Southern Wipers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 816 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern Wipers , Inc. and Local 28, Retail, Wholesale
and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. Cases
11-CA-3983 and 11-CA-4247
August 19, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 8, 1971, Trial Examiner Thomas F.
Maher issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices ' and recommending that it, cease and desist
therefrom and take' certain'affirmative action as set
forth in the attached Trial Examinees Decision. He
also found that Respondent had riot engaged' in
certain other; unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and ,recommended _ dismissal of such
allegations. Thereafter, Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
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 these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner as modified herein.
The complaint alleges that Respondent refused to
recognize the Union as the agent of Respondent's
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
on and after April 15, 1970, and that it refused to
meet with the Union for the purposes of collective
bargaining on and after that date. The Trial
Examiner concludes that Respondent should have
availed itself of Board processes if it wished to
challenge the labor organization's representative
status and that, under these circumstances, its failure
and refusal to meet with the Union on and after
April 15, 1970, constituted a refusal to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We do
not agree.
The principle applicable in the present situation
has long been established. After the certification year
has run, an Employer may lawfully withdraw
recognition from an incumbent union because of an
asserted doubt of the union's continued majority of
its assertion of doubt is raised in a context free of
unfair labor practices and is supported by a showing
of objective considerations providing reasonable
grounds for a belief that a majority of the employees
no longer desire union representation.? Here the
Respondent., engaged in no in dependent.unfair, labor
practices and Respondent's refusal to meet with the
Union occurred more than a year - after the
certification A Consequently, the issue to be resolved
is whether or -not 'those "objective considerations"
existed justifying, Respondent's doubt concerning- the
Union's majority, status.
Here the Respondent and Union engagedkin a
number of bargaining sessions between December of
1'968 and August 1969. However,, between late
September when it sent the Union a letter indicating
its willingness , to bargain and approximately April
15, 1970, when Respondent received a letter from the
Union, asking, ,for bargaining, Respondent heard
nothing from the Union concerning formal negotia-
tions. In fact, it appears that during the period the
Union was wholly inactive in the plant and several
employees indicated to management that they were
glad the Union had left. At the same time Respon-
dent was undergoing a heavy turnover of 398 people
in a work force of approximately 100 employees,
including the depature of all but 3 of the members of
the Union's negotiating committee.
The foregoing factors relied on by the Respondent
may not by themselves show that the Union had in
fact lost its majority as of April 15, 1970. However,
here in a context free of unfair labor practices those
factors do provide, in our opinion, an objective basis
which would properly furnish reasonable grounds for
the Respondent to believe that the Union had lost its
majority status .4 Consequently, we find that Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) or (1) of the Act
when on and after April 15, 1970, Respondent
refused to recognize the Union as the agent of its
employees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 The following inadvertent factual errors in the Trial Examiner's
Decision are hereby corrected : (1) Mediator Yates Heafner joined in the
negotiations of January 13, 1969, not 1970 as stated by the Trial
Examiner ; (2) the second negotiating session was held on January 7,
1969, not 1970 as stated by the Trial Examiner. All subsequent
negotiating sessions discussed in the Trial Examiner 's Decision were also
in 1969.
2 Viking Lithographers, Inc„ 184 NLRB No. 16.
3 The Union won a Board-conducted election on November 21, 1968,
and was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for Respon-
dent's production and maintenance employees on December 2, 1968.
4 See Viking Lithographers, Inc., .,.y.....
192 NLRB No. 135
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC. 817
TRIAL. EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS F. MAHER, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed
on August 22, 1969, and May 22, 1970 by Local 28, Retail,
Wholesale and } Department Store Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union,, against Southern Wipers, Inc.,
Respondent herein, the Regional Director for Region 1 t of
the National "Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, issued a complaint on behalf of the General
Counsel of the Board on July 31, 1970, alleging violations
of Sections 8(axl)'and (5) of the NationalLabor Relations
Act,,'as amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 et seq. ), herein called
the 'Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent,' while
admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the
commission of any unfair labor practice.
'Pursuant to notice a trial was . held before me in
Charlotte, North Carolina, where the parties were present,
represented by counsel, afforded full' opportunity' to be
heard, to present -evidence and oral argument, and to file
briefs. A brief was filed on or about January 15, 1971, by
counsel for the General Counsel.
Upon- consideration of the entire record, including the
brief filed_ with me, and specifically upon my observation
of each' witness appearing before me,1 I make the
following: -
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I., THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Southern Wipers, Inc., Respondent herein, is a North
Carolina corporation with a plant located in Charlotte,
North Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture
and sale, of wiping` cloth, cloth, and waste (a textile
manufacturing byproduct). During a 12-month period
immediately preceding the issuance of the Complaint
herein Respondent - manufactured products valued in
excess of $50,000 and sold and directly shipped from its
Charlotte, North Carolina, plant finished products valued
in excess of $50,00 to points and places outside the State
of North Carolina.' During the same period Respondent
received at its Charlotte plant goods and raw material
valued in excess of $50,000' from points and places outside
the State of North Carolina.
Upon the foregoing facts stipulated by the parties I
conclude and find the Respondent to be an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and(7) of-the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is stipulated and I accordingly conclude and find that
Local 28, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
i Bishop and Malco, Inc., 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. '
2 The findings herein are based upon the credited testimony of General
Counsel's principal witness, Union Organizer Martin, unless otherwise
noted. -
3 Counsel for Respondent moved to strike all testimony relating to
incidents occurring before February 22, 1969, a date six months prior to the
filing of the first charge. I denied the motion when made, ruling that Section
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE ISSUE
Whether the extensive but fruitless negotiations between
the Union and the Respondent nonetheless constituted an
unlawful refusal to bargain.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Sequence of Events
Pursuant to an election conducted among Respondent's
employees by the Regional Director of the Board on
November 21, 1968, - the Union - was selected as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the majority -of the
employees in a unit found to be appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, namely:
All production and maintenance employees including
training inspectors and truckdrivers at the employer's
Charlotte, North Carolina, plant excluding office
clerical employees, salesmen, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Thereafter, on December 2, 1968, the Regional Director,
pursuant to authority vested in him by Section 3(b) of the
Act, certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative in the foregoing bargaining unit. No request
for review of the Director's action having been made of the
Board. I accordingly conclude and find the foregoing unit
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
On December 13, 1968, bargaining -began. The account
of this and subsequent bargaining sessions which form the
substance of the controversy herein will be detailed at this
point.
The personnel -representing both parties remains sub-
stantially the same throughout negotiations. the Union
was represented throughout by its organizer, Elliot Lee
Martin, at numerous times.by its regional director, Irving
Lebold, and by employees Margaret Currie, Dixie Lewis,
Otho Price,,and others. The Company was represented by
President G. W. MacKinnon, Chairman of the Board W.
F. MacKinnon, and an unidentified secretary. Although
the meetings appear to have been held in the offices of the
Federal Mediation Service from the beginning, the media-
tor himself, Yates Heafner, did snot join the negotiations
until the January 13, 1970, meeting.2
At the first meeting, held on December 2, ,1968;3 Martin
presented the Union's initial proposal in the form of a one-
page outline containing 18 specific subjects. This proposal,
mimeographed on green paper, was referred to throughout
the negotiations and at the trial before me as the "green
sheet proposals." Its format was one of subject title, for the
most part, listing such subjects as "Recognition Clause,
Check-off, Discrimination Clause, Seniority Clause, Union
Pension Plan," et at Other items were set forth in some
10(b) of the Act did not preclude me from taking testimony isla ' to
incidents prior to the so-called 10(b) period . Upon reconsideration and in
conformity with the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Local
Lodge, No. 1425, International Association of Machinists v. N.L -R (Or,yan(
Manufacturing Co.), 332 U.S. 4l 1, r real-firm my denial of Respond lit s,
motion and will consider such evidence for background purposes herein.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
detail . -Thus -the hours of work were spelled out in detail,
together with overtime provisions ; 10 paid holidays were
enumerated ; a graduated vacation entitlement was spelled
out; maternity leave was fixed at 6 months without loss of
seniority; the Company was to provide uniforms and a
bulletin board and to permit visitation- at , the plant by
Union representatives ; and `wages were proposed to be
increased by 50 cents per hour, across-the-board, with a
fixed minimum rate of 2 dollars per hour.
At this first meeting the parties went through this "green
sheet" item by item., Martin .elaborated to management
their demands as to items that were not set out in detail on
the "green sheet .,,"; After, Martin had covered the initial
item, the recognition clause,- and was expecting a response
from management, G. W. MacKinnon stated that they
would, prefer that they-"go through the entire sheet to get
understanding as to what was meant by each of the 18
items ." While Respondent had no counterproposal to offer
at this meeting it did have comments from time to time.
Thus as Martin ,spelled out the .need forthe checkoff W. F.
McKinnon stated- that he saw no need for ,it. When the
clause , was raised z the Company wanted an
explanation as to what was really wanted, and Martin went
into further detail . When Martin reached the demand for
uniforms W. F. MacKinnon replied that he saw no need
for providing uniforms but that the employees were free to
wear. the, clothing that the Company had in. its stock. When
the visitation of ,,=Union representatives was . explained
MacKinnon said "he was not opposed to the visiting of the
plant by Union -representatives", but that a limitation
would have to be placed on it to avoid work interruptions.
And when, the need for a bulletin board was stated
MacKinnon said that they- had bulletin boards that could
be used for the purpose. Finally, on the subject of raises
Martin set forth in detail his proposal for the 50 cent
across-the-board increase and, the 2 dollar minimum. In
addition, Martin insisted , as he continued to do so at
subsequent , meetings , that the production bonus paid to
trimmers be eliminated . Except as noted above the
Company representatives made no counterproposals at this
meeting but they did assure the Union representatives that
they would respond in due time.
The second negotiating session was held on January 7,
1970, at which the Union introduced for discussion a
contract between it and the American Bakery Company
and referred to as the "Merita Contract"-Merita being
the trade name of that ' company's product. This contract
was presented as a guideline for future . negotiations and
specific draft contract language . The parties went through
it item by item. Language was suggested for a recognition
clause and for checkoff provisions by Martin. The
recognition clause was held in abeyance, but W. F.
MacKinnon would not accept a checkoff provision, stating
the position that it-was the Union's obligation to collect its
own dues, • as it was the employees' duty if they so chose to
pay,their dues . The Company promised a counterproposal
to, the clause relating 'to discrimination against, Union
members . It would not accept the proposal for a guaran-
teed , 5-day, 40-hour workweek, stating there were frequent
periods when employees would be working 35 hours per
week. G. W. MacKinnon rejected the idea of paid holidays
but stated the Company's agreement to unpaid , approved
absence on the specified holidays . On vacations a counter-
proposal was promised for the future . An extended
discussion was held, related to language in the "Merita
contract," concerning provisions dealing with " leave of
absence, maternity leave,' seniority, pensions ,' health and
welfare , programs, rest periods , discipline, discharge and
arbitration, and insurance.
In each of the foregoing areas . Respondent agreed to
submit counterproposals, but in a numberbf specific areas
revealing comments by management representatives indi-
cated a`poin't of view in opposition to the Union's. Thus in
consideration of seniority W.'-F. MacKinnon stated that
Respondent would insist upon retaining the best qualified
employees , regardless of their length of service. G. W.
MacKinnon indicated that the Company had recognized
the need for lunchroom facilities and had tried to purchase
a building for the employees as a lunchroom but had been
unsuccessful . He said "he expected ,to be_ able to, work
something out." ,The response to a proposal for a ladies
lounge was completely negative, however, W -F. MacKin-
non stating that should employees feel ill they could
continue to follow past practice of, lying ;,down, on the
cotton bales in the back room . *hen the health' and
welfare provisions were raised W . F. MacKinnon cited the
excessive cost of the present insurance plan and stated his
unwillingness to incur more expense in that area. A
pension plan proposal also appears to have been prelimi-
narily rejected at this time , G.' W. MacKinnon stating that:
They didn't have anybody in there he thought was
eligible for it, or would beeligible for it in the near
furture, and therefore he -didn 't, see ' where it was
necessary, for, the Company to contribute to any
pension plan.
At this same January 7 meeting Respondent brought up for
discussion the subject of work rules which it was interested
in putting into effect to cope with problems , of lateness,
absenteeism, and theft. To this end a document incorporat-
ing the rule proposals was submitted following the meeting.
On wages at the January 7 meeting . the Union 'repeated
its same demand for an, across-the-board increase of 50
cents with the elimination of the trimmer -bonus., In. reply
the Company stated they were in-no, position to give such
an increase at that time and furthermore it felt that not
everyone work ng for 'them was entitled to an' increase.
The third meeting was-held on January 13, by which time
Federal Mediator Heafner had entered the picture . tittle if
anything resulted from this meeting.
The fourth meeting, on January ,28, witnessed the
submission by the Company of a series of .work rules
(supra) dealing with such subjects as lateness and absences,
and the penalties to be imposed for excesses , conduct in
the plant as related to smoking, drinking on the job,
coming to work drunk, visiting, the use of the telephone,
frequenting the restroom in groups, and finally the
imposition of dismissal of any trimmer who made less than
75 percent of production in a stated period . The Union
representatives asked numerous questions and , explana-
tions of the Employer representatives and after the
document had been covered, item by item, they told the
Company that they would not be able to agree to the work
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC.
rules, particularly as there was no provision for arbitration,
and they would have to present them to the membership.
The Union representatives again proposed its original 50-
cent across-the-board increase to which the Company
demurred. Q. W. MacKinnon did state, however, that
there were three employees, the tow motor operators, to
whom they would like to give wage increases. MacKinnon
said that he had promised these people raises prior to the
advent of the'Union. The Union asked for the identity of
the three, received it, and after a caucus agreed to the
increase. The Union then repeated its demand for the
across-the-board increase and the Company refused to
accede. -
On February 3 the parties met for the fifth time and W.
F. MacKinnon opened by complaining to, the Union of
what appeared, to him to be a slowdown in the plant with a
resulting loss of income. -The Union representatives,
Martin- and Lebold, suggested that, they bepermitted to
visit the plant to - see if they could help remedy the
situation. The Company agreed to this proposed visit and
set it for the following day. Meanwhile the discussions
continued in Other areas. After' again discussing the
proposed work rules the arbitration clause was once more
proposed by the Union. The Company's response was that
they did not -think it necessary because people who were
not able to perform their duties, regardless of the length of
service,-would have to be replaced.
Pensions were again proposed but G. W. MacKinnon
stated that ,they were not interested in pensions , particular-
' 1y as an item of cost, because they did not have enough
people who would qualify for pensions in the near future.
Once again the Union raised the wage issue, insisting, as
usual, upon an across-the-board increase. W. F. MacKin-
non replied that not everyone in his employ was entitled to
a raise and he stated that he would not agree to a general
increase. He did say, however, that he had some employees
to whom he would like to give merit increases. In reply the
Union asked for - a list of those to whom the Company
wanted to give increases . The-meeting lasted between 1-1/2
and 2 hours.
On the following day, pursuant to arrangements- between
the -parties, Union Representatives Martin and Lebold
visited the plant, presumably, to explore the slow-down
problem, It is disputed whether the purpose of this was to
resit the production areas or simply to inspect the books
relative to, the loss of production. Apparently shipping
records were first-shown to Martin,-but meanwhile Lebold
asked that they immediately be shown into the plant- After
private-consultation the MacKinnons decided it would not
be safe- for them to visit into - the-plant at that time because
of ' the tensions existing among the employees.4
The sixth negotiating meeting was held on March 11.
Agreement was reached among the parties on the language
of the - recognition, , union discrimination , and jury duty
clauses. Nothing was accomplished in the area of 'wages.
On March 14, the seventh meeting, the Company
submitted a draft contract proposals complete in 'every
detail except article XII, wages and rates of pay. Although
4 G. W. MacKinnon testified that Lebold had wanted to look around the
plant and do some organizational work while they were there and he would
not permit it, due to threats that he had heard of.
819
the draft provided in detail for the payment of a bonus to
trimmers, the Company's persistent demand, and it
reserved the granting of merit increases- to its, own
discretion, it did not, as was specified, contain the
attachment detailing the employees' wages, and rates of
pay. -
The parties went over the Company's draft proposal item
by item. At the outset it, was noted that there was
agreement on the recognition clause. The Union, however,
would not agree to a provision making union, membership
optional. There was considerable discussion "on the
checkoff, with the Union- explaining why it considered it
necessary and reminding the Company that it -was then
withholding community chest donations and employee
loan repayments. The Union objected to ;the Company's
discrimination proposal because it did not include discrim-
ination for reasons of religion or sex. The clause providing
hours of work was unacceptable to the Union because it
failed to guarantee, as the Union's proposal had, a full 40-
hour workweek. The Union also objected to the amount of
break time proposed and it particularly objected,that the
afternoon break would be without pay, The parties likewise
disputed the amount of call-in -pay, the Company, offering
2 hours of pay, the Union demanding 5. The holiday offer
of the Company, 5 unpaid holidays, was rejected,by,the
Union. It was demanding 9 paid holidays. -
The vacation and vacation pay proposals of the
Company did not meet entirely the Union's approval but
they did not offer a counterproposal, being content to, refer
to their original "green sheet" proposal which allowed for a
scaled increase vacation beyond the Company's- 2-week
maximum. .
The Union agreed to the Company's leave of absence
clause but rejected the Company proposal on seniority
which would limit it to an employee's last' tour of
employment. The Union restated as its position the more
explicit seniority proposal in the previously submitted
Merits contract. In this respect W. F. MacKinnon restated
his desire to--be able to replace with new employees any old
employee who could not perform his duties.
Agreement could not be reached on the Company's brief
health and safety proposal; the Union raising the issue of a
single commode in -a poorly kept ladies restroom, and the
Company countering by complaining, of employees loung-
ing in the restroom and smoking in violation of insurance
regulations.
The Union rejected the Company's proposal relating to
discipline and discharge for the reason° that settlement of
disputed cases was uncertain. The Company had rejected
any notion of arbitration and this position had the effect of
reducing the effectiveness of settling -grievances without a
strike. The Company proposal to continue its present
insurance coverage of employees was not acceptable-to the
Union and strenuous argument was advanced'in, favor of
the Union's own health and welfare plan.-W. F. MacKin-
non countered by describing the current insurance pro-
gram which was all the Company could afford at that time.
The parties discussed the Company's proposal - that
b A copy of the Company's draft proposal is attached hereto and
incorporated by 'reference in this Decision as Appendix A, infra.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clothing would be made available out of stock for purchase
by employees at cost. The Union rejected this, adhering to
its demand that uniforms be provided.
In addition, discussion was held on the so-called jury
duty clause on: which there was eventual agreement, the
funeral leave clause which provided for excused absence
without pay, a condition unacceptable to the Union, the
rights of- visitation of employees in the plant by Union
'representatives over which there resulted a dispute as to the
language that could not be resolved, the supplying of
bulletin boards on which there was agreement , and the no-
strike, no-lockout ^ provision ''which became deadlocked
because of a failure to agree on arbitration.
As it related to the 'wage demands of the Union the
Company's proposal was wholly unacceptable. It is really
not significant that the proposal referred to a nonexisting
.attachment containing wage schedules . The fact of, the
matter is that both parties had their fixed position on
wages, had repeatedly expressed them, and were unwilling
to recede . Suffice it to say that here again the Union sought
the withdrawal of the trimmer bonus, and an across-the-
board increase, and the Union rejected the Company's
insistence on a continued bonus . At the same time the
Company again requested the Union 's approval of the
granting of merit increases to certain individuals . In reply
to this request the Union "Old Mr .'W. F. MacKinnon if he
would give us a list then we would take it to the
membership to see if we could get it approved or
< sppproved."`
In support of his insistence that the trimmer's,bonus be
continued MacKinnon cited the current poor production
from the trimming department and expressed the feeling
that the bonus would be the only means of improving or at
least sustaining production.
The eighth bargaining session was held on April 3 and
wages was , the, first item of discussion . After some
discussion of the Union 's-initial 50-cent demand the parties
separated and the mediator served as conduit, bringing
proposals .and counterproposals from one group to the
other. In the course of this the Union offered to break
down its demand to provide for two 25 -cent raises at a
spaced interval . The Company rejected this but again
repeated - its request that approval be given it for granting
of merit increases . With wage negotiations foundering on
this issue negotiations continued to other areas . Arbitration
and vacations were discussed but no agreement or
a counterproposals resulted . The Company at one point in
the discussion offered - to, trade a "right to strike" provision
for the Union demand for arbitration. The Union would
not agree to this. This 2-112-hour meeting concluded with
air inconclusive discussion of seniority.
The ninth session was held on April , 15 under the
direction -.of Mediator Heafner and formost of the time the
parties were, separated . Wages', was the, only subject of a
discussion that , lasted for 2-1/2-3 hours. The Union,
through -the mediator, offered to reduce its demands to a
15-cent increase and later reduced it to 10 cents. When
these were each rejected the Union then proposed a
package deal consisting of a 10-cent across-the-board
0 Employees Dixie Lewis and Margaret Currie credibly tested to the
above meeting in corroboration of Martin. They further quoted the
increase, a reduction of break times from 15 minutes each
to 8' minutes each,' 5 -rather than 9 paid holidays,
acceptance of the Company 's vacation proposal ; a sand an
arbitration clause . The mediator reported to the Union that
upon presentation of this offer to the `Company there was
no movement on its part., Martin testified that the' Union
made no further proposals to the Company .,And the
Company continued to insist upon a bonus system for, the
trimmers and the merit increases -for individual-employees.
No meetings were held-until a month later , May' 19-the
tenth meeting. On this occasion W. F. MacKinnon- again
stated, that ' the Company wanted to give ' out -merit
increases. When the Union requested the names this time
the Company ' provided it with two lists, one with 6 or 7
names on it and the other with 20 names. -
The parties ' met again the following day, May 20 ,, for the
eleventh time . Martin again ' asked for an across-the-board
increase and G. W. MacKinnon refused - hind, stating that
he would like Martin's agreement to the payment of merit
increases to the individuals named on the lists he had 'given
him the day before. Martin had not yet presented these
names to the membership and had no present answer for
MacKinnon.
At the twelfth meeting, on May 26 , the Union opened
with its usual request for, an- across-the-board increase'
which G. W. MacKinnon again refused, restating his desire
for approval of the grantingofrmerit"hnreases. Whereupon
Martin informed MacKinnon that he had taken a list to
the membership for approval and that it had been rejected.
MacKinnon said that "he,would take it into considera-
tion."
In addition to the 'foregoing discussion of wages and
merit increases the parties devoted -a= considerable portion
of the 3-hour meeting to , seniority, arbitration , the bonus
system, health and welfare payments , vacation pay, and
holidays. No definitive results-were reached.,, i
Following this meeting the Company wrote the Union,
enclosing a list of 20 employees-to whom -it wanted to give
5-cent or 10-cent merit increases . ' The, letter - read as
follows:
As per your suggestion at today's Negotiating Meeting
we would like to give , increases to. This list supersedes
and is corrected from the first to show discharges, and
also show a few additional increases to some named on
the previous list and also some new names have, been
added to the previous list, for increases . We would like
your approval of this list so that it can become effective
May 28.
We would like to mention-that as we mentioned at the
metting the, increases and additions for further or
additional increases is small in number and quantity,
but you have not given us sufficient time , to, assess
further increases . We, would, like to give additional
merit increases if and when the opportunity arises, that
is up until our final contract conditions are settled.
On, May 27 -MacKinnon wrote the Union adding seven
names to the earlier list.
The thirteenth meeting was held on June 1 with the usual
parties present and under the leadership of the 'mediator,
mediator as saying that , he could not even get the Company to give them 3,
cents.
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC.
Again the Unionropened by asking for an across-the-board
increase. G. W. MacKinnon again refused stating that "He
wanted" to 'grant merit-increases, and that was it on wages."
Martin further' testified that when he reminded-MacKin-
non'-'that the. employees had rejected the idea of merit
increases MacKinnon replied that-he would put them into
effect. Thereafter, on the following day, June 2, MacKin-
non wrote to Martin as follows:
It'has'become more and more urgent that we make
some merit,'inicireases-amongour'employees. Becauseof
our failuieto do so, we'not only have lost many of our
best employees, we are also about to lose more of them.
We have discussed all-phases of the wage subject with "
you manytimes,, and neither we nor you seem to have
any'-additional' suggestions or anything further to say
on the matter.
Therefore, for the reasons which we have emphasized
in our negotiations, we will now go ahead with the
merit - increasing that we have discussed with you.
>,This' of course, will be without prejudice to our further
bargaining with you onadditional wage increases as on
all other matters,-
At the fourteenth meeting held on June 5 Martin opened
for the Union by asking G. W., MacKinnon=for a counter
proposal-to .its, demand for an across-the-board increase.
MacKinnon's- reply- was, "No." From this, subject the
parties -proceeded to a 'discussion of checkoff, and paid
holidays with no definitive results. Following the meeting
the-Union wrote to the Company reiterating its rejection of
merit increases as being- too low and objecting to the
failure to arrive at agreement-,on paid vacations. It
concluded by-, requesting financial, statements from the
Company to- support its claim of loss - of profits.
The fifteenth bargaining session was held on June 30• and
-proposal was again the first item ofthe- Union'soriginal
discussion.-Upon the Company's refusal, again stating it
was in. no position to grant the increase, the discussion
moved on to vacations, "arbitrations,, and holidays; and the
proposals on the "green 'sheet" were reviewed in some
detail. The meeting which lasted nearly three hours
produced no - agreement., MacKinnon -did announce,
however, that 'there had been layoffs of trimmers who had
not produced '5 percent -of their quota, and that more',
layoffs were -anticipated if 'production did not improve.,
Between,„this meeting and the next one an exchange inl
correspondence 'resulted in a reply in which the Company
rejected the overall increases as demanded, but stated its
guess to continue discussing the' matter and all other
unse led 'issues. It stated its willingness to show,the Union
its_books and in answer to the Union's request for a
meeting date suggested July 8.
The, next- meeting, the sixteenth, was actually held on
July 7, followed by another on July 8, the seventeenth. At
each of these ` meetings the Union's wage demands,
previously made, were repeated and again rejected by the
Company. At the latter meeting the Union asked for a list'
of the employees ' who, in addition to those previously
listed, ' had ' been given `merit -increases. Martin also
requested a list of those hired and fired and a seniority list.
Thereafter, on July 9,, the Company. wrote the : Union
821
supplying it with the requested operating information, the
names of recent hires, a list, by weekly periods, of trimmers
failing to make production, and a -supplemental list of
employees to whom merit increases had been granted.
The August 6, 1969, session was the eighteenth and, as it
developed, the last. The parties present were substantially
the same excepting that G. W.- MacKinnon was absent and
William MacKinnon, a member of management, was
there, as he had been on other occasions. In the course of
bargaining at this meeting, while the parties were separat-
ed, the Union instructed the mediator to see if he could get
a 10-cent or 15-cent increase. This the Company refused.
Martin's testimony best describes the demise of bargaining
at this point, thus
Mr. W. F. MacKinnon said that he was therefor the
purpose of discussing merit wages, and I told him that I
would like to go into a discussion on, the general
contract and wages, and Mr. W." F. MacKinnon told
me he wasn't interested in that, that he was there to try
to reach an agreement on the merit increases, and that
if there was anything else I wanted to discuss other
than that, he didn't care to.
Q. What, if anything, did you say to that?
A. Well I told him I didn't like for him to tell me
how to negotiate contracts, and that I did have other
things I wanted to, discuss. After all, all of the items or
most of the items in the contract were still opened, and
he hadn't reached ' an agreement on, and it was my
position we would like, to go into those items as well as
into the merit increases.
'Q. What if anything, did Mr. MacKinnon say to
that?
A. Mr. MacKinnon said that he was leaving.
Q. What, if anything did he do? '
A. Mr. MacKinnon both of the Mr. MacKin-
nons, and the secretary got up and left.
Q. Have you had any further negotiating sessions
with the Company since that time?
A. No sir.
Meanwhile, on July 29 the Company supplied the Union
with a list of 11 employees to whom it had given 5-cent
merit increases, and- on September 3, after the 'final
meeting, it provided another 'list of 25 merit increase
recipients. In its September 3 letter supplying this list the
Company stated
We have never yet received from you your written draft
on contract proposals, which you told us some months'
ago you would submit in response to` the written
proposals which we submitted to you. '
Martin replied that they had actually submitted a number
of proposals and wished another meeting "to thrash out
this matter." At the hearing, on cross-examination, howev-
er, Martin, in answer to the question: "The only proposals
you ever submitted to the Company in writing'were on this
green sheet, and on this Merita contract, isn't that right?"
replied, "Yes, sir." In any event the Company, disputing
Martin's claim that the Union had submitted- subsequent
proposals, again requested them, in line with the Compa-
ny's early request and the mediator's suggestion, conclud-
ing
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When we, have the above, namely, a proposal, as, a,
counter-proposal to -ours z in • writing, then, we will be
more-than glad to meet with you as we have many
times in -the past on short notice and at your-
convenience to further discuss your contract proposal.
-No, movement , in the bargaining area is apparent
between.,September, 223,,1%9, the date of Respondent's
letter quoted above, and April 17, 19708 when Martin
wrote to G." W. MacKinnon requesting "a meeting to
continue our^negotiations." Upon receiving no reply from
the Company Martin directed a second letter to MacKin-
non dated June 10,° 1970, as follows: ,
As of this date, we have had no response from you
from our letter dated on or about April 15, 1970,
requesting a meeting to resume contract negotiations.
Once again, we request a meeting between the
Company,. myself, and Union Committee, for, the
purpose of resuming contract negotiations.
May we hear from you, at your earliest convenience, as
to the date and time for such a meeting.
There has been no response to these two final requests.
B. Analysis and Conclusions -
It is General Counsel's contention that Respondent has
bargained in bad faith in the area of wage negotiations by
having attempted to remove the subject of wages from the
arena of collective bargaining. Quite apart from my basic
disagreement with this proposition as an interpretation of
the facts I have found upon the testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses I am troubled at the outset by
characterization of this conduct as being in, bad faith.
The concept of "bad'faith" as applied to the collective-
bargaining process finds it genesis in Section 8(d) of the
Act. Thus it is stated
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively
is the performance of the mutual obligation of the
Employer and the representative of the employees to
meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with
respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or
any question arising there under and the execution of a
written contract incorporating any agreement reached
if, requested by either party, but such obligation does
not compel either party to agree to a ' proposal } or
require the making of a concession.
With this as a backdrop it is to be observed from 'the
findings'I have made that the Respondent and the Union
have met - on 18 'separate occasions over a period of 8
months in meetings that averaged 2 hours duration. At
these meetings conducted in orderly fashion by a federal
mediator two written proposals ,were submitted by the
Union, two written counterproposals by the Respondent,
and during the course of a frequent exchange of corre-
spondence numerous clarifications, submissions of request-
ed information, and supplemental proposals were supplied
by the Respondent.
't'he bargaining between these parties was not confined.
as General Counsel's, brief to me would suggest, to wages.
9 -Appendix A, supra
8 I do not consider essential to the issues presented in this case the
contentions directed to the representative status of the Union and Organizer
Martin during this period. On the contrary I rely upon the Regional
On the contrarya scrutiny of the record and 1,. findings I
have made r ,upon it makes it abundantly clear - that,
bargaining , covered the gaumet of. labor relations matters
as they affected the -problems, ofRespond ent and his
employees,, -some of , which were resolved ,-.many others of
which -were still, under discussion to and after -the eighteen
sessions.
Nowhere does it appear that Respondent's representa-
tives were unwilling to pursue-further any subject up for
agreement. Each side had its proposals ; the, Union's "green
sheet" proposals amplified in, the Merits contract which is
submitted for a guide ; the Cotnpany's^ draft -contract
proposal which I have incorporated into this Decision as
Appendix A. As discussion on these progressed not-,only
were views exchanged but, as noted above , agreement-was
reached on individual items . What was-not resolved,
however, was the subject of wages.
It is obvious that , the Union's wage ; position, was
intransigent . However willing it was to scale down. the
amount of a-general increase it was as obdurate that-this
across-the=board.increase be. given as it was that the bonus
to trimmers be eliminated . Respondent was equally as
obstinate m its insistence that the bonus not be eliminated,
that it grant -individual merit increases with the Union's
approval, and that- it, not be required to give an across-the-
board increase that would reward employees who, in its
estimation, were not doing satisfactory work. Thus it is
abundantly clear that the Union's complaint was not so
much that the Respondent' was 'refusing to bargain over
wages as it was that Respondent was refusing to give in.
Indeed what Martin said over and over again in his
testimony was that Respondent would not capitulate and
agree ' to his demand for wages. But by Martin's own
testimony it is clear that Respondent had the identical
complaint with respect to the Union's wage `position, and
the considerable exchange of correspondence bears this out.
If any provision of the 'Act is clear it' is -that ' portion
quoted above, supra, wherein it is stated' that the obligation
to bargain`in good faith "does not compel either -party to
agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."
And this, the making of a concession , is precisely what was
sought , at each ' of the 18 bargaining sessions, and pit is
precisely what the General Counsel urges as it unfair labor
practice in this proceeding..' Obviously=' this' is the kind of
bargaining situation to which Section 8(d)` was ' referring.
What remains to be' considered in this - matter' of ' a
demand for the making of'a concession is the determina-
tion of the good or bad faith in which'the demand was
refused, not to mention'`the good or bad faith of the Union
in making the demand, an issue not presently before' me.
My review of this record persuades` me that both parties
adhered to their respective positions in equally good.'faith
throughout the whole stalemate on the issue of wages, _as
well as ' on other issues. Indeed - the record is replete,
particularly throughout the testimony of General Counsel's
principal witness , Martin, with testimony of the amplifica-
tions, justifications,, and arguments made by both parties at
Director's certification of ' the Union dated December 2, 1968, '- as
conclusively establishing' the Union's' status as exclusive bargaining
representative of this employer's employees, and I shall make my findings
accordingly.
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC.
each of the bargaining sessions in support of their wage
positions. Thus' Respondent's officials, G. W. and W. F.
MacKinnon, repeatedly explained the production necessity
for retaining a bonus 'system for trimmers , the relation of
the production of trimmers to the overall profit of the
Company, the effect of a slow down in the trimming
department on profits, the personnel efficiency reasons for
not giving across-the-board raises (some were not doing
their job), the financial inability to grant the general
increase; coupled with a proffer of its financial records to
substantiate its'point.
Because the refusal here related only to wages I find it
unnecessary to elaborate upon the extent of Respondent's
participation in other areas of bargaining; nor is it
necessary to detail the Union's fulsome arguments and
facts presented in support of its proposition on wages at
the bargaining sessions, the Union's good faith not being in
issue here. It is sufficient to note that in both areas
praticipation by both parties was full and extensive.
A second- facet of Respondent 's alleged refusal to
bargain concerning wages ' centered about the merit
increases which it gave to named individuals. This the
Complaint characterizes as "unilateral." In the context of
this record the term "unilateral" would seem to be a
misnomer .9 As fully developed in the findings herein
Respondent's representatives repeatedly urged the pay-
ment of merit increases, explained their economic necessity
as a means of retaining their best employees , repeatedly
asked the Union's 'approval to grant them, upon the
Union's request provided the names of those to whom they
wished , to grant the increases, and documented with
numerous letters and requests for approval their willing-
ness to share with the Union in granting these increases.
'Finally, after nearly 6 months' discussion and after all
efforts had failed, Respondent, on June 2, 1969, still
provided the Union with advanced' notice of its' intent to
grant the merit increases before it did-so. For the foregoing
Considerations, and for the whole record, I am not
persuaded that `the merit increases granted by Respondent
can properly be characterized as unilateral.10 On the
contrary I would conclude and find that they were granted
only after the complete and interminable bargaining had
resulted in a stalemate which, if not resolved , would' have
been detrimental to Respondent's legitimate interests. If
ever there was an impasse in bargaining this was it."
Here again in the assessment of Respondent 's bargaining
contract in the area of merit increases it is implictedly
contended that bad-faith bargaining is synonymous with
failure to make a concession . Quite apart from the fact that
such an argument flies in the face of the statute it also
negates the validity of one of the cornerstones of effective
labor relations.
Hard bargaining, however distastefully the practice may
be viewed, it is not a violation of the Act. Nor is the
conduct of a strike in support of an econmic position in
bargaining in violation of the Act. When, then, one of 'the
parties, in this case ' the 'Union , does not chose to exercise
the economic strength customarily available to him, it
cannot be said that recourse to the processes of the Board
is a proper alternative, and the handy weapon for any so-
called hard bargaining situation . I would accordingly
823
conclude and find that insofar as the granting of merit
increases and the bargaining with respect to wages are
concerned Respondent has not - refused to bargain in good
faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act 12
With respect to the conduct of the Respondent following
the Union's request to resume negotiations after April 15,
1970, Respondent has clearly failed and refused to do what
the Act requires it to do-bargain collectively with the
certified himself as representing the same organization
certified by the Regional Director on December 13, 1968.
Through the representation processes of the Board the Act
provides ample machinery with which to challenge a labor
organization's representative status; but there is nothing in
the record that would suggest that on and after April 15,
1970, Respondent ever availed itself of such process with
respect to the Union here . Under these circumstances it is
clear that Respondent , by its failure and refusal to meet
further with the Union on and after April 15, 1970, has
refused to bargain with the duly certified representative of
its employees in, violation of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the
Act, and I so conclude and find.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section IV,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstruction commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent has refused to bargain
with certified representatives of its employees in a
bargaining unit found to be appropriate by failing and
refusing to meet with it. I shall recommend .that Respon-
dent cease and desist from such conduct. Affirmatively I
shall recommend that Respondent resume collective
bargaining with the Union concerning hours, wages, and
other terms and conditions of employment and that if
agreement is reached it embody such agreement in writing.
I shall also recommend that it post appropriate notice of its
compliance with this order.
Recommended Order omitted from publication.
9 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G & C Merriam Co., Springfield,
Mass., 1970, p. 929, defines "unilateral," thus; "One-sided ; done, made,
undertaken or shared by one of two or more persons or parties."
10 On cross-examination Martin was asked if he "could point to one
increase given to anybody out there at any time that was not discussed with
you in advance." His reply-"I don't have any knowledge _ of any."
11 NLRB.- v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 349.
12 N.L.RB. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395; United
Steelworkers ofAmerkca (Florida Machine and Foundry Co.) Y. N.LRB., 441
F.2d 1005 (C.A.D.C.).
APPENDIX
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into
this day of , 1969, by and between
&24 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC., of Charlotte , North Caroli-
na, hereinafter . referred to as the "Employer" or the
"Company", and LOCAL 28, RETAIL, WHOLESALE &
DEPARTMENT -STORE UNION , AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the "Union".
WITNESSETH:
That for the purpose of facilitating the peaceful
adjustment of any differences which may arise from time
to time between the parties above-named, and' for the
purpose of promoting harmony' -and efficiency, to the; end
that the parties above-named and the Company's employ-
ees and the general public may be benefited thereby, the
parties above-named do hereby contract and agree with
each other as follows:
ARTICLE I-RECOGNITION -
The Company recognized the 'Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining 'agency for all employees in the
bargaining unit which has heretofore been defined and
established among the employees at the Company's
Charlotte Plant,'that is, all--production and maintenance
employees, including trimming inspector and truck driver,
but excluding office clerical employees, salesmen, guards
and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
ARTICLE II-UNION MEMBERSHIP
Employees shall be free to be members of the' Union, or
not, as they may see fit. Employees shall be free 'to support
the Union financially and otherwise, or not, as they may
see fit.
ARTICLE III-NO DISCRIMINATION
There shall be no discrimination against any employee
because of his ` being a member of the Union, and there
shall be no discrimination against any employee because of
his not being a member of-the Union. ,
There shall be no discrimination against any employee
because of race, creed, color or national' origin.
ARTICLE IV-HOURS OF'WORK
The normal workweek shall consist of five (5) consecu-
tive days, Monday through Friday. The normal work day
shall consist of eight (8) consecutive hours. For any work
beyond'forty (40) hours in a workweek, an employee shall
be paid at= one and a half times his regualr rate of pay.
There shall be a fifteen,(15) minute paid morning break,
approximately half way between starting time and lunch
time. There, shall be a forty-five (45) minute non-paid
lunch period at approximately twelve o'clock noon. There
shall be a fifteen (15) minute non-paid afternoon break,
approximately half way between lunch time and quitting
time,
If an employee is required to report for work, but
through no fault of his own he is not permitted to go to
work, he shall receive not less than two (2) hours pay, at his
regualr rate, for reporting. If, however, the Company has
other work which it desires, the employee to perform, he
shall not refuse to perform such otlierzwork.
The foregoing, provision for reporting pay shall snot apply
in case of power failure,or other-,breakdown, beyond the
Company's control.
ARTICLE V-HOLIDAYS,
New Year's Day, Labor Day, Christmas Day, Fourth of
July and Thanksgiving day shall be holidays, and.employ-
ees shall be allowed off without pay. If,' however,I.'the
Company needs- any employees to work' on, one of, these
holidays, and such employees arewilling to work, then, this
will be done even though other „operations in the plant are
not being carried on. e, ,
ARTICLE VI VACATIONS AND VACATION PAY
As of the week of July 4, each employee who has been in
the, continuous employment of the Company,, since-the
preceding Christmas -Day, shall be allowed the week, in
which July „4_falls, as a vacation week off from work,',and
during, such week, though not working, the employee shall
receive his regular pay.
As of the week of Christmas, each employee who-has
been in the continuous employment of the Company,since
the, preceding July 4 shall.be allowed the week, in which
Christmas Day falls, as a vacation week off from work,, and
during, such-week, though not working, the employee shaf t
receive his regular pay...
If between Christmas Day and July 4 an employee has
been absent without excuse for more than forty (40) hours,
or more thanforty^(40) additional hours if due to sickness,
then he shall not be,eligible to vacation pay for the week in
which, July 4 falls.
If between July 4 and Christmas an employee has been
absent without-,excuse for more thaa_fo' ty_(40) hours,, or
more than forty (40) additional hours 'ifdue to ,sickness,
then he shall not be eligible to vacation pay for thewveek in
which Christmas Day falls.
As to absences which the employee claims to have been
due to illness, in connection with the two preceding
paragraphs, the Company may require a certificate from
the hospital, physician or surgeon, asthe case may 'be.
Although the plant normally,, closes the' weeks in which
July 4' and Christmas Day falls, the Company will11
endeavor to' provide work 'for all employees whonot
entitled to a vacation at these times. Likewise, insofar as
-business will permit, the Company will endeavor to provide
work during these periods for employees who are entitled
to a vacation but who prefer to or
ARTICLE VII-LEAVES OF ABSENCE
An employee may be granted a leave of, absence, for
good cause shown, without ` , thereby :losinghis , job.
Leaves of absence, without pay, shall be granted in
maternity cases to employees who, have one (1) year or
more of continuous service withthejCompany. Except by
special permission, such leaves shall be'not longer than six
(6) months.
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC. 825 -
ARTICLE VIII SENIORITY
Seniority rights shall prevail as hereinafter set forth.
An employee's seniority shall date from the time of his
last entering the Company's, employment. _
The Company shall maintain a fist ` showing the relative
seniority standings of all employees . Such list shall be
revised and brought- up to- date, and a copy therof
furnished- to the Union, every six (6) months.
In all matter involving,lay-offs andrecalls from lay-offs,
transfers, changes from one1'job to another, the filling of
job vacancies , ' and iii- all similar matters , the Company
shall give full consideration to the seniority standings of
the- eomployees "affected or involved, and in all such
situations where the Company deems that skill, ability,
aptitude and'-other ' similar facts are substantially equal,
seniority shall be controlling.
ARTICLE IX-HEALTH AND SAFETY
Working conditions ,in the plant shall be maintained in a
clean and sanitary' condition, and reasonable provisions,
shall be made at all times for the health and safety of
employees.
ARTICLE X-DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE
Employees shall not be' discharged or otherwise disci-
plined except for just cause. If the Union or any employee
or employees , who are affected, consider that a discharge
or disciplinary action has not beenl6for just cause , then such
discharge or disciplinary action may be made the subject
of a grievance under the' grievance procedure herein
provided for. If through such procedure it is determined
that the employee or employees affected should not have
been discharged or disciplined , then he or they shall be
reinstated , or the disciplinary action shall be rescinded, as
the case may be. Any reinstatement or rescission of
disciplinary action may be accompanied by back pay or
other monetary compensation, according to the terms of
agreement reached through the grievance procedure.
ARTICLE XI-SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Any dispute between the Company and the Union, or
between the Company and any employee or employees,
concerning the interpretation or application or alleged
violation of this Agreement , shall be handled in the
following manner:
A. The matter shall first be discussed between the
employee and his supervisor , and a Union shop
steward may be present during the meeting if the
employee so desires . If a representative of the Union
has not been present at the discussion of the grievance
at this stage, the Union shall, if it desires, be entitled to
participate in my settlement of the matter . And if at
this stage, a settlement is not reached within ten (10)
days from the time the grievance arose, then it shall be
reduced to writing by the aggrieved party and submit-
ted to the other party.
B. At this second stage the grievance shall be
discussed and dealt with by the employee or employees
involved and the members of the Union 's grievance
committee and the Superintendent or Manager of the
plant.
C. If settlement has not been reached at-either of
the preceding stages, then the Company shall designate
such representatives as it may see fit and the Union
shall designate such representatives ` as it may see fit,
who shall meet for final consideration and discussion
of the matter.
ARTICLE XII-WAGES AND RATES OF PAY
During the term of this Agreement, employees' wages
and rates of pay shall be as set forth on the schedule which
is attached =Hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
This schedule, witlr ' the following bonus arrangements
for the trimming department , shall be effective retroactive
to January 1, 1969 . The base pay for the trimmers is to be
$1.60 per hour for those trimmers under 1 10% of
production average per quarter., To qualify for a bonus, a
trimmer must work a minimum of three (3) days a week for
ten (10) weeks to get an average 'for the quarter. If the
employee ,averages between 110% and 120% of production,
he shall receive a bonus of ` five (5) cents per hour on each
hour worked during the preceding quarter . If the employee
averages between 120% and 130% of -production , he shall
receive a bonue of ten (10) cents per hour on each hour
worked during the preceding quarter . If the employee
averages between 130% and 140% of production, he shall
receive a bonus of fifteen (15) cents per hour on each , hour -
worked .during , the preceding quarter. If the employee
averages between 140% and 150% of ,production, he shall
receive a bonus of twenty (20) cents per hour , on each,hour
worked during the preceding quarter.
Individual merit increases shall be at the discretion of the
Company.
ARTICLE 1111-INSURANCE COVERAGES AND BENEFITS
During the life of this Agreement, the Company shall
continue to provide and pay for the insurance coverages
and benefits which it now provides and pays for. New
employees hired during the period of this contract shall
work six (6) months before receiving such coverages and
benefits.
ARTICLE XIV-UNIFORMS AND SALES TO EMPLOYEES
The Company will permit employees to wear garments
belonging to the Company while on the premises. No
clothing or other Company material shall be removed from
the Company premises, unless it has been purchased by the
employee for his own personal, or his family's use. The
price for such purchases shall be fifteen (15) cents per
pound. Such sales to employees will be made only on
Tuesdays after quitting time.
ARTICLE XV-JURY DUTY PAY
An employee who is required to perform jury duty shall
be paid the difference between his jury service pay and his
regular straight time hourly rate . It is understood that
employees will report for work on their regular schedule
when not occupied by Court duties.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARTICLE. XVI-FUNERAL LEAVE
In the event of a death in the immediate family (spouse,
brother sister, son, daughter, mother -or father) an
employee shall be entitled , to a leave of absence without
pay from the date of the death to and including the day of
funeral, but not to exceed three (3) days.
ARTICLE XVII-VISITS BY UNION REPRESENTATIVES
Representatives of the Union may come to the plant for
the purpose of,, interviewing employees, with regard to
grievance matters or otherwise. Such representatives shall
not, however, go into the plant, except under such
circumstances as will-not in any way interfere with work or'
operations.
ARTICLE XVIII-BULLETIN BOARDS AND POSTINGS
The Company shall provide suitable bulletin board space
for postings by the 'Union in the plant. ' Posting" by the
Union on such board shall be confined to matters such as
Union meetings, Union elections and the like. Such'notices
shall be shown to the Company before'they are posted.,"
ARTICLE XIX-NO STRIKES-NO,LOCKOUTS-DURATION
OF AGREEMENT
The Company shall not, during the term of this
Agreement, engage in any lockout - of employees. This
provision shall not be construed, however, as limiting or
imparing' the right of-the Company to cease or to reduce' its
operations on account of-business necessities.
There shall not be, during the term ,of this Agreement,
any strike, walkout, slowdown, work stoppage, no picket-
ing, nor any other, concerted action,of any-nature-which
has as its purpose or, effect the interruption of or
interference with the Company's operations. , -
If the Company or the Union,, either directly or indrectly,
violate any obligation imposed in, this article, then- each
shall be subject to such rights and recourse as the law may
provide, including liability for any and all injury , or
damage which may result from, such violation. It is further
agreed that the liability here provided for- shall extend to
the full resources of the Company and, the _-Union
respectively.
This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for
one (1) year from the date -hereof, and- shall continue
thereafter for yearly term,-unless written notice of a desire
to amend or terminate this Agreement, is given by,either
party to the other on or before sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have caused
this instrument to be duly executed 'by their authorized
representatives: -
SOUTHERN WIPERS, INC.
LOCAL 28, RETAIL,
WHOLESALE &,, DEPARTMENT
STORE UNION, AFL-CIO
BY:
BY: