Square D Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago and Pittsburgh . For example, almost 25go of the ALA's total membership
is located in New York City alone.
Furthermore, the ALA is no longer a member of the AFL-CIO. It withdrew from
that body in 1958 rather than live up to the AFL-CIO constitution and no-raid pact.
As a result, the ALA cannot look to the AFL-CIO for support or assistance. In
fact, it is in direct conflict with the AFL-CIO unions whose jurisdiction the ALA is
attempting to raid when, as in this case, it strays outside the field of commercial
printing.
The ALA severed its connection with the AFL-CIO principally in order to con-
tinue an attempted raid on another unit at Sutherland Paper Company, a large fold-
ing carton manufacturer in Kalamazoo , Michigan.
As an employee in the folding carton industry , you should know that the ALA
did not attempt to justify either its raid at Sutherland or its disaffiliation with the
AFL-CIO on any alleged interest in the employees of Sutherland as such. To the
contrary, ALA officials publicly stated they were really out to protect the interests
of their members in "established lithographic companies " by attempting to force fold-
ing box companies to meet conditions existing in the lithographic printing industry.
In other words , what the ALA s seeking here is to further the interests of its mem-
bers in the non-comparable commercial printing industry which would be uneconomic
and non-competitive in our industry.
In either case, you would be caught in the middle of a pressure move by the ALA
for the benefit of its members in a different industry.
If LBP were forced out of offset, your jobs would be eliminated . Similarly, if the
ALA attempted to impose uneconomic and non -competitive conditions such as a
35 hour work week and commercial scale of wages on our offset operations , we would
have no choice but to resist . In turn , the ALA would have no choice but to either
agree or force you out on strike.
Furthermore , we believe the ALA is not only trying to use you to achieve objec-
tives that have nothing to do with you as an employee of Lord Baltimore Press, as
such , but is also seeking to represent you in an inappropriate bargaining unit.
We feel very strongly that the National Labor Relations Board made a serious legal
mistake in ordering an election for a separate bargaining unit for offset employees.
We believe the Board 's ruling is contrary to the law, and think you ought to know
that we have every intention of contesting them by proper legal means , if necessary.
The traditional method for testing such findings is to refuse to honor a Board cer-
tification that might result if the ALA wins an election in an appropriate unit.
When the NLRB seeks to enforce a refusal to bargain claim , such cases are referred
to a U.S. Court of Appeals which then reviews the validity and legality of the
Board 's unit findings . This is a time consuming process which might take several
years from the date of the election.
For this reason alone, we hope it will not be necessary to invoke this traditional
method of protecting the legal interests involved . But we are convinced the Board
erred in this case , and we do not intend to recognize and bargain with the ALA in
an inappropriate unit.
The best way to not only prevent this situation from occurring, but also prevent
the ALA from attempting to use you for its own selfish interests is to vote "NO"
when you cast your secret ballot on November 2.
Sincerely yours,
(S) H. W. Hicks,
HUGH W. HICKS,
Vice President & General Manager.
Square D Company and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers , AFL-CIO , Local 1503, IUE, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 21-CA-4.374. April 29, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 13, 1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
142 NLRB No. 43.
SQUARE D COMPANY 333
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report 'and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's decision.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case ,3 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Fanning].
2 ,Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint as moot because of the negotiation of a
new collective-bargaining agreement which eliminated the group incentive plan is hereby
denied as lacking in merit. See N.L.R.B . v. .American National Insurance Go., 343 U.S.
395, 399.
8 Section 2 ( c) of the Recommended Order is modified to read : "Notify the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended by (1) adding the
following as the final paragraph below the signature line thereon:
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014, Telephone No. Richmond 9-4711, Exten-
sion 1031 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provsions.
and (2 ) deleting the phrase "60 days from the date hereof ," in the penultimate paragraph
and inserting "60 consecutive days from the date of posting."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett at Los Angeles,
California, on June 26, 1961. The complaint alleges that Respondent, Square D
Company, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the Act. Oral argument was waived and briefs have been submitted by
the General Counsel and by Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Square D Company is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of electrical equip-
ment at plants located in various States of the United States, including two plants
located at Los Angeles, California, which are involved in this proceeding. During the
12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent sold and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Los Angeles plants to points
outside the State of California. During the same period, these plants received mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from points outside the State
of California. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce and that it
would effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership the employees
of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, was certified in May 1954 as the
representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees in the Los
Angeles plants in a unit described below. Contracts have been regularly entered into
and the instant contract, signed October 17, 1960, remains in effect until October 17,
1961, with automatic renewal for an additional year, absent appropriate advance
notice to the contrary.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent has refused to bargain in good
faith since on or about March 16, 1961, by (1) refusing to discuss and negotiate about
grievances arising out of the operation of Respondent's group incentive plan, and (2)
refusing to furnish the Union with data relating to the operation of said plan. Re-
spondent's position is that the group incentive plan is intentionally not referred to in
the contract between the parties and that the Union has therefore waived any right
to bargain or receive information with respect thereto; that the contract contains
language reserving to management the right to unilaterally administer any matters
not expressly set forth in the contract; that Respondent in any event has supplied in-
formation to the Union sufficiently adequate to permit it to bargain; and, finally, that
the contract has a grievance procedure, the terminal point of which is arbitration,
and that Respondent is willing to arbitrate whether a grievance relating to the incen-
tive system is actually arbitrable.
B. Majority representation in the appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that all production
and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Los Angeles, California, plants,
including janitors, warehousemen, and shipping and stockroom employees, but
excluding office and clerical employees, truckdrivers, guards and watchmen, drafts-
men, engineers, experimental employees, foremen, working foremen, working super-
visors, supervisors, and executive and administrative employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I
find that since May 1954 the Union has been and now is the representative of the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
C. Bargaining history
The present dispute arises from the operation of a group incentive plan by
Respondent. Employees are divided into groups or departments and each group
or department is rewarded by extra pay calculated upon a scale devised and main-
tained solely by Respondent. This extra pay is predicated upon group or depart-
ment output which is over and above the amount specified as a normal fair day's
work.
For several years, in bargaining for contracts, the Union has asked that the
existing incentive system be incorporated into the contract and Respondent has
consistently refused. During the negotiations for the 1960 contract, four to six
meetings were held during the 6-week period prior to October 17, 1960; this topic
was again raised by the Union and it was discussed approximately 25 to 50 percent
of the time. However, the topic was dropped early in the 1960 negotiations after
Respondent adhered to its position, in response to the Union's request, and refused
to include it in the contract. When the topic was discussed, Respondent expressed its
hostility to inclusion of this language in the contract, because it was unwilling to have
the incentive plan subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the contract
and have an arbitrator interpret the incentive clauses. In subsequent meetings,
neither the Union nor Respondent raised the matter again. The Union did not,
however, state or agree at any time during the negotiations that it would not grieve
under the incentive plan.
It may be also noted that the Union did come forward in the 1960 negotiations
with a proposal that the incentive system operate on individual rather than on
SQUARE D COMPANY 335
group production. Respondent, in effect, rejected this proposal and asked for
details which were not forthcoming.'
In addition to this bargaining history, Respondent stresses the following language
which appears in the current contract and which has also appeared in all prior
contracts. Article XVII, section 3, provides as follows:
The parties hereto acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted
in this agreement each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands
and proposals with respect to any subject or matter not removed by law from
the area of collective bargaining, and that the understandings and agreements
arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right and opportunity are set
forth in this agreement.
Therefore, the Company and the Union for the life of this agreement each
voluntarily and unqualifying waives the right, and each agrees that the other
shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter
referred to, or covered in this agreement, or with respect to any subject or
matter not specifically referred to or covered in this agreement even though
such subjects or matters may not have been within the knowledge or contempla-
tion of either or both of the parties at the time that they negotiated or signed
this agreement.
Article XVIII provides as follows: "The right of management in the operation of
its business is unlimited except as it may be expressly and specifically restricted
by the provisions of this agreement, and this agreement is the sole agreement between
the parties."
Article IX provides a three-step grievance procedure. Step 1 consists of the
grievance being taken up between the employee and/or his area steward with the
foreman or supervisor. Step 2 takes place between the employee, area steward,
chief steward and/or union president with three representatives of Respondent.
Step 3 takes place between the union grievance committee and representatives of
Respondent. This article also provides for arbitration after these three steps with
each side appointing a member of the board of arbitration and the two selecting a
third.
D. Sequence of events
Although the documentary evidence is more extensive, the General Counsel in
his brief relies upon the following conduct in support of his position herein. On
March 8, 1961, employee Robert Utter was given a warning notice which noted,
inter alia, that his efficiency and production record was below average and stated
further that "Due to your efficiency and your production record, your cooperation
is below Average. Your poor effort is not helping your fellow employees make
bonus."
The grievance was processed through step 1 of the grievance procedure and the
foreman reaffirmed the warning. On March 13, Chief Steward Devine lodged a
grievance at step 2. The relief sought was that Respondent should "remove this
stigma" from Utter's record; that his fellow employees be informed that Utter was
not the cause of "the lower incentive earning"; and that Utter and the others in
the group should be made whole and paid the correct incentive earnings for the
period when Utter allegedly contributed to a loss.
A similar history exists with respect to employee Charles Waldron, who received
a warning notice on March 7 worded almost identically with that given to Utter.
He grieved unsuccessfully through step 1 and sought similar relief in step 2 on
March 13. Respondent disposed of both cases in similar fashion on March 14,
stating on the respective grievance forms that "THE COMPANY'S POSITION IS
THAT THIS MATTER IS NOT COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAIN-
ING AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE GRIEV-
ANCE PROCEDURE."
The other matter relied upon by the General Counsel is reflected in an exchange
of correspondence between the parties. On March 7, President Roybal of the Union
wrote to Respondent, requested certain group incentive bonus information, and
stated, in part, as follows:
For the purpose of verifying our Incentive System record with that of the
company's, and to enable us to properly and intelligently negotiate the Group
Incentive grievances , I hereby request that you supply the Union with a copy
'Findings as to the contract negotiations are based upon the testimony of J. Allen
Madden, a negotiator for Respondent's labor relations consultant, and Union Chief Steward
David Devine ; there is no substantial conflict in their testimony.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the weekly changes that have occured [sic] for all Incentive Groups cover-
ing the period of the past twelve ( 12) months-March 1, 1960 thru March 1,
1961.
I would appreciate receiving this copy at least three days prior to the formal
third step meeting . If there have been any changes in the methods or the
formula used in computing the actual Incentive figures during this ( aforemen-
tioned ) period , please also furnish us with that information.
On March 10 , the Union further wrote to Respondent on the same topic as follows:
In connection with the processing of certain grievances , and in order to obtain
data for future wage negotiations, the Union hereby demands that the Company
supply the Union with the following information and records concerning its
incentive system , particularly as it applies to Incentive Groups 21 and 23:
1. Most recent time studies and/or work standards;
2. Weekly group production records for the past six months prior to the
week ending March 11, 1961;
3. Specific information regarding the efficiency and production relating
to the two men who were given warning notices during the past ten days
as having affected their groups' incentive earnings.
4. A list of the weekly changes in the Bonus percentages for the afore-
mentioned groups for the six months prior to and including the week
ending March 11, 1961.
On March 13 , Respondent replied to the earlier letter and stated as follows:
Your letter of March 7 , 1961 requested information on the group incentive
for the purpose of processing grievances.
The group incentive was the subject of collective bargaining . It was agreed
during negotiations that the group incentive would not be made a part of the
contract and subject to grievance procedure.
Therefore , this is not a matter which falls within the scope of the collective
bargaining agreement.
On March 16 , Respondent replied to the March 10 letter as follows:
This replies to your March 10 letter.
Our March 13 reply to your March 7 letter indicated the company was not
obligated to furnish information on the Group Incentive for processing griev-
ances.
For the purpose of future contract negotiations, the company is gathering
certain information which it will furnish the union as it becomes available.
Thereafter, on April 14, Respondent wrote to the Union, referred to its promise
of March 16 to supply information as it became available for future contract nego-
tiations and supplied therein the pay index tabulated on a quarterly basis for the
fourth quarter of 1960 and the first quarter of 1961 for the various incentive groups.
E. Contentions and conclusions
Respondent urges that under the cited provisions of articles XVII and XVIII of
the contract , the Union has waived its right to bargain about matters not covered
in the contract and that this perforce includes the incentive system which is neither
in the contract nor referred to therein. However , as the General Counsel contends,
the issue here is not whether there has been a waiver on the part of the Union of the
right to bargain over the system itself. And, assuming for the sake of argument
that the Umorfs conduct may have amounted to a waiver of the right to bargain
about the incentive system , this is a matter distinct and apart from the present issue
which is the right to obtain relevant and pertinent information which bears upon
employee grievances concerning the operation of the existing system.
The fact is , as Madden admitted, that the Union at no time during the 1960
negotiations stated that it would not file grievances concerning the operation of the
incentive system . An absence of language can hardly constitute the clear , unmis-
takable, and unequivocal language which the Board will recognize as a waiver. See
Proctor Manufacturing Corporation , 131 NLRB 1166 . Hence, Respondent 's March
13 letter is incorrect insofar as it alleges that there had been agreement that the
group incentive would not be subject to the grievance procedure.
As is readily apparent , the incentive bonus system is an integral part of the wage
structure, because the wages or earnings of the employees in a group or department
are affected by and fluctuate according to the production of the employees in the
group or department . The two grievances described above relate to the efforts of
SQUARE D COMPANY 337
the Union to ascertain how specific bonus incentives were computed so as to evaluate
Respondent's claim, in the warnings, that the employees involved were adversely
affecting the earnings and bonuses of the others in the department.
The General Counsel contends, and I agree, that the Union's right to obtain this
bonus incentive information may be equated with the right of a bargaining repre-
sentative to obtain information concerning merit increases. This is so because they
are equally basic in their relevance to the wage structure and to the efforts of the
employees and their bargaining representative to ascertain whether the wage rate
had been properly computed.
The General Counsel has also drawn attention to the language in N.L.R.B. v.
The Item Company, 220 F. 2d 956, 959 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S. 836. The
court there pointed out that "The right to grant merit increases without the consent
of a statutory bargaining agent obviously should not imply the right to withhold
information thereon, since such a rule might foster discrimination against union
adherents in the granting of merit increases, and thereby promote that industrial
strife and unrest which the Act seeks to avoid."
Again, in N.L.R.B. v. Gulf Atlantic Warehouse Company, 291 F. 2d 475 (C.A. 5),
decided June 12, 1961, the same court found a refusal to bargain where the employer
had refused to furnish the bargaining agent with a seniority list of employees, even
though in bargaining negotiations the union unsuccessfully sought the inclusion of
a seniority clause in the contract. The court flatly rejected the employer's contention
that this constituted a waiver of a right to such a list. I deem it significant that the
court stated, "We think that ordinarily the language of the contract as finally agreed
upon must be construed by the courts in accordance with ordinary rules of con-
struction without reference to the give and take of the bargaining sessions which
produced the final terminology. Otherwise we would abandon completely the parol
evidence rule when dealing with this type of contract."
The court drew attention to the decision in United Steelworkers of America
v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation, 363 U S. 574, and pointed out that although the
Supreme Court was "dealing with the right to arbitrate, a right highly favored by
the law, we think that we have a lesson to learn from this litigation-that lesson is
that we generally take the terms of the contract as finally written and do not give
them a special meaning because of anything done by way of give and take during
the bargaining sessions."
It is obvious from the grievances filed by the Union in behalf of employees Utter
and Waldron and from the March 10 letter wherein information was sought con-
cerning groups 21 and 23, the former including Utter and Waldron, that these were
an effort to obtain data concerning the method of computation of the bonus incentive
so that grievances could be processed in order to refute Respondent's contentions
concerning the poor performance of these two employees.
Nor did certain information later supplied by Respondent dispose of the problem.
Respondent did offer in evidence its much earlier four-page memorandum issued
January 4, 1960, but this describes the general principles and application of the
incentive system only on a broad basis; and its allowed hours report, described
below, although showing the time allowed for a particular job, fails to disclose
in any way just how the allowed hours or worktime were computed for a specific
job or assignment. Obviously, time-study information is material to the processing
of grievances such as those involved herein and these, entirely within Respondent's
possession, were not forthcoming.
It is true that Respondent did submit information on April 14, 1961, concerning
the incentive bonus, which had been tabulated on a quarterly or 3-month basis for
the last quarter of 1960 and for the first quarter of 1961 in each department. How-
ever, Respondent's records disclose that these incentives are computed on a weekly
basis and the quarterly summaries would be valueless to a consideration of two par-
ticular grievances in a particular department for a particular week or weeks involving
alleged poor performance by named employees who had been singled out by
Respondent for criticism.
Respondent points to the fact that the allowed hours report is applicable to each
job and is posted daily and that a weekly summary is also posted on the plant bulletin
boards. It then contends that this is adequate information for any employee who
has a question concerning his earnings. This still, however, begs the question posed
herein which is how the Union may intelligently present a grievance concerning a
warning of low production if Respondent refuses to inform the Union concerning
the nature of the time study of the tasks involved. In other words, the posted re-
ports do not disclose how worktime for a particular task is computed or set.
Respondent also raises the claim that data requested in March 1961 for future
negotiations is untimely, pointing to the fact that the contract did not expire until
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mid-October. It is obvious that contract negotiations are customarily conducted
during a period of several months prior to the expiration of the contract and the
Union's request herein is hardly premature; nor is the inference warranted that it
was advanced in bad faith. Indeed, Respondent's letter of March 16, cited above,
indicates that such information as it subsequently submitted in April was intended
precisely for future contract negotiations.
Respondent has contended that it is at all times willing to go to arbitration.
However, its offer is not to arbitrate the grievances, but rather to arbitrate whether
the grievances are arbitrable. Not only was this position not conveyed to the
Union, but more specifically, the issue is not whether this is a matter for arbitration
but whether, under the Act, Respondent had an obligation to supply incentive in-
formation, within reason, concerning the grievances. This right is derived from the
Union's statutory status as designated bargaining representative under the Act .2
In sum, I find that the information sought herein by the Union was requested in
good faith and that it related directly to the Union's function as bargaining repre-
sentative and involved important considerations in the application of Respondent's
wage structure. I find that these grievances are a bargainable issue, contrary to
Respondent's position, and Respondent's failure to discuss and negotiate concerning
these grievances, as well as to supply the requested information, constitutes a re-
fusal to bargain in good faith within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
I further find that by the foregoing, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) thereof. N.L.R.B. v. F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 352 U.S. 938; J. I. Case Company v. N.L.R.B., 253 F. 2d 149 (C.A. 7);
American Sugar Refining Company, 130 NLRB 634; and American Aggregate Co.,
Inc. and Featherlite Corporation, 130 NLRB 1397.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. Square D Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of Square D Company at its Los
Angeles, California, plants, including janitors, warehousemen , and shipping and
stockroom employees , but excluding office and clerical employees , truckdrivers,
guards and watchmen , draftsmen , engineers , experimental employees , foremen, work-
ing foremen, working supervisors , supervisors , and executive and administrative
employees , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local 1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, at all times material herein has been and now is the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to discuss and negotiate concerning grievances about the operation
of the group incentive plan, and by refusing to furnish the Union relevant data re-
lating to computations and operations under said plan , Respondent has refused to
bargain within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
2 Although Respondent contends in its brief that the union demands are unreasonable
and burdensome, at no time has Respondent taken this position with the Union Nor has
it claimed that this would result In undue cost to It and there is no evidence that it would.
SQUARE D COMPANY 339
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom-
mend that the Respondent, Square D Company, Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to discuss and negotiate with International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, concerning
grievances arising out of the operation of the group incentive plan or refusing to fur-
nish said Union with relevant data concerning computations or operations under
said plan.
(b) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain with said Union, or inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act.
(a) Upon request, furnish to International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 1503, IUE, AFL-CIO, relevant data concerning computa-
tions or operations under its group incentive plan, and discuss and negotiate with said
Union concerning any grievances arising out of the operation of said plan.
(b) Post at its plants at Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative,
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
It is recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order Respondent notifies the aforesaid
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended
Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to discuss or negotiate with International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 1503, IUE, AFL-CIO,
as the representative of our employees in the unit described below concerning
grievances arising out of the operation of our group incentive plan and we will
not refuse to furnish said labor organization with relevant data concerning
computations or operations under said plan. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of our Los Angeles, California,
plants, including janitors, warehousemen, and shipping and stockroom em-
ployees, but excluding office and clerical employees, truckdrivers, guards
and watchmen, draftsmen, engineers, experimental employees, foremen,
working foremen, working supervisors, supervisors, and executive and ad-
ministrative employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bargain with said
Union as the representative of our employees in said unit or interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
712-548-64-vol. 142-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to the above -named labor organization
relevant data concerning computations or operations under our group incen-
tive plan and discuss and negotiate concerning any grievances arising thereunder.
SQUARE D COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
National Food Stores , Inc. and Office Employees International
Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-5099. April
9d9, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief ; the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and
the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.2
1 Member Leedom adopts the Trial Examiner 's ultimate disposition of the Section 8(a) (5)
aspects of the case on the basis of the position taken by him in Town & Country Manu-
facturing Company, Inc ., etc., 136 NLRB 1022.
In our view of the case , we need not , and do not, pass upon the Trial Examiner's com-
ments as to the authority of the Union to bargain with Respondent about the reassignment
of the inventory clerks, whose jobs were unlawfully contracted away, to other store
positions.
2 Member Leedom, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716, would not direct the payment of Interest on the backpay
awards.
The Appendix attached to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended , by adding the
following immediately below the signature line at the bottom of the notice:
NoTm.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
142 NLRB No. 38.