Southside Electric Coop.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southside Electric Cooperative, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union
467. Cases 5-CA 8983 and 5 CA 9213
July 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELI 1O
AND TRUESDALE
On December 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief in response to Re-
spondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify her remedy, and to adopt her recommended
Order, as modified herein.
The Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, as
amply supported by the evidence herein, reveals that
Respondent, following a Board-conducted election
which resulted in the Union's certification, set out on
a course of conduct deliberately designed to under-
mine the very existence of the Union as the employ-
ees' representative. To that end, as found by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, Respondent bargained in
bad faith with the Union in the certification year by,
inter alia, limiting the frequency and duration of ne-
gotiation meetings and by refusing for 7 months to
submit an economic proposal in response to that to
the Union. Thereafter, Respondent unlawfully with-
drew recognition from the Union, unilaterally
granted increases in wages and benefits to unit em-
ployees, threatened employees that if they supported
the Union they would not receive wage increases, and
discharged a leading, if not the leading, union adher-
ent because of his union activities. Because of the fla-
grant nature of these violations, the Administrative
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing her findings. We do note that the
Administrative Law Judge found that a staff meeting which Respondent
held. and at which the Union was discussed, had occurred on June 7. 1976.
That meeting occurred on June 11. 1976.
Law Judge recommended, inter alia, that the Union's
initial certification year be extended for an entire year
and that Respondent be required to make whole the
unit employees for the losses they have suffered by
reason of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good
faith with their certified representative. We adopt the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended extension
of the certification year,2 and we also adopt, as modi-
fied, her recommendation that the unit employees be
made whole for Respondent's refusal to bargain in
good faith.
AMENDED REMEDY
As background to our amending the make-whole
portion of the remedy, we note that the Union was
certified on July 28, 1976, and that negotiations be-
tween it and Respondent began in late September
1976. The charge was filed on October 31, 1977. The
Administrative Law Judge, therefore, found that Re-
spondent had bargained in bad faith with the Union
from on and after May 1, 1977, i.e., 6 months before
the charge was filed.
In devising a remedy to make the employees whole
for losses suffered by them as a result of Respondent's
refusal to bargain in good faith, the Administrative
Law Judge recommended that the unit employees re-
ceive the same percentage wage increase and benefits
received by the nonunit clerical employees at Respon-
dent's Alta Vista and Crewe locations at times when
the unit employees3 were receiving no benefits. Spe-
cifically, Respondent's nonunit employees had re-
ceived a pay increase of 6.72 percent, three additional
holidays, and an increased insurance contribution on
November 1, 1976, and a 7-percent pay increase in
November 1977. The unit employees received no in-
creases from November 1, 1975, until February 25,
1978, when (after withdrawing recognition from the
Union) Respondent inaugurated the same kind of job
reevaluation plan for unit employees which it had
earlier established for nonunit employees and gave
the unit employees a new wage scale resulting in wage
increases which averaged approximately 24 percent.4
While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the employees in the bargaining unit-but for
'See. e.g.. Glonac Plastics. Inc., 234 NI.RB 1309 (1979), enfd. 592 F.2d
94. (2d Cir. 1979).
1 The unit in which the Union was certified was all construction and main-
tenance employees at Respondent's Alta Vista and Crewe Virginia, facili-
ties.
'Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge awarded the unit employees
the following items: from May 1, 1977. the date from which the refusal to
bargain was alleged, until February 25, 1978, when the unit employees were
given the increases noted above, wages equal to an increase of 6.72 percent,
three additional holidays a year, and an increased insurance contribution;
and from November 1. 1977. until February 25. 1978, and additional pay
increase of 7 percent. As noted, these benefits were the exact benefits ac-
corded the nonunit employees at relevant times.
243 NLRB No. 59
390
SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
Respondent's unfair labor practices-would have re-
ceived wage and benefit increases similar to those re-
ceived by the nonunit employees, the record is not as
clear as the Administrative Law Judge indicated that
the unit employees would have received the same per-
centage wage increases as the clerical employees.
However, we conclude that the record does allow us
to make the following modifications to the recom-
mended remedy.
We note first that the initial increase for nonunit
employees in November 1976 was awarded in accord-
ance with the recommendation of a reorganization
and job evaluation study by Richard Ritscher, a con-
sultant who was an expert in drafting wage plans for
electrical utilities. The study commenced in the spring
of 1976 and was finished on October 21, 1976. The
second increase, given to the nonunit employees in
November 1977, was also pursuant to the formula
established by Ritscher.
The record further shows that on February 9, 1977,
Ritscher, in a letter to Respondent, submitted a wage
scale and ranges for each classification of the unit em-
ployees which was very similar to the wage plan im-
plemented for nonunit employees in November 1976. 5
Respondent recognized that this wage plan could not
be unilaterally instituted while Respondent was en-
gaged in collective-bargaining negotiations, and it
was not willing to negotiate about the plan or about
wages at all when it commenced bargaining. It, there-
fore, iced the wage plan until November 1977, when
Respondent finally made a wage proposal to the
Union. At that time it informed the Union about an
earlier 1971 job classification plan and invited the
Union to participate in modifying it. At that time
Respondent estimated that revision of the plan would
take as long as 2 years. That estimate was merely
another bad-faith attempt to delay agreement, how-
ever, for, as found by the Administrative Law Judge,
Respondent had a completed job classification plan
only 22 days after it requested one from Ritscher. It
made that request after it had withdrawn recognition
from the Union.
The February 1977 plan prepared for the unit em-
ployees was essentially the same as the one given
them in February 1978. The 1978 plan was different
only in that the percentage of the wage increase was
greater-to reflect the delay in the increase--and
there were some changes in classifications to alleviate
employee complaints. The plan also included the
same holidays and insurance benefits which have
been given to the clericals in November 1976.
5The wage scale. which Ritscher denominated as H I to H 28, is the
same for unit and nonunit employees. The ranges for the classifications dif-
fer, in accordance with differences in the various jobs.
From this evidence, we find that but for Respon-
dent's bad-faith bargaining, it would have agreed to
implement for the unit employees the wage plan sub-
mitted to it in February 1977 by Ritscher. This find-
ing is further buttressed by the record evidence which
shows that Respondent, on other occasions, uni-
formly approved all of Ritscher's recommendations,
including the one for the nonunit employees and a
recommendation for an average increase of 24 per-
cent for the unit employees in February 1978. More-
over, Respondent wanted a wage plan which dealt
with all employees similarly, in order to assure that
all employees were in relative parity. Thus, Respon-
dent intended to implement an updated version of the
February 1977 plan throughout its negotiations with
the Union. It merely delayed the implementation of
this plan as a means to destroy support for the Union.
We also find that the Union would have agreed to
the February 1977 wage plan, since (l) it had no ob-
jection to a wage plan when it was mentioned in No-
vember 1977, and (2) its own final wage proposal was
for increases in line with those given to the nonunit
employees. Thus, we award the unit employees a
monetary amount equal to the amount they would
have received pursuant to the scale established by
Ritscher for unit employees in February 1977, includ-
ing holidays and insurance benefits, to run from May
1, 1977. the date from which the unfair labor prac-
tices were found, until February 25, 1978, with inter-
est.
With respect to the increases given to nonunit em-
ployees in November 1977, we agree with the Admin-
istrative Law Judge that the unit employees would
have received increases of 7 percent. That this is the
case is shown by Ritscher's recommendation of Feb-
ruary 1978, wherein he computed the unit employees'
new wages based on the rates (H-I-H-28) then in
effect for clerical employees. These rates reflected the
7-percent increase which the clerical employees re-
ceived in November 1977. Thus, when Respondent
finally gave the unit employees a raise, it did so in
accordance with the overall wage plan, wherein the
jobs of both unit and nonunit employees are keyed to
the same wage scale. Accordingly, the unit employees
are to receive a 7-percent increase based on the wage
scales in the February 1977 letter, with interest, for
the period of November 1977 (when the nonunit em-
ployees received the increase) until February 25,
1978, when Respondent gave the unit employees their
first increase in 2-1/2 years. 6
b It is, of course, at the compliance stage that the exact dollar liability of
Respondent will he computed. We have only established a framework by
which actual liabilit) will he determined. If Resrondent can demonstrate
that the unit employees were, to a certain extent, compensated for the 2-1/2-
year wage freeze by the large increase of February 1978, then any monetary
liability should be reduced by the amount which represented compensation
for the 2-1/2-)ear freeze
391
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, we note that this remedy is necessary in
order to make the employees whole-as nearly as
possible-for the losses suffered by them as a result of
Respondent's hostility to, and refusal to bargain with.
the Union. Thus, this remedy does not penalize Re-
spondent, and it does not conflict with Section 8(d)'s
restriction on the Board's authority to compel a party
"to agree to any substantive contractual provision
.... " To the contrary, it merely restores the status
quo ante that would have existed had Respondent
bargained in good faith. And, because Respondent
had a specific wage plan, which it was intent on insti-
tuting, that status quo ante is not speculative.7
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Southside Electric Cooperative, Inc., Alta Vista and
Crewe, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b):
"(b) Make whole the employees in the unit found
appropriate herein for the monetary losses they suf-
fered as a result of Respondent's refusal to bargain in
good faith with the Union as required by the section
of the Board's Decision entitled 'Amended Rem-
edy.' "
7 It is the factor which distinguishes the instant case rom Winn-Diusi
Stores, tc., 224 NLRB 1418 (1976), wherein the Bioard awarded a similar
remedy, which the Fifth ('lrcuit declined to enforce See Winn Divi Stores.
In,.. v. N.L R B. 567 F.2d 1343 (Sih Cir. 1978) While the Board ordered
retroactive wage increases based on a wage rate paid to Winn-Dixie ware-
house employees elsewhere. the court found that measurement too specula-
tive. Here. however. the record reveals Resrndent's own wage delermina-
lion for the very employees at issue which was withheld because of
Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith
DECISION
SIA'IliMINI 0() III CASI
AIMIRA ABOI Srt Vl NS()NS Administrative Law Judge:
A hearing was held before me in this consolidated proceed-
ing in Lynchburg, Virginia, April 3-6, 1978. The original
charge was filed October 31 and served on Southside Elec-
tric Cooperative, Inc. (hereafter called Respondent). No-
vember 1, 1977, and amended December 19, 1977: the com-
plaint was issued December 22, 1977, and amended at the
hearing. The charge in Case 5-CA 9213 was filed February
13 and served on Respondent February 14. 1978: the com-
plaint was issued March 14, 1978. An order consolidating
cases was issued March 14, 1978. The amended complaints
were duly answered by Respondent.'
I The General Counsel and counsel for Respondent filed a joint motion to
correct Iranscript and request to place the motion in the official exhibit folder
as Ji. Exh. . The molion and request are granted in the absence of objection.
The issues are whether or not Respondent refused to bar-
gain in good faith with International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers Local Union 467 (hereinafter called the
Union), in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to sub-
mit a timely counterproposal, limiting the frequency and
duration of collective-bargaining meetings. failing to desig-
nate a bargaining representative with authority to agree to
the terms and conditions of an initial contract with respect
to economic issues, and withdrawing recognition from the
Charging Party Union and thereafter refusing to meet and
bargain with the Union, and thereafter unilaterally reclas-
sifying employees, increasing wages, holidays, and Respon-
dent's contribution to employee insurance coverage;
whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5)
of the Act by threatening employees while negotiations
were in progress: and whether or not Respondent violated
Section 8(a)( I ) (3), and (5) of the Act by discharging union
leader and member of the negotiating committee Michael
Reid while negotiations were in progress. Also at issue is
appropriate remedy. For the reasons given below, I con-
clude that Respondent committed most, but not all, of the
violations alleged and recommend a remedy uniquely tai-
lored to effectuate the policies of the Act in this proceeding.
Upon the entire record. including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel. I
make the following:
FINDIN(; S ()IF A('I AND CO()N(I.SlSONS OF LAW
I. J RISI)I( IION
Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the sale
and transmission of electrical energy to customers from its
facilities in Alta Vista and ('rewe. Virginia. During the past
12 months Respondent received gross revenues in excess of
$250,00() and purchased and received in interstate com-
merce materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points
located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. I find that
at all times material Respondent has been, and is, an em-
ployer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce as defined in
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. AB()R OR(;ANIZAIION
The Charging Party Union is a labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. UNfAIR L.AB)R PRA(I( is
A. R/itsal To Bargain
I. The issues
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Re-
spondent has refused to bargain in good faith by the follow-
ing conduct since May I, 1977: (1) Refusing to submit a
written economic proposal until November 21, 1977: (2)
limiting the frequency and duration of bargaining meetings:
392
SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
and (3) failing to designate a bargaining representative with
authority to agree to economic issues. It is also alleged and
denied that Respondent further refused to bargain in good
faith on January 31. 1978. by withdrawing recognition and
on February 22, 1978, by unilaterally reclassifying employ-
ees and increasing wages, the number of holidays, and Re-
spondent's contribution to employee insurance coverage.
2. Background
Respondent is an electric utility cooperative with offices
in Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia. Respondent admits and
I find that the following individuals were at material times
its supervisors and/or agents: C. S. Hooper. Jr.. manager
(Manager Hooper): S. D. I.eftwich, supervisor: C. S. Hoop-
er 11, assistant supervisor (Supervisor Hooper): and Her-
bert W. Larrabee, chief negotiator.
A petition was filed with the National Labor Relations
Board by the Union in Case 5 RC 9730 for an election
among Respondent's outside employees, and the minutes of
a staffing meeting held by Manager Hooper on June 7.
1976. during the organizing campaign, show' that Hooper's
discussion of the Union included, among other items, an
admonition that "from now on we should stop trying to be
so good to the employees" and that they would no longer
be allowed to take junked or discarded materials home or
allowed to wash their personal cars or repair their CB ra-
dios on company time with company equipment.
The minutes for a July 19, 1976, staff meeting held just
before the election reflect that Hooper announced that if
the Union won, no unit employee would be allowed to
work until the union representative signed an agreement to
the effect that the employees were "willing to work before a
contract is agreed upon" and would not require the co-op
to "accept as minimum conditions of the labor contract"
existing wages, fringes, or other conditions of employment.
Hooper testified that this threat was not carried out, be-
cause counsel advised him it was illegal.
A Board election was held, the Union won by a vote of
40 to 14, and on July 28, 1976. the Union was certified as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All construction and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Respondent's Alta Vista, Va. and Crewe.
Va. facilities including servicemen-working foremen,
first class linemen, second class linemen, apprentice
linemen, groundmen, warehouse clerks, auto mechanic
helper, annex janitors, electrical technician, radio-me-
ter technician, truck driver, work order construction
clerk, night dispatchers, and right of way inspector:
but excluding all part-time day dispatchers, office cleri-
cal employees, engineers, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
In the past Respondent had given general pay increases
to all its employees on January I and July . 1974. and
January I and November I, 1975. Therefore. when negotia-
tions began, the unit employees had not received a pay
2 I accept the minutes of staff meetings as accurate reflections of what was
said at the meetings because they were produced by Respondent from Man-
ager Hooper's files.
increase since November 1, 1975. Respondent had, how-
ever, commissioned Richard Ritscher, of the National Ru-
ral Electric Cooperative Association (NRE('A), to conduct
a study and produce a reorganization plan including job
descriptions and reevaluations and recommended pay
scales for all its employees. When the Union was certified.
however. Respondent. without advising the Union. in-
structed Ritscher to discontinue work on the job reevalu-
ation and pay scale plan for unit employees, but to continue
work on those programs for nonunit and management em-
ployees and on job descriptions for all employees.
Respondent declined the Union's suggestion that nego-
tiations begin on August 16. 1976, and the first meeting
took place September 22. 1976. From then until May I,
1977. all negotiating sessions were conducted at a motel in
Crewe. Virginia. At the September 22, 1976. meeting the
Union presented a noneconomic contract proposal. and the
parties agreed to defer economic issues until noneconomic
matters were disposed of. Three negotiating sessions were
held during September, and seven were held during Octo-
ber 1976.
On October 21. 1976, Ritscher submitted to Respondent
his completed reorganization plan and a job reevaluation
plan for nonunit employees. Based on his conclusion that
the pay and benefits of Respondent's employees were below
those of the current labor market, he recommended a 6.72-
percent wage increase, 2 full- and 2 half-day additional
holidays, and that Respondent increase its contribution to
those employees' hospital insurance from 50 to 75 percent.
Ritscher's recommendations were approved by Respon-
dent's board of directors and went into effect November ,
1976.
Two bargaining sessions were held by the Union and Re-
spondent in November. and three in December, 1976. State
and Federal mediators joined the sessions at the request of
the nion over the objections ot' Respondent December 14,
1976: the Virginia mediator attended a total of two meet-
ings, and the Federal mediator attended all subsequent bar-
gaining sessions.
In 1977 the parties met three times in January and twice
in February. After meeting once in March. on the 27th,
they agreed to drop the few unresolved noneconomic issues
and take up economic matters. No meeting was held in
April, and economic issues were the main subject of discus-
sion at 12 subsequent meetings held over the next 9 months
beginning May 1. 1977.
3. Conduct in issue'
May 1, 1977. The Union presented its first economic de-
mand at this meeting-wage increases for all employees
which the Union estimated as somewhat less than 20 per-
cent above the highest rate in each classification. Respon-
dent to pay for tools and equipment necessary to perform
Where accounts differ. the facts with regard to the bargaining sessions in
issue are based mainly on the testimony given by International Representa-
tive Lawrence Hogan and Local 467 Business Manager Roy Keatts, whom I
credit over Respondent's chief negotiator and Atlorney John Boswell. The
General Counsel's witnesses appeared t be persons of tenacious integrity.
while Respondent's witnesses appeared to tailor their testimony to fit Re-
spondent's cause.
393
Dt('CISIONS OF NATIONAL ILABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the job, 3-1/2 more holidays, vacations, and union dues
checkoff. The Union spent some time explaining its propos-
als, which were based on the concept that all employees
doing the same work should receive the same pay. Respon-
dent's representatives retorted that the proposals were ri-
diculous and would bankrupt the co-op. International Rep-
resentative Hogan explained that this was the Union's first
demand, that it was negotiable, and asked for a counterpro-
posal. Larrabee replied that he would study the Union's
demand. Larrabee also announced that Respondent would
no longer pay for the motel space in which the parties had
been meeting; the Union suggested moving to Lynchburg,
where it could provide facilities: Respondent refused to
meet there; and the parties (the Union, temporarily) ac-
cepted an invitation to meet in the mediator's headquarters
in Richmond, where all subsequent negotiating sessions
were held.
May 9, 1977. Respondent's representatives asserted that
the union proposal would cost the Company $250.000,
which was unrealistic because the co-op was having trouble
collecting old bills and had operated at a loss in March and
April. They also disagreed with the concept inherent in the
union proposal that employees doing the same work should
receive the same pay, preferring the graduated scale based
on seniority then in effect. Hogan suggested a probationary
period, and equal pay thereafter, but Larrabee still dis-
agreed. Hogan passed Larrabee a note proposing that bene-
fits for union employees be the same as those of the nonunit
employees. Larrabee announced his intent to meet with
representatives of NRECA in Washington, D.C., with re-
spect to pensions and hospitalization insurance. I-logan re-
peated that the Union's proposal was just that, a proposal,
that it was negotiable, and again requested a counterpro-
posal, but .arrabee replied he needed time for study.
Mal 16, 1977. At Respondent's request, Hogan gave ur-
ther explanation of the Union's proposals. Respondent's
representatives said the co-op was in poor financial condi-
tion and could not afford such wage increases. Hogan asked
why, if that was so, they had given nonunit employees a
raise, and the reply was that all those personnel deserved a
raise.
June 11, 1977. This meeting began with additional objec-
tions to the Union's May I proposal, which Larrabee esti-
mated would amount to 19 53-percent increases for various
employees, whereas settlements in the Virginia electric
companies were running at 7 7.8-percent wage increases.
He went on that Virginia Electric and Power Co. (VEPCO)
was proposing 22 26-percent wholesale rate hikes for
power supplied to this and other Virginia and North ('aro-
lina co-ops, which would have an adverse impact on the co-
op's financial status. Larrabee said he was unable to make a
counteroffer, but had scheduled meetings on pension and
health-and-welfare plans in July with representatives of
NRECA and as a result would have additional data to re-
view with co-op Manager Hooper for presentation at the
co-op board of directors meeting (as the board of directors
met every third Thursday, the reference presumably was to
the meeting scheduled for July 21).
June 21, 1977. This meeting consisted almost entirely of a
long talk by a representative of Respondent about various
factors which were said to have had a possibly adverse ef-
fect on the economic future of the co-op.
June 22, 1977. Larrabee informed the union representa-
tives that the co-op had lost 4,000 customers, that the em-
ployees' pay was already in line with that of employees of
other co-ops. and that Respondent could not afford to give
an increase in pay, but would come up with a counterpro-
posal soon.4
July 29, 1977. The company representatives provided
more details about the business problems of the co-op at
this meeting. L.arrabee also made an oral counterproposal,
stating he was thinking along the lines of a 5-year contract
with a 5-percent increase the first year, 3 percent the sec-
ond, 2 percent the third, and no increases the final 2 years,
with no wage reopener or cost-of-living increases: continu-
ing the present hospitalization insurance plan; and continu-
ing the present pension plan with a I-percent reduction in
the amount contributed by the co-op. Hogan rejected the 5-
year-contract proposal with what he considered such low
increases.
September . 1977. Hogan made the Union's second
economic proposal as a package: a 2-Near contract with a
10-percent increase for the highest paid employees in each
classification and 14 percent for those receiving less than
the highest rate the first year and 8 and 12 percent, respec-
tively, the second year and tools expenses, holidays. dues
checkoff; and continuation of' present fringe benefits as pre-
viously proposed. Respondent voiced its continued objec-
tion to the concept of striving for equal pay for equal work,
and ogan responded that he would not insist on this as-
pect of the proposal. I.arrabee charged that the proposal
amounted to a 50-percent increase in wage costs. No agree-
ment was reached.
The minutes of Hooper's September 29, 1977. meeting
with his staff reveal that Supervisor Leftwich asked if the
co-op would be able to give the men a raise this year, and
1looper replied, "W]e could not give them a raise unless we
go to the Union, and then the men would be getting what
they want." .ceftwich reported being told the men would
quit if the, did not get a raise this year. to which Hooper
responded. "[11 f they quit, we will just advertise for more
help." It was then announced that the employees who did
not want the Union knew they could then call for a vote,
but they had obtained onlN 14 of the 17 signatures needed.
Hlooper then said that "he certainly hopes all of the other
Ithan the negotiating team] staff members will start working
on this Union situation immediately. The) can tell the em-
ployees that it looks like this thing is going to affect them
this year and they want something done about it." It was
not long after this, as found below, that Supervisor Left-
wich informed employees they would not get a wage in-
crease until they got rid of the Union. On October 24, 1977,
employee Michael Reid, a member of the union negotiating
team, was terminated under circumstances described below.
On November 1, 1977, another wage increase, this time of 7
percent, went into effect for nonunit employees.
October 27, 1977. Larrabee reviewed the Union's second
proposal in detail, terming it totally unrealistic. requiring
19-50-percent increases for various employees. Larrabee
promised a written counterproposal for November 21.
I find, contrary to the testimony of Larrabee, that there was no negotiat-
ing session on June 29, 1977.
394
SO ll HSISl[): FIECTRI(' COOPERATIVE
November 21. 1977. At this meeting Respondent pre-
sented its first written economic proposal. The proposal was
for a 5-year contract. It set forth objections to the Union's
proposal, which did not. however. include inability to pay.
The written proposal stated, among other things:
The Union's proposal fails to take into consideration
the amount of longevity paid to long-time employees
under the established plan of Cooperative or the eco-
nomic relationship of' pay rates to the marketplace.
Respondent's proposal also stated. "The Cooperative pro-
poses establishing a new job classification reevaluation
plan." and offered a wage increase of 5 percent the first
year. 4 percent the second, 3 percent the third, and zero
increases the fourth and fifth years of the contract. By way
of explanation, arrahee said he had obtained job classifi-
cation reevaluation plan from Richard Ritscher of
NRECA, but the plan was outdated and must be brought
up to date, and he hoped to present an updated plan soon.
Hogan expressed surprise at the sudden proposal of a job
reevaluation plan, but said he had no objection, as reevalu-
ation was a managements prerogative.
On November 28. 1977, the VEPCO request for a 22 26-
percent hike in the wholesale rate for power supplied to the
co-op for resale was settled for 16 percent. Hooper testified
that, in any event, since early 1977 the co-op has had au-
thority to automatically adjust the retail rates it charges to
its customers to reflect wholesale rates charged by VEPCO.
but that the co-op has not increased its retail rates for
power since 1974.
December 16. /977. Larrabee gave the Union a copy of a
1971 uniform job evaluation program he had obtained from
NRECA. explained it was not up to date, and informed
them that the unit jobs would have to be reevaluated before
there could be any further discussion of wages. The Federal
mediator asked now long an update would take, and Larra-
bee said he was trying to get Management Consultant Rit-
scher to do the work, and it could take 2 months to 2 years.
Larrabee asked whether the Union would like to participate
in the reevaluation process, and Hogan repeated that the
Union was not interested, as it considered employee evalu-
ation to be a management prerogative. Larrabee said he
would select a committee of employees to assist in the pro-
gram. and Hogan told him to get on with it. Hogan then
put forward a proposal, which he said would remain out-
standing until February 1978, for a I-year contract with a
15-percent across-the-board wage increase, which he under-
stood to approximate the increases already given to nonunit
employees since negotiations began, with the noneconomic
provisions already agreed to and checkoff. Larrabee agreed
to think it over, but specified that nothing would be done
until the reevaluation plan was completed. Although Larra-
bee did not wish to meet with the union representatives
again until his reevaluation plan was completed, the parties
did arrange to meet on January 16. 1978, the next date
Larrabee was available.
January 16. 1978. This was the last negotiating session.
Larrabee announced that Ritscher of' NRECA had agreed
to draw up a reevaluation plan and invited the Union to
participate in the selection of employees to take part in the
process. Hogan merely responded that the Union had ex-
pressed no objection to any reevaluation if the parties
would get on with their negotiations. In his opinion, giving
the unit employees a 15-percent increase, as proposed,
would have no effect on such a plan. Larrabee stated that
15 percent was out of the question because the reevaluation
plan might entail some wage increases. and until Respon-
dent knew what they would be, it could not commit itself' to
any other increases. Larrabee said that in fact he wished to
reduce the number of holidays enjoyed by the unit employ-
ees by I- I /2 days (even though he revealed he did not know
how many holidays were presently enjoyed). Hogan again
pointed out that the Union's proposal conformed to Re-
spondent's treatment of nonunit employees, and Larrabee
responded that the Union did not represent those employ-
ees, and what Respondent did about them was its own busi-
ness. The mediator inquired again why it would take so
long to reevaluate the employees, and arrabee estimated
this time that the job would be completed in about 45 days.
Although Larrabee again voiced his opinion that it would
be futile for the parties to meet again until his reevaluation
plan had been completed. he agreed to convene on Febru-
arv 21.
On the same date, January 16, 1978 a decertification
petition was filed.5
Jonuarl 31, 1978. Manager Hooper addressed the follow-
ing letter to Union Representative Hogan on this date:
This is to notify you that we, in good faith, doubt
that you and the I.B.E.W. continue to represent a ma-
jority of our employees in the collective bargaining
unit. We base this belief on the following:
(1 A decertification petition has been filed and
we were notified of that fact by an NLRB agent last
week.
(2) We have had substantial turnover in the bar-
gaining unit since the certification.
(3) We have heard numerous complaints from the
employees concerning your failure to adequately
represent them.
(4) Your bargaining position has weakened con-
siderabls inasmuch as you previously withdrew sub-
stantially all demands placed on the bargaining ta-
ble. and
(5) Employees in the unit have ceased attending
the bargaining sessions.
Accordingly, since this question concerning repre-
sentation has arisen, we will no longer deal with you as
a representative of our employees until ou establish
your majority status. We hereby cancel the planned
meeting date of February 21. 1978.6
February' 22, 1978. Richard Ritscher submitted his com-
pleted reevaluation plan to the board of directors in a
memo which began as follows:
On January 31, 1978, Mr. Hooper wrote to the rep-
resentative of the International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers informing him that the Cooperative felt
' The decertfication petiion was dismissed by the Regional Director on
Ma 4 or 5, 1978
6
On Februar) 9, 1978. Hogan protested the withdrawal of recognition in
a letter to tlxooper and requested continuation of negotiations.
395
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the union no longer represented a majority of the
Cooperative's outside employees. Because of this opin-
ion, it was determined that the Cooperative would go
ahead with a planned reevaluation of all positions
which had been included in the bargaining unit toward
the end of establishing new wage rates within a system-
atic pay plan such as the one covering the rest of the
Cooperative's employees ....
The plan made some changes in classifications, designed
chiefly to meet, at least to some extent, a request by the
employee committee that all employees doing the same
work should receive the same pay by consolidating jobs and
narrowing the difference between the highest and lowest
rate for each job: the plan also substituted for the previous
single apprentice classification four progressive apprentice
classifications leading to journeyman lineman. In addition.
the plan placed all job classifications into graduated pay
scales which had been established in the nonunit plan
which went into effect November 1, 1976. It recommended
pay increases for all unit personnel, depending on classifica-
tion and scale, based on "the latest Labor Market informa-
tion . . within the Co-op's ability to pay," which amounted
to a 19.65-percent cost increase overall for wages alone, in
addition to the 5-percent cost of the increases offered by
Respondent to the Union. Some employees received as
much as 40-percent wage increases, the average being 24
percent. In addition, the plan recommended 2 full- and 2
half-day additional holidays and an increase in the Compa-
ny's contribution from 50 to 75 percent of hospital insur-
ance costs for each employee, benefits which nonunit em-
ployees had received previously.7
Hooper approved the plan and assigned individual em-
ployees to classifications and to appropriate pay rates
within the wage scale. The board of directors adopted the
Ritscher plan on the same day it was submitted, February
22, 1978, effective February 25, 1978.
March 15, 1978. Manager Hooper addressed a letter to
each unit employee, all of whom received pay and benefit
increases, advising him of his new classification and in-
crease in pay and other benefits and cautioning:
You must realize that any future negative rulings by
the National Labor Relations Board may force the Co-
operative to withdraw this pay increase.
4. Conclusions
I do not credit Larrabee's testimony that the infrequency
and short duration of the meetings which the record estab-
lishes were due largely to unavailability of the mediator. It
is clear that Larrabee all along resented the participation of
the mediator, whose presence Respondent's brief implies
was disruptive, and sought to justify this attitude by shifting
the blame to him in this respect. On the contrary, I credit
International Representative Hogan and Local 467 Busi-
ness Manager Keatts that it was primarily Larrabee who
was unavailable, resulting in so few meetings being held at
such long intervals, and that it was Larrabee who arrived
No change was recommended in the unit employees' pension plan, which
Respondent had improved for nonunit employees only on January , 1978.
late, interrupted meetings for reasons unconnected with the
negotiations, and called prolonged caucuses during which it
is obvious that neither offers nor counteroffers were consid-
ered or discussed. Indeed, Respondent's attorney, John
Boswell, admitted that the union representatives continu-
ally pressed for more frequent meetings. Moreover, this en-
tire record supports the likelihood that the Union represen-
tatives would have considered their best interests to lie with
speedy arrival at a mutually satisfactory collective-bargain-
ing agreement. The Board has held there to be no legal
acceptance in the explanation that a party's representative
is a busy consultant with many clients and demands on his
time, as it is a party's obligation to furnish a representative
who can be available to negotiate at reasonable times with-
out inordinate delays, as the statute requires.8 The record
herein, however, justifies the conclusion that Larrabee's un-
availability, lateness, and interruptions were part of a delib-
erate policy by Respondent of delay and discouragement
leading to no agreement at all and indicative of its refusal
to bargain with the Union in good faith, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5).
Respondent denies that it refused to submit an economic
proposal until November 21, 1977. insisting that it made a
good-faith offer on June 29, 1977. Although I have fbund
that no meeting was held on June 29, I take this to be a
reference to the oral offer which I have found Larrabee
made on July 29, 1977. 1 find, however, that this was not a
good-faith offer. In the first place, Larrabee phrased it in
terms of his "thinking" only. In addition, Manager Hooper
testified that he had his first discussion of economics with
Larrabee in mid-July, but failed to mention authorizing this
offer: and although Respondent's board of directors meets
every third Thursday, and presumably therefore met on
July 21, there is no hint that he cleared this offer at that
time. On the contrary, Hooper indicated that no proposal
was firmed up as a result of his discussions with Larrabee
until November 21. 1977, because of some alleged long-
range operating projections which he had to complete be-
fore he could construct a counterproposal. I find, therefore,
that Larrabee's July 29 offer did not have the required ap-
proval of Manager Hooper and the board of directors, al-
though if it had been accepted by the Union, they no doubt
would have jumped at the chance to approve anything so
disadvantageous to the Union and to the unit employees. I
thus find that the first authoritative economic counterpro-
posal was made by Respondent in its written offer of No-
vember 21, 1977, which had the necessary assent of the
manager and the board.
It is thus plain that despite the Union's repeated requests
for a counterproposal, Respondent's first genuine counter-
proposal was not put forward until more than 6 months
after the parties by agreement began negotiating economic
issues.
Respondent accounts for the delay by its allegedly unfa-
vorable financial condition and the need for a job reevalu-
ation plan. Indeed, Respondent's representatives took up
practically the entire time of six of the nine meetings follow-
ing May I detailing the co-op's purported financial dis-
tresses. The truth of the matter was, however, that the co-
I Inter-Polymer Industries, Inc., 196 NLRB 729. 760 (1972).
396
SOUTHSID)I ELECTRIC (OOPEiRATIVE
op's financial condition was not relevant to any counterpro-
posals it could have made. This is clearly shown by its fail-
ure to include it among Respondent's stated objections to
the Union's proposals in its written offer of November 21
and the absence of the ability-to-pay factor in Ritscher's
recommendations of pay increases for nonunit employees
which were implemented in the fall of 1976 and the fall of
1977. And although Ritscher asserted, in his subsequent
recommendation of' increases for unit employees (which
were immediately approved), that the co-op had the ability
to pay, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ritscher was
familiar with or took into consideration Respondent's fi-
nancial condition. Moreover. Respondent's plea of the
damaging financial effects of VEPCO's request for an in-
crease in the wholesale power rate was clearly false in view
of IHooper's admission that the co-op had authority auto-
matically to make adjustments in the retail rates it charged
if its wholesale rate was raised and his concession that the
co-op has not raised its retail rate despite the subsequent
VEPCO increase. In view of Ritscher's pay and benefit in-
crease recommendations, quickly adopted by Respondent.
in 1976 and 1977 for nonunit employees and in 1978 for
unit employees, based on the proposition therein, and his
testimony. that Respondent was paying considerably less
than the labor market rate. Larrabee's declaration, at the
June 11. 1977. negotiating session, that the pay of unit em-
ployees, who had not received any increases since 1975, was
already in line with that of employees of other co-ops and
that Respondent could not afford to give them any in-
creases was patently deceptive. In these circumstances Re-
spondent's charge, in its November 21, 1977. counterpro-
posal, that the Union's proposal failed to take into
consideration "the economic relationship of pay rates to the
marketplace" can only be regarded as cynical.
Similarly deceptive were Respondent's repeated asser-
tions of the necessity of delaying a counterproposal until
Larrabee could arrange consultations with NRECA offi-
cials on pension and hospital insurance benefits. Although
Larrabee told the union representatives on June I 11. 1977.
that his meeting with NRECA officials would provide him
with data to review with Manager Hooper and the board of
directors at their meeting, there is no indication that any
such data were presented at the directors' meeting of June
23 or July 21 or at any time before Respondent's November
21 proposal was approved, if then. In any event, the Union
had proposed only the same fringe benefits already ex-
tended to nonunit employees, and Respondent was aware
of those costs, based on Ritscher's prior nonunit report.
Further evidence of Respondent's bad faith was revealed in
the minutes of the staff meeting of September 29. 1977.
when Hooper strongly implied that no increases would be
given until the employees abandoned the Union: and if
they did not like it, they could quit, as Respondent would
merely replace them, followed by Supervisor Leftwich's re-
laying this information to the employees, as found below.
Finally, despite the lengthy and detailed evidence of al-
leged financial difficulties, there is no substantial evidence
of any change in Respondent's financial condition to ac-
count for either its counterproposal of November 21, 1977,
or the dramatically more substantial increases given to unit
employees after recognition was withdrawn from the
Union.
With regard to the job reevaluation plan, the record
shows that Respondent conlmissioned Ritscher to reeval-
uate the jobs of all its employees in 1975 and that it told
him to cease work on the unit jobs when the nion was
certified. As Respondent therefore merely interrupted an
ongoing program of its own device, I do not credit I.arrabee
that the only reason he undertook the program was to pla-
cate International Representative Hogan's predecessor as
chief union negotiator. who complained there were too
many job classifications. Nor do I credit I.arrabee and At-
torney Boswell that L.arrabee raised the subject of job re-
evaluations off and on throughout the entire negotiations
Boswell having admitted anyway that the subject was not
mentioned as related to wage and benefit increases. On the
contrary, I credit Hogan and Keatts, as I have above, that
the subject of job reevaluations was not raised by Larrabee
until November 21. 1977. when it appeared in Respondent's
first written counterproposal. Hooper's testimony that L.ar-
rabee reported that from May . 1977. on, he requested
permission to proceed with the plan, but that the Union
was adamantly opposed to it. is therefore not true. Indeed,
from the time the subject was raised, on November 2 I, the
Union never objected, repeatedly maintaining it was a man-
agement prerogative. This is not to say that the lnion gave
Respondent carte blanche to effect any wage or benefit in-
creases without obtaining the Union's agreement in nego-
tiations. as the Union was firm on exactly the opposite
proposition. So what really happened was that the co-op
unilaterally called a halt to its previously inaugurated job
reevaluation program, without so informing the Union, and
for 16 months after the Union's certification prevented Rit-
scher from continuing with his assignment, without saying
one word on the subject to the Union. Then, after spending
over 6 months of economic negotiations engaging in delay-
ing tactics. it suddenly resurrected the idea and told the
Union it could negotiate no further on economic issues for
a period of up to 2 years, until the plan was completed. As
was revealed in Ritscher's February 22. 1978. memo to
Manager Hooper. Respondent did not in fact give Ritscher
the go-ahead until after it withdrew recognition and refused
to bargain further with the Union altogether, and Ritscher
then completed the plan in 22 days.
I accordingly find no merit in Respondent's defense
based on the alleged financial condition of the co-op or the
need for a job reevaluation plan.
The above-detailed conduct by Respondent was wholly
inconsistent with the exchange of proposals and counter-
proposals by parties endeavoring in good faith to reach
agreement on the terms of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. as the Act visualizes. I therefore conclude that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by lim-
iting the frequency and duration of bargaining meetings
and refusing to submit a written economic proposal until
November 21, 1977. as alleged in the complaint.'
The following evidence relates to Manager Hooper's
withdrawal of recognition on January 31., 1978:
(a) Decerification petition. Hxooper testified that his only
knowledge of the petition was that he received a copy from
the Board 2 or 3 days after it was filed on January 16. 1978.
9 Inter-Polymer Indueries. Inc., supra, 761.
397
IDF9( ISIONS ()I NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
(b) urnovcr vince certification. Nine employees. includ-
ing Michael Reid, had left the unit tfr one reason or an-
other. and five new employees had been hired.
(c) Emplovee omplaints that the Ul1 ion ailed t ade-
quatel/v represent them. According to ooper, this statement
was based on his conversations with five employees who
asked him what was going to happen. "when we would sign
a contract with the union," and why the employees could
get no raises, as "[tlhey was hurting for pay raises." and
told Hooper "the union hadn't done anything or them."
(d) Weakened bargaining position of the U /nion as reflhcted
in its withdrawal of'substantialiv all demands. No justifica-
tion ftr this assertion was presented by Respondent. but the
record shows that although the Union had modified its de-
mands in the face of Respondent's intransigence, it had not
withdrawn substantially all its demands.
(e) Unit emploveev had cettsed attending hargaining ser-
sions. Manager Hooper testified that Larrabee reported that
no employees were attending the negotiating sessions, and
they appeared to have lost interest in them. The record
shows, however, that employee attendance was high during
the first 8 months the negotiating sessions were held in
Crewe, Virginia: indeed, Larrabee objected to the attend-
ance of so many employees on several occasions and tried
unsuccessfully to get the Union to limit the number permit-
ted. It was only after Respondent refused to meet in Crewe
any longer--- and also refused to meet in Lynchburg, where
the Union could provide meeting space and the meetings
were moved to Richmond that employee attendance fell off
because of the distance involved. Larrabee thereafter con-
sistently refused the Union's repeated requests to move the
meeting to Lynchburg.
It is well established that where, as here, an employer has
engaged in unlawful conduct which directly affected all unit
employees and which could have reasonably been predicted
to cause disaffection, it cannot rely on the filing of a decer-
tification petition to justify withdrawal of recognitions Nor
can it, in such circumstances, rely on turnover." Moreover,
although new employees are presumed to support the union
in the same ratio as those whom they have replaced,' the
Union would not have lost its majority status even if all five
replacements had been antiunion. Similarly, even if the five
employees who allegedly complained to Hooper about the
Union were different individuals from the five replace-
ments, the Union still would not have lost its majority. In
any event, it was Respondent's unlawful conduct, as found,
and no lack of diligence on the part of the Union, which lay
at the bottom of employee complaints and the other consid-
erations enumerated by Manager Hooper in his letter of
January 31, 1978. 1 conclude that the withdrawal of recog-
nition and refusal to bargain on and after January 31, 1978,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.'"
With regard to Respondent's unilateral increase in wages,
holidays, and contributions to employee insurance cover-
age, it never submitted these increases to the Union as pro-
'Autoprod Inc., 223 NLRB 773, fn. 2 (1976).
"James W Whitfield db/a Cutten Supermarket, 220 NLRB 507, 508
(1975).
' Id at 509.
' See Cornell of California, Inc.. 222 NLRB 303 (1976).
posals, and the Union never acquiesced in any of these uni-
lateral changes. On the contrary, the benefits unilaterally
given far exceeded any proposals offered to the Union.
Moreover, Respondent accompanied its largesse with, as I
find below, a threat to rescind the increases granted if the
unfair labor practice charges against it were proved.
The Supreme Court held in N.L. R.B. v. Benne Katz, etc.,
d/h/a Williamshurg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736,
(1962). that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) if it makes
unilateral changes in wages, hours, or working conditions
without first bargaining to an impasse with a majority rep-
resentative of its employees, regardless of its motive in mak-
ing such changes. There is no contention, and no evidence,
that the parties here had reached an impasse. But the evi-
dence is overwhelming that Respondent's motive was to
undermine the Union and win the employees' allegiance by
a dramatic demonstration that it was to their benefit to
place their reliance not in the Union or the Board but in
Respondent alone. I conclude that the unilateral increases
in wages benefits, effective February 25, 1978. were viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act.
Summarizing, in making the findings herein of unlawful
conduct, I have taken into consideration the background
and context in which the conduct occurred. Manager
Hooper announced before the election his intention of de-
priving employees of some of the benefits they enjoyed in
retaliation against the advent of the Union and his inten-
tion of conditioning further employment, if' the Union was
elected, on a union representative's signing a contract
agreeing in effect not to strike and not to permit the mini-
mum demand of continuation of present benefits, intentions
which were not carried out only because of advice of coun-
sel. After the election, Respondent unilaterally and secretly
discontinued its job reevaluation program for unit employ-
ees and 16 months later used the purported need for such a
program to justify its refusal to engage in further discus-
sions of' economic issues. It failed to make any preparations
for economic counterproposals during the 9 months after
the Union's certification, during which period it gave two
increases to nonunit employees, each of which exceeded the
single counterproposal it eventually offered the Union. It
spent meeting after meeting discussing allegedly poor finan-
cial conditions which it knew had no bearing on its negotia-
tions with the Union. Soon after the certification year ex-
pired, Respondent's manager clearly implied to his staff
that the unit employees would receive no wage increases
until they abandoned the Union and urged the staff to fa-
cilitate the decertification petition. As found below, it inter-
fered with its employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act
and discriminatorily discharged the leading employee union
adherent. In these and all other circumstances described
herein, I conclude that Respondent on and after May 1,
1977, failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union as the certified representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit by failing and refusing to submit a valid
economic proposal until November 21, 1977: limiting the
frequency and duration of collective-bargaining meetings;
withdrawing recognition from the Union on and after Janu-
ary 31, 1978, and thereafter refusing to meet and bargain;
and on February 25. 1978, unilaterally increasing wages,
holidays, and Respondent's contribution to employee insur-
398
SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ance coverage. all for the purpose of undermining employee
support of the linion and avoiding reaching agreement, in
violation of Section 8(a) 5) of the Act. '
B. Inlerfi'rence
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that an
admitted supervisor, S. D. Leftwich. in October 1977 told
employees they would not receive a wage increase until
they got rid of the Union and in November distributed let-
ters which encouraged employees to get rid of the Union
and implied employees would not get a raise until they
abandoned the Union; that another admitted supervisor.
C. S. Hooper Ill, in November 1977 encouraged employees
to read the same letters: and that C. S. Hooper. Jr.. in
March 1978 distributed a letter which threatened employ-
ees with loss of a pay increase if the Board found merit in
the charges filed in these cases.
As found above. Manager Hooper told Supervisor left-
wich at the September 29. 1977. staff meeting in effect that
Respondent could not give the employees a raise without
going through the Union: that if it did that, the men would
be getting what they wanted: and that the staff should en-
courage the men to support the decertification petition.
Employees Woodrow Mason. James Scruggs, Travis
Johnson, Bobby Wayne Ashwell. and Michael Reid testi-
fied that in mid-October Leftwich told a group of employ-
ees they would not get a pay raise as long as they had the
Union. or until the, got rid of the Union.'"
On October 24. 1977, Franklin Pond. a unit employee
employed at Crewe. typed. made copies of. and distributed
an unsigned open letter to employees stating in part:
What is preventing us as a group, from receiving a
pay raise?
By this time it should be obvious to all that it is
management's resentment of unionization that's to
blame....
Management is not going to give even one inch on
this issue. They are only obligated to bargain in good
faith, and in good faith they will bargain until dooms-
day.... But no one is going to get a raise until the
union is disposed of to management's liking ...
Alta Vista employees Robert Blankenship. ('lifford Lee.
and James Wolfe testified that in early November Supervi-
sor Leftwich handed them copies of this letter, saying that
he had left additional copies on a table for employees to
pick up. Blankenship testified he had no knowledge of
Pond's connection with the letter, and Lee was not ac-
quainted with Pond. Employees Ashwell and Johnson testi-
4 Based on the corroborative undisputed estimony oi Manager Hooper
and Chief Negotiator Larrabee. find. Im agreement with Respondent. that
Larrabee was given full authonty to agree to economic issues, subject only to
clearance with Hooper and Respondent's hoard of directors. I conclude that
the record fails to support the allegation that Respondent failed to designate
a representative with authority to agree to economic issues In iew of the
Union's consistent position. on and after November 21. 1977, when the Re-
spondent first raised the matter of reevaluating the employees. that it had no
objection and considered the matter to he a management prerogative. no
finding can be based on Respondent's unilateral reevaluation of unit jobh I
therefore conclude that these allegations should he dismissed.
l I credit this mutually corroboratise testimony .eftst ich admitted telling
employees something to this effect
fled that when they saw copies of the letter on the table in
the linemen's room. Supervisor Hooper told them that Left-
wich had brought them to Alta Vista from Crewe. Alta
Vista employee Mason testified Supervisor looper told him
that "there were some papers on the desk there that would
he interesting to me. e said, 'I think it would be worth-
while for you to look at them.' ' Mason also had no knowl-
edge that Pond had drafted the letter.'" I find no merit in
Respondent's contention that the conduct of Leftwtch and
Hooper should be discounted because it was ,e nnimis,
and they were low-level supervisors. Although the' were
first-level supervisors, and employees on occasion kidded
Hooper about signing a union card. Hooper is the son of
the co-op manager, and eftwich was following through on
the manager's policy statement made at a staff meeting.
The employees could therefore reasonably assume that the
supervisors were reflecting company policy, as indeed they
were. Nor in the circumstances do I consider Supervisor
Hooper's statement to two employees that he had nothing
to do with the letter or that he wanted to remain neutral in
the union matter to constitute adequate disavowal by him
or by Respondent of his conduct. Moreover. it does not
signify that employee Pond made no secret that he was
antiunion and the author of the letter or that he isited the
Alta Vista premises a month or so later. in l)ecember 1977.
to gage employee sentiment for abandoning the I nion. By
that time the two supervisors had already impressed the
employees with the necessity of getting rid of the I nion in
order to get a pay raise.
Accordingly, I find that in mid-Octoher 1977 Supervisor
I.eltwich told employees the! would not receive a wage in-
crease until they got rid of the nion. I also find that in
early November 1977 Supervisors I.eftwich and tHooper
adopted and sponsored statements to the same etfhct in
Pond's letter. I conclude that Respondent thereby inter-
fered with its emplo'ees' Section 7 rights in violation of
Section 8(a)( I and made clear to the emplo, ecs its deternii-
nation not to hbargain n good faith with the Ulnion. i vio-
lation of Section X(a)(5). as alleged in the complaint.l '
As stated above. Manalger looper included in his letters
of March 15. 1978. infornling all unit employees of the pay
and benefit increases unilaterally granted a paragraph to
the effect that ''an' future negative rulings by the National
Labor Relations Board lmay force the Cooperative to with-
draw this pay increase." As no explanation for this asser-
tion has been offered by Respondent, and as the Board has
never been known to penalize employees for unfair labor
practices committed by their employer. it can only be as-
sumed this remark was intended as a threat to rescind the
increases granted if Respondent was found to have violated
the Act and thereby to intimidate employees and dissipate
support for the Union. I conclude that the statement was a
violation of Section 8(a)( I) and (5).'"
" I credit this mutually crroborative testimony by the General ( ounsel's
witnesses and discredit L.eftwlch's denial that he ever saw this letter. Super-
visor Hooper did not estit'
I have read with interest 1. R B s Re,nolds Intrnaiionai Pen (nm-
panm. 162 F.2d 680 (7th ('ir 19471); Neada Tan, and (asing. 144 NL.RB 123
(1963)1: and The Brden (companv,. 142 NlRB 364 11963). to, which the Re-
spondent has directed ma attention. hut find that those cases are distinguish-
ahle on their facts.
' See ega Indusrie.s, Inc-. 207 Nl RB 14 (1973)
399
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. ermination of Michael Reid
The complaint alleges that Reid was terminated on Octo-
her 25,. 1977, because of his leadership of employee union
activities and to undermine support for the Union. Respon-
dent contends he was terminated because he refused a pro-
motion and was insubordinate to Manager Hooper.'"
Respondent hired Reid on October 27, 1970, as an ap-
prentice lineman. It promoted him and granted him wage
increases on a regular basis until September 15. 1976, when
he was made a serviceman-working foreman at Alta Vista.
Reid made the initial contact with the Union and passed
out authorization cards among the Alta Vista employees.
At the eligibility hearing held on the petition in the RC
case, Reid told Manager Hooper he had started the Union
campaign and would see it through. At about the same
time, at a meeting the hoard of directors held with the em-
ployees "to find out how the employees were thinking"
about the Union, Reid announced that he knew he would
be fired for it, but he was the one who started the Union.
Reid served as the union observer in the Board election.
Alter the certification he was a member of the union nego-
tiating team and attended all sessions held in Crewe. After
the sessions were transferred to Richmond, he attended
only one. as it was too far for him to travel.
At a stafll meeting held on August 27. 1976, Manager
Itooper made the statement that Reid and several other
named employees were not to he entrusted with collecting
proxies for a forthcoming annual meeting when some of the
members planned to try to oust the management and direc-
tors, because Reid "had not been representing manage-
ment" in that he had made comments that employees were
not treated fairly and admitted he started the Union. At
another staff meeting held over a year later, on September
29, 1977. referred to above. Hooper expressed regret that
few if any Alta Vista employees had attended the annual
meeting that year, and "he feels that the attitude of the men
up there will remain the same as long as Mr. Reid has the
control that he now has."
In October 1977 Reid had been a serviceman-working
foreman for about I year, with the lowest pay rate, while
others had been in that classification 20 to 25 years. On
October 11, 1977, Reid reported to Manager Hooper's of-
fice in Crewe as instructed by Supervisor Leftwich. When
he arrived, Hooper informed him the superintendent of
construction at the eastern division, Crewe, was retiring;
Frank Cassada was being moved up to that position: and
promotion to Cassada's job of assistant supervisor of the
eastern division was being offered to Reid. Hooper ex-
plained some aspects of the job, one of which was that Reid
would have to move to Crewe. Reid asked if he had a
choice in the matter, and Hooper said he did, and although
Hooper felt he should accept the position, he would not be
fired if he did not accept it. Reid responded that he did not
want the job, as he had no wish to move his family. Hooper
1' Where accounts differ, I credit Reid over Manager Hooper and Assist-
ant Manager Southworth, as his demeanor was that of more trustworthy
witness I have heretofore credited employees over Manager Hooper. His
and Southworth's accounts of these events were inconsistent and contradic-
tory.
said if he turned the job down, it might never be offered
him again. Reid remarked it was just as well, as he was
satisfied with the job he had and was not overly ambitious
and did not want to be a supervisor. Reid added that he felt
the men would lose respect fbr him if' he left them without
any union leadership to better himself. Hooper advised
Reid not to decide that day, but to discuss it with his wife
and let him know the following Monday. October 17. Reid
thanked Hooper for the offer and promised to think it over,
but said he did not think he would change his mind. There-
after, on Thursday, October 13, Reid asked General Super-
intendent Ferrell to tell Hooper he had thought it over and
discussed it with his wife, and they had decided it was best
for him to stay where he was, and he did not want the job.
The following Monday, October 17, Reid stayed home
sick. Manager Hooper telephoned him there during the day
and said he had caught hell for offering Reid the supervi-
sor's job without considering anyone else, and he had de-
cided to train three men for 60 to 90 days for the job and
then choose a supervisor from the three. Reid said he could
see no point in taking the training, as he would not accept
the job, but Hooper told him the decision stood.
Reid thereafter consulted an agent of the Board, telling
him Reid felt he was being promoted to get him out of the
bargaining unit and to bust the Union. of which Reid was
the leader among the employees, and asking whether he
could refuse the promotion without being fired. The agent
advised that the (Company could force him to take the
training, and he should notify' them he would not refuse to
do so and keep notes on what happened. and if he was fired
he probably would have a case.
Reid thereupon addressed a letter to Manager Hooper,
dated October 17. 1977. in which he declared that he would
take the training under protest, as he had no intention of
accepting a promotion to assistant supervisor. Reminding
Hooper of his promise not to fire Reid for refusing the pro-
motion, Reid wrote he thought it was offered for the wrong
reasons; that "I can't agree with the way management oper-
ates and I want no part of it, regardless of the money"; and
that it would be a waste of the cooperative's time and
money to force him to take the training.
Hooper's reply was dated October 19. 1977. Asserting
management's right to make employee job assignments.
Hooper wrote, in part:
Accordingly, if you are unwilling to accept the assign-
ment which was addressed with you it will be neces-
sary for us to accept your resignation. While I realize
that I did tell you that you would not be forced to
accept the position, I feel that it is totally appropriate
for me to require you to take the training program. I
must also add that I find your comments about man-
agement offensive and detrimental to the interests of
the Cooperative. Because of your feeling about the Co-
operative and your attitude toward taking this train-
ing, the best interests of the Cooperative and all con-
cerned would be best served by your resignation.
If you remember we have previously accepted resigna-
tions from employees who has refused assignments to
take training programs, therefore, this action is not in-
consistent with any previous management decisions.
400
SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC ('(X)PLRATIVE
Reid's second letter to Hooper was dated October 20.
1977, and stated. in part, as follows:
First. let me say that I have not refused to take the
training program you suggested. and I fully intend to
complete the training. I just do not want a promotion
out of the bargaining unit. I am ready to start the
training as scheduled on October 31st.
I feel that the only reason I was offered this job was
to set me up to be fired at a later date, and to break up
the union, since I was mainly responsible for organiz-
ing the union and am on the negotiating committee. I
cannot understand why you would even want me on
your management staff.
I have always enjoyed the work that I have done
here, and have never worked with a finer group of
men. I like my job so much that I don't want to give it
up for a supervisory job. I'm sure you will agree that I
have always done a good job.
As far as me having a had attitude toward the Coop-
erative, if you will check the area around Brookneal,
Appomattox, Gladys and the other areas I work. I am
sure you will find I get along with the consumers quite
well.
I had always thought you were a man of your word
and when you said I didn't have to accept the promo-
tion and wouldn't be fired, I took you to mean it.
Finally, let me say, I am not going to resign: now or
ever.
Hooper wrote as follows in his final letter to Reid. of
October 24, 1977:
After analyzing your letter of October 17 again and
since you refuse to accept the assignment and use the
training afforded you to help the Cooperative I have
no other alternative but to accept your resignation.
Since you have so emphatically stated that you will not
resign. I am terminating your employment as of Octo-
ber 25 with pay through November 3 which is two
weeks notice from the date of may letter of October 19.
I am having this letter delivered to you by Mr.
Southworth and Mr. Ferrell a I see no reason to pro-
long this any longer as we have to make other arrange-
ments by your not accepting your responsibility.
Hooper testified that he urged Reid to take the promo-
tion at the initial interview and during the subsequent tele-
phone conversation, even though Reid had been tight,
trembling, and shaking. "just like a blownup bull frog," at
the interview and had told him to his face Reid did not like
Hooper personally; that even after receiving Reid's first let-
ter saying he did not want any part of management and did
not agree with management, no final decision had been
made; and that when Hooper wrote his first letter to Reid,
Hooper was expecting Reid to accept the assignment, and
Reid still could have accepted the job and could have
avoided being fired by doing so. Hooper also testified that
he had in mind all along training three to five people for the
supervisor position, but that Reid was so upset at the inter-
view that Hooper did not tell him about that until the tele-
phone conversation.
The day Hooper sent his first letter to Reid, he sum-
moned another Alta Vista employee, named Eades, as one
of the others to be trained. telling ades the training swas
for the job of assistant supervisor in either Crewe or Alta
Vista, Hooper testified. Hooper continued that Fades ex-
pressed willingness to accept any training or any position
offered, so Hlooper abandoned the idea of training any
other employees and selected Eades as the man for the
training course and the job even though lhooper had been
told ades had accompanied Reid when he made the initial
contact with the Union. ades was eventually assigned as
assistant supervisor at Alta Vista, and Hooper's son was
transferred to the assistant supervisor position at ('rewe,
where his home was. looper declared that although he
never told Reid about it. he intended all along the place
Reid in Alta Vista, and not in Crewe as he told Reid, i he
had proven satisfactory in the job.
When asked pointblank the reasons tor Reid's ternlina-
tion, Hooper responded,
Well, in the first letter, that paragraph where he said he
didn't want any part of management, didn't agree with
management, and such as that, and that he would not
accept the assignment, and if trained. he would not
accept the assignment. He didn't want that. And I de-
cided I would ask him for his resignation on insubordi-
nation and refusing to accept the assignment . . and
my interpretation of the [letter] is that he told me
where to go and he didn't want any part of manage-
ment and the Co-op and that's what I consider to be
insubordination, plus his conversation.
Hooper claimed he had previously fired an apprentice
named Elwood Dalton for refusing to take tramiing and an
employee named West for heckling the instructor in a train-
ing class.
Assistant Manager R. V. Southworth. whom Hooper
claimed to have consulted along with other staff members
about Reid, testified it was company policy to discharge
any' employee who refused a position, although the policy
had not been previously invoked during the 7 years he had
been assistant manager, as there had been no occasion to
invoke it. When asked about West and Dalton, Southworth
said West had been discharged. without giving a reason, but
he could not identify Dalton. When asked about Howard
Scruggs, a 30-year employee who Reid testified had turned
down several offers of a supervisory position without being
disciplined, Southworth agreed that Scruggs had been
asked if he was interested in a promotion and had replied
he was not, as he did not want the responsibility. South-
worth distinguished Scruggs' situation from Reid's on the
ground that Scruggs was not asked to take any training.
Conceding that Reid had not refused to take training,
Southworth pointed out that Reid said he would take the
training only under protest. Southworth then indicated that
the Scruggs offer may only have been proposed by a super-
intendent and that Hooper may have overruled the sugges-
tion before the offer was made. Southworth testified Reid's
demeanor was insubordinate in his intitial interview with
Hooper and that he was insubordinate in making the
charge in his October 20 letter that he was offered the pro-
motion to break up the Union and in commenting in one of
his letters that he was selected because of his union activi-
ties.
401
DI)('ISIONS OF: NATIONAI. LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
Although the co-op claimed before the Virginia Employ-
ment Commission that Reid was discharged for insubordi-
nation in refusing to take advancement. Reid was not dis-
qualified for unemployment compensation. He credibly
testified that the commission's ruling on the co-op's objec-
tion was the first time he heard of insubordination as the
reason for his termination.
Respondent contends that in view of its knowledge of
Reid's union leadership. it could have discharged him fo)r
that reason, had it wished to do so, during the summer of
1977, when it suspected him of being the leader of an em-
ployee movement to refuse to answer emergency calls, and
points out that it did not discharge him then, but on the
contrary promoted him in September 1976. Respondent
also relies on Hooper's testimony that when Reid refused
the position. he assigned Eades to the assistant supervisory
job knowing of his union activity. It insists Reid was se-
lected for promotion on the basis of merit, that it was obvi-
ous to management that his acceptance of' the training
while refusing the promotion was a ruse, and that he was
fired for this conduct and for making insubordinate re-
marks. I find no merit in these contentions.
Initially, Reid was an unlikely choice for supervisor in
view of his junior status on the serviceman-working tbre-
man seniority roster and pay scale, Hooper's refusal to en-
trust the collection of proxies to him because of his champi-
onship of employee complaints and initiation of the union
campaign. and Hooper's criticism of his control over the
Alta Vista employees. Reid was nevertheless selected, and
Hooper's conduct toward him thereafter continued to lack
rationality.
Thus, Hooper insisted that if Reid had accepted the pro-
motion, he intended all along to station Reid in Alta Vista,
near his home, so he would not have to move his family,
but Hooper led Reid to believe that promotion would entail
a move to Crewe even after Reid expressed his disinclina-
tion to move. I find this inconsistent with any real desire or
intent to have Reid accept the position. Similarly inconsis-
tent with any such intent was Hooper's assuring Reid he
would not be fired if he refused the promotion, thereby
lulling Reid into believing he could decline with impunity,
and then demanding his resignation for declining.
Hooper also claimed that he planned from the first to
make the same offer to several other employees, in addition
to Reid, and send them all through a training course and
then choose a supervisor from the group based on perform-
ance and training. And yet, here again, he led Reid to be-
lieve, in the interview, that he was the final and only choice
and took no steps toward selecting anyone else until several
days later, after Reid had three times refused the supervi-
sory position despite Hooper's pressuring him to accept it.
As this is so improbable, and as no group training was ever
actually carried out, I do not believe there ever was such a
plan. It appears more probably an afterthought to justify
the unlikely choice of Reid for supervisory status.
In addition, Hooper's explanation of his motives for the
termination were wholly inconsistent and confused. He
claimed that despite what he considered to be Reid's insub-
ordination at the interview and in his October 17 letter, and
despite Hooper's request for Reid's resignation in his own
October 19 letter in which he referred to Reid's allegedly
offensive comments, Hooper still at that time expected Reid
to accept the promotion, and Reid could have even then
avoided termination bh doing so. And yet Hooper in giving
his reasons for terminating Reid 5 days later went back to
the remarks made by Reid in their conversation, criticizing
Reid's demeanor at the interview: remarks made in Reid's
October 17 letter: and Reid's refusal to accept the assign-
ment. In Hooper's letter of October 19, he implied that
Reid had refused to take the training offered him, even
though Reid had never refused to take it. and then in Hoop-
er's final letter of termination, he based his action on Reid's
"refusal to accept the assignment and use the training af-
forded," thereby impliedly acknowledging that Reid did
not refuse the training. No reference was made to Reid's
alleged insubordination. offensive comments, or demeanor
in Hooper's termination letter. Southworth's description of
Reid's alleged insubordination was, of course, inconsistent
with Hooper's. In any event, insubordination was never
mentioned to Reid, who first heard of this charge through
the unemployment compensation commission.
In addition. Hooper's and Southworth's attempts to es-
tablish a prior practice and like treatment of other employ-
ees in Reid's situation failed. Thus, the alleged discharge of
West, for heckling an instructor, does not appear to be ap-
posite, and the discharge of Dalton, for refusing training,
was quite different, as he was an apprentice. In any event, I
do not understand Respondent's contention to be that Reid
was discharged for refusing to be trained, and he clearly did
not refuse. It is equally clear that employee Scruggs' situ-
ation was similar to Reid's and that he was treated differ-
ently by not being disciplined when he refused to accept a
promotion to supervisor.
I therefore find that Reid was not terminated fr the rea-
sons advanced by Respondent. Why, then, was he termi-
nated?
The record is replete with evidence of Respondent's hos-
tility toward the unionization of its employees, its resent-
ment of its obligation to bargain, and, as I have found. its
fixed determination not to consummate a collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Also, Respondent admits being well
aware of Reid's outstanding position as the union leader
among the employees. By contrast, even if Hooper knew
that Eades had accompanied Reid when he made the first
contact with the Union, which I doubt. there is no indica-
tion that Eades took an active part in the union activity
after that: he certainly was not a member of the employee
negotiating team, as Reid was. Nor is Respondent's previ-
ous failure to treat Reid unfairly and in his compelling sig-
nificance, as it was not until the fall of 1977 that union-
management relations began to approach a crisis, brought
on by the Respondent's continued delaying tactics and pro-
longed bad-faith refusal to make a counterproposal and the
attempts by supervisors, at the prompting of' Manager
Hooper. to coerce the employees into abandoning the
Union. The discharge of the union leader undoubtedly was
timed to coincide with Respondent's other actions in dero-
gation of the Union.
In view therefore of Reid's leadership in the union ac-
tivity and negotiations, the disparate treatment afforded
him, Respondent's antiunion animus, the timing of the ter-
mination for maximum impact on employees' support for
the Union, and the falseness of the reasons given by Re-
402
SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC (X)PERAFIVEt
spondent, I find that the reasons were a pretext to conceal
Respondent's true motive in terminating Reid. which was
to discourage union activity among the employees and un-
dermine their support of the Union. I conclude that Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)( 1. (3). and (5) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint.
IV. RM:Ii)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1). (3). and (5) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and. in view of the nature and extent of the violations.
from any interference with the rights of its employees guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act20 and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
(3), and (5) by terminating Michael Reid. I shall recom-
mend that it offer him immediate, full, and unconditional
reinstatement to his former job or, if his job no longer ex-
ists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered on and after October 25.
1977, in the manner described in F W Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest.2'
Having found that Respondent engaged in bad-faith bar-
gaining on and after May I, 1977. by limiting the frequency
and duration of negotiating meetings. refusing for 7 months
to submit an economic proposal, withdrawing recognition.
and unilaterally granting increases in wages and benefits. I
shall recommend that it recognize the Union and upon re-
quest bargain in good faith and execute a written contract
incorporating any agreement reached. As requested by the
General Counsel, I recommend that the initial certification
year be extended for an additional year, from the com-
mencement of bargaining pursuant to this recommended
Order.22
In addition, in my view the recommendations detailed
above are really inadequate remedies for violations of the
law as flagrant as those committed by Respondent and tend
to unjustly reward Respondent for its unlawful delaying
tactics at the unit employees' expense. Unlike other cases.2
here there is evidence specifically showing the extent of Re-
spondent's gain and the employees' loss as a result of Re-
spondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union.
Thus, the evidence shows that Respondent effected pay in-
creases of 6,72 percent, a total of three additional holidays,
and an increase in Respondent's contribution to employees'
hospitalization benefits from 50 to 75 percent on November
1, 1976, for nonunit employees and that it effected addi-
tional pay increases of 7 percent on November 1, 1977, for
nonunit employees. Without doubt, Respondent, had it not
determined against bargaining in good faith with the
"2N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co. 120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir 1941\.
2' See Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumbing
d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
22 Glomac Plastics, Inc., 234 NLRB 1309 (1978).
2 Winn-Di.xie Stores. Inc., 224 NLRB 1418 (1976), enfd. as modified 567
F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1978); Tiidee Products. Inc.. 194 NLRB 1234 (1972).
enfd. as modified 502 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Union. would have had its job reevaluation program and
pay scale in place by May 1. 1977. when economic issues
sere scheduled for negotiations, and would have offered
the Union at least as much as it had previously granted
nonunit employees and raised its offer to match the increase
granted nonunit employees on November 1,. 1977. 1 shall
theretiore recommend that in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act and insure good-faith bargaining in the uture,
Respondent make all unit employees whole for the losses
they suffered by reason of Respondent's refusal to bargain
in good faith with their certified representative. hb paOling
each of them an amount of money representing pa min-
crease of 6.72 percent, giving them three additional holi-
days a ear, and increasing Respondent's contribution to
their hospitalization insurance from 50 to 75 percent. from
Ma I,. 1977. until February 25, 1978: plus an amount rep-
resenting an additional pas increase of 7 percent rom No-
vember 1, 1977. until February 25, 1978: plus interest. 4
Comparable amounts shall be added to the backpay paid to
Michael Reid. Nothing in my recommended remedy shall
be taken as justification foir reducing the wages or benefits
presently enjoyed by any of Respondent's employees or as
requiring Respondent to make any concession or agree to
any proposal, in compliance with the bargaining order rec-
ommended herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section I(c) of
the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2'
The Respondent, Southside Electric C(ooperative. Inc.. of
Alta Vista and Crewe, Virginia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467. or any other
labor organizatlon, by discharging or otherwise discriminat-
ing against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any other term or condition of employment.
(b) Telling employees they will not receive a wage in-
crease until the) abandon the Union.
(c) Threatening to withdraw benefits enjoyed by employ-
ees if the Board finds that Respondent has violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(d) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain collec-
tively in good faith with International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers Local Union 467 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the appropriate unit described
below, by limiting the frequency and duration of bargaining
meetings, unreasonably delaying the making of counterpro-
posals, withdrawing recognition from the Union, unilater-
ally increasing wages and benefits, threatening employees.
or discharging union leaders:
,4 See Florida Steel Corporation, uprau, and Isis Plumbing & Heatung (om
pan, supra.
25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec 124 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Latxr Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided n Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. b) adopted h the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
403
)l.( ISIO()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI)
All construction and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Respondent's Alta Vista, Va. and Crewe,
Va. fcilities including servicemen-working foremen.
first class linemen, second class linemen, apprentice
linemen, groundmen, warehouse clerks, auto me-
chanic, auto mechanic helper. annex janitors, electrical
technician, radio-meter technician, truck driver, work
order construction clerk, night dispatchers, and right of
way inspector; hut excluding all part-time day dis-
patchers, office clerical employees, engineers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of' the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the bllowing affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Michael Reid full, immediate, and uncondi-
tional reinstatement, and make him whole with interest, in
the manner described in the remedy section of this Deci-
sion.
(hb) Make whole the employees in the unit fobund appro-
priate herein fr the monetary losses they suffered as a re-
sult of Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith with
the Union as required by the remedy section of' this Deci-
sion.
(c) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively in
good faith with the above-named labor organization, as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the above-de-
scribed appropriate unit, concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
(d) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all time-
cards; payroll, social security, and personnel records and
reports: and all other records necessary to determine the
amount of backpay due under this order.
(e) Post at its places of business in Alta Vista and Crewe,
Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."26 Copies of the notice, on fo, ins provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, shall be signed by an autho-
rized representative of Respondent, posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
26 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
within 20 days from the date of' this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Ir IS FIt RIER (}RI)RI) that all allegations not specifi-
cally found herein are dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOI( l ITo EMPIo YI tIS
PosItii) BY ORDE)R O()F 11
NAII()NAI l.ABOR RIL.AII()NS BOARDI)
An Agency of' the United States Government
WtI Will N discourage membership in Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union
467. or any other labor organization, by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against employees in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or
condition of employment.
Wi Wn.l. Not tell employees they will not receive a
wage increase until they' abandon the above-named
Union.
Wt wiL. Nt threaten to withdraw benefits enjoyed
by employees if the National l.abor Relations Board
finds that we have violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
Wt Wil.. NOI fail or refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively in good faith with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers Local Union 467, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the appropriate unit, by limiting the fre-
quency and duration of bargaining meetings, unrea-
sonably delaying the making of counterproposals,
withdrawing recognition from the Union, unilaterally
increasing wages and benefits, threatening employees,
or discharging union leaders.
WL wNi. NO] in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of' the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE wi.L. offer Michael Reid full, immediate, and
unconditional reinstatement and make him whole,
with interest.
W winL.t. make whole the employees in the appro-
priate unit for the monetary losses they suffered as a
result of our refusal to bargain in good faith with the
above-named Union.
WE WiLt recognize and, upon request, bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the above-named labor or-
ganization, as the exclusive representative of our em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
SOUITHSIDE ELE(CTRIC COOPERATIVE. IN(C.
404