L. E. Beck & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 1564 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above named, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own , choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
FILLER PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Notify the above-mentioned employee if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they -may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Tele-
phone 876-3311, Extension 5357.
L. E. Beck & Son, Inc. and International Chemical ' Workers
Union, Local 722. Cases 10-CA-6064, 6409, and 6443. June 27,
1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 18, 1666, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was, engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision on motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, but
did not file a brief. The General Counsel did not file exceptions or
a brief.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner , includ-
ing his granting of the General Counsel 's motion for summary-judg-
ment, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision on
motion for summary judgment, the exceptions , and the entire record
in these cases , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
159 NLRB No. 134.
L. E. BECK & SON, INC. 1565
[Insert a comma at the end of, and add the following to, the sec-
ond substantive paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision :
["and financial data relied on by our Company to justify our
position of economic inability to meet the Union's demands."]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, which originated with charges filed on April 2, 1965, Decem-
ber 16, 1965, and January 25, 1966, was the subject of a consolidated complaint
issued March 10, 1966. It comes before Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner on Gen-
eral Counsel's motion for summary judgment, dated April 14, 1966, on General
Counsel's motion, dated April 19, 1966, to strike Respondent's answer, on Charg-
ing Party's motion dated- April 21, 1966, for summary judgment and to strike
Respondent's answer, and on Respondent's "Response to Motion for Summary
Judgment," dated April 25, 1966. The issue raised by these various pleadings is
whether a default judgment should be entered because Respondent's answer, due
under the rules within 10 days from the service of the complaint, was not filed
until April 15, 1966, 1 day after the filing of the motion for summary judgment
and 5 weeks after the service of the complaint. Respondent contends that the
General Counsel was aware from his investigation of the case that Respondent
was denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The complaint recites on its face that unless an answer is filed within 10 days
from the service of the complaint "all of the allegations in said complaint shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so found by the Board." The
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended (Section 102 20), similarly
so provide, but add the qualification "unless good cause to the contrary is shown."
General Counsel alleges in his motion for summary judgment, and the allegation
is nowhere controverted, that on April 14, 1966, General Counsel solicited
Respondent's counsel to file an answer, and the latter replied that he "probably
would not" do so. Respondent's counsel alleges, and this allegation is likewise
not controverted, that Respondent's counsel and agents, in affidavits and written
statements furnished the Board's Regional Office at the request of the Board's
field examiner, had denied the commission of any unfair practices. These state-
ments appear to have been furnished, however, in the course of the investigation
(see Sec. 101.4 of the Board's Statements of Procedure) prior to issuance of the
complaint (see Section 101.8 of the Statements of Procedure, Section 102.20 of the
Rules). General Counsel and Charging Party also allege that a copy. of the answer
was not served on the latter as required by Section 102 21 of the Rules, to which
Respondent replies that Charging Party's motion, referred to above, shows that
it has seen, or is in possession of, a copy of the answer.
On this record, I am of the view that Respondent has not shown good cause for
its failure to file a timely answer, and that General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment should be granted. Mid-State Trucking Service, 141 NLRB 647, 648;
Local 229, United Textile Workers (J. Radley Metzger Co.), 120 NLRB 1700:
see also Liquid Carbonic Corporation, 116 NLRB 795; County Electric Co., 116
NLRB 1080, 1087; Verve Records, Inc., 127 NLRB 1045, 1049; cf. N.L.R.B. v.
Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 310 F.2d 565 (C.A. 5); N.L.R B. v. Ferraro's Bakery, Inc.,
353 F.2d 366 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Patrick F. Izzi, d/bla Pat Izzi Trucking Co,
343 F.2d 753 (C.A. 1). Accordingly, I deem true the allegations of the complaint
herein and make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, herein called the Company, a Georgia corporation, engaged at Scott-
dale, Georgia, in the manufacture of pipe nipples, annually ships over $50,000
worth of products to points outside the State, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. The Charging Party, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
a
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Following a Board-conducted election, in which the Union obtained a majority
of the votes cast, it was certified on July 16, 1964, as the bargaining representative
of the Company's Scottdale production and maintenance employees. On or about
July 21, 1964,,the Union requested the Company to bargain collectively. On or
about September 1, 1964, the Union requested the Company to make available to
the Union such financial records as would support the Company's position that
it was financially unable to grant the Union's economic demands. Likewise orb
or about September 1, 1964, the Union requested the Company to make available
to the Union certain forms, D-1 and D-2, that concern the Company's employee
insurance program. Since on or about October 2, 1964, the Company has refused
to furnish the requested financial and insurance data and has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union. This conduct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149.
On or about February 1, 1965, the Company without prior notice to or consulta-
tion with the Union instituted an incentive pay plan for the employees, and on
or about October 4, 1965, the Company without prior notice to or consultation
with the Union granted wage increases to five of its Scottdale, employees. These
actions likewise violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Benne
Katz, etc., d/bja Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736; N.L.R.B. v.
Berkley Machine Works & Foundry Company, Inc., 189 F.2d 904, 907-908 (C.A. 4).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to bargain with the Union, by refusing to furnish the Union with
financial data on which the Company relied in support of its position that it was
unable to grant the Union's economic demands, by refusing to furnish the Union
the requested forms concerning the employee insurance program, and by changing
wage rates of employees within the bargaining unit without prior notice to or con-
sultation with the Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Company cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices affirmatively, and that it bargain with the Union upon request, and pro-
duce the requested data.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend, pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following: ,
ORDER
Respondent, L. E. Beck & Son, Inc., Scottdale, Georgia, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Chemical Workers' Union,
Local 722, as the representative of all production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's Scottdale, Georgia, plant, excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, watchmen and guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to furnish the above-named Union with relevant data appropriate
for the Union's use in discharging its statutory obligation to represent the employ-
ees, including financial data relied on by Respondent to justify its position of eco-
nomic inability to meet the Union's demands, and insurance forms that concern
the employee insurance program.
(c) Changing wage rates or other terms or conditions of employment of employ-
ees within the above-described bargaining unit without notifying the Union and
giving it an opportunity to bargain with respect thereto.
(d) In any other manner interfering with the Union's efforts to bargain for and
represent the employees in the above-described bargaining unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Bargain collectively with it as the statutory representative of the employees
in the above-described unit.
NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY 1567
(b) Furnish the Union with the financial data on which Respondent relies to
support any claimed financial inability to meet the Union's economic demands.
(c) Furnish the Union with forms pertaining to the employee insurance program.
(d) Post at its plant at Scottdale, Georgia, the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 1 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted immediately upon the receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 bargain upon request with International Chemical Workers Union,
Local 722 as the exclusive representative of our production and maintenance
employees.
WE WILL, upon request of that Union, furnish it with forms relevant to the
employee insurance program.
WE WILL NOT change wage rates or other terms or conditions of employ-
ment without giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain with
respect thereto.
L. E. BECK & SON, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Tele-
phone 526-5741.
National Biscuit Company and International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local Union No. 1, AFL-CIO. Case 27-CA-1917.
June 27, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 10, 1966, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
159 NLRB No. 129.