen , clerical and service employees of
the departments , and excluding office and clerical employees, patternmakers and
patternmakers apprentices , watchmen , and supervisory employees , constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 806, was on March 15, 1956, and at all times
since has been the exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act , of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
4. All of the Company's hourly paid production and maintenance employees at
its Bettendorf plant, excluding all employees in the machine repair department
#784: all maintenance electricians and apprentices ; the following employees of
department #783: all tool-and-die makers, toolroom machine operators, tool-and-die
heat treaters , tool-and-die makers apprentices ; toolroom crib attendants and their
leadmen, die sinkers , die finishers , inspectors on dies, tools, and jigs , tool welders;
the following employees in department #786: all patternmakers and patternmakers
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apprentices ; all technical , clerical , and professional employees ; all trainees preparing
for jobs not included in the production and maintenance unit, all plant protection
employees , and all supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (.b) of the Act.
5. International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, was on March 26, 1956, and at all times since has
been the exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act,. of
all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
6. By refusing on March 15 and 26, 1956, to furnish information and data con-
cerning job evaluations and time studies to the respective Unions and their agents,
thereby refusing to bargain collectively with said Unions as the exclusive . bargaining
representatives of the employees in the respective appropriate units, J. I. Case
Company ( Rock Island , Illinois ) and J . I. Case Company ( Bettendorf Works) have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
7. By such refusal to bargain , thereby interfering with , restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Ripon Foods , Inc. and Joseph Pfeiffer . Case No. 13-CA-2267.
July 8,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 7, 1957, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Accordingly,
he recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
finding that it was engaged in 'commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner 2
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Leedom and
Members Murdock and Jenkins].
a A5 no exceptions have been filed to the Trial Examiner 's dismissal of the unfair labor
practices on the merits , we adopt his findings pro forma . With respect to the Respond-
ent's exceptions to the assertion of jurisdiction herein , we find, contrary to the Respond-
ent's contention , that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein on the basis of the totality of the Respondent's operations . The T. H. Rogers
Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732.
118 NLRB No. 62.