Osco Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 1058 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Osco Steel Company and International Union of Dis-
trict 50, United Mine Workers of America , and Its
Local No. 14295 . Case 8-CA-4478
December 29, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On August 25, 1967, Trial Examiner Herbert Sil-
berman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent
filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions.
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 only to the extent con-
sistent with this Decision and Order.
The facts are set forth fully in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Briefly summarized, the Union
has represented a unit of Respondent's warehouse
employees for approximately 10 years. About a
month before the expiration date of their most
recent collective-bargaining contract, the parties
commenced negotiating for a renewal thereof. They
were unable to reach agreement, and when the con-
Page 1
Effective Effective Effective
Classification 1966 1967 1968
Group Leader 3.12 3.22 3.32
Red Circle 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20
Warehouse A 2.75 2. 85 2.95
Warehouse B 2.45 2.55 2.65
Warehouse C 2.35 2.45 2.55
Starting Rate 2.25 2.25 2.25
Cost of Living min 3¢ in addition, any year of this
agreement as cost of Living adjustment
tract expired on November 14, 1966, the em-
ployees went out on strike.
Representatives of the Respondent and the Union
(including Respondent's president, Paul Keller,
and its attorney, Paul Broderick for Respondent
and Nicholas R. Patterson for the Union) met
at the Federal Mediation Service's Cleveland office
on November 16, and a prolonged bargaining ses-
sion took place. The parties reached an agreement
which was summarized in a memorandum prepared
by Patterson, signed by the parties, and ratified by
the striking employees that same evening. This
memorandum, inter alia, lists job classifications for
employees with applicable rates effective in 1966,
1967, and 1968, states that in addition an annual
cost-of-living adjustment would be made, and lists
six employees to be placed in the newly established
warehouse A classification at $2.75 per hour, and
two employees to become warehouse C at $2.35
per hour.' The strike was then terminated and the
employees returned to work during the next few
days.
Broderick prepared a proposed draft of the
revised collective-bargaining agreement which he
submitted to the union representatives about
November 29. The Union rejected this proposed
draft on the ground that it did not provide for an an-
nual cost-of-living increase for all employees and
also because the six employees promoted to
warehouse A were not given a cost-of-living in-
crease in addition to their pay raise. On December
1 Respondent placed in effect all wage and cost-of-
living increases as agreed upon during the
November 16 bargaining session except for the
cost-of-living increase for the above-named six
warehouse A employees. The Respondent agreed
that omission of the annual increase provision was
an error, and about December 14 Keller presented
to the Union a revised draft of the proposed con-
tract which corrected this and one or two other in-
advertent mistakes. But, he refused at all times to
apply the across-the-board increase to the newly
promoted warehouse A employees in addition to
their raise . The Union refused to accept this
Page 3
Adjustments
George Yelsik $ 2.75 Harry Vincent 12. 35
Joe Wojieckowski 2.75 John Kmitt 2.35
Sam Bompiedi 2.75
Earl Wilks 2.75
Don Logan 2.75
Steve Giracs 2.75
Signed in the presence of L. J. Mantis
Commissioner of Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Co. 11-16-66 Union
/s/ Paul Keller /s/ R. A. Schaefer
/s/ George Danko /s/ Joseph Ravida
/s/ Stephen J. Giracs, Jr.
/s/ Emil S. Walentik
/s/ N. R. Patterson
168 NLRB No. 146
OSCO STEEL COMPANY
proposed contract, and by letter dated December
29 Keller withdrew all of Respondent's outstanding
proposals for a new contract.
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to execute a
written agreement containing the terms agreed upon
during bargaining on November 16. The Trial Ex
aminer concluded that the Respondent had, not
agreed to give the cost-of-living increase to the six
employees in addition to their new pay raise, and
that Respondent's refusal to execute an agreement
containing such provision was not in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. For the reasons set forth
below, we do not agree.
There is no dispute about the fact that toward the
close of the November 16 negotiation meeting Pat-
terson asked Keller if the cost-of-living increase
would be given to the six employees promoted to
warehouse A. The parties disagree as to what en-
sued. According to Patterson's testimony, he
threatened that the strike would continue unless
these employees received the cost-of-living adjust-
ment and Keller then angrily agreed to give them
the increase. According to Keller's testimony, Pat-
terson asked for the cost-of-living raise for the six
employees, but it was not discussed further and
Keller never agreed to grant it. Keller admits mak-
ing a concession , but asserts that this related to re-
tention of the general cost-of-living provision. How-
ever, as detailed above, after the November 16 bar-
gaining session, Patterson prepared a memorandum
of agreement, which on the first page listed the
newly established job classifications, with the pay
scale for each, and including an annual 10-cent-per-
hour pay raise. This was followed immediately by
the provision for an annual cost-of-living adjust-
ment to be given. No exceptions are set forth. On
another page the six, employees to be promoted to
warehouse A at $2.75 per hour and the two em-
ployees to be promoted to warehouse C at $2.35
per hour are listed, and again there is nothing on this
page to indicate that these eight employees would
not also receive the cost-of-living increase. In fact,
the two employees promoted to warehouse C did
receive such increase and only the six were omitted.
The Trial Examiner stated that the memorandum
was not dispositive, but in fact he appears to have
given it no weight. Contrary to the Trial Examiner,
the memorandum of agreement, as signed by the
parties to the bargaining, on its face appears to have
only one clear meaning and constitutes a prima
facie showing that the Respondent agreed during
bargaining to grant to all employees, and that the six
employees were to receive, a cost-of-living increase
2 We find no merit in the Trial Examiner 's implied finding in his foot-
note 4 that the alleged violation was not established because no written
agreement embodying terms reached November 16 was shown to have
been submitted by the Union to the Respondent for signature , and the
Respondent , in effect , was therefore not requested to sign an agreement
1059
in addition to the pay scale of their new classifica-
tion. Under these circumstances, it was not incum-
bent on the General Counsel, as the Trial Examiner
apparently concluded, to establish by other
evidence that the parties specifically agreed to give
the cost-of-living to the six men. To rebut this prima
facie case it was necessary for Respondent to ad-
duce evidence that the parties agreed affirmatively
to exclude the six. This the Respondent failed to do.
Keller's testimony that he did not agree to give
these employees a cost-of-living increase does not
amount to such an assertion, and it is insufficient to
overcome the prima facie evidence of the
memorandum . In further support of the view that
the six employees were intended to receive the
cost-of-living increase is the fact that the promotion
was proposed by the Respondent to compensate
these employees for performing higher rated work.
Yet the result of failing to grant them this increase
was that some lower rated employees were still
receiving the same wages they were. For example,
Lawrence Hughes, listed as warehouse B at $2.58
per hour, was not promoted to warehouse A. How-
ever, after he received the 1966 annual 10-cent-per-
hour raise and the 7-cent-per-hour cost-of-living in-
crease, he now received $2.75 per hour - the same
as the employees who were promoted to warehouse
A.
Accordingly, in all of the circumstances of this
case, we are persuaded that the evidence
established that Respondent agreed to give a cost-
of-living adjustment to the six employees promoted
to warehouse A in addition to their raise to $2.75
per hour, and that by refusing, on or about
November 29, to execute a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union containing such provi-
sion Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act .2
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the' policies of, the Act. It, has
been found that the Respondent has refused to
bargain collectively with International Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and
its Local No. 14295, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit by refusing
to execute the collective-bargaining agreement
agreed upon between it and the aforesaid Union. We
shall therefore order that the Respondent, upon re-
quest of the Union, execute the collective-bargaining
embodying those terms Since the Respondent undertook to draft a
proposed collective-bargaining agreement , it was obligated to prepare and
sign a document including all the provisions agreed upon , and failure to do
so would constitute a violation as alleged.
336-845 0 - 70 - 68
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement agreed upon between it and Interna-
tional Union of District 50, United Mine Workers
of America , and its Local No. 14295 , and to make
whole George Yelsik, Joe Wojieckowski, Sam
Bompiedi , Earl Wilks, Don Logan , and Steve
Giracs, Sr., for any losses they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent 's unlawful refusal to give
them the cost-of-living increase on December 1.
1966 , at the time they were promoted to warehouse
A.3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, and its Local No.
14295, are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Osco Steel Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
3. All warehouse employees of the Respondent
at its Cleveland, Ohio, warehouse, excluding
designated foremen and superintendents, truck-
drivers, office employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. International Union of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, and its Local No.
14295, were, on November 23, 1966, and at all
times since have been, the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
5. By refusing to execute a written contract in-
corporating in full the collective-bargaining agree-
ment which it reached with International Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and
its Local No. 14295, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
,meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
3 Moneys due these employees shall bear interest as prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
ent, Osco Steel Company, Cleveland, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing, if requested to do so by Interna-
tional Union of District 50, United Mine Workers
of America, and its Local No. 14295, to sign a
document incorporating the agreement reached
with the Union on or about November 16, 1966, or,
if no such request is made, refusing, upon request,
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request of the Union, sign forthwith a
written contract containing the agreement reached
with the Union on or about November 16, 1966. If
no such request is made, upon request of the Union,
bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above unit
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The ap-
propriate unit is:
All warehouse employees of the Respondent at
its Cleveland, Ohio, warehouse, excluding
designated foremen and superintendents,
truckdrivers, office employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Make whole George Yelsik, Joe
Wojieckowski, Sam Bompiedi, Earl Wilks, Don
Logan, and Steve Giracs, Sr., for any monetary loss
each may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
unlawful refusal to give them a cost-of-living in-
crease on December 1, 1966, at the time they were
promoted to warehouse A, in the manner set forth
in the Remedy section herein.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its Cleveland, Ohio, warehouse copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 8, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En-
forcing an Order."
OSCO STEEL COMPANY 1061
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
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 you that:
WE WILL, upon request, execute a contract
incorporating the agreement reached on
November 16, 1966, by us and International
Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, and its Local No. 14295. If no
request to execute is made, WE WILL, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the following unit:
All warehouse employees employed by
us at our Cleveland, Ohio, warehouse, ex-
cluding designated foremen and superin-
tendents, truckdrivers, office employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL make whole George Yelsik, Joe
Wojeieckowski, Sam Bompiedi, Earl Wilks,
Don Logan, and Steve Giracs, Sr., for any
losses suffered by reason of Respondent's
refusal to grant them the cost-of-living in-
crease, as agreed.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to execute an
agreement, or by refusing to bargain with the
Union, or in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
OSLO STEEL COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Federal Office Building, Room 1695, 1240
East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199,
Telephone 522-3738.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed by the above-named Union on January 25, 1967, a
complaint was duly issued on March 9, 1967, alleging
that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act. Respondent's answer to the complaint
generally denies that it has engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held in
Cleveland, Ohio, on May 15, 1967. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with me
which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
business of warehousing and selling steel products at its
premises located in Cleveland, Ohio. In the conduct of its
business operations Respondent annually ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 from its Cleveland, Ohio,
warehouse directly to points located outside the State of
Ohio. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The sole issue in this case is described by General
Counsel in his brief as follows:
The Complaint in substance alleges that the Respond-
ent interfered with its employees' statutory rights
by refusing from on or about November 23, 1966 to
date, to execute a written collective bargaining agree-
ment agreed upon by the parties on November 16,
1966, unless it could make additional changes to that
part of the agreement reflecting the cost of living ad-
justment for six employees.
The Union has been the recognized representative of
Respondent's warehouse employees for a substantial
number of years. There are approximately 45 employees
in the unit. The parties' most recent collective-bargaining
agreement, executed on January 17, 1964, was effective
retroactively from November 13, 1963, until November
14, 1966. In October 1966 the parties commenced
negotiations directed towards the renewal of their con-
tract. However, agreement was not reached by the con-
tract's expiration date and, as a result, the employees
went on strike. Negotiations were continued during the
strike. On November 16, at the conclusion of a
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
protracted bargaining session, the parties purportedly ar-
rived at a complete understanding. A memorandum of
their understanding was prepared by Nicholas R. Patter-
son, the Union's spokesman during the negotiations, and
was signed by the representatives of the Company and
the Union. The understanding was ratified by the striking
employees the same evening and the strike thereupon ter-
minated.
The Company was represented at the negotiations prin-
cipally by its president, Paul Keller, and its attorney, Paul
Broderick. Within 1 or 2 days following the last bargain-
ing session Broderick prepared a draft of the revised col-
lective-bargaining agreement. About November 29 the
draft was reviewed by representatives of the Union who
rejected the instrument on the ground that it did not con-
form to the understanding reached by the parties on
November 16, 1966. The objection to the draft was that
the wage rate for six employees (George Yelsik, Joe
Wojieckowski, Sam Bompiedi, Earl Wilks, Don Logan,
and Steve Giracs), who were being advanced to labor
grade "A" was set at $2.75, the rate for their new classifi-
cation, but was less than had been agreed upon because,
according to the Union, these employees were entitled to
an additional amount to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment
which the parties had agreed would be given to the em-
ployees across the board.i The memorandum of agree-
ment which the parties signed on November 16 is not
dispositive of the issue because it is written in ab-
breviated form and has no meaning absent parol evidence
explaining the parties' intentions.
During the negotiations there were three principal
areas of controversy. One concerned the Union's demand
that job classifications should be established with
specified rates assigned for each classification; the
second concerned the Company's demand that the provi-
sion in the prior contract calling for cost-of-living adjust-
ments should be deleted in the new contract; and the third
concerned the rate to be paid to employees who tem-
porarily are assigned to the shear operation.
At the November 16 meeting the Company, pursuant
to a request made by the Union the day before, furnished
the Union with a schedule listing, among other things, the
names of the employees in the contractual unit and the
proposed job classification of each. Asterisks appeared
' There were one or two other objections to the draft which the Com-
pany acknowledged were inadvertent errors and which the Company later
corrected. Thus , the single issue between the Union and the Company re-
garding the draft of the contract prepared by the latter related to the one
question of whether on November 16 the parties had agreed that the six
employees in question were to be given a cost-of-living increase in addi-
tion to the increase they received because of their advancement in labor
grade.
S The agreement of the parties provided for an across -the-board in-
crease of 10 cents per hour plus an increase to reflect the rise in the cost of
living during the preceding 12 months . On November 16, the parties did
not have a figure for the cost-of-living increase because the Bureau of
Labor Statistics index for which the amount would be computed had not
yet been issued and would not be issued until the end of November. On
December 1, the parties determined and agreed that the cost-of -living in-
crease was 7 cents per hour. Accordingly, the general increase agreed to
by the Union and the Employer amounted to 10 cents plus 7 cents or a
total of 17 cents . Each of the six employees here in question was advanced
to the classification of warehouse "A" which carried a rate of $2.75 per
hour. As of November 16, none of the six was earning more than $2.58
alongside two names. When inquiry was made, Keller ex-
plained that he believed the two men performed higher
rated work and should be given an "A" classification.
The Union agreed to this proposal. However, the Union's
representatives contended that there were four other em-
ployees who performed similar duties and that those four
employees also should be given "A" classifications. After
some discussion the Company accepted this proposal.
The increase in wage rate for each of these six employees
as a consequence of his advancement in classification was
equal to or greater than the across-the-board increases
which had been agreed upon.2 According to the testimony
of Patterson, corroborated to a substantial extent by the
testimony of Ronald A. Schaefer, Stephen Giracs, Jr.,
and Joseph Ravida, immediately before the negotiations
came to a close Patterson stated that the six employees in
question were to receive the cost-of-living increase in ad-
dition to such increase as was involved in their advance-
ment to labor grade "A." 3 Keller objected. Patterson
then said that there is no agreement, the strike will con-
tinue and made preparations to leave the room. Whereu-
pon, Keller angrily assented to Patterson's proposal. The
testimony of Keller, generally corroborated by Emil
Walentik, then vice president and currently president of
the Local Union who was a witness called by the General
Counsel, and George A. Danko, the Company' s plant su-
perintendent who also was a witness called by the
General Counsel, was that towards the close of the meet-
ing Patterson stated in connection with a discussion of the
job classifications being established by the negotiations
and the rates for such classifications that without the
cost-of-living provision in addition there would be no
agreement, whereupon Keller angrily agreed that the
cost-of-living provision would remain.
The one and only factual question in this case is
whether Patterson's version or Keller's version of their
final conversation during the meeting of November 16 is
correct. The critical difference between the two versions
is whether the discussion concerned the deletion of the
cost-of-living provision from the contract or concerned
the wage rates which initially would be paid under the
contract to the six employees who were being advanced
to the "A" classification. Upon review of all the evidence
adduced at the hearing relating to this question and upon
per hour. Therefore, the $2.75 rate represented an increase equal to or
more than 17 cents per hour for each of the six. It is undisputed that the
10-cent-per-hour general wage increase was not applicable to these six
employees. The only question is whether the 7-cent-per-hour cost-of-liv-
ing increase was applicable to these six employees.
8 There is some ambiguity in Patterson's testimony as to whether there
was one or two discussions concerning the cost-of-living adjustment for
the six employees . At one point during his testimony he stated, "The
agreement was reached that all six of these people, their rates would be
adjusted to $2 75 ... [and] . . the cost of living was to be added to that "
However, International Representative Ronald A Schaefer testified that
"Well, all through the contract negotations , we were discussing cost of liv-
ing, but at this point [when the Company agreed that the six men would be
brought up to $2 75j the representative of the Company [Broderick] said,
`Let's just put the cost of living aside because we don't know what's going
to be; just put it aside ."' I find, contrary to Patterson 's testimony , that at
the time agreement first was reached to advance the six men to the "A"
classification the parties did not then agree that the men should also be
given a cost-of-living adjustment
OSCO STEEL COMPANY
my evaluation of the respective credibility of the various
witnesses who testified about the subject and the reliabili-
ty of the relevant portions of their testimony, I find that
the company representatives at the meeting of November
16, 1966, did not, as testified to by Patterson, agree that
the six employees in question were to receive a cost-of-
living increase, in addition to the increase which they
received by reason of being given a warehouse "A" clas-
sification. I find, therefore, contrary to the General Coun-
sel, that the Company has not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint herein.4
The substance of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint is
that since November 23, 1966, "Respondent has refused, and continues
to refuse , to execute a written agreement incorporating the terms and con-
ditions agreed upon .. .." No evidence was adduced at the hearing that
any written agreement embodying the terms of the understanding reached
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1063
Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I
recommend that the complaint in this case be dismissed
in its entirety.
on November 16 was at any relevant time submitted by the Union to the
Company for signature and that the Respondent refused to sign the same.
See International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 61 ( Groveton Papers Company ), 144 NLRB 939.