Stylecraft Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
STYLE CRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS
of AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-CA-1728. March 10, 1955
Decision and Order
On October 28, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case
and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, with the following additions and modifications.
THE REMEDY
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by refusing to sign any agreement with
the Union unless it was countersigned by at least one employee. How-
ever, since the Respondent did in fact negotiate at length with the
Union and reached agreement on virtually all the terms of a contract,
we believe that the broad cease-and-desist order proposed by the Trial
Examiner is not warranted and that a narrower order addressed to
the specific dereliction of the Respondent-its insistence upon em-
ployee countersignature of the contract-would better effectuate the
policies of the Act.
111 NLRB No. 151.
STYLECRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY 931
Moreover, we do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of
the Act to require the Respondent, as the Trial Examiner proposes
in paragraph numbered 2 (b) of his recommended order, to sign, upon
request by the Union, a contract embodying those terms already agreed
upon by the parties in the 1953-4 negotiations. We reach this con-
clusion, apart from any other considerations, because, so far as ap-
pears from the record, the parties had not reached any understanding
as to the duration of the contract. The Union's proposed contract
did not specify any expiration date or the length of the contract's
term ; neither did the Respondent's counterproposal. As the contract
was incomplete in this important respect, and as it is not within the
competence of the Board to supply this omission, we will not adopt
paragraph numbered 2 (b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended
order.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Stylecraft Furniture Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Furniture
Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at its Fall River plant, exclusive
of office and shop clerical employees, professional employees, execu-
tives, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect of
rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employ-
ment, by insisting, as a condition of the execution of any agreement,
that it be countersigned by one or more employees.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with the efforts of
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, to- bargain collectively
with the Respondent on behalf of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a), Upon request, bargain collectively with United Furniture
Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the above described unit, with respect to their rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, and em-
body in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in Fall River, Massachusetts, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of the
' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
344056-55-vol. 111-60
'932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with United Fur-
niture Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all production and maintenance employees at our Fall River
plant, exclusive of office and shop clerical employees, professional
employees, executives, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT insist, as a condition of executing any agreement,
that it be countersigned by individual employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the
efforts of the above-named Union to bargain collectively with us.
STYLECRAFr FURNITURE 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.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint and a notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent, a
hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136),
STYLECRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY 933
herein called the Act , was held in Fall River, Massachusetts , on September 17, 1954,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
In substance the complaint alleged that the Respondent : ( 1) Since about March 8,
1954, has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Charging Union,
the duly certified bargaining agent of its employees , in that it : ( a) insists that as a
condition to signing a contract any agreement must be signed by a committee of
its employees as well as by the union representative ; and (b ) has engaged in dilatory
tactics during the course of negotiations ; and (2 ) by such refusal to bargain has
interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by the Act . In its answer the Respondent admits that it insists upon the signing
of any agreement by employees as well as the Union, but denies that it has engaged
in unreasonable delay in negotiating.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues, to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs and proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Counsel for the Respondent argued upon the record.
Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Union.
At the conclusion of the hearing ruling was reserved upon the Respondent's mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint . Disposition of said motion is made by the following
findings, conclusions , and recommendations.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
Stylecraft Furniture Company is a Massachusetts corporation, with its principal
,office and place of business at Fall River , Massachusetts , where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of furniture and related products. Of such prod-
ucts, quantities valued at more than $50,000 annually are caused by the Respondent
to be sold and transported from its plant in interstate commerce to points outside
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
General Counsel would have it found that the Respondent has refused to bargain
for two reasons: (1) Insistence that employees as well as the Union sign any con-
tract, and (2) unreasonable delay in negotiating.
Since the Respondent admits-in its answer and through its own witnesses at the
hearing-that it will not sign any contract without the signature of employees, no
question of facts on this point is involved , but only one of law.
B. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the Trial Examiner finds that on
July 10, 1953, at an election conducted by the Board, a majority of the Respondent's
employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative, in a unit consisting
of all production and maintenance employees at the Fall River plant, exclusive of
office and shop clerical employees, professional employees, executives, guards, and
all supervisors as defined by the Act. On July 27, 1953, the Regional Director certi-
fied the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the
appropriate unit.
Although the answer denies that "at all times since July 10, 1953," as alleged in the
complaint, "the Union has been . . . and is now the exclusive representative of all
the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, " no proof
was adduced by the Respondent to support this denial which, in view of the certifica-
tion, lacks merit. (As the record shows, the Trial Examiner sustained objections to
questions put by the Respondent's counsel to a union representative regarding attend-
ance at a union meeting. Whatever the answer might have been, if permitted, it
would have had no material bearing upon the Union's standing as the accredited
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representative .) It is found that since July 10, 1953, and at all times
since then, the Union has been and now is the exclusive bargaining agent, as alleged
in the complaint.
As to the issue of alleged "dilatory tactics," the Trial Examiner is not persuaded by
the evidence that the Respondent 's representatives "unreasonably delayed the course
of collective bargaining ." While it is true that there were few meetings between the
first, held in August 1953, and the last, in June 1954, the testimony of Joseph
Tomaszek , the union representative , makes it clear that he, himself , exercised no real
diligence in pressing for meetings . For example , it is undisputed that as early as
October 1953, general agreement had been reached upon all substantial provisions
of a contract , yet he thereafter forwarded to the Respondent a copy of the "master"
agreement , containing many provisions contrary to those agreed upon. Particularly
since the Trial Examiner was reversed by the present Board majority on a similar
issue in Partee Flooring Mill (107 NLRB 1177 )-in which the employer 's "dilatory
tactics" were far more flagrant than here, he must conclude that the evidence in this
case is insufficient to sustain General Counsel's allegations on the point.
As to the remaining issue, there is no dispute concerning the facts. By June 3,
1954, all provisions of a contract had been agreed upon by the parties except the
final article , proposed by the Respondent on March 7, 1954. That article reads:
Article 29. This agreement shall take effect upon the execution thereof by a
duly authorized officer of the employer and by a duly authorized agent of the
Union and by a duly authorized committee of the employees of the Employer,
said committee consisting of not less than three ( 3) and shall continue in full
force and effect until and from year to year thereafter , unless either
party shall notify the other in writing of proposed changes, alterations , or ter-
mination sixty days before the expiration date hereof or before of any
subsequent year.
The Union declined to accept the provision requiring signature to the contract of "a
duly authorized committee of the employees ." The employer insisted , although finally
reducing the number of such committee to one, that without such a provision it would
sign no contract.
The employer 's explanation for his adamant stand, in the language of Max Prob-
ber, vice president , is that "The position I took in order for me to stay in business,
I would have to have the workers and the Union satisfied because if I took my per-
sonal position , if I signed the contract , the workers would go out and if I didn't
sign the contract , the Union would be at me, and there was nothing I could do, but
I wanted to stay in business " He told Tomaszek, "I will sign the contract if you can
get the men to agree to stay on the job." In somewhat simpler effect , it appears that
Probber meant that he insisted upon making a committee of employees parties to
the agreement in the hope that his production force would thereby be bound by
the no-strike clause which the Union had agreed upon. Expressed in even simpler
terms, it further seems that his real purpose was to obtain a binding contract with
his individual employees.
The issue , which became defined in the Respondent 's proposal early in March,
actually arose at a negotiating meeting in October 1953, when the union representa-
tive finally agreed to a contract which contained no wage-increase provisions. One
of the employee -committee members, also present, is quoted by the union representa-
tive as having openly declared at the conference : "We are not going to agree to any
agreement like that unless we get 10 cents an hour. The fellows want 10 cents an
hour and that's it." Another committee member, also an employee, also said he
would not work without an increase.
It is understandable that Probber was concerned by the obvious difference of
opinion between the two committee members and the Union's official representative.
At the time-October 1953-he may have had reasonable fear that even if the
Union did agree not to call a strike during the period of a contract which gave no
wage increase , dissident employees might walk out because no increase was granted.
Had the issue now raised come before the Trial Examiner soon after it originally
took form , in October 1953, he might have expressed the opinion that Probber's
insistence that the employees , in some fashion , assure him that they would not walk
out if he signed a contract , containing less than they wanted, was a reasonable de-
fense to a charge of failing to bargain in good faith . After all, the avowed purpose
of the law is to assure industrial relations which do not interrupt the flow of
commerce.
The hearing in this case , however, was held in September 1954, nearly a year
later. Events since October 1953, deprive the Respondent's management of any
reasonable basis for a continuing fear of a walkout if the employees do not get the
STYLECRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY 935
10-cent increase . Plant Superintendent Israel , who also admitted that the lack of an
increase was the real crux of the matter, testified that no increase had been granted
since last October and no employee had walked out or quit.
Five months-from October to March-had passed between the time when Prob-
ber first expressed his position and the Respondent 's actual written proposal, upon
which it has since insisted and from which it had not receded . However meritorious
Probber's stand in October 1953 , it plainly lacked any foundation by March' 1954.
By giving no raise, he himself had plainly put any possible fear to test.
The Trial Examiner is of the opinion , and finds, that since March 7, 1954, the
Respondent 's insistence upon individual employee signatures to a union contract
has been a clear case of bargaining in bad faith . The Board has found such conduct
on the part of an employer to be interference with employees ' rights guaranteed by
the Act. In H. N. Thayer Company ( 99 NLRB 1122 , p. 1126 ) the Board said:
. we find that the Respondent Companies interfered with the employees' right
to bargain through their representative by requiring that the contracts , purportedly
negotiated by the representative , be circulated among the employees for their indi-
vidual approval and signature ." Counsel for the Charging Union argues persuasively,
in his memorandum brief, as follows:
Intrusion by the employer into the area exclusively reserved for the employees
is critically repugnant to the whole core of the policy behind the Taft-Hartley
law-freedom to select and abide by the exclusive bargaining representative
would of necessity be an illusory freedom were it to be, as the employer here
contends , subject to the dictation of the employer as to the composition of the
bargaining representatives , their status , their powers or their duties when col-
lective bargaining agreements have been concluded.
It follows, and the Trial Examiner also finds, that the clause quoted above, which
the Respondent insists must be included in any contract , violates the spirit and letter
of the Act . It is undisputed that all other provisions of a collective -bargaining agree-
ment have been agreed upon by the parties.
It will therefore be recommended , in consonance with the mandate of the U. S.
Supreme Court in H. J . Heinz Company v. N. L. R . B. (311 U. S. 514 ),1 that to
effectuate the policies of the Act the Respondent forthwith sign the agreement reached
on March 7, 1954, omitting the clause here found to be illegal.
In summary , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that since March 7 , 1954, the
Respondent has refused , and continues to refuse , to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit. By
such refusal, the Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent , set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
riection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice of
refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the chosen representative of its
employees . It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and from like and related conduct . It will further be recommended that the Re-
spondent bargain collectively in good faith , upon request , with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in the above -described unit , and that it sign
the contract agreed upon without the clause requiring signature by individual
employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
1 In the cited case the Supreme Court said , in part : "A business man who entered into
negotiations with another for an agreement having numerous provisions , with the reser-
vation that he would not reduce it to writing or sign It, could hardly be thought to have
bargained in good faith . This is even more so in the case of an employer who, by his re-
fusal to honor , with his signature , the agreement which he has made with a labor organi-
zation, discredits the organization , Impairs the bargaining process and tends to frustrate
the aim of the statute to secure industrial peace through collective bargaining "
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent, employed at its
Fall'River plant, exclusive of office and shop clerical employees , professional em-
ployees, executives, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
3. United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, was, on July 10, 1953, and at all
times since has been , the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act.
4. By refusing on and after March 7, 1954, to bargain collectively with the afore-
said Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
WITWER GROCER COMPANY (CEDAR RAPIDS WAREHOUSE AND I. 0. A.
FOODS DIVISION), PETITIONER and TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 238, AFL. Case No. 18-RM-164.
March 11, 1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lyle C. Howg, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer, an Iowa corporation engaged in the wholesale
grocery business, maintains a warehouse and manufacturing plant at
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and warehouses at various other points in Iowa
and Wisconsin. In the present proceeding, the Employer seeks a de-
termination of the bargaining representative at its Cedar Rapids
facilities only.
The Employer's manufacturing plant at Cedar Rapids is known as
the I. 0. A. Foods Division.' It is located approximately 30 feet from
1 The I. O. A. Foods Division, herein called I. O. A., roasts and processes peanuts ;
roasts coffee ; makes soft drinks, peanut butter , peanut brittle , extracts , pancake flour,
preserves and honey ; and manufactures sundry other grocery items.
111 NLRB No. 153.