Paris Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 15 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 15
All our employees are free to become , remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization except
to the extent that such a Light may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
FREDERICK STEEL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 2023,
Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Paris Manufacturing Company and United Furniture Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-43492. October 20, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions, with the following modifications.'
i We find It unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner 's 8 (a) (1 ) finding based on
the notice posted by the Respondent on September 16, 1963, warning its employees against
attending a special union meeting scheduled during working hours off the Employer's
premises.
The Trial Examiner inadvertently omitted the customary paragraph entitled "The
Remedy" from his Decision. Accordingly, we shall incorporate herein the following
remedial language: "Having found that the Company has engaged in and is engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce , the Board will order that it cease and
desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action In order to effectuate the policies of
the Act."
149 NLRB No. 8.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Paris
Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Lewiston, Maine,
on January 22, 1964, pursuant to due notice. A complaint, issued by the representa-
tive of the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called-
the General Counsel and the Board) on December 2, 1963 (as amended at the
hearing), and based upon charges filed by United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), on October 18, 1963, alleged that Paris
Manufacturing Company, the Respondent herein, had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by threatening economic reprisals against its employees for engaging in union
activities and by refusing to bargain with the duly designated collective-bargaining
agent of the employees.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.- RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS -
Paris Manufacturing Company is,, and has -been at all times material herein, ' a
corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State
of Maine. At all times material- it' has maintained its principal office and place
of business in South Paris, Maine , and has been continuously engaged at said plant
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of furniture, sporting goods, and related
products . In the course and conduct of its business it has continuously caused large
quantities of lumber and related materials used by it in the manufacture of furni-
ture and sporting goods to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce
from and through various States of the United States other than the State of Maine
and has caused substantial quantities of furniture and sporting goods to be sold
and transported from said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United
States other than the State of Maine. During the year preceding the issuance of
the complaint in the course and conduct of its business it purchased, transferred, and
delivered to its South Paris plant lumber and related materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from States of the United States other than the State of Maine.
During the same period of time in the course and conduct of its business operations
it manufactured, sold, and distributed at said South Paris plant furniture and sport-
ing goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 which products were shipped from said
plant directly to States of the United States other than the State of Maine. Paris
Manufacturing Company is and has been engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
R. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION - -
'United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Section 8(a)(5)
On November 5, 1962, the Union was certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining agent of an appropriate unit of Respondent 's employees .' On Jan-
1 The unit was composed of all production and maintenance employees of Respondent
employed at its South Paris plant, including all seasonal employees and the Lawrence
warehousing employees, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, pro-
fessional employees , and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 17
uary 22 the first collective-bargaining meeting between the Company and the Union
took place. The Union submitted a proposed contract providing for a wage in-
crease and presumably other concessions of a monetary value. The Company
immediately made it clear that because of its bad financial condition it could agree
to no provisions which would cost it any money no matter how small in amount.
The Union, in accordance with its usual practice, indicated it was interested first
in disposing of the nonmonetary matters in any event. Accordingly, there followed
a discussion of the Union's nonmonetary proposals. There is a conflict in the
evidence whether the Company at this time offered the Union an opportunity to
examine its books for the purpose of verifying the truth of the Company's claimed
financial straits. Whether it did or not on this occasion is immaterial,2 since it is
clear that if it was not done in this meeting it was done in the next.
The next meeting took place on February 5. The Company reiterated the posi-
tion it took in the first meeting, this time quoting figures in support of its contentions.
Again the Company offered to let the Union have its books audited by an independent
accountant not connected with the Union. Apparently the union negotiators first
demurred on the matter of an audit on the grounds there were still nonmonetary
matters to be resolved, but then agreed that they would secure an auditor and avail
themselves of the Company's offer.
Thereafter, on March 19 the Company's attorney, Erwin Isaacson, wrote the
Union's spokesman, International Representative Francis O'Connor, as follows:
As you will recall, at our last bargaining session, we agreed that the union
would take steps to procure an audit of the Company's financial condition by
an independent accountant.
I assume that you have taken steps to set this procedure in motion, in ac-
cordance with our discussion. I think we are both agreed that such an
examination should precede further discussion on the issues involved.
On March 28 O'Connor wrote the Company advising that:
The Union has obtained the services of an accountant to audit the Com-
pany's financial condition. The accountant's name is:
Mr. Thomas Tighe
10 Rand Road
Salem, Mass.
Tel: Pioneer 4-0512
Mr. Tighe will be in touch with you to set a date for a visit to South Paris
to examine the Company's books.
On April 1, on plain paper with no letterhead, Tighe wrote the Company with
a copy to O'Connor as follows:
As you know, the United Furniture Workers of America, District #1, union
has invited me to audit the Paris Manufacturing Co. books in order to deter-
mine the company's financial condition relative to the negotiations being carried
out by the union and management.
Please advise, at your convenience, a date so that I may plan a schedule for
this undertaking. Thanking you, and looking forward to making your acquaint-
ance,Iam ... .
On April 9 Isaacson wrote O'Connor saying he had received Tighe's letter. He
pointed out that their "arrangement was that the books must be audited by a Public
Accountant" and went on to say that after investigating Tighe's credentials they were
unable to "find him listed as a Public Accountant in Salem, Mass., or registered as
an accountant with the American Institute of Accountants." He stated further:
Apparently, Mr. Tighe is not engaged in public accountant[ing] at all. It
is entirely possible that he may have [an] accounting background, but this cer-
tainly would not fulfill the agreement which we discussed at our meeting to-
gether. When the question of an accountant was being discussed at the meet-
ing, it was suggested that you could be put in touch with a list of independent
public accountants here in Maine, or Massachusetts, through lists to be se-
cured from your regular union auditor. I assumed that this was the procedure
2 Although I am inclined to believe that it did in view of the fact that even in the
campaign period before the election the Company had made such an offer to the employees.
That offer had been made to counter union charges that the Company was "milking off
the profit through high salaries and high expense accounts"
770-076-65-vol. 149 3
1$ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you were going to follow . However, it does not appear that Mr. Tighe is a
public accountant . Our proposal was intended to secure the services of an
independent public accountant engaged in the general practice of accounting,
who would be neutral in his examination of the Company 's financial records.
On April 10, O'Connor wrote Isaacson as follows:
This will acknowledge your letter of April 9 regarding the matter of examin-
ing the books of the above-mentioned company.
I note that you object to Mr . Thomas Tighe examining the books of the Com-
pany in accordance with the Company's offer to the Union that we accepted.
While I do not know Mr. Tighe , personally , other than my telephone conversa-
tion , we are satisfied that he is competent to perform the type of examination
that will be satisfactory to us.
The Company made an offer to the Union to examine the Company 's books.
The Union accepted this offer. If we are to proceed then we will have to pro-
ceed on the basis of the person selected by the Union , who does not work for
the Union , having the right to make a complete and extensive examination of
the books . If the Company is going to lay down certain conditions under
which they will permit the Union to examine the Company 's books then the
Company's offer is meaningless and our acceptance to examine the books under
those conditions would have to be withdrawn and we would proceed forthwith
with negotiations without the examination of the Company 's books.
May I also point out to you that most accountants , and this includes Mr.
Tighe, are extremely busy this time of the year with tax returns . Mr. Tighe did,
however , agree to accommodate us and conduct an examination of the Com-
pany's books at the Company's plant in South Paris , Maine. We would, there-
fore, like to proceed , as promptly as possible , with Mr . Tighe's examination of
the books.
On April 18 , O'Connor wrote Isaacson as follows:
A great deal of time has elapsed since our last negotiating session-I would
therefore , suggest we meet Monday , April 29 , at 4:00 p .m. to conduct contract
negotiations.
If the above time and date is satisfactory will you please confirm?
On April 25 , Isaacson 's office wrote O 'Connor as follows:
Mr. Ervin Isaacson is ill and will be out of the office for a short period. He
will be in touch with you as soon as he returns.
On June 4 the parties met again for negotiation with representatives from the State
and Federal Mediation Services present . The Company took the position that it was
useless to proceed in view of the Union's failure to have an audit made. The Union
protested that it had procured the services of Tighe who , although not an accountant,
had "done this particular type of work" and was satisfactory to the Union . O'Connor
also pointed out that they had tried to get a public accountant but that it was diffi-
cult, particularly at the height of the "tax season. "
After caucuses with both sides, the conciliators were of the opinion it was futile
to try to go on in the absence of an audit and recommended a couple of auditing firms
to the Union. The result was the Union 's letter to the Company of June 6 telling
of the retaining of the accounting firm of Millit , Rittenhouse and Dresser of Portland
for the purpose of making the audit.
On June 9 Isaacson wrote the accounting firm confirming the audit and discussing
the procedure . Under covering letter of August 19, the auditors submitted their re-
port to the Union.
On or about September 1, without discussion with or notice to the Union, the
Company posted on its various bulletin boards the following notice to all employees:
(1) Wage adjustment
Effective September 2, 1963 , all production and maintenance employees will
receive a 100 per hour wage increase . This adjustment is in conformity with
the newly established Federal Wage-Hour Law establishing a minimum hourly
rate of $1 .25 per hour.
Howard Bernard, General Manager
PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 19
The wage increase went into effect as provided in the notice. Just prior to the raise
approximately 47 percent of the employees (the exact number was 81) were being paid
$1.25 an hour or above.
On September 12 another meeting of the parties took place with the conciliators
present. At this time the Company asked the Union to join the Company in presenting
the results of the audit to the employees. The Union refused. In this connection,
however, the Union questioned the Company's having given the 10-cent raise if it
was in such bad financial condition. The Company asked if the Union had any objec-
tion to the raise and if the Union wanted the Company to take it back .3 After a
caucus or caucuses with the conciliators it was decided to go over the contract again-
presumably the nonmonetary matters. A few minor points were agreed upon.
At the termination of this meeting O'Connor announced to the Company that the
entire shop would be called to a meeting at 7 a.m. on September 17 to report on the
status of the negotiations and to get instructions thereon. Seven o'clock was the
Company's starting time.
On September 16 the Company posted the following notice to its employees:
To our employees:
We have been notified that a special Union Meeting has been called for 7:00
A.M. Tuesday Morning, September 17.
While the Company obviously cannot interfere with meetings by its employees
outside of regularly scheduled working hours, the meeting called for 7 A.M.
Tuesday moaning is an unauthorized work stoppage. It is absolutely ILLEGAL
and IMPROPER by standards of the National Labor Relations Board.
We wish to notify, in advance, any employee who attends such a meeting that
they are subject to disciplinary action.
The Company, by this notice, is advising all of its employees that regular
working hours, commencing at 7:00 A.M. will be enforced on Tuesday, Septem-
ber 17. We expect all employees to be present at starting time as usual.
PARIS MFG., Co.
Howard Bernard
The meeting which had been called by the Union was never held. It was canceled
by Shop Chairman Sampson just before 7 a.m, on the 17th because of the wide-
spread fear of attendance generated by the Company's warning of September 16.
On October 17 the next and last meeting between the parties took place. At
this time there was only one employee member of the union negotiating commit-
tee present who had attended the rest of the meetings, the others were all new.
At this meeting, the Company indicated that it felt that the Union no longer repre-
sented a majority of the employees and for that reason refused to continue negotia-
tions. A caucus with the Company by the conciliators failed to change the picture
and the meeting ended on this note. On October 18, as noted, the Union filed
unfair labor practice charges.
Contentions and Conclusions as to the Refusal To Bargain
The General Counsel contends that "the entire course of conduct of the Respond-
ent . . . shows that the Respondent was bargaining with the Union in bad faith"
and he points specifically as indications thereof (and as independent violations of
Section 8(a)(5)) to (1) Respondent's refusal in the June 4 meeting to bargain
because of the Union's failure to secure an auditor; (2) the announcement and grant-
ing of the wage increase in September without notice or consultation with the Union;
and (3) ,the outright refusal to bargain with the Union at the October 1963 meet-
ing" on the grounds that the Union no longer represented the employees.
In substance , I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent did not bargain
with the Union in good faith as required by Section 8(a) (5) and (d) of the Act.
8 The Company's vice president and general manager testified credibly that the Union
was asked if it had any objections to the raise. Ralph Sampson, a former employee and
member of the negotiating committee, testified credibly that the Company asked also if
the Union wanted the Company to rescind the raise. He also testified that the Union
made no "formal objection" to it.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the General Counsel points out, at the time of the June meeting there were
still nonmonetary matters to be discussed and resolved. Even assuming that the
Union had agreed to forgo all further negotiations until an audit had been secured,4
it seems to me that with nonmonetary matters still left unsolved it was within its
rights to rescind this agreement and request that negotiations continue on such mat-
ters as were not affected by the lack of an audit. When the Union took the initiative
in arranging a meeting under the above circumstances it should have been obvious
to Respondent that the Union was rescinding its agreement in that respect and it
should have bargained on the nonmonetary matters.
I appreciate the logic of Respondent's position that the increase in the Fair Labor
Standards Act minimum wage from $1.15 to $1.25 per hour required an across-the-
board of 10 cents an hour to avoid confusion or the creation of inequities. But
such economic necessity would not excuse Respondent from its obligation to first
discuss the matter with the Union-particularly here where Respondent had from
the beginning claimed that it was absolutely impossible for it to assume even the
slightest increase in its monetary costs. This action on its face and independent
of any other evidence was a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.5 That the
Union did not object to the raise after learning about it or ask that it be rescinded is
no defense. Moreover, it is indicative of Respondent's overall bad faith here.
The theory of the harm in such unilateral action by an employer is that it is bound
to downgrade the Union in the eyes of the employees as an effective bargaining agent
for them. Here the validity of the theory is demonstrated. Hardly 6 weeks after
the unilateral wage increase was made, the Respondent is able to point to evidence
of defection from the Union which it claims absolves it from the requirement any
longer to recognize the Union on the grounds that the Union no longer represented
a majority of the employees.
If the Union at that point actually had lost the majority support of the employees
it was because of the conduct of the employer which started with Respondent's
refusal to discuss the nonmonetary matters in the June meeting and was further
augmented by Respondent 's failure to discuss with the Union the wage increase
prior to its announcement and effectuation. And the coup de grace in this respect
was delivered by Respondent when it effectively forestalled the union meeting sched-
uled for September 17 by the threat of disciplinary action which I find below to
have been a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.6
B. Section 8(a)(1)
Independent of the foregoing evidence of Respondent's interference with the rights
of its employees under the Act,7 the evidence shows the following:
According to the undenied and credited testimony of former employee and Shop
Chairman Ralph Sampson , about a week after the union election he was called
into the office of Plant Superintendent Joseph Barrett. Barrett locked the door;
then he told Sampson, "I understand there's been an election and you've been elected
shop chairman or something or other. It's the Company's position until we have a
contract you are no different than any other worker and if you are caught talking
to anyone or in any part of the mill that isn't connected with your job, then you
go out the door." Sampson had never had such a warning before although he
had previously engaged in both types of conduct now prohibited.
Sampson further testified that about the middle of August his then foreman,
Gene Coffman, who was resigning in a few days, informed him that Barrett had
told him to tell Sampson that he would have been picked as the new foreman of it
had it not been for his union connection.
'In this connection it may be that each side was sincerely convinced of the accuracy
of its position as to the effect of securing an audit on further negotiations
' N L.R B . v. Beane Katz, etc., d /b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736;
Insulating Fabricators , Inc., Southern Division , 144 NLRB 1325.
"In any event, with or without fault on its part, Respondent was required to bargain
with the Union during the certification year. Ray Brooks v. N.L.R B., 348 U.S. 96
11 agree with the General Counsel and find that Respondent's threat of September 16
to impose disciplinary action on employees for attending a union meeting during working
hours was also a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. It is clear here that this was
not meant to be a pointless harassment of Respondent which it had no possibility of
meeting as in Personal Products Corporation, 108 NLRB 1129, but was for the purpose
of informing the employees of the status of the negotiations and to get their instructions
which purpose was made clear to the Respondent. The other authorities relied on by
Respondent in this connection are likewise not in point.
PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 21
As to this matter Barrett testified that he did not "recall telling Mr. Coffman to
take any such message to Mr. Sampson." He further testified that before the union
campaign Sampson had been considered for assistant foreman and that another
employee, Homer Burke , had been chosen. When Coffman left, Sampson was
not considered for his job because it could be "automatically" assumed that as as-
sistant foreman Burke would become foreman.
Although Coffman was present in the hearing room and available to Respondent,
he was not called as a witness . I credit Sampson's testimony and find that by Coff-
man's message to Sampson Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act .8
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Paris Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the Paris Manufacturing Com-
pany employed at its South Paris plant, including all seasonal employees and the
Lawrence warehousing employees, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11)
of the Act, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above Union as representative
of the employees in the above bargaining unit, Paris Manufacturing Company has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By the foregoing conduct and by threatening the employees with economic
reprisals because of their union activities, Respondent did interfere with, restrain,
and coerce and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby did engage in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that the Respondent Paris Manu-
facturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment covering employees in the
unit herein found appropriate.
(b) Granting unilateral wage increases or taking other unilateral action on mat-
ters about which it has an obligation to bargain with the Union under the Act.
(c) Threatening its employees with economic reprisals for engaging in union
activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the right under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit in good faith and in a sincere effort to reach
agreement and embody in a written and signed memorandum any understanding
reached.
6 Barrett's locked-door remarks to Sampson are not found to be a similar violation be-
cause they were made more than 6 months before the charges were filed and were barred
as unfair labor practices by Section 10(b) of the Act They do serve, however, to demon-
strate Respondent's illegal opposition to the Union.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its South Paris , Maine, plant , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1 , shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of
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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.io
It is recommended that unless, within the aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent
notifies the Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the Recommended
Order herein, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent
to take the action recommended.
U If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words " a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order "
io If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, In writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with United Furniture Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT grant unilateral wage increases or take other unilateral action
on matters about which we have an obligation to bargain with the above Union
under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals for engaging
in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of said
Act.
WE WILL , upon request , bargain with the above -named Union , as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such an understanding
in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of our South Paris plant, in-
cluding all seasonal employees and Lawrence warehousing employees, ex-
clusive of office clerical employees , guards , watchmen , professional em-
ployees, and all supervisors.
PARIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.