Landis Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

III the Matter of LANDIS TOOL COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE
OF NORTII AMERICA, AFL
Case No. 6-CA-122.-Decided April 18,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 21, 1949, Trial Examiner Myers D. Campbell issued
his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Respondent also requested oral argument. This request is hereby
denied because the record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union 2 on and after May 4, 1948, within
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this
case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
2The Respondent excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to find that (1) the
charging union was not the certified union and that therefore , there was no duty on
the part of the Respondent to bargain with the charging Union; and (2) the Respondent
was not obligated to bargain with Pattern Makers Association of Washington, D. C.,
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania Branch, because it was not the certified Union. As to the
first exception, the charge was filed by Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL,
which is the certified bargaining representative . As to the second exception , for rea-
sons of geographical convenience , the Waynesboro Branch of District 1 of the Union , Pitts-
burgh , Pennsylvania , covering the Respondent 's employees , was transferred to District
3 of the Union, Washington, D. C. Contrary to the Respondent's contention, the pro-
cedure followed in Harris - Woodson Co ., Inc., 85 NLRB 1215 , leading to amendment of
certification does not apply , for, in this case , no change of name or affiliation of the
89 NLRB No. 47.
503
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.3 As the Intermediate
Report omits some, and inadequately discusses other, factors material
to this finding, we set forth below the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The May 4, 1948, Meeting
At the May 4, 1948, meeting, the Union submitted a proposed con-
tract as previously requested by the Respondent.4 The Respondent
had no objection to the preamble and recognition clauses, but did ob-
ject to the other clauses. To the Union's request for a 118)-cent an
hour wage increase, the Respondent replied that it was watching wage
patterns in the area, that when a pattern had been set it would give
serious consideration to a wage increase, but that any increase would
be made in accordance with its policy of granting "the same hourly
wage increase straight across the board to all employees." To the
Union's request for a written counterproposal, "one that they would
be willing to sign and one that would cover conditions that existed in
the plant, if nothing else," the Respondent replied that it was un-
willing to make one, and "that any agreement reached must be writ-
ten by [the Union] and then agreed to by [the Respondent]." Other
than to submit a counterproposal in writing to the Union's proposed
"discrimination" clause,5 the Respondent made no counterproposal.
The parties agreed to meet again on May 14.
The Wage Increase of June 7, 1948
On the evening of May 4, 1948, Rice, spokesman for the Respondent,
chanced to meet Oakley, the union representative, at dinner. Rice
told Oakley that the Respondent was considering granting a general
wage increase, probably not until after May 14; that the amount was
elected representative took place. The Respondent does not argue that the employees
did not designate the Waynesboro Branch, District 3 of the Union, as their represent-
ative, nor, at the meetings with the Union subsequent to the transfer, did it offer any
objection thereto. It is well settled that the duly elected bargaining agent may select
the individuals who will act in its behalf. Accordingly, we and no merit in these
exceptions.. See The Kentucky Utilities Company, 76 NLRB 845, and cases cited therein.
3 The Union had been certified in March 1946 as the representative of the Respondent's
patternmakers and their apprentices. 65 NLRB 1279. At the same time, United
Automobile Workers, CIO, herein called UAW-CIO, was certified as the representative
of the production and maintenance employees. The complaint alleges refusal to bargain
by the Respondent on and after May 4, 1948.
4In substantial agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that all patternmakers
and patternmakers' apprentices at the Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, plant of the Re-
spondent, excluding all supervisors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within, the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
The Respondent's proposal contained the language, "There shall be no Union solicita-
tion on company time or property. . . .
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 505
not definite; that the pattern of wage increases in the area appeared
to be between 5 and 8 cents; and that the Respondent thought it ad-
visable to postpone the scheduled May 14 meeting because it could not
then agree to a wage increase for patternmakers to exceed that which
it "was going to put into effect for all employees.", Rice testified that
be secured Oakley's agreement to postpone the May 14 meeting until
after the general wage increase, "as well as an understanding between
us that the Company was going to make a general wage increase."
Oakley could not recall what transpired at the dinner meeting. Rice's
testimony with regard to this conversation is credited except to the
extent to which it was contradicted on cross-examination. Thus, on
cross-examination, Rice denied that he "told Oakley that a wage in-
crease was going to be put into effect . . . I told him that I
thought one was probably going to be put into effect. I made no
promise that it would be, no date, no agreed amount."
On May 7, 1948, Rice wrote to Oakley :
I have given further consideration to the matter discussed with
you after our formal conference in Waynesboro last week and,
as I see it, there is no reasonable expectation of our being able to
reach a satisfactory agreement at a meeting on May 14 which was
tentatively set at the adjournment of our formal conference.
The letter goes on to request a postponement of a further meeting
until "some time in July unless in the meantime you have some special
reason for having a meeting." Oakley replied on May 12 agreeing to
"postpone the meeting temporarily as you suggest."
Hollengreen, the Respondent's vice president, testified that although
he discussed the subject of a wage increase with the Respondent's
Board of Directors before June 7, 1948, it was not until that date that
the Board of Directors authorized the wage increase. The amount was
determined, as Hollengreen testified, "On the basis .of what I under-
stood the other companies were paying; on what I thought was fair
and equitable and what I thought the Company could stand." Hollen-
green admitted that he did not discuss the amount of the increase with
the Union, but added that he received a report from his representatives
after the May 4 meeting "telling me that the Union requested an in-
crease." The notice of wage increase placed on the Respondent's
bulletin board did not mention the Union.
The Delay in Scheduling the September 27, 1948, Meeting
On June 28, 1948, Oakley wrote to Rice requesting an early date for
the next meeting. Rice replied on June 29 that he had forwarded
Oakley's letter to the Respondent for advice. Rice wrote again on
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July 15 that no specific date could be set because of Vice-President
Ingram's pending "eastern trip." Oakley then wrote to Hollengreen
on July 22, in part, as follows :
Having been unable to arrange a date for a meeting, I suggest
a meeting on August, 5th or 6th. We cannot and do not wish to
say who shall represent the Company or how many, but we must
insist on a meeting.
In a letter to Oakley dated July 26, Rice indicated that Oakley's
letter to Hollengreen had been referred to him for reply, and suggested
a meeting date of August 10. Oakley wrote to Ingram on July 31 that
the August 10 meeting date was agreeable. However, on August 2 Rice
wrote Oakley that due to a change in meeting dates, the Respondent
was holding a company meeting on August 10, that Ingram could not
meet with the Union on that date, but suggested August 13. Oakley
replied on August 7 that :
Your letter of August 2, 1948, asking for your customary post-
ponement of negotiations has been received.
iI did have the date of August 10, 1948 reserved to meet you,
but the date you suggest of FRIDAY August 13, 1948, will not
be convenient and I will be unable to meet you at that time.
Rice then suggested in a letter of August 9 that Oakley give him
alternative dates "so we can avoid conflicts." Oakley, in his reply of
August 27, suggested September 10. Rice, in a letter of August 30,
stated that he had requested the Company to inform him of con-
venient meeting dates, and, on September 2, suggested September 21
or 27. Oakley replied on September 7 that he would meet Rice on
September 27.
The September 27, 1948, Meeting
At this meeting Oakley stated that although the Union did not ob-
ject to the June 7 wage increase if considered as a down payment on its
wage demands, it did object to the fact that it had not been consulted.
The Respondent's reply was that it was not necessary to consult the
Union. In response to Oakley's query as to whether the Respondent
had prepared a counterproposal,s Rice stated that it had not. Oakley
testified that Rice also stated that :
any agreement wished by me must be put in writing by
me and then agreed to by the Company, and then we would be
able to get together and agree on a contract. But they were un-
willing to rewrite an agreement.
6In his letter to Rice of June 28, Oakley suggested that "since you have rejected
the proposed contract that I presented that you write an agreement that you are willing
to sign and present for our consideration."
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 507
Oakley added, "And I could not read their minds to know how to write
a contract that would be acceptable to them." 7
The Respondent's attitude toward the Union's contract proposal
was, as at the May 4 meeting, that "it was unwilling to let the tail wag
the dog," i. e., to permit negotiations with the Union representing 15
patternmakers to prejudice the Respondent's position with regard to
any wage increase it might grant to the 900 production and mainte-
nance employees. The Respondent's position was that it "was willing
to meet to discuss a contract at any time and will sign when we reach
an agreement." There were no further meetings.
Conclusions
Our finding that the Respondent has refused to bargain in good
faith is based upon the following factors :
(a) On and after May 4, 1948, the Respondent, having rejected the
Union's proposed contract, refused the Union's request for a counter-
proposal, one that would at least embody existing wages and working
conditions; and, on September 27, 1948, again refused the Union's
request for a counterproposal.
The Respondent contends that it was under no obligation to submit
a counterproposal in 1948 as it had already done so at a meeting on
May 23, 1946. On May 4, 1948, however, the Union had, at the
Respondent's request, submitted a proposed contract which differed
substantially from the Union's 1946 proposal." Aside from rewriting
the Union's "discrimination" clause so as to ban union solicitation on
company time and property, the Respondent refused to make a coun-
terproposal and did not reinstate its 1946 counterproposal.9 In short,
the Respondent listened to the Union's demands, stated reasons for
rejecting them, but gave little or no affirmative indication of what it
would agree to.
4 Oakley's version of the Respondent's position on the making of a counterproposal,
which we credit, does not differ materially from Rice's somewhat ambiguous statement
of his reply to the union representative : "I told him that it was impossible, in my
opinion, to prepare a counterproposal until we had settled some of the issues so that
we could have it reduced to writing with some reasonable expectation of concluding
the contract."
5 Contrary to the Respondent's contention, we find that the Union's proposed con-
tract was a complete agreement. It contained provisions pertaining to recognition,
hours of work and overtime, holidays, wages, seniority, grievances, vacations, discrimina-
tion, and duration. Moreover, as the Respondent admitted, the proposed contract was
not the standard form contract of 1946.
4 The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that Oakley opened new
negotiations in 1948. In agreement with the Respondent, we find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that Oakley resumed negotiations temporarily postponed in 1947. More-
over, we find that Oakley was substantially informed as to what had transpired at the
previous meetings. However, we do not conclude therefrom, as the Respondent argues,
that Oakley's knowledge of the fact that the Respondent made a counterproposal in 1946
relieved it of the duty of making a counterproposal at the 1948 meetings.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent maintains that, in any event, it was not bound to
offer counterproposals. Where, however, a counterproposal is re-
quested, unwillingness to. comply may support a finding of refusal
to bargain in good faith,10 particularly where, as here, the Union was
willing to consider any counterproposal the Respondent might make,
even one which would only embody current conditions 11 The Re-
spondent took the view that the burden was upon the Union to continue
to submit proposals until ultimately one acceptable to the Respondent
would be hit upon. But the Union was under no such obligation.
Rather it was incumbent upon the Respondent, in these circumstances,
to submit a counterproposal, without which discussion descended to
empty debate, and agreement by compromise, which the Act seeks to
encourage, could not be expected 12
(b) On and after May 4, 1948, and again on September 27, 1948,
the Respondent refused to recognize the separate identity of the
patternmakers as an appropriate unit for the purpose of negotiations
on a wage increase.
Since its certification in 1946, the Union, at a number of meetings
with the Respondent, argued that the Respondent's wage rates for
patternmakers were out of line with the rates elsewhere in the area,
and that they should therefore receive an increase in recognition of
their superior skills as compared with the production and maintenance
employees. The Respondent consistently took the view that it could
not consider the wage demands of patterlunakers as such, but only
as an indiscriminate part of all the employees in the plant. The
Respondent thereby denied to the Union any consideration of its case
for a wage increase in terms of the factors applicable to the separate
'ON. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward cI Co., 133 F. 2d 676 (C. A. 9) ; N. L. R. B. v.
George P. Pilling d Son Co., 119 F. 2d 32 (C. A. 3).
"The Respondent contends that at the May 4 and September 27 meetings, it made
an oral offer to embody in a written agreement existing wages and working conditions,
but that the Union refused. The Union denied that the Respondent made an oral
counterproposal. The Trial Examiner found, as do we, that the Respondent refused
"to offer, any contract that it would execute." We regard the Respondent's refusal to
submit a counterproposal, even one embodying current wages and working conditions,
as indicative of complete unwillingness to provide any basis for discussion leading to
possible agreement. Moreover, we find in Personnel Director McMillan's admission that
the Respondent, at the May 4 meeting, gave no indication of what it would agree to
other than to rewrite the Union's proposed clause on "discrimination," as well as in
McMillan's vague testimony as to what transpired at the September 27 meeting relative
to the Respondent's alleged oral proposal, additional evidence negating the Respondent's
contention.
12 Panette Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116, enfd. 179 F. 2d 504 (C. A. 5) ; Globe Cotton
Mills v. N. L. R. B., 103 F. 2d 91 (C. A. 5) ; Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 85' NLRB
1222 ; Adler Metal Products Corp., 79 NLRB 219.
While it is true, as the Respondent argues, that under Section 8 (d) of the amended
Act, it was not required to make a concession , the Union (lid not request a counter-
proposal in the nature of a concession . Cf. Adler Metal Products Corp ., supra ; National
Maritime Union of America, et al., 78 NLRB 971, enfd . 175 F. 2d 686 ( C. A. 2), cert.
den. 338 U. S. 954.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 509
unit of patternmakers. In so doing, the Respondent took it upon
itself to ignore the Board's certification and substitute company policy
for the mandate of the statute that it bargain collectively with the
Union as the representative of an appropriate unit of patternmakers.13
(c) On June 7, 1948, the Respondent granted a unilateral wage
increase to the patternmakers.
The Respondent maintains that in negotiations with the Union on
May 4,1948, "the Union agreed, through Oakley, that the general wage
increase of 7 cents on June 7, 1948, should be made." At the May 4
meeting, however, the Respondent informed the Union that it was
not then seriously considering a wage increase, but was watching the
pattern of wage increases in the country. That evening, according
to the testimony of Rice on direct examination, Oakley was informed
that the Respondent was going to put into effect a general wage in-
crease; that the pattern of wage increases in the area seemed to be
between 5 and 8 cents; and that the meeting set for May 14 would
serve no purpose because the Respondent could not agree to grant a
wage increase to patternmakers in excess of any increase to the other
employees in the plant.
That the Union then agreed to postpone the meeting is evident from
Oakley's letter to Rice of May 12. That the Union also agreed to a
wage increase of 7 cents to be made by the Respondent sometime after
May 14, without consultation with the Union, is not substantiated by
the evidence. Thus, on cross-examination, Rice, contradicting. his
earlier statement, denied that he promised Oakley that a wage increase
would be made. Rice's later version was that he informed Oakley
that a wage increase ". 1v" as probably going to be put into effect. T made
no promise that it would be, no date, no agreed amount."
We perceive neither bona fide negotiation nor agreement in the
May 4 discussions. Rice's contradictory testimony establishes at most
that the Respondent discussed with the Union in vague, speculative,
and ambiguous terms, the possibility of a wage increase. It would
require gross distortion of the plain meaning of words to conclude that
the Respondent, at the May 4 meetings, negotiated a wage agreement
with the Union, in the face of the Respondent's admission that it made
no promise of a wage increase, and specified no date nor amount 14
Hollengreen, in reciting the considerations which motivated the grant
of a wage increase on June 7, admitted that the Union had not been
13 We do not question the Respondent's real concern over the effect of a separate
wage increase to patternmakers upon its position vis-5-vis the wage demands of the
production and maintenance employees. However. difficulties of this nature do not serve
to remove the statutory duty to bargain in good faith. Cf. Tide Water Associated Oil
Company, 85 NLRB 1096 ; N. L. R. B. v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 150 F. 2d 895
(C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F. 2d 465 (C. A. 9).
14N. L. R. B. V. Andrew Jergens Co., 175 F. 2d 130, 135-136 (C. A. 9).
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consulted.15 It is significant that in explaining the Respondent's fail-
ure to notify the Union of the wage increase, Hollengreen made no
mention of the alleged agreement with Oakley. Nor did the Respond-
ent allude to its May 4 conversations with Oakley when, at the Septem-
ber 27 meeting, the Union protested the unilateral wage increase of
June 7. Moreover, the Respondent failed to snake any reference to
the Union in its posted notice announcing the June 7 increase 16
The Respondent maintains that at the June 25, 1946, meeting, as
well as at the May 15, 1947, meeting, the Union requested and the
Respondent agreed that any general wage increase made to the em-
ployees in the plant should be extended to the patternmakers. While
we agree with the Respondent that Oakley, as the successor to Union
Representatives Madigan and Gareis, would be bound by any such
agreement, we find that the record fails to support the Respondent's
contention that the alleged agreement in fact existed.17 As Madigan
credibly testified, the Union's position, stated "on numerous occasions,"
was that the patternmakers should receive a percentage increase in
wage rates, rather than the flat amount of increase granted other em-
ployees in the plant, in recognition of the superior skills of the.pattern-
makers. Madigan's reply to Rice, when asked to accept the November
2. 1946, wage increase, was: "As long as it wasn't a commitment for
any period of time but could be considered a down payment on what
we were actually attempting to negotiate, that I wouldn't turn down a
voluntary increase." Contrary to the Respondent's contention, Madi-
gan's reply speaks not of an agreement to accept whatever increase was
given the other employees as a collectively bargained satisfaction of
the Union's wage demand, but as a voluntary increase to be credited,
in the Union's reckoning, as "a down payment on what we were ac-
tually attempting to negotiate."
The Respondent stated to the Union, in the course of discussions
about the contemplated plant-wide wage increases of 1946 and 1947,
that these increases did not preclude the Union from bargaining for
more money at any time. This statement did not constitute an agree-
ment on wage increases, nor remove the element of limited recogni-
tion-conditional upon negotiations with the UAW-CIO-which the
Respondent accorded the Union's wage demands.
The Respondent further maintains that "an impasse was reached
insofar as wage negotiations were concerned on May 4, 1948," and that,
thereafter, the Respondent was free to make a wage increase without
"It is no defense, under the circumstances , that wage increases were granted at the
same time in other plants in the area . Cookeville Shirt Company, 79 NLRB 677.
is Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc ., 79 NLRB 903 , 904, 919, note 10.
11 In so finding , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s statement that no such agreement
was consummated because "no contract was offered or put into effect on such agreement."
It is not contended that such agreement was or should have been in writing.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 511
consulting the Union. It cannot be said, however, on the facts of this
case, that there existed no reasonable possibility of reaching an agree-
ment on wages through the normal process of collective bargaining',,
Indeed, the Union requested the Respondent to submit a counter-
proposal covering all provisions of an agreement, and the Respondent
refused to comply. Furthermore, when the Union pressed its case
for a wage increase for the patternmakers as an appropriate unit, the
Respondent's answer was, in effect, that it did not consider the pattern-
makers aS a separate unit for the purpose of a wage increase. Under
these circumstances, there existed no deadlock in negotiations arising
out of a genuine but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement, but
rather employer denial of effective employee participation in wage
determinations. We therefore find in the granting of a wage in-
crease on June 7, 1948, without consulting or notifying the Union,
further evidence of the Respondent's failure to bargain collectively.
In addition, we are of the opinio,;T, and 'find, that the Respondent's
conduct in withholding from the Union the full recognition to which
it was entitled,10 and its unilateral action with respect to wages, con-
sidered separately, constituted per se violations of Section 8 (a) (5) of
the Act.20
(d) The Respondent unreasonably delayed meeting with the Union
until September 27, 1948.
The Respondent claims that it was particularly concerned with
avoiding delay in meeting with the Union, and therefore authorized
Rice to schedule. meetings; that consistent with this authority, it re-
ferred to Rice the Union's requests for meetings addressed to Hollen-
green; and that it appointed a three-man delegation so that if one
member could not attend, "there were two other people who could
carry on the continuity." The Respondent's concern, however, was
honored more in the breach than in the observance for it repeatedly
sought by dilatory tactics to postpone the meeting date, and thereby
emphasized to the Union the futility of further discussions.21 We
base this finding on (a) Rice's delay in replying to Oakley's letter of
18 Cf. TV. TV. Cross and Company , 77 NLRB 1162, enfd . 174 F. 2d 875 ( C. A. 1) ; Exposi-
tion Cotton Mills Company, 76 NLRB 1289.
19 See Tomlinson of High Point , Inc., 74 NLRB 681.
20 May Department Stores Co. V. N. L. R. B., 326 U . S. 376 ; N. L. R. B. v. Crompton-
Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U. S. 217; N. L. R. B. v. Andrew Jergens Co., supra.
Under the circumstances of this case Member Murdock does not deem it necessary to
make the finding that the unilateral action with respect to wages constituted a separate
per se violation of Section 8 (a) (5).
11 J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc., 86 NLRB 470: Amory Garment Com-
pany, Inc., 80 NLRB 182.
512 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
June 28 until July 15 22 in order to refer to Hollengreen the matter of
a meeting date, in view of Rice's express authority to arrange meet-
ings; (b) Hollengreen 's referral to Rice of Oakley's letter of July 22,
in which Oakley requested a meeting date , in view of Holllengreen's
apparent authority to arrange meetings ; ( c) the Respondent 's failure
to meet in July because of Ingram 's pending "eastern trip ," in the
absence of any showing in the record that the other two members of
the three-plan delegation were not available ; and (d ) the Respondent's
postponement of the August 10 meeting date which it had 'suggested
and which was agreeable to the Union because the Respondent there-
after scheduled a company meeting for that date which Ingrain had
to attend , in the absence of any showing that the other two men were
not available.
In view of the foregoing , and upon a consideration of the record as
a whole, we find that by refusing to submit a counterproposal, by re-
fusing to recognize the separate identity of the patternmakers as an
appropriate unit for the purpose of negotiating a wage increase, by
unilaterally granting a wage increase on June 7, 1.948, and by dilatory
tactics in delaying meeting with the Union , the Respondent evidenced
an intention to avoid its duty to bargain in good faith . Accordingly,
we find that on May 4 , 1948 , and again on September 27, 1948, and at
all times thereafter , the Respondent refused to bargain collectively
with the Union , and thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1 ) of the Act.
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 the Respondent, Landis. Tool
Company, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of
North America, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all pattern-
makers and patternmakers' apprentices at the Respondent's Waynes-
boro, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding all supervisors as defined in the
amended Act;
23 Contrary to the Respondent 's statement in its brief, the delays in holding meetings were
not always agreeable to the Union. The Union's protests at the Respondent's delays, in
the period under consideration herein , are contained in its letters to Hollengreen and Rice,
dated July 22 and August 7, 1948, respectively.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 513
(b) Interfering in any other manner with the efforts of Pattern
Makers League of North America, AFL, to bargain collectively on
behalf of employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League
of North America, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all the patternmakers and patternmakers' apprentices at the Re-
spondent's Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding all supervisors
as defined in the amended Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A 23 Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent or its -representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has 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 BARGAIN collectively upon request with PATTERN
MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other terms or conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is:
2311) the event this, Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A
DECREE OF TIIE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All patternmakers and patternmakers' apprentices, exclusive
of all supervisors as defined in the amended Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of PAT-
TERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTI--I AMERICA, AFL, to bargain collec-
tively with us as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit described above.
Employer.
By ------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Erwin Lerten, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the General Counsel.
L. I. Rice, Esq., and D. H. Rodgers, Jr., Esq., of Rice ci Hannis, of Martinsburg,
W. Va., for the Respondent. '
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed October 19, 1948, by Pattern Makers League of North
America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania) issued his complaint dated May 3, 1949, against Landis
Tool Company, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of the hearing thereon were duly
served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent:
1. On or about May 4, 1948, refused and since then has continued to refuse to
bargain collectively in good faith with the Union, the duly designated representa-
tive of its employees in an appropriate unit ; although the Board certified the
Union on or about March 29, 1946;
2. By such conduct has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
3. Because of the aforestated acts and conduct engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
On May 9, 1949, the Respondent filed its answer in which it denied the
commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 17 and 18, 1949, at Chambers-
burg, Pennsylvania, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were
x The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein called the General
Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board is called the Board.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 515
represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of all of the evidence, the undersigned
granted, without objection, a motion by the General Counsel's representative to
conform the pleadings to the proof in matters not going to the substance of the.
issues. All parties waived oral argument before the undersigned, and the
Respondent had filed a brief and recommendations for findings and conclusions.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT 2
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. The parties, by stipulation dated May 17, 1949, agreed
that Landis Tool Company at all times material herein was a corporation or-
ganized and existing under the laws of Pennsylvania, having its principal office
and plant at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the production,
manufacture, sale, and distirbuitin of machine tools.
During the past 12-month period, the. Respondent purchased for use at its
plant, raw materials and other items with a value in excess of $1,000,000, of
which approximately 80 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside
Pennsylvania ; during the same period it manufactured and sold machine tools.
with a value in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 80 percent was sold
and shipped to points outside Pennsylvania.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, is a labor organization,
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
On March 29, 1946, following a Board election conducted on March 12, 1946,_
the Board certified the Union as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of-
employment' The Board found that the following employees of the Respondent
constituted a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the-
meaning of Section IJ (b) of the Act:
All patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices of Landis Tool Com-
pany, excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action.
2 The record evidence as a whole contains few material conflicts of facts. In making-
the findings herein, the undersigned has considered and weighed the entire evidence and the.
contentions of the parties. It would needlessly burden this report to separately evaluate.
all of the testimony on the few disputed points. Such testimony or other evidence that.
conflicts with the findings herein is not credited.
Case No. 6-11-1309.
889227-.ri 1-vol. 89-34
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent offered no evidence at the hearing relating to the appropriate
unit. It is therefore concluded and found that the above-described unit is
appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
B. Majority representation
The employees of Respondent at its plant in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, were
in the Waynesboro Branch of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Association (Dis-
trict No. 1) of the Union from the time of the certification until January 1,
1948, when the Waynesboro Branch was transferred to the Washington, D. C.,
Association (District No. 3) of the Union. The transfer of jurisdiction was
made by the duly constituted district representatives for reasons of union
policy on geography and convenience-of-service basis.
In its brief, the Respondent contended that it was not under obligation to
bargain with "Pattern Makers Association of Washington, D. C., Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania, Branch" because it was not and is not the certified union at
Respondent's plant.
The Respondent offered no evidence at the hearing to show that the Board's
certification was invalid or that since the certification there has been any change
in the desires of the employees in that unit as to their bargaining representative.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the change of affiliation of the
Waynesboro Branch from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Association of the Union,
to the Washington, D. C., Association of the Union, is a mere change of union
jurisdiction, and not a change in any way affecting the identity of the certified
bargaining representative.'
The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that on March 29, 1946, and
at all times since then the Union was, and now is, the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
C. The events of 191}6 and 19117
1. The negotiations in 1946
In the same Order of March 29, 1946, wherein the Board certified the
Union as the bargaining agent at Respondent's plant for patternrnakers and
pattermnaker apprentices (approximately 25 employees) in Case No. 6-R-1309,
the Board certified the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the UAW, as bargaining agent at Re-
spondent's plant for other production and maintenance employees (approxi-
mately 900 employees) in Case No. 6-R-1285. While the UAW is not involved,
its bargaining activities during the time involved herein had an important bear-
ing on the issues.
Following the Board certification, the Union, by Paul A. Gareis, district repre-
sentative, sent a registered letter on April 8, 1946, to the Respondent's vice
president and general manager, M. A. Hollengreen, requesting a meeting for
April 24, 1946,-for the purpose of discussing provisions of an agreement covering
the patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices employed by the Respondent.
Respondent's Vice President Ingram replied on April 10, advising that Hollen-
green was away and would return the week of April 19 and would be advised of
a Supplemental Decision and Amended Order of the Board in Harris - Tvoodson Co.. Inc.,
Case No. 5-C-2245 , 85 NLRB 1215.
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 517
the letter. On April 16 Hollengreen, by registered letter, advised Gareis, "This
is to inform you that the firm of Rice & Hannis, Martinsburg, West Virginia, with
whom you are familiar, have complete charge of any negotiations with repre-
sentatives of our employees. Will you please contact them and make arrange-
ments for whatever meetings you desire?" On April 18, 1946, Gareis wired
Attorney Rice and on April 19, Rice replied by letter advising that the 24th was
not convenient and suggested a meeting for May 1, 1946, subject to a conflict
of date by reason of Hollengreen's absence.
The meeting was held on May 1, 1946, at the Anthony Wayne Hotel in Waynes-
boro, Pennsylvania. The Union was represented by Charles D. Madigan, secre-
tary-treasurer of District No. 1 of the Union, and Gareis, and the Respondent
by its attorneys, Rice and Hannis, Hollengreen, vice president, and other officials.
The Union presented a proposed contract and there followed a discussion of the
various clauses therein, and a discussion of wages.
Madigan testified credibly that he had the bargaining authority for the Waynes-
boro Branch until January 1, 1948, when his duties were transferred, by Union
action, to Eli J. Oakley, secretary-treasurer of District No. 3 of the same Union.
Madigan testified that he acted as spokesman ; that the various clauses of the
proposed contract were discussed and the Respondent's representatives advised
that there were many things in the proposed contract that they could not agree
to; that wages were discussed on the basis of equitable rates for patternmakers
in the Waynesboro area including qualified journeymen patternmakers; that
the Respondent objected to including checkers and pattern repairmen in the
contract ; and that no agreement was reached on any part of the contract, and
it was agreed that there would be another bargaining conference. The Re-
spondent was furnished with a copy of the proposed contract.
The next meeting was held on May 23, 1946, at the same place and Gareis and
members of the pattern shop committee represented the Union. Attorney Rice
and Vice-President Ingram and other officials of the company represented the
Respondent. As the meeting began the Respondent advised the Union that it
was going to present a counterproposal and that there were a number of things
it could not agree to. It appears the Respondent intended to submit the seine
proposal to the representatives of the UAW as bargaining representative of
the 900 employees in the other unit. The Respondent's counterproposal was dis-
cussed at length but no agreement was reached and a future meeting was sug-
gested to continue the discussion. The date suggested was June 4 or 6 but the
meeting was not held until June 25,1946.
Madigan testified that he and Goreis and a shop committee met with Attorney
Rice, Ingram and other officials of the Respondent, and went over the counter-
proposal, and that "There was no agreement because in the company's counter-
proposal, what they had practically done was lifted a lot of sections and clauses
whereby they practically agreed to keep the law and all of these various things
that Unions are interested in, they would go as far as the law required them to
go in their contract proposals, with such general things as vacations, vacation plan
that was then in effect, which was an unsatisfactory one. They requested us
to sign a contract which would continue the wages being paid at that time for
the duration of the contract, which of course, we couldn't agree to. . . .
They had changed their position in their counterproposal and agreed to include
the pattern checkers in the bargaining unit, the two men that they had disagreed
about in the earlier meeting on May 1. But they still refused to include the
pattern repairmen on the basis that our certification by the Board didn't specify
pattern repairmen."
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent advised that they were meeting with the UAW and expected
to continue to meet with them on contract negotiations, and that the proposal
which they made to the Union was about the same as that proposed to the UAW.
Madigan further testified that the Respondent said that inasmuch as the Union
represented the small unit (about 25 employees) and the UAW represented the
larger unit (about 900 employees) they could not conclude negotiations with the
Union "without prejudicing their bargaining with the larger unit." The Respond-
ent therefore requested the Union to withhold pressing for any farther confer-
ences until such time as it could reach an agreement with the UAW.
The Respondent contended and adduced evidence to prove that the Union
requested an agreement to the effect that if wage increases were made to
employees in the larger unit that the employees in the small unit would be treated
equally as well. No contract was offered or put into effect on such an agreement.
Accordingly, it is found that no such agreement was consummated.
At the close of the meeting on June 25, 1946, the Union agreed to withhold
pressing for further conferences for a time to permit further negotiations
between the Respondent and the UAW. The Union made no further request for
conferences until February 3, 1947.
It is clear that the subject of wages was discussed by the parties at each of the
three meetings in 1946 and it is equally clear that the Respondent refused to
agree to any increase of wages, which the Union had requested, for the reason
that if any increase was agreed to, the Respondent would be faced with a like
increase to all the employees in the larger unit. represented by the UAW.
2. The wage increase of November 4, 1946
There were no further meetings during the year 1946, but on November 2, 1946,
Rice called Madigan by telephone and said that the Respondent was contemplat-
ing an S cents per hour wage increase in the plant and requested its acceptance
by the Union. Madigan replied that as long as it wasn't a commitment for any
period of time but could be considered a down payment "on what we were actually
attempting to negotiate, that I wouldn't turn down a voluntary increase." The
telephone conversation was confirmed by letter from Rice the same day saying
it was 6 cents, and then corrected on November 4, to advise the correct wage
increase was 8 cents per hour.
The wage increase of S cents per hour was a general increase to all employees
and the Respondent advised them by placing notices on the plant bulletin boards
which stated that the raise was effective November 4, 1946. The notice did not
mention the Union.
3. The negotiations in 1947
On February 3, 1.947, Gareis wrote Attorneys Rice and Hannis requesting a
meeting to discuss provisions of an agreement covering patternmakers and
patternmaker apprentices of the Respondent, and suggested February 18 for the
time. Rice replied on February 4 and advised he was writing the Respondent
in reference to the matter and would advise result. On February 19 he wrote
Gareis and suggested the date of March 4 or 12. Gareis replied on February 20,
and stated that March 4 was satisfactory. Rice replied on February 21 that
March 4 was a satisfactory date. On March 8 Rice again wrote Gareis that after
their telephone conversation in regard to the meeting date, he had talked to
Respondent's officials and they would be out of town on March 22 and he was
going March 26 to April 7 and requested a date satisfactory to Gareis in April
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 519
Gareis replied on March 11 and stated either April 9 or 10 would be suitable.
Rice replied on March 12 and stated April 10 would be satisfactory.
The meeting was held on April 10, 1947. Madigan testified that he and Gareis
and a shop committee represented the Union, and Rice, Ingram, and other officials
represented the Respondent.
Madigan testified they discussed the various things that the Union was request-
ing and got no further than they had at any previous meeting; that "The coin-
pang was making no concessions. We had gone over their contract and there
were certain things that we were prepared to agree upon, contingent upon the
.acceptance of some of the things that were were interested in, but the company
made no concessions at all."
The Respondent was in the same position, with reference to the UAW as it
had been at all the previous conferences.
On May 2, 1947, Rice wrote:
DEAR Mn. GAREIS :
At our last conference in Waynesboro it was agreed.that the next confer-
ence would be held Thursday, May 8, at 1: 00 p. in. at the Hotel in Waynes-
boro. We met the Automobile Union the day following our conference with
you, and at the end of that conference we set our next meeting for Wednes-
day, May 14, at 2: 00 p. in. in Waynesboro.
I am writing you for the purpose of requesting, if agreeable to you and
AIr. Madigan, that the next conference with you be held on Thursday,
May 15, or Thursday, May 22. I feel rather confident that we will not be in
position to accomplish anything at the meeting now scheduled for May 8.
1 appreciate your position by reason of the long delay but I feel it is neces-
sary to continue the next meeting date until after our meeting on May 14.
In addition, I have been advised today that one of the executive officers of
our Woolen Company, from New York, will be in Martinsburg and desires to
see me on May 8 and 9. If you, of course, insist I shall be compelled to
meet in Waynesboro because 1 made that engagement earlier. If, however,
you and Mr. Madigan will agree to continue the next conference until after
May 14 1 will certainly appreciate it.
Will you please write me after you have gone over this matter with Mr.
Madigan? I am enclosing an extra copy of this letter for Mr. Madigan, and
I am not writing him direct, because I seemingly do not have his address
in my office. I am,
Very truly yours,
[s] L. I. RicE.
Gareis replied on May 5 and agreed to meet Respondent's representatives on
May 15, 1947, at 1 p. in. Rice replied on May 6, and agreed except he requested
'2 p. in. by reason of time differences.
The meeting was held at the same place on May 15, 1947. The Union was
represented by Madigan, Gareis, and a shop committee, and the Respondent by
Rice and company officials. Eli J. Oakley, the secretary of the Union District
No. 3, was also present. Just before the meeting convened, Rice and company
officials conferred with Madigan alone. Madigan testified that Rice told him
privately about the situation with the UAW, and asked for a further delay in
negotiations with the Union; that Rice stated several reasons for the request;
and that he (Madigan) agreed to the request because he know he was up against
a stone wall, and that Rice was just going to continue to discuss the Respondent's
proposal which could not be agreed to by the Union. The conference then
proceeded with all persons participating and wages were again discussed,
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the Union again mentioned the inequity of pay of lower paid pattern-
makers. The Respondent again explained its position with reference to the
bargaining with UAW and no agreement was reached.
4. The wage increase of June 23, 1947
The Respondent put into effect a general wage increase of 8 cents per hour
to its employees on June 23, 1947. The employees were notified by the same.
type of notice placed on the bulletin board. Rice testified that he telephoned
Gareis on June 19, 1947, and advised that the Respondent was putting the wage
increase into effect, and that Gareis said it "was fine." Gareis was unable to
recall the conversation. Under that state of the record the undersigned finds
that Rice did advise Gareis of the June 23, 1947 increase, on June 19, 1947, and
that the Union was therefore advised, before the wage increase was effected.
and made no objection.
D. The refusal to bargain
1. Introduction
As found above, the identity of the union bargaining representative was trans-
ferred on January 1, 1948, from Madigan to Oakley. The Respondent was duly
notified thereof by letter:
JANUARY 21, 1948
Mr. L. I. RICE, Attorney
The Old National Bank Bldg.
Martinsburg, West Virginia
DEAR MR. RICE :
I wish to inform you that the Waynesboro, Pa. Branch of the Pattern
Makers Association of Pittsburgh and Vicinity, a part of Pattern
Makers, District No. 1 were transferred as of January 1, 1948, to Pattern
Makers District No. 3 and are now the Waynesboro Branch of the Pattern
Makers Association of Washington, D. C. this includes all the pattern
makers employed in any of the shops in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.
In the future, any communications with reference to negotiations or
meetings for negotiations in any plants or shops in Waynesboro, Pa. should
be addressed to the District Secretary, Eli J. Oakley, 3865 Reacher Street,
N. W., Washington 7, D. C. The telephone number is Woodley 1379.
Very truly yours,
[s] PAUL A. GAREIS.
Paul A. Gareis
District Representative.
Following the above notice, Oakley did not open negotiations upon the basis
of any agreements of the two prior years, except to advise that sufficient time
had elapsed to have a meeting of the parties "on a contract for the Pattern
Makers."
The General Counsel did not contend that the Respondent refused to bargain
with the Union prior to May 4, 1948. The negotiations in 1946 and 1947 had not
resulted in the execution of a contract, but it is clear that the parties understood
the situation. and had in effect reached an understanding that the Union would
not press the Respondent for a contract during the pendency of doubt as to
settlement of the wage problem as it then existed. While there is a strong
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 521
inference that the wage increases in 1946 and 1947 were affected unilaterally;,
the Union was advised and had in effect consented to the increases in each
instance.
On January 31, 1948, Oakley wrote to Hollengreen, vice president of the
Respondent:
Mr. M. A. H'OLLENOREEN
Landis Tool Co.
Waynesboro, Pa.
DEAR SIR: Believing sufficient time has elapsed since our last Contract
negotiating meeting on a Contract for the Pattern Makers, I am desirous of
having another meeting.
I will suggest Tuesday afternoon Feb. 24, 1948 about 2:30 p. m. unless
we can agree on an earlier date.
I am,
Very truly yours,
[S] ELI J. OAKLEY
Eli J. Oakley
2. The meeting on February 27, 1948
After further correspondence a meeting was arranged and held on February
27, 1948. Oakley represented the Union, and Rice, Ingram and other officials
represented the Respondent.
Oakley requested that the Respondent prepare and present a contract covering
various provisions that were discussed, or a contract that the Respondent would
execute. Rice advised Oakley that it would be necessary for the Union to pre-
sent a proposed agreement for consideration by the Respondent. After a general
discussion, Oakley agreed to prepare a proposal and send it to the Respondent.
It was not contended by the General Counsel that the Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union at the meeting on February 27, 1948.
Upon consideration of all the evidence it is clear that that meeting was held
for the purpose of determining the respective positions of the parties, and without
full intent to reach any final agreement. Oakley had requested a meeting on
a contract [emphasis supplied], and his letter of January 31 implied that the
Union desired to open new negotiations for the purpose of negotiating a contract.
The parties agreed to meet again on April 15, and on March 27, 1948, Oakley
wrote Hollengreen and sent a proposed contract for consideration at the April.
15 meeting, and sent a copy to Rice. Hollengreen replied on March 30 advising
that he had turned the proposed contract over to Rice, "who is handling the
entire matter for us." On April 2, Rice acknowledged copy of the proposal and
advised that because of trial work he could not set a definite date for conference
and would write the following week. On April 7, Rice advised Oakley that the
earliest date at which they could meet was May 4, 1948. On April 12, Oakley
wrote Rice and objected to the later date and advised he-was ready to meet at.
any time on April 15 as originally scheduled or on the following day, April 16.
Rice was engaged in a court trial on April 14 and his secretary so advised
Oakley by telegram. Rice wrote Oakley April 17 and advised that he had com-
municated with Respondent's representatives and by reason of advance appoint-
ments it was impractical to hold a conference before May 4. Oakley replied that
he would meet Rice on that date.
The record clearly shows that the union representative, having prepared and
forwarded to the Respondent a proposed agreement prior to the time of the,
meeting, fully intended to meet with the Respondent's representatives at the-
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
following meeting for the purpose of consummating a contract between the
parties.
3. The meeting on May 4, 1948
The meeting was held at the Anthony Wayne Hotel in Waynesboro, Pa., on
May 4, 1948. Oakley and a shop committee represented the Union and Attorney
Rice, Ingram, and other company officials represented the Respondent. The
proposed agreement that Oakley had sent to Respondent on March 27 was dis-
cussed in detail. Rice did not object to the recognition clause or the preamble,
or to some of the other clauses, but did have some objection to them as written.
Rice, as counterproposal on one clause, submitted in longhand the following:
The Union shall not discriminate in any way against an employee covered
by this agreement, with the intent or purpose of interfering with the liberty
of such employee to determine for himself whether or not he will join the
Union. There shall be no Union solicitation on company time or property,
and the company agrees not to discriminate against any employee by reason
of Union or non-union membership.
The Union demanded a wage increase of 13 cents per hour, from $1.40 to
$1.53, and the Respondent advised that no consideration was being given to any
increase at that time.
The Union requested Respondent to rewrite a contract that it would be willing
to sign. The Respondent refused to submit another contract.
The Respondent's failure to bargain in good faith, as required by the Act, is
demonstrated by the unreasonableness of its adamant position : in refusing to
consider any wage increase as demanded by the Union ; in refusing to offer any
contract that it would execute; and in proceeding to effect the unilateral wage
increase on June 7, 1948. Thus the Respondent disclosed its intention to reserve
the exclusive right to determine wage rates, without consultation with the Union.
As so aptly stated by the Board in Tower Hosiery Mills, Inc. (infra) :
The Respondent, it is true, went through many of the motions of collec-
tive bargaining. It met on numerous occasions with the Union, conferred
at length regarding contract proposals, made concessions on minor issues,
and discussed and adjusted several grievances. These surface indicia of
bargaining, however, were nullified by the Respondent's manifest determi-
nation to deprive the Union of any voice in determining such major issues
as wage rates and working conditions. Such conduct on the part of the
Respondent demonstrates that its participation i n discussions with the
Union was not intended to lead to the consummation of an agreement with
the Union, but merely to preserve the appearance of bargaining.
At the close of the meeting of May 4, 1948, a tentative date was agreed upon
to meet again on May 14, 1948. However, after the meeting, Rice contacted
Hollengreen who refused consideration of the 13-cent requested increase and
instructed Rice to contact Oakley in reference to a further postponement of
the tentative May 14 meeting date.
4. The meeting on September 27, 1948
Rice wrote Oakley on May 7 and stated that ". . . there is no reasonable
expectation of our being able to reach a satisfactory agreement at a meeting
on May 14th, which was tentatively set at the adjournment of our formal con-
ference . . Oakley replied on May 12, ". . . we will postpone the meeting
temporarily as you suggest." Rice had requested in his May 7 letter that no
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 523
further meeting he held until possibly sometime in July. Oakley wrote Rice
on June 28 , suggesting that a_ meeting be held soon, and that since the Union's
proposed contract, which he had presented, had been rejected, Rice write
an agreement that the Respondent would be willing to sign and present for
union consideration. Rice replied the next day, and advised he had forwarded
Oakley's letter to the Respondent and asked it to advise him in regard to a
meeting.
On July 15, Rice advised Oakley that Ingram had an eastern trip pending and
for that reason his schedule was uncertain and "he does not suggest a specific
date for another meeting." On July 22, Oakley wrote Hollengreen and advised
of the Union's desire to meet with the Company to negotiate a contract, and
suggested August 5 or 6 for meeting date. On July 26, Rice replied advising
that the letter had been referred to him and suggested the meeting at the
Anthony Wayne Hotel on August 10. On July 31, Oakley wrote Ingram and
agreed to meet on August 10, 1948. On August 2, Rice wrote Oakley and re-
quested a change in date for meeting to August 13, because of a company meeting
scheduled for August 10. Oakley replied on August 7 and stated that the date
August 13 would not be convenient for him and he would be unable to meet
at that time. Rice acknowledged the letter and suggested Oakley give him
some alternate dates to avoid conflicts. On August 27, Oakley suggested Septem-
ber 10, 1948. On August 30, Rice replied and stated he had sent Oakley's letter
to the Respondent and asked for advice of a date that would be convenient for
a meeting. Rice advised, on September 2, that he had discussed the matter
with Respondent's officials, and suggested the meeting be set for September 21
or 27. On September 7, Oakley advised Rice that he would meet him at the
same place on September 27, 1948.
The meeting was held as scheduled. Oakley appeared for the Union and
Attorneys Rice and Hannis, Hollengreen, and other officials appeared for the
Respondent. Vice-President Ingram did not attend. The proposed agreement
that Oakley had presented at the May 4 meeting was again discussed. Oakley
voiced objection to the general wage increase the Respondent had put into effect
on June 7, 1948, on the ground that the Respondent had not notified the union
members except by the notice put on the plant bulletin board. The Respondent
continued its refusal to consider any increase of wages as requested by the Union,
and again expressed objections to the proposed agreement that Oakley had sub-
mitted. The meeting adjourned without reaching any agreement and no agree-
ment was made for further conferences. The Union filed the charges herein on
October 19, 1948.
5. The wage increase on June 7, 1948
The Respondent effected a general wage increase of 7 cents per hour to all
of its employees on June 7, 1948. The patternmakers were notified of the
increase by means of a notice posted on the bulletin board at the plant on June
8, 1948:
NOTICE
At a meeting of the Board of Directors held Monday, June 7, it was decided
to grant a seven cent (70) per hour increase to all hourly employees.
This increase is effective Monday, June 7, 1948.
LANDIs TOOL Co.
Oakley testified credibly that he did not know of the 7-cent increase, and at
a meeting of the union members on June 22, they made their objection known
,524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to him. There was no objection to the increase, as such, but they did object
to the manner and method in which it was made. The undersigned is convinced
and finds that this 7-cent increase effected June 7, 1948, was not the subject of
any bargaining conference and constituted a unilateral action of the Respondent.
IIollengreen, vice president of the Respondent company, testified without
contradiction that he was authorized to make the increase of 7 cents by action
of his board of directors "on the basis of what I understood the other companies
were paying; .. .
It was not disputed that wages were discussed at all of the conferences,
and that no agreements were concluded With respect to wages, at any of the
meetings of the parties. The June 7 increase was not the subject of any dis-
cussion at the May 4, 1.948, conference. The Respondent constantly refused to
grant any wage increase to the employees in the Union, except and unless
it decided to grant a like increase to all hourly paid employees. The wage
increase under such circumsttances has been repeatedly held to constitute a
refusal to bargain 6
Conclusions
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the Respondent, at no time during
its negotiations with the Union, beginning on May 4, 1948, bargained in good
faith with the Union. It is not disputed that Vice-President IIollengreen deter-
mined the amount and time of the general wage increase of June 7, 1948, and
:secured the authority to put it into effect from the Respondent's board of direc-
tors on that date. There is no evidence of record that he consulted the union
representatives. It is clear and the undersigned finds that the wage increase of
June 7, 1948, was instituted by unilateral action of the Respondent. A wage
increase under such circumstances had been repeatedly held to constitute a
refusal to bargain.'
The undersigned does not find violation of the Act based upon the events
which occurred prior to May 4, 1948. The record disclosed that Respondent went
through the motions of collective bargaining. It met the union representatives
willingly and conferred in detail at the bargaining conference. However, it be-
came apparent at the conference on May 4, 1948, that no agreement could ever
be reached as a result of negotiations. At that conference the Union again
demanded a wage increase and the Respondent refused to consider it, and on
June 7, 1948, granted a general wage increase as above stated. The Respondent's
employees in the Union certainly had no voice in the determination of their wages
through their own bargaining representatives. Of all the subjects that form
the basis of negotiations for the purpose of securing industrial stability and
labor management peace, the settlement of a wage controversy makes the most
positive contribution to that end.
The Respondent refused to make any wage concession at the bargaining
conferences, and contended it was because of the possible, but unknown, eco-
nomic impact upon the employees in the larger unit. One of the reasons for
making the general wage increase may have been the consideration of the eco-
nomic position of the employees in the larger unit, but the undersigned is con-
vinced that the main reason was that explained by Hollengreen, that the increase
was due to what other companies were paying in that area. The wage increase
was clearly not a result of collective bargaining.
Cf. Tower Hosiery Mills, Inc., 81 NLRB 658.
6 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. The Andrew Jergens Company, 76 NLRB 363 (affirmed (C. A. 9)-
175 P. 2d 130).
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 525
It is therefore found that from and after May 4, 1948, Respondent refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union in matters of rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment and has thereby violated
and is violating Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent set out in Division III hereof,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Divi-
sion I hereof, have a close, initimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent, Landis Tool Company, has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the
Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that on May 4, 194S, and thereafter, Respondent has refused
to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL,
as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and that
it, by acting unilaterally in effecting a general wage increase on June 7, 194S,
without negotiating with the Union, refused to bargain collectively, the Exam-
iner will recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of its employees in the appropriate unit and to
refrain in the future from acting unilaterally in any manner regarding wages
whereby employees in the appropriate unit may be affected, without prior.
negotiation with the Union.
As there is no evidence of danger of the commission of unfair labor practices
other than refusing to bargain collectively with the Union to be anticipated
from the Respondent's conduct in the past, the undersigned will not recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from the commission of any other unfair
labor practices. However it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any manner interfering
with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of the entire record in this
proceeding, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, is now, and during all
times material herein has been, the exclusive representative, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act, of all the employees of the Respondent in the
unit heretofore found to be appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act, as detailed in the representation case 6-R-1309.
8. By refusing on May 4,1948, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, as exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged
9 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 912 U. S. 426.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8:
(a) (5) of the Act.
4. By said acts, the Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the.
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting:
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record of the case, the undersigned recommends that Landis
Tool Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North:
America, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate;
(b) Unilaterally changing wages which would substantially affect employees
in the appropriate unit without prior negotiation with Pattern Makers League
of North America, AFL ; and
(c) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Pattern Makers League of
North America, AFL, to bargain collectively with it.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League of North
America, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the ap-
propriate unit ;
(b) Negotiate with Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, prior to
taking any action regarding wages substantially affecting any employee in the
appropriate unit ;
(c) Post at its Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, plant copies of the notice attached
hereto marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,.
or covered by any other material ; and
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania), in writing within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless, on or before twenty (20) days from
the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,.
Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with
the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an
order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, wthin twenty (20) days from the data
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY 527
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as lie
relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ;
and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Imme-
diately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. State-
ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions
of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if
.mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of
all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section
203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire per-
mission to argue, orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 21st day of November 1949.
MYERS D. CAMPBELL,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Pattern Makers League
of North America, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the bargaining unit, and
WE WILL NOT in the future unilaterally change wages which substantially
affect the employees in the bargaining unit described herein without prior
consultation with the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain with us:
The bargaining unit is: All patternmakers and patternmaker appren-
tices, excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action.
Dated --------------------
LANDIS TOOL COMPANY,
Employer.
By---------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.