The New England Die Casting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The New England Die Casting Company and
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL -CIO. Case 1-CA-6385
March 20, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, The New England Die
Casting Company, West Haven, Connecticut, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 18, 1968, Trial Examiner John F
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in the other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings,I conclusions,' and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
modifications noted below
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
'The Respondent has requested oral argument Because, in our opinion,
the record, the exceptions, and brief adequately ,et forth the issues and the
positions of the parties, this request is hereby denied
'The Respondent contends that an impasse over the union-shop provision
had been reached While Union representative Walsh stated that the Union
members in the bargaining unit would not accept a contract without a
union-shop clause, he by no means indicated that he would not bargain on
the issue On the contrary, he called in the Federal and State Mediation
Service because he could not get employer Ohse to the bargaining table
Furthermore, it was the Respondent that cancelled the last scheduled
meeting between the parties
'We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's opinion that N L R B v
American National Insurance Co, 343 U S 395, 404, necessarily stands
for the proposition that an adamant refusal to agree, under any
circumstances to a union shop or a checkoff clause could not be an
independent violation of Sec 8(aX5) of the Act In some circumstances an
employer's refusal to agree to such clauses would be a violation of Sec
8(a)(5) of the Act See United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (H K
Porter Company, Inc) v N L R B 389 F 2d 295 (C A D C ), remanding
153 NLRB 1370
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed
June 27, 1968, by International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein the Union,
against The New England Die Casting Company, herein
the Respondent, the General Counsel issued complaint
dated August 13, 1968, alleging Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act The answer of the
Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices
This proceeding, with all parties represented was heard
by me at New Haven, Connecticut, on October 9 and 10,
1968 At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were
given leave to file briefs and briefs were received from the
General Counsel and Respondent on November 12.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Connecticut corporation having its
principal place of business at West Haven, Connecticut,
where it is engaged in the manufactureb sale, and
distribution of die castings During a representative
12-month period, Respondent sells and transports die
castings valued in excess of $50,000 to places outside the
State of Connecticut. During the same period, Respondent
purchases materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
places outside the State of Connecticut.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
1. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The complaint alleges that Respondent threatened to
close down its plant if its employees engaged in union or
other protected concerted activities.
The testimony to support this allegation relates to a
single incident which took place in the plant. May
Hubbard and Viola Mortimer, employees of Respondent,
testified that on April 10, 1968,' they heard an employee
named Julia DiCapua tell Joseph Ohse, president and sole
stockholder of Respondent, that another employee,
'Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1968
174 NLRB No. 190
THE NEW ENGLAND DIE CASTING CO. 1281
Theresa Iannucct , had been cheating the Company by
"pulling the clock" on her work.' DiCapua told Ohse she
had reported this to her foreman and superintendent and
that nothing had been done Hubbard then told Ohse that
she had seen lannucci pull the clock. DiCapua told Ohse
that she had gone to the Union about this because the
Union had helped her on another matter In response to
this statement, according to the testimony of Hubbard and
Mortimer, Ohse told DiCapua that no one was telling him
how to run his shop and that he could rent it, sell it or put
a lock on it
I do not find, for reasons which should be so obvious as
not to require stating, that this single, isolated incident
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1).3
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(5)
On October 16, 1967, the Union filed a petition for an
election among all production and maintenance employees
at Respondent's West Haven plant.' On December 5,
1967, the Union, following a secret-ballot election
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, was
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees' in a unit defined as:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at its West Haven, Connecticut, plant,
but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.'
Following certification and on December 7, 1967,
Grand Lodge Representative William E Walsh sent a
letter to Respondent (G C Exh 2) requesting
information as to the names and addresses of the
employees in the appropriate unit and their terms and
conditions of employment. No reply to this letter was
received On December 28, Walsh sent another letter (G.
C Exh 3) repeating his request for the information and
asking that Respondent contact him for setting a date for
bargaining negotiations. On January 2, 1968, Respondent
replied through Irving Sweedler, its attorney, (G C. Exh.
4) giving the names of employees with their rates of pay
and date of hire Of the 78 employees listed, 36 were
specified as "piece work" employees and no earnings were
given for them.' On January 5, Walsh wrote Sweedler (G.
C Exh 5) agreeing to January 15 as a date for meeting,
requesting information relating to the "present incentive,
piece work and/or bonus system " The letter also stated
that when this information was received the Union would
submit further proposals for an agreement with
Respondent
'This meant that the employee was punching the clock to indicate she
was working more pieces than she had actually worked
'The General Counsel, in his brief, refers to testimony of Irving
Sweedler , Respondent ' s attorney and chief negotiator, in which Sweedler
stated that in response to a strike threat during the course of bargaining
negotiations he advised his supervisors to tell the employees that , if they
struck , the customers would pull their dies and everyone , including Ohse,
would be out of work I reject the General Counsel ' s contentions on two
grounds First, there is no evidence that the supervisors relayed these
instructions to the employees , a failure of proof I regard as fatal, and,
second , they constituted no more than a prediction as to the possible
impact of a strike upon the entire plant No threats of reprisal were
involved and accordingly they were entitled to the protection of Sec 8(c)
'Resp Exh 2
'The tally of ballots ( Resp Exh 4) showed that 59 employees voted for
the Union and 21 against
'Resp Exh 13 1 find the unit so certified appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining
'Three other employees were listed in handwriting at the end of the work
list with no rates given
On January 15, the parties met in Sweedler's office
Sweedler and Ohse represented Respondent; Walsh, Carl
Johnson, special representative of the Union, Ethel
Radlowski and Perle Chipman, employees, represented the
Union At this meeting the Union submitted its first
proposal to Respondent (G. C Exh 7) According to
Walsh, the question of piece rates was immediately raised
since the Union felt it could not negotiate intelligently
until it knew the data upon which the rates were based.
Walsh testified that Ohse replied:
As far as this values are concerned he sets them and it
was up in his head, pointing to his head and I told him
at that point that it was my right to have that
information and that he would have to translate it from
his head and put it in writing and give it to the union so
that we could carry on negotiations
This concluded the discussion of piece rates There was,
however, a lengthy discussion of other employee benefits,
including Blue Cross, CMS, Thanksgiving turkeys,
holidays and vacations. Ohse told' the union
representatives that there would be no increase in wages
or benefits and Johnson told Ohse they were not "going to
go the route the Steel Workers Union went." (The
Steelworkers had been certified in 1954 ) No definite
agreement was reached on any of the Union's proposals at
this meeting
A second meeting was held on January 25, 1968 8 Prior
to the meeting Walsh again requested that the piece rates
be reduced to writing Ohse was not present at this
meeting, which took place in Sweedler's office ' At the
meeting, the Union received copies of documents relating
to the Respondent's health and group insurance plans
(G.C. Exh 's 8(a) through 8(g)) Also presented was a list
of company benefits, including holidays, vacations, bonus,
Thanksgiving turkeys and 10-year watches Sweedler
informed the Union that Ohse had given him authority to
agree on noneconomic proposals and the parties then
started to review the Union's proposed contract, a
document consisting of 13 typewritten pages. (G C. Exh.
7). The recognition clause was agreed to; the first
paragraph of the coverage clause was agreed upon, but
paragraphs 2 and 3, granting union representation at
future plants and restricting subcontracting work were
rejected by Respondent. The next clause, prohibiting
non-bargaining unit employees from performing the work
of the unit employees except in event of emergency, was
rejected by Respondent At this point, Sweedler submitted
to the Union a management rights clause (G.C Exh 10)
This clause read-
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
The Employer shall at all times shall have the sole and
exclusive right to manage, plan, direct, conduct, control,
supervise, administer and operate its business All of the
authority, powers and prerogatives held by the
Employer prior to the signing of this Agreement,
whether or not listed herein, are retained by it. The
enumeration in this Agreement of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others, and
nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or
restrict the Employer's right to make and carry out
decisions and determinations relating to operating
'All dates hereafter refer to 1968
'Ohse attended only two of the six meetings , a source of protest on the
part of the Union , the record indicates that Ohse was in ill health and at
times hospitalized during this period
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
efficiency including, but not limited to the right to
determine the number of employees required for any
job, department or shift; the maintenance of order and
safety, the number, type and location of plants; quality
and quantity of products, schedules of production, types
and sources of materials and supplies; sub-contracts;
disposition of products and services, standards of
quality, the establishment or elimination of
departments, security, safety; and plant protection The
right of the Employer to hire, promote, demote,
advance, compensate, deduct payment for tardiness,
transfer and lay-off employees and to discharge and
discipline them for cause shall be absolute, except as it
is expressly modified by the terms of this Agreement.
In furtherance of the provisions of this Article, the
Employer shall have the right to establish and post rules
governing the conduct and conditions of employment,
and from time to time, to modify or amend the same.
The Union resisted this provision although Walsh's
statement of its reasons is far from being either clear or
concise 10 In general, the Union's objections were to the
sweep of the clause and its stifling of union rights The
parties returned to the Union's proposal without reaching
agreement on the "Management Prerogative" clause The
Union's next clause, prohibiting discrimination, was
agreed upon after it was extended to nonunion as well as
union members The next clause, the union shop, was
rejected by Respondent and discussion of the checkoff
clause was deferred on the ground that it was an economic
issue requiring approval from Ohse." The parties agreed
to the hours of work clause with a slight modification
suggested by Respondent, except for paragraph 4, calling
for early reporting procedure. The next four paragraphs,
relating to overtime, reporting pay, call-in pay and
holiday pay were ruled out by Sweedler on the ground
that all were economic issues At this point, discussion of
the issues and the meeting both terminated
The third meeting was held on February 1, and lasted
about 20 minutes. Ohse was not present, (Sweedler told
the Union he was ill) and when the next clause in the
Union's proposal was reached, seniority, Sweedler told
Walsh that was an economic issue and he (Sweedler) had
no authority to act Walsh then stated the Union wanted
Ohse present and asked Sweedler to set up a meeting
Ohse could attend.
After several telephone calls from Walsh to Sweedler,
in which Walsh particularly protested Respondent's failure
to give the Union its piece rates, a meeting was arranged
for March 1. Ohse and Sweedler were both present
According to Walsh, he first brought up the subject of the
union shop and dues deduction and Ohse said these were
out On the issue of wages, Ohse stated he could not grant
wages or other benefits over what the employees were then
receiving and remain competitive There was then
discussion of a union strike vote and Walsh made a
lengthy explanation of the procedures required before the
Union could strike. Ohse's reply was, "Strike, let them
strike. I've been looking for a way to get from under and
if you strike you show me the way." There then ensued a
heated discussion of the Unions versus the Steelworkers
"This is a fault that ran through the testimony of both Walsh and
Sweedler , as the record amply reveals Quoting either verbatim would
contribute only to confusion
"On cross-examination , Walsh testified that neither Ohse nor Sweedler
told him they would never agree to a union shop or checkoff This conflicts
with Ohse's testimony at the hearing, infra
proposals of 1954 Walsh then asked that they proceed
from those items on which agreement had been reached
and Ohse replied that agreement had been reached on
nothing and that the election had been a crooked election.
In discussing the holiday clause, Ohse pointed out that the
Union was asking for 12 holidays whereas it had recently
signed a contract which called for only 9. Walsh then
proposed that Respondent increase its holidays from seven
to nine and agreement was reached (so Walsh thought) on
this. Walsh summarized the note on which this meeting
ended-
Then I said, "With this new attitude that you have
reelected here today on the question of holidays let's sit
down at the next meeting and in good faith
consummate an agreement ." To which Mr Ohse
replied, "Okay."
The next meeting was held on March 15 and Ohse was
not present At the outset, Sweedler told Walsh that no
agreement had been reached on nine holidays Sweedler
was requested to reach Ohse by telephone and reported to
the committee that Ohse was on his way to the hospital
Walsh then stated he would have to contact the Federal
and State Mediation Services and let them take over.
A meeting was arranged by the mediators for March 21
at Sweedler's office. Ohse was not present. Walsh
explained the Union's position to the mediators who then
talked to Sweedler They informed Walsh that they could
not do anything and would have to talk to Ohse. A
meeting was scheduled for a date in May but was
cancelled by Respondent and no further meetings were
held
Sweedler's testimony as to the discussion at these
meetings is not substantially at variance. Sweedler
testified that he thought the parties were "not getting off
with a good foot" when Johnson, special representative
for the Union, advised Ohse that he was not going to take
them (the Union) down the same road he had taken the
Steelworkers 10 years ago.'=
Sweedler agreed that Walsh insisted on the formula for
piece rates and that Respondent insisted that these were
based on Ohse's experience in the industry, formulated in
his head and were not reduced to writing No effort was
made by Respondent to find a means of making the piece
rates intelligible to the Union.
As to the union shop and checkoff, Sweedler testified
that Walsh stated that no contract would be acceptable to
the Union without them Sweedler told Walsh that one of
the reasons Ohse objected to the union shop was the fact
that some of his employees - and most of them had been
with Ohse for years were opposed to a union and that
he would not force them to join one 11
As to hours of work, Respondent agreed to those
provisions which conformed to its current practice but
rejected a provision which gave an employee called for
early reporting the right to work his regular shift. Since
the restroom and washup provisions were already in
effect, Respondent agreed to them
"Walsh subsequently offered to have Johnson removed from the
negotiating committee in the interests of harmony
"The testimony of Ohse on this issue reads
Q Have you ever been willing to give the union a union shop
provision')
A Never will
Q No matter what')
A No matter what
Q You told that to Mr Sweedler before negotiations, that you were
inflexible on that'
A Absolutely inflexible.
THE NEW ENGLAND DIE CASTING CO. 1283
The overtime provisions of the proposed contract were
rejected on the ground that they did not conform to the
practice of the community.1°
The Union's request for 12 holidays was rejected and
Sweedler denied that Respondent ever agreed to 9
holidays
The request for a shift premium was rejected by
Respondent on the ground that it did not have a shift
premium
On vacations the Respondent agreed to continue its
present practice, rejecting the Union's request for vacation
based on length of service (Respondent stated that the
Union's demands did not conform to Connecticut
practice)
On notice of layoff and leave of absence, Respondent
wanted to continue the past practice of the Company and
no agreement was reached " Respondent also rejected a
proposal that shop stewards and committee members be
paid for time spent in processing grievances, nor would it
agree that an accredited union representative have access
to the plant without first securing permission from Ohse
On pay increases, Respondent took the position that it
could afford to pay them but Sweedler told Walsh, "I
want you to understand that we can afford it but we are
not going to do it because we don't think we should do
it"
Ohse's testimony with respect to negotiations was
confined largely to determining the basis on which he
estimated piece rates. Efforts to reduce the piece rates to
a formula or to establish any basis for rational evaluation
were unsuccessful
B Conclusions - Violation of Section 8(a)(5)
I find little doubt on the testimony herein, including
that of Respondent's own witnesses, that Respondent
entered into negotiations with a firm resolve not to
consummate any meaningful contract with the Union.
Without resting this finding on any single ground or any
specific independent violation of Section 8(a)(5) no record
could indicate a state of mind more "hermetically sealed"
against reaching a collective bargaining contract. The
following reasons, supported by testimony largely
uncontradicted, sustain this conclusion.
1. Ohse's remark that the election was a "crooked"
election indicates a state of mind unwilling to accept the
Union as the lawfully designated representative of
Respondent's employees. His further remark to the
members of the negotiating committee that he hoped they
wculd strike since this would give him a way out. The
only reasonable construction that can be placed on this
statement is that Ohse believed a strike would relieve him
of his obligation to bargain and that such a relief would
be a source of gratification to him. Both statements
established Ohse's adamant hostility to the principles of
collective bargaining
2. Respondent's complete rejection of any wage
increases or other benefits not presently received by the
employees. While admitting that Respondent could afford
to pay higher wages, Respondent refused to bargain on
the issue solely on the ground that it did not think they
"Sweedler testified that Walsh advised him that the Union did not
expect to get all of its demands respecting overtime
"It had been the practice for employees seeking time off or a leave of
absence to see Ohse, who either granted or denied , based on the
circumstances There was no fixed company policy Respondent was willing
to continue its unilateral approach to this issue
should be granted. In so doing, Respondent excluded from
consideration or discussion not only a mandatory subject
of collective bargaining, but perhaps the most vital of all
subjects at the bargaining table
3. Respondent's out-of-hand rejection, without
negotiation, of any union proposals which did not accord
with Respondent's present practices These include
overtime and reporting pay, notice of layoff, an
employees' right to continue working his regular shift if
called for earlier work, vacations, leave of absence,
payment of union representative for time spent on
processing grievances, and the right of a union to have a
representative enter the plant without permission from
Ohse "6
4 While I do not find Respondent's adamant refusal to
agree, under any circumstances, to a union shop or a
checkoff clause an independent violation of Section
8(a)(5),'' I do find that it indicates another instance of the
refusal of Respondent to enter into fruitful negotiation on
any mandatory subject of bargaining This finding is made
despite the fact that Respondent's asserted reason for
refusal to agree to union security, a reluctance to force
any employee to join the Union against his will, was
non-discriminatory
5 1 do find that the failure and refusal on the part of
Respondent to make available to the Union whatever
formula, whether written or not, respecting piece rates
constituted an independent violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act Despite Ohse's contention that these rates were
based on his experience, expertise and presumably on
mystic intuition, it is inconceivable that rates paid
employees for their services were not subject to reduction
to some kind of formula. No effort was made by Ohse to
give a rational explanation for these rates and the Union
was thereby precluded from effective bargaining with
respect to the wages paid approximately one-half the
employees in the certified unit Ohse's testimony
respecting the fixing of the rates is so fantastic as to force
the conclusion that it was a strategem or tactic devised, in
part at least, for the purpose of frustrating the Union in
the performance of its obligation to represent the
employees in collective bargaining
I find that by the above conduct the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.18
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
"in view of Ohse ' s frequent absences due to illness this would impair,
perhaps seriously , communications between the employees and their
bargaining agent
"This finding is based on the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in N L R B v American National Insurance Co, 343 U S 395,
404, where the Court stated
Thus it is now apparent from the statute that the Act does not
encourage a party to engage in fruitless marathon discussions at the
expense of frank statement and support of his position It is equally
clear that the Board may not, either directly or indirectly, compel
concessions or otherwise sit in judgment upon the substantive terms of
bargaining agreements
See also Jeffrey Stone Co Inc, 173 NLRB No 3, McCullock
Corporation, 132 NLRB 201
"I find it unnecessary to make a separate finding as to Sweedler'~
authority to engage in effective bargaining The totality of Respondent's
conduct so clearly establishes the rejection of the principles of collective
bargaining that further findings are superfluous
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
policies of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing on and at all times after January 15,
1968, to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning
wages , rates of pay, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment and by refusing to make available to or
discuss with the Union its formula or other basis for
deciding piece rates its employees were paid, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
2 The unit appropriate for collective bargaining is
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at its West Haven , Connecticut , plant,
but excluding all office clerical employees , guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
3 The aforsaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that The New England Die
Casting Company, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns, shall
l Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
with International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate herein
(b) Refusing to make available to the Union, its
processes or formula on which the piece rates paid its
employees are computed
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the unit
found appropriate herein concerning wages, rates of pay,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if agreement is reached, embody such understanding
in a written contract
(b) Post at its place of business at West Haven,
Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix "i' Copies of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and shall be maintained for 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
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region I, within
20 days from the date of this decision, what steps have
been taken to comply therewith 10
It is further recommended that all allegations of the
complaint not found to be in violation of the Act shall be
dismissed
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 1, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in
good faith with International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
found appropriate herein.
WE WILL NOT refuse to make available to the
above-named Union the processes or formula upon
which piece rates paid to our employees are computed
WE WILL upon request bargain collectively and in
good faith with the above-named Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
found appropriate herein concerning wages, rates of
pay, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if agreement is reached, incorporate
the terms of such agreement in a written contract. The
appropriate unit is
All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Employer's West Haven, Connecticut, plant,
but excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
THE NEW ENGLAND DIE
CASTING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New
Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone
617-223-3383