Laclede Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 1392 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laclede Gas Company and Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , Local No.
5-6 affillllated with Oil , Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case
14-CA-4307
June 14, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On February 2, 1968, Trial Examiner Lloyd
Buchanan issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief and the
Respondent filed a brief in opposition to the Charg-
ing Party 's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
leges that the Company has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by abolishing the
position of dispatcher in its service and installation
department without prior consultation and bargain-
ing with the Union, and by negotiating directly with
employees concerning their future position and
conditions of employment in connection with such
abolishment. The answer denied the allegations of
violation and alleges as a defense the Union's
failure to pursue the grievance and arbitration
procedures under the contract between the parties.
The case was tried before me at St. Louis, Mis-
souri, on November 13, 1967. Counsel were heard
in oral argument at the close of the trial. Pursuant
to leave granted to all parties, briefs have been filed
by the General Counsel and the Company. A mo-
tion by the Company to correct the transcript is
hereby granted on consent, with the further cor-
rection noted below.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The facts concerning the Company's status as a
Missouri corporation, the nature and extent of its
business, and its engagement in commerce within
the meaning of the Act are admitted; I find and
conclude accordingly. I also find and conclude that,
as admitted, the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(5) AND
(1)
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
' As we are in agreement with the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that
Respondent did not refuse to bargain with the Union as alleged in the com-
plaint, we find it unnecessary to pass upon , and do not adopt, his alterna-
tive theory for dismissal of the complaint , or his comments with respect
thereto
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint
herein (issued August 28, 1967; charges filed April
27, May 11, and August 28, 1967), as amended, al-
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
parties (since renewed) effective from August 1,
1965, to July 31, 1967, covers the Company's em-
ployees in the following departments:
Gas Supply and Control Department, Service
and Installation Department, Street Depart-
ment, Meter Reading Department, Meter De-
partment, Transporation Department, and the
departments designated respectively as
Storeroom and Building Service.
Involved herein are the nine dispatchers in the ser-
vice and installation department (SAID). There are
approximately 1,475 employees in the bargaining
unit, including some 400 in SAID.
On April 19, 1967, the Company notified the
Union by letter that these dispatcher jobs would be
abolished, effective May 8, and the duties vested in
noncontract supervisory positions; the Company
also expressed its willingness to discuss the details
of the change. (With intent and good faith in issue,
this and other written communications are set forth
171 NLRB No. 180
LACLEDE GAS
in the attached Appendixes , this one marked "Ap-
pendix A ." Without reliance on their self-serving
aspects , these documents can be considered on the
issue of notice and as statements of position.) We
shall see that , whatever the different versions, the
Company had admittedly informed the Union in
March that the latter would be given such notice.
At a meeting between company and union
representatives on April 27, Tibbs, the Union's
business manager , read a two-page statement
(marked "Appendix B") in which , inter alia, he
charged the Company with avoiding discussions
and undermining the bargaining unit in violation of
the law . At another meeting the next day, Tibbs
gave the Company a copy of his April 27 statement.
(At the earlier of these meetings and at the Com-
pany's request , he had dictated and submitted a
summary of his statement , marked "Appendix C.")
Also on April 28 Brazil , the Company 's assistant
manager , industrial relations department , handed
Tibbs a letter (marked "Appendix D") to which
was attached a job description of the new super-
visory position . The letter recited Tibbs' refusal to
accept a copy of the job description the day before;
and the need for discussion and negotiation, and
the Company 's readiness to engage in these.
The last in the series is a letter ( marked "Appen-
dix E") which Tibbs sent to Brazil on May I and in
which , inter alia , he set forth his reasons for refus-
ing a copy of the job description on April 27, and
called for "adequate information about this
change ." Necessary aspects of oral testimony
received will also be considered herein.
Stripped of irrelevancies such as earlier
grievances , and awards , later discussions and con-
tract provisions which recognize the Company's in-
herent right to make certain changes and the natu-
ral and corollary requirement ' that it discuss such
changes before they are placed in effect ; and also
credibility items pro and con which were developed
concerning meetings prior to April 19 although
various salient facts are not in dispute , the issues
here are (1) did the Company give notice? and (2)
was it willing to discuss?
Whether or not it had given notice before its
letter of April 19 2 that the Company was willing
and sought to discuss the proposed changes can
hardly be questioned. While Tibbs testified that
there was no discussion after he read his statement
on April 27, it stands without reliable contradiction
that on that day, and at several meetings up to and
including May 8, the Company offered and at-
tempted to discuss the problem . White , the Union's
business representative when these meetings were
I An early Intermediate Report, in McDonnell Aircraft, quoted infra,
recognized and declared such requirement
2 The General Counsel notes that resolution of what occurred in Februa-
ry and March depends to some degree on events subsequent to April 19
Resolution of the later events points to the findings and conclusions to be
made , without need to refer to the earlier If with the letter of April 19 the
Company did not refuse , as alleged , to bargain "concerning on or about
April 19, 1967," earlier reference by the Company or its failure to refer to
Co. 1393
held, testified at the close of the trial that at the
May meetings the Company refused to discuss the
change in operation and its right to promote men to
be supervisors ; but he thereafter told us that there
was no discussion because the Union did not think
it could discuss the supervisors' work.
Significantly , despite the importance of any
refusal by the Company to discuss the matter,
Tibbs , the Union 's chief witness , was unable to re-
call what was said at the meetings after April 28.3
Declaring that there were "pointless interminable
discussions" ( the transcript 's phrase, "points in
identical discussions ," is hereby corrected ), he did
not charge company refusal to discuss. His
testimony in this respect was credibly consistent
with his written statements : the Union sought
rescission , not discussion . If, as Tibbs testified,
there was no discussion at the April 27 meeting
despite the Company's offer of information, which
he refused , it was because after reading his
prepared statement he terminated the meeting. I
have not overlooked , but do not credit , the sug-
gestion of company refusal to discuss the matter, in
Tibbs' testimony that at the April 28 meeting the
Company declared that the Union did not have the
right to question, that this was "strictly up to
management 's prerogative , that the union was
totally out of the picture as far as these people were
concerned." The other testimony , including Tibbs',
and the exhibits point to the contrary.
The Union 's declared position throughout was
that the Company had presented it with a fait ac-
compli and that nothing had been left open for
discussion. Decision on the issues presented de-
pends on the correctness of the Unions position
that, with the Company's letter of April 19, it
became too late to discuss changes ; and of the de-
mand which Tibbs testified he made at the meeting
on April 28 that the Company "rescind their chan-
ge" and which had been included in the statement
that he had read the day before , the copy of which
he now delivered.
There is no formula indicating an intent subject
to modification . We must weight all that was done
and said and the opportunities presented for actual
negotiation . If an employer should not say, in the
language of the Union's memorandum of April 27
as it appraised the Company 's April 19 letter, that
it "intends" to take certain action at the end of ap-
proximately 3 weeks, a union may and should insist
on its right to negotiate ; the latter should not itself
maintain that the statement of employer intention
makes it too late to negotiate when the employer
asked and admittedly "kept asking" whether there
a proposed change is not in issue and is scarcely material We can assume,
as the General Counsel maintains, that the Company had not given earlier
notice beyond the March statement that it would give notice
' We need not concern ourselves with the question of credibility in
Tibbs' testimony that he learned from a dispatcher between April 19 and
27 that the Company was interviewing individual dispatchers . The letter of
April 19 informed the Union that such interviews would be held.
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was anything the Union wanted to discuss .' It would
be harsh indeed to ignore the preexisting relation-
ship between the parties and the later events, and
to rely solely on the stated intention to act; and to
hold that this expression , regardless of all else and
despite prior modifications of its position by the
Company in other situations involving the Union,
constituted a denial of the bargaining process. If the
Union was displeased ( we are not informed of any
prior violation ), discussion was called for; not an
immediate claim that it had been undermined and
that the Company had refused to discuss.
We must bear in mind that to this point the Com-
pany had not in fact made any changes . Violation
would occur when, without good-faith consultation
with the Union or willingness to consult, the Com-
pany did effect changes or if it otherwise un-
dermined the Union as by giving to employees a
notice (which we shall consider below) of proposed
changes . But the letter of April 9 was to the Union;
and it was at that point that the latter rejected com-
pany efforts at discussion . This is not a case of ap-
parent futility of negotiations.' -
The letter of April 19 is reasonably to be con-
strued as a statement of intention which, with dif-
ferent accompanying facts, might indicate a final
decision or a closed mind ; and such construction as
of mere intention is reinforced by the repeated
requests to discuss , which the Union rejected be-
fore the issue developed (in fact, with the result
that the issue did develop) into a formal proceed-
ing. Tibbs testified that at a meeting in March he
had asked Leonard, the Company's vice president,
whether the Company did "contemplate" any
changes in the dispatching operation ; and that
Leonard replied that he didn 't know but would give
the Union notice-all of this in an apparently
friendly atmosphere . According to Dobelman,
manager of customer relations, and Brazil, the
latter had told the Union at a meeting in February
(there were further references to this in a March
meeting and over the telephone) that the
dispatching jobs would be abolished and made su-
pervisory positions . From the latter version, denied
by the Union, it would seem that early notice was
given when there could be no question of fait ac-
compli; the former supports the view that the
changes were in contemplation and were admit-
tedly referred to before the letter of April 19 as
well as after it.
True , requests by the Company for discussion
might have been made for appearance only and
' Whether or not it met its obligation, the Company recognized that it
was obliged to bargain . The following is from the Intermediate Report (it-
self a historical fact , if one may be so bold as to quote from it ) in McDon-
nell Aircraft, infra- "Continued assignment of work exclusively to a certain
classification of employees for 6 years establishes a condition of employ-
ment which is bargamable and without the scope of unilateral action re-
gardless of earlier or other conditions."
without intent to engage in open-minded discus-
sion. But we have neither evidence nor claim to
that effect, and the Union could have tested it by
accepting the requests to discuss. If the Union re-
jected the requests out of hand, we are not war-
ranted in assuming that they were not made in good
faith or that it would have been futile for the Union
to have entered upon such discussion as it claims
the Company refused.
If change in the unit by transfer of a classification
out of it be bargainable, the Company was willing
to bargain before the time for transfer . Rescission
of a plan or proposal to transfer is the converse and
bargainable equivalent of the proposal itself; and
the Union was unwilling to bargain about that. A
few weeks ' notice of effectuation ( to employ a
stronger term than "proposal") having been given,
it remained no less bargainable than the reciprocal
withdrawal or rescission which the Union insisted
be effectuated without discussion. The Union was
not denied full opportunity to bargain.
Again, we need not here search for a best way for
the Company to have submitted a notice. Our issue
is whether the Company refused to bargain. The
sufficient defense, supported by the testimony on
both sides, is that the Company did not refuse but
indeed repeatedly between April 19 and May 8
(aside from any issue concerning earlier discussion)
sought discussion of the proposed date well in ad-
vance of any effective date. As in Crown Zeller-
bach,e we must here recognize "the Respondent's
acceptance of the collective bargaining principle."
It was the Union, insisting on rescission or advance
withdrawal of the letter of April 19, which refused
to discuss the matter . The Union's position was
clearly stated. Clear as crystal, it was quite as hard.
The bargaining process in actuality embraces
statement and counterstatement ,7 too frequently of
even extreme positions until , by discussion rather
than by summary rejection or refusal to discuss,
agreement is reached. With the decision that the
Company did not refuse to bargain as alleged, we
need not concern ourselves with the defense that
the matters complained of are covered by the
grievance and arbitration procedure in the parties'
collective-bargaining agreement , that interpretation
of the agreement is necessary , and that the Board
may not , should not , or will not exercise jurisdic-
tion. We can thus avoid what , as we shall now note,
appear to be contradictory decisions.
The great majority of the decisions and the
Board 's apparent position are typified in Huttig
' Cf. The Little Rock Downtowner, inc., 168 NLRB 107.
" Crown Zellerbach Corporation , 95 NLRB 753, 754.
' Such practice is well known to experienced representatives, as here, of
unions and employers See Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation,
113 NLRB 1288, 1326 ; General Electric Company, 150 NLRB 192.
LACLEDE GAS CO. 1395
Sash & Door 8, which supports the Union's position
here , were it otherwise justified, in filing a
grievance and request for arbitration under the
contract but stating that it would not proceed
thereunder until after dispostion of these unfair
labor charges.
On the other hand , and in this connection, I
would cite my own experience and the Board's
decision in McDonnell Aircraft.9 where the Board
reversed the Trial Examiner without distinguishing
or noting cases cited by him or even attaching a
copy of the Intermediate Report. If that was done
to avoid an admission of embarrassing inconsisten-
cy, it is no more my present desire to embarrass.
But the occasional excrescence of contrary
holdings in the face of what appears to be the
Board 's general position warrants a definitive
declaration , which may not here be required in
view of the factual situation.
The General Counsel cites Huttig and other
Board decisions . At the Trial Examiner's sug-
gestion , he has attempted in his brief to distinguish
the Board 's holding in McDonnell from its more
generally recognized rulings and procedure. But he
has misstated the facts declared by the Board in
McDonnell: The matter there had not "been sub-
mitted to arbitration "; and the employer there
made the assignments in question without notice to
the union . Perhaps the answer is to be found in
ignoring one ruling while citing another . If, turning
now to the argument in the Company's brief, an
employer "could [always ] satisfy a refusal to bar-
gain charge by resort to grievance and arbitration,"
then such provisions of an agreement are "superior
to the Board 's right to remedy." But if an employer
can only sometimes satisfy such a charge, the
questions remain : At which times , and what are the
standards? Even if not necessary to the instant deci-
sion because of the factual findings, supra, that the
Company did not refuse to bargain, reconciliation
by the Board of its decisions on this point or recog-
nition that they are not to be reconciled, with a
definitive general statement of the law, appears to
be in order.
If there was no violation in connection with
possible abolishment of these jobs, the Company's
admitted direct discussion (notice of which was in-
cluded in its letter of April 19) between the after-
noon of April 2010 and May 1 with each of the
dispatchers affected, to ascertain whether they
would accept the promotion involved the super-
visory status, has not been shown to be violative.
("Under ordinary circumstances," the General
Counsel tells us he would not contend that this was
prohibited.)
Having decided this case on the factual finding
that the Company was willing to negotiate, I should
point out that such finding would be unnecessary
and the same conclusion reached were the Board,
ignoring its own many decisions to the contrary, to
reaffirm or readopt its ruling on the law in McDon-
nell Aircraft.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in the case , I recommend that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
' Huttig Sash & Door Company, Inc., 154 NLRB 1567, enfd . 377 F 2d
964 (C .A 8), the court of appeals citing C & C Plywood Corporation, 385
U.S. 421 , and declaring that the grievance -arbitration procedure is not ex-
clusive . To cite a single older case , see United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (U.E.) Amalgamated Local 259 v . Worthington Cor-
poration I Holyoka Works ], 236 F . 2d 364 , 368 (C A. I).
Of tangential interest is the recent decision in James J Flanagan
Stevedores , 168 NLRB 58, where the Board concluded that the work in
question was not covered by the contract , while it inferentially held that
taking work "away from the Union " is violative This latter is to be con-
trasted with the following from the McDonnell decision : " In these circum-
stances , we do not view the action of the Respondent in reallocating the
clerical work of some of the tool crib attendants ... as a subversion or
disparagement of the collective -bargaining process . Rather, we regard it as
action which gave rise to a dispute over the interpretation and administra-
tion of the agreement which should be and was resolved through the collec-
tive-bargaining process." See also the succinct statement of the Board's
rule in Talon Bros . Freight Line, Inc., 160 NLRB 118, and the following
from Graveslund Operating Company dibla Washington Hardware and Fur-
niture Co ., 168 NLRB 513: "Nor would the Board be diverted of jurisdic-
tion to adjudicate this dispute even if a construction of the contract was
necessary in order to determine whether the Act has been violated " Even
more recently , in Univis , Inc., 169 NLRB 37, a Board majority found
violation although Board Member Brown , following but not citing McDon-
nell, would have dismissed and left the parties to their settlement machin-
ery and arbitration where the union had grieved but, at the final step, filed
an unfair labor practice charge.
' McDonnell Aircraft Corporation , 109 NLRB 930 The Intermediate Re-
port there , anticipating Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation , 138 NLRB
550, enfd . 322 F . 2d 411 (C . A.D.C.). affd . 379 U.S. 203 , declared . "The in-
stant situation iwhere work was assigned to employees outside the unit] is
comparable to the case where an employer, without consulting the bargain-
ing agent , undertakes to discontinue or to farm out work." There is no
great opportunity to be selective in citing cases which support the Board's
decision in McDonnell. In Beacon Piece Dyeing and Finishing Co, Inc., 121
NLRB 953, the Trial Examiner relied on and cited McDonnell. The Board
did neither, it reversed , and found violation But in Vickers , Incorporated,
153 NLRB 561, the Board dismissed the refusal -to-bargain charge , it being
noted at page 570 that jurisdiction would not be exercised to resolve a
dispute where the employer, in good faith, has construed the contract.
Apparently in line with McDonnell , the Board in American Burhnes, Inc ,
164 NLRB 1055, dismissed the charge of refusal to bargain based on com-
pany transfer and promotion of employees out of the unit. The union there
merely protested the proposal and filed an unfair labor practice charge, but
did not " prosecute its right to engage in discussion " Aside from the deci-
sion here on the facts , that case would appear to be determinative on the
law. See also the very recent International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local Union No 12 (Tri-County Association of Civil Engineers and Land
Surveyors), 168 NLRB 173, where, in different circumstances , a Board
majority found violation of the duty to bargain , although it was con-
trariwise pointed out in dissent and maintained in the spirit of McDonnell
that the respondent union " was doing no more than placing an interpreta-
tion on the contract most favorable to it" and was "guilty only of failure to
abide by a contract obligation."
"' If the first two interviews , held on April 20, were premature for not al-
lowing the Union time for reply and objection, that would scarcely
establish , under the circumstances , the violation charged . Here again we
note that the Union 's reply, when made , was not for modification , discus-
sion , or postponement, but for rescission.
353-177 0 - 72 - 89
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
LACLEDE GAS COMPANY
SAINT LOUIS
April 19, 1967
Mr. R. C. Tibbs, Jr., Business Manager
OCAWIU Local #5-6
7750 Olive Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Dear Mr. Tibbs:
Re: Dispatchers, Customer Rlations Depart-
ment
Effective May 8, 1967 the jobs of Dispatcher
in the Dispatching and Order Control Section
of the Customer Relations Department will be
abolished and the functions and duties of these
jobs will be vested in the non-contract super-
visory positions of Customer Service Super-
visor.
We are willing to discuss, at your pleasure, the
details of this change including the placement
opportunities for the personnel affected, the
character of the new position, and generally to
answer any inquiry you may have.
All present regular Dispatchers will be inter-
viewed perrtaining to future placement with
the possibility of their being accepted in the
management position of Customer Service Su-
pervisor.
Yours very truly
/s/ John J. Brazil
John J. Brazil
JJB/cae
bbc: Messrs . R. F. Hebeler , J. H. Betty, R. E.
Barkey, B. H. Dueker , H. J. Liebrum, C. L.
Digiovanni, A. R. Dobelman , and J. F. Her-
berholt
APPENDIX B
LOCAL 5-6 STATEMENT OF POSITION on
Transfer of Dispatching work
April 27, 1967
TO: Laclede Gas Company
It is the Union 's understanding that on 8
May 67 the Company intends to remove en
masse all Local 5-6 members in the job clas-
sification of Dispatcher from the jurisdiction of
Local 5-6.
The Company, without prior notification or
negotiations with the Union, initiated direct
and separate negotiations with individual mem-
bers of the Local Union in the job classifica-
tion of Dispatcher; these negotiations con-
cerned changes in wages, hours and other con-
ditions of employment. In fact, separate ulti-
matums were issued to individual Union mem-
bers insofar as the individual members were
required within prescribed time limits to in-
form the Company of their personal decision
concerning job changes directly affecting their
future job status and directly affecting every
member of OCAWIU, Local 5-6.
The Company avoided any meetings and
discussions of this matter with the Union prior
to securing various agreements from individual
members of the Union in the job classification
of Dispatcher. It was only until such time as
the Company could present the Union with a
fait accompli that the Union received notifica-
tion of these impending changes.
It is the Union's petition that the Company,
by the aforementioned actions, has materially
breached our contract. Moreover, the Com-
pany, by undermining the bargaining unit, is in
direct violation of the law.
We demand that the Company rescind and
retract all agreements relative to changes in
the status of Local 5-6 members in the job
classification of Dispatcher reached between
Company representatives and any member or
members of our Union who are not duly
authorized representatives of the Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union,
Local 5-6.
We demand that the Company furnish the
Union with a letter stating they rescind and
retract all such agreements.
We demand that the Company inform, be-
fore duly authorized representatives of
OCAWIU, Local 5-6, any individual member
in the classification of Dispatcher with whom
they have negotiated an agreement that such
agreement is null and void.
We demand that the Company maintain all
Dispatchers who are members of Local 5-6 in
their present jobs as set forth in our present
labor agreement.
/s/ R. Tibbs
Business Manager
/s/ Cecil Randolph
President
/s/ James J. White
Business Representative
LACLEDE GAS CO. 1397
APPENDIX C
April 27, 1967
Statement by Mr. R. C. Tibbs, Jr., Business
Manager- Local #5-6
"We deem that Laclede Gas Company by its
actions of negotiating wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment with individual
members of Local #5-6 prior to notification
and negotiations with the duly authorized bar-
gaining representatives are in violation of the
existing labor agreement and federal law. Un-
less such actions are rescinded and retracted,
the Union takes the position that a material
breech of the contract and the law has been
committed by Laclede Gas Company. We shall
present these facts to our membership and take
appropriate action.
APPENDIX D
April 28, 1967
Mr. Robert C. Tibbs, Jr., Business Manager
OCAWIU - Local #5-6
7750 Olive Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63130
In re: Dispatchers
nevertheless , even in regarding to this excep-
tion , we are willing to provide you with any in-
formation you request including the salary
scale applicable to the new positions.
You have every right to challenge this change
either under the terms of the contract, or
under the provisions of applicable federal law.
We firmly believe that we can make this
change under the terms of the contract and
provisions of the federal law, and that we
should make this change in the interest of
more properly controlling the work. This is not
the first time that we have had a considerable
dispute as to our respective rights, either under
the contract or the law, but we have always
had our disputes resolved in a legal and orderly
procedure. In fact, we have never resisted your
challenging the wisdom of the many changes
we have made in the past . It is unfortunate that
you do not take the opportunity available to
you to do the same thing in this instance.
I sincerely urge you not to do anything rash
which could result in unfortunate consequences
to anyone. This problem too can be resolved
peacefully as we have resolved a multitude of
other problems in the past.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John J . Brazil
Dear Mr . Tibbs:
I extremely regret the fact that you did not
wish to discuss at our meeting yesterday after-
noon any part of the problem pertaining to the
publishment of the Dispatchers jobs and the
creation of the new supervisory positions. For
example , you refused to discuss the nature of
the new position, and you refused a job
description which I handed to you. However, I
am enclosing for your information, and also a
copy to Mr. James White , job descriptions on
this new position so that you will understand
that these are truly supervisory positions which
are being created . Another problem pertains to
the disposition of the personnel . This problem
should be fully discussed and negotiated in ac-
cordance with the contractual provisions with
your committee. Mr. B. Ryan , for example, is
not interested in being a supervisor , in view of
the closeness of his retirement, and there are
questions as to whether or not we should give
him termination pay upon abolishment of his
job, or whether we should maintain him in his
position until his retirement in 1968.
We stand ready and willing at any time, before
the change occurs on May 8th, or thereafter,
to fully discuss and negotiate any aspect of this
change with one exception . That exception is
this : that we do not negotiate job descriptions,
wages, or working conditions for supervisors;
John J. Brazil
Assistant Manager
Industrial Relations Department
JJB/vao
cc: Mr. James White
CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR
MAJOR FUNCTIONS:
1. Establishes priority and controls all
customer service orders which are dispatched
on same day basis and all routed work.
2. Exercises authority and responsibility for
production and quality control over service
work done in the field.
ACTIVITIES:
1. Assigns jobs to servicemen with considera-
tion to varying priorities ; complexity of jobs;
and abilities , skills, and classifications of the in-
dividual serviceman.
2. Maintains continuous supervision of the
performance of servicemen (both blank board
and routed men), by reviewing quality of
completed job and time expended.
3. Coordinates activities with supervision of
the Service and Installation Department and
other departments as may be required.
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Assumes supervisory control over activities
of customer contact employees during off-
hours, weekends , and holidays.
5. Subject to training in the field and in school
to keep abreast of technological changes and
administrative procedures applicable to
rendering service to customers.
6. Handles complex customers complaints or
problems and is responsible for effecting their
satisfactory solution.
7. Responsible for exercising good judgment in
evaluating emergency situations, initiating im-
mediate remedial action, and notifying the ap-
propriate personnel.
8. Ascertain the necessity for overtime and
man-power requirements and take appropriate
personnel.
9. Subject to rotating shifts on a 5 over 7 day
basis.
10. Responsible for initiating or recommending
disqualification proceedings and disciplinary
action.
APPENDIX E
May 1, 1967
Mr. John J. Brazil , Asst. Mgr.
Industrial Relations Department
Laclede Gas Company
1017 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Inregards : Dispatchers
Dear Mr. Brazil:
In respect to your letter of 28 April 67, I
make the following comments:
First I would characterize your letter as a
self-serving in so far as it seems to imply the
Union refused to discuss this matter with the
Company in our meeting held April 27, 1967.
This is not true.
The Union Committee registered objections
to the Companies conducting negotiations with
and demanding agreements from its individual
members about specific job changes affecting
not only their job status but the interests of the
entire Union ; these negotiations transpired
prior to any negotiations with our Union's
recognized bargaining representatives.
The Company adamantly refused to discuss
this aspect of the change . The Company
without further explanation , offered the
eleven-man Union Committee one piece of
paper. They purported it contained a list of
new duties for Dispatchers-I noted this piece
of paper was minus a letter head, was ad-
dressed to no one in particular and was un-
signed.
We pointed out that this piece of paper, un-
reinforced by any explanation of specific, sub-
stantial changes in the operation and job func-
tion of dispatching , would not allow any
meaningful discussions of this change.
The Company stated at this meeting-"su-
pervisory duties and rates were none of the
Union's business."
We deem that the Company's actions of in-
dulging in negotiations with individual
Dispatchers prior to negotiations with the
Union constitutes a willful attempt to un-
dermine the bargaining unit and is in violation
of the law.
The Company's failure to furnish the Union
with a letter containing full particulars con-
cerning each specific change contemplated in
the dispatching operations , withholds from the
Union information vitally needed to effectively
police the existing labor agreement.
Of course, even in the face of these prior ac-
tions, we stand ready to meet and discuss with
you whatever it is one discusses in the fact of a
fait accompli. However, we earnestly hope the
Company enters any future discussions of this
problem with a view towards its resolution;
that is, we hope the Company is prepared to
furnish the Union adequate information about
this change ; and is willing to deviate from any
prior agreements relative to this change
reached with persons other than authorized
bargaining agents of Local 5-6.
Understand, Jack, I am not establishing con-
ditions for future discussions , merely offering
suggestions . It was the opinion of the Commit-
tee that the Company's actions in this matter
constituted a material breach of the contract.
It is our intention to make our recommenda-
tions concerning our future actions on this
matter to the Union Body at our regular May
meeting to be held May 3rd. You can certainly
bet it won't be "rash."
I make the following personal comments
since this is a matter of deep personal concern.
Frankly I do not understand why the Com-
pany has seen fit to handle this change in a
manner calculated to offer this unprecedented
affront to the Union immediately prior to the
expiration of our existing labor agreement.
One would think changes having this impact on
the entire Union , if the Company feels they are
necessary, could be handled more adroitly.
In spite of protestations to the contrary, it is
my firm conviction that the Company, by this
action , is endeavoring to discredit and un-
dermind the Union, thereby creating a climate
of hostility, suspicion and doubt within which
we must attempt to negotiate an agreement
next month. Why?
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Tibbs, Jr.
Business Manager
RCT:dlh