The Oliver Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE OLIVER CORPORATION and UNITED FARM EQUIP-
MENT & METAL WORKERS or AMERICA, LOCAL No. 222, C. I. O.
Case Yo . 18-C-12,57.-Decided July 11, 1947
Mr. Clarence A. Meter, for the Board.
Messrs . W. F. Henke , G. 1,17. Bird, and E. D. Kraft, of Charles City,
Iowa, and Mr. J. C. Wittner , of Chicago , Ill., for the respondent.
Meyers , Meyers eC Rothstein , by Mr. Irving Meyers, of Chicago,
I11., and Mr . Charles W. Robbie, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Union.
Mr. Ben Grodsky , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 11, 1946, Trial Examiner William J. Scott 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.
On March 4, 1947, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,
D. C. The respondent and Local 222 appeared and participated in
the argument.1
The Board 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 of the respondent, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as hereinafter
modified.
1. As the Trial Examiner found, the respondent refused to bargain
collectively with Local 222 on May 10 and July 2, 1946, in part be-
. ' Although not present at the oral argument , Chairman Herzog has read the official
transciipt thereof
74 N L R. B., No. 88.
483
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause of the respondent's fear that Local 222,' by having Interna
tional Representative Mathers 3 accompany Local 222's bargaining
committee, was seeking to compel the respondent to bargain on the
basis of a combined unit of factory and office workers. Mathers
accompanied Local 222's bargaining committee for the purpose of
assisting the committee in bargaining on behalf of the office workers,
and for no other purpose. An employer has fulfilled his statutory
duty when he has bargained in good faith with the duly designated
representatives of the employees in separate units certified by the
Board to be appropriate, and he may resist efforts on the part of such
representatives to compel him to bargain jointly. However, in the
instant case, the respondent's fear of joint bargaining was groundless
because, on the occasions m question, Local 222 sought to deal with
the respondent with respect to matters affecting members of the office
workers' unit only; it so, in effect, notified the respondent; and Local
222 did not seek to bargain with respect to any other matter. Par-
ticipation by Mathers in his capacity as international representative
in a bargaining conference between representatives of the office work-
ers and of the respondent would not have tended to create a history
of collective bargaining on a multiple-unit basis simply because
Mathers also happened to be a representative of the respondent's
employees in another bargaining unit.
2. The respondent further seeks to justify its refusal to treat with
a bargaining delegation of Local 222, which included International
Representative Mathers as a member, by reference to Section 6 of its
then existing contract with Local 222.4 The respondent contends
that, under the terms of the contract, Mathers was ineligible to par-
ticipate in the bargaining negotiations in question, because lie was
neither a member of the committee of four, referred, to in subsection
(c) of Section 6, nor an international officer,-and because the nego-
tiations in question did not involve meetings with the "Plant Manager."
2 The certified representative of the respondent's office workers
3 Diathers, an employee in the respondent's factory, was president of Local 115, the
ccitified representative of the respondent's factory workers Although he was an interna-
tional representative of the Union, he was not an international officer
4 "Section 6. The authorized representatives of the office Union shall be as follows
(a) Three chief stewaids, who are to he elected
(b) Departmental stewards-the total of chief stewards and departmental stewaids
shall not exceed one for eiely twelie persons in the haig,uning unit
(c) A committee of four, who are to be elected, and who shall constitute the
Bargaining and/or Grievance Committee
No,one shall be eligible to serve as a Union steward, official or committeeman unless he
or she is an employee of the Company The Company agrees to bargain with the fore-
going representatives in the manner outlined in this agreement The Union may call in
international officers to assist in meetings with the Plant Managei
The Union shall furnish the Company a list of all tho above- mentioned Union repre-
sentatives, and shall notify the Company immediately of an3 change."
THE OLIVER CORPORATION 485
The Trial Examiner , who differed with the respondent in its con-
struction of the agreement , was of the opinion , in effect , that in
practice Local 222 had not been restricted to the use of international
officers in conferences with the respondent , and that the term "plant
manager" was intended to mean any authorized representative of the
respondent . The Trial Examiner concluded that, in accordance with
the contract as construed in practice, Mathers , as an international
representative , was duly authorized to represent the office workers at
the meetings on May 10 and July 2.
The provisions in question are susceptible of still a third interpreta-
tion , namely, that they were intended to limit the size and composition
of a shop -committee of workers authorized to handle grievances on
behalf of the employees and to supplement outside representatives in
collective bargaining negotiations .3 Thus. Section 6 makes provision
for the election of a committee of persons who shall act as a bargaining
committee or grievance committee , or both. It limits the number of
such persons to four, and provides that they shall be drawn from the
employees of the respondent , who are familiar with conditions in the
plant and are readily available for negotiations . Section 6, read
together with Section S. which relates to the mechanics for handling
grievances , provides for participation of non -employee union repre-
sentatives only in the next-to-last step of the grievance machinery at
the plant manager level . While provisions of this character are well
adapted to grievance machinery, they are not responsive to the needs
of employees in collective bargaining generally, a vital area in which
employees may often want and need outside assistance in the negotia-
tions . Furthermore, a provision in Section 16 of the contract indi-
cates that the parties may have intended the restrictions in Section 6
to apply in the handling of grievances and not to collective bargaining
generally . The pertinent provision states that "new job classifica-
tions are to be evaluated by a joint committee of Company and Union
representatives ." The contract contains no provision requiring the
presence of the plant manager at the evaluation conferences . Unless
the respondent 's construction of the contract is rejected , the respondent,
could preclude Local 222 from having outside assistance in the evalu-
ation of new job classifications by the simple device of withholding
the plant manager's presence at such meetings . According to the
interpretation placed upon the contract by the respondent , it permits
outside representatives to participate in the disposition of grievances,
but otherwise prohibits their participation in the collective bargaining
'The size and geneial composition of such a shop committee is an appropriate subject
of collective baigainmg illottei of Clayton cC Lambert Manufacturing Company 34
N. I, R B 502, 524
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
process. Be that as it may, we find it unnecessary to determine
whether the agreement must be given the construction urged by the
respondent, because so construed Section 6 would be invalid for the
reasons hereinafter indicated.
It is contrary to the policy of the Act for an employer, either by
unilateral act or by contract with the exclusive representative of his
employees, to limit the class or group from among whom the employees
may thereafter be represented for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing.6 Section 1 of the Act explicitly declares that it is the policy of
the United States to protect "the exercise by workers of full freedom
of association, self-organization and designation of representatives of
their own choosing." Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees
"the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing." Section 8 (1) of the Act enjoins the employer from inter-
fering with the right of employees to full freedom of choice in the
selection of representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining.
The unhampered exercise of this right is a prerequisite to true and
effective collective bargaining. To permit an employer to place a
limitation upon the employees' choice of representatives would deprive
them of this right to choose their representatives freely.', We are
therefore of the opinion that the respondent's contract with Local 222,
even if construed as the respondent contends it should be, provides
no legal justification for the respondent's refusal to bargain with
Local 222 so long as Mathers was a member of its bargaining
committee.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in an unfair labor
practice, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. Because the
basis of the respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated above, was a
good-faith misunderstanding of its obligations under the Act; be-
cause the respondent, after Mathers' withdrawal, in fact engaged in
As hereinabove indicated, this is not intended to mean that such matters as the size
and general composition of a shop committee selected to handle grievances or to accom-
pany local or international representatives in collective ba,gaintug negotiations fall
outside the realm of collective bargaining Matter of Clayton it Lambert, cited supra.
However, the iule laid down in the Clayton it Lambert case is inapplicable here, inasmuch
as the respondent excluded Mathers fa om participating in the bargaining negotiations
in question , although he claimed and had status its an international union representa-
tive and did not seek to participate as a shop committeeman
° This is so, even though the union accepts such limitations, for a union may feel com-
pelled "to accept the most it could obtain of tights to which it is entitled for the
asking " DTtQuaq-Norris 1lffq Co v N L' R 13 , 116 F ^ (2d) 748 (C C A 7) In
that case, the Board touud a refusal to bargain uithrn the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act, although the labor organization entitled to exclusive recognition had been pre-
vailed upon by the eniplover to accept a contract on behalf of members only The couit
approved the Board 's order,
THE OLIVER CORPORATION 487
genuine and successful collective bargaining; and because of the ab-
sence of any evidence that danger of other unfair labor practices is to
be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the'past, we will not
order that the respondent cease and desist from the commission of any
other unfair labor practice, nor will we affirmatively order that the
respondent bargain collectively with Local 222.
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 respondent, The Oliver Corporation, Charles
City, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Farm Equipment
and Metal Workers of America, Local 222, C. I. 0., as the exclusive
representative of all office employees of the respondent at its Charles
City, Iowa, plant, excluding supervisors, purchasing agent, assistant
purchasing agent, technical employees and confidential employees,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, by excluding any member or representative of
another bargaining unit of its employees from participation in bar-
gaining negotiations between the respondent and United Farm Equip-
ment and Metal Workers of America, Local 222, C. I. 0.;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of United
Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local No. 222,
C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with it 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) Post at its plant in Charles City, Iowa, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
respondent, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material;
8 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order ," the words . "A Decree of the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days front the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AIR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
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 cease and desist from excluding any member or repre-
sentative of another bargaining unit of our employees from par-
ticipating in our bargaining negotiations with United Farm
Equipment R Metal Workers of America, Local 222, C. I. O.
We will cease and desist from in any other manner interfering
with the efforts of United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of
America, Local 222, C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with us.
THE OLIVER CORPORATION ,
Eizployer.
By--------------------------------
(Repiesentative) (Title)
Dated-------------------
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
Mr. Clarence A. Meter, for the Board
Mr. W. F Henke, Mr G. W. Bird, Mr. B D Kraft, of Charles City, Iowa, and
Mr J C Wittner, of Chicago, Ill , for the respondent.
Merles s, Meyers & Rothstein, by DIi Irving Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr.
Charles W. Hobbie, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Farm Equipment and Metal
Workers of America, C. I. O. Local No. 222, herein called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director
for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint dated
August 16, 1946, against The Oliver Corporation, Charles City, Iowa, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
THE OLIVER CORPORATION 489
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, together
with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance;
(1) that all office employees of the respondent at its Charles City, Iowa plant,
excluding supervisors, purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, technical
employees, and confidential employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining; (2) that on and before November 7, 1945, a
majority of the employees in the said unit designated the Union as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining; (3) that at all times since
November 7, 1945 the Union has been the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the said appropriate unit; and (4) that since on or about May 10,
1946, the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
,exclusive iepresent.itive of the employees in said unit
The respondent thereafter filed its answer in which it admitted certain al-
legations of the complaint but denied that it had refused to bargain with the
'Union and that its acts constituted an unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 10 and 11, 1946, before
the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. The Board, respondent and Union were represented by counsel. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross examine witnesses, and to in-
troduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close
of the Board's case a motion by Board's counsel to conform the pleadings to
the proof with respect to formal matters was granted by the Trial Examiner
without objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Oliver Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, is engaged at its Charles
City, Iowa, plant, in the manufacture and sale of wheel type tractors and other
related products During the calendar year of 1945 the respondent purchased
plant amounted to in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which 75 percent was
shipped to the Charles City plant, from points outside the State of Iowa. For
the same period, finished products manufactured by the respondent at this
plant amounted to in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which 75 percent was
shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Iowa. The respondent
admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
]I THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America Local No. 222, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the. respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
The Parties stipulated and the undersigned finds that all office employees of
the respondent at its Charles City plait, excluding supervisors , purchasing
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agent, assistant purchasing agent, technical employees, and confidential em-
ployees, is a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
the Act.
B. Representation of ciaploi/ees by the Union
Pursuant to an agreement for a consent election executed October 19. 1945,
an election was held October 30, 1945, under the supervision of the Board A
majority of the employees in the unit voted for the Union.' No objections
were filed to the Tally of Ballots or to the conduct of the election and on No-
vember 7, 1945, the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region found and de-
terinined that the Union was the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the said unit for purposes of collective bargaining The parties stipulated
and the undersigned finds that the Union on November 7, 1945, and at all
times since that date has been the exclusive representative of the employees in
said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
3 The refusal to bargain
a The issue
The Union and respondent have executed a bargaining agreement and the
only substantial issue involved is whether the respondent violated the Act by its
admitted refusal on May 10 and July 2, 1946, to bargain with the Union while
one of its employees , Paul Mathers , who is a member of another Local, was
present as a bargaining representative of the Union
b. Bachgronntl
Following its certification, the Union and the respondent carried on bargain-
ing negotiations and on March 18, 1940, entered into a written bargaining agree-
ment. On the same day, Local 115, representing the production and maintenance
employees and affiliated with the same International Union, made a similar
contract with the respondent. On different occasions the Union and Local 115
have attempted, without success, to hold joint negotiation with the respondent z
Paul Mathers, whose appearance at the plant on May 10 and July 2, 1946, with
the Union's bargaining committee, created the issue, with which this heaiing
is chiefly concerned, has been employed by the respondent since November 1936,
except for a period from September 1942 to November 1945, when he was a
member of the armed services. Mathers belongs in the production and main-
tenance employees' unit and is a very active member of his Local 115, having
served on its bargaining and grievance committee and as its chief steward
and since mid-December 1945 has been its chairman He was appointed an
international representative of the Union in November 1945 and has held that
position since that time.'
1 Tally of Ballots showed that approximately 109 eligible voters cast valid ballots-79
for the Union and 24 against.
2 The Union's district president admitted that the International Union desires a master
agreement for all of the respondent ' s plants
S This appears from the credited testimony of Charles W Hobbie, an international
officer and district president for the Union and Local 115
THE OLIVER CORPORATION
c Meeting on JIuy 10, 1946
491
On this date, the regular bargaining committee, for the Umon,4 went to the
plant, for the purpose of meeting with respondent's representatives 6
Wittner was told by the committee's chairman that "Hobble [Union's district
president] has been called out of town on business, and we have asked Mr.
Mathers, inasmuch as lie is an international representative, to assist us in
bargaining today " Wittner, in substance, informed the committee that the
respondent would not agree to have Mathers sit in on the negotiations A short
while later, Mathers arrived at the meeting,' Wittier asked Mathers why he
was there and Mathers stated that he was going to assist the committee in job
evaluation, in the absence of Hobble Wittier refused to bargain unless Mathers
left the meeting' After blathers departed, the committee and respondent car-
ried on negotiations on matters concerning job evaluations.
d. Mc,etiiig on July 2, 1946
On this date the Union 's bargaining committee , together with Hobbie and
blathers, went to the plant to meet with the respondent ' s representatives, for
the purpose of carrying on negotiations on matters covered under the contract
Leslie, Howland , and E D Kroft ` were present to represent the respondent.
The Union was informed that the respondent was willing to meet with the
committee but not while Mathers was present According to Hobbie 's testi-
mony which the undersigned credits, the respondent was informed that Mathers
was a designated representative of the International Union . blathers left
and the committee , Hobbie and the respondent 's representatives then proceeded
with their negotiations.
e. Respondent's contentions
The respondent contends that it was justified in its position taken on May 10
and July 2, 1946, for substantially the following reasons.
(1) The Union was attempting to force the respondent into joint negoti-
ations by having Mathers present as its bargaining representative
(2) Mathers was not a duly authorized representative of the Union
These contentions are hereinafter considered in the order named.
(1) As to the contention that the Union was attempting to force joint negotiation
upon the respondent
It is admitted that Mathers was an active member of Local 115 which together
with the Union has, in the past, sought to hold joint negotiation with the re-
spondent. However, there is nothing in the i ecord to show that there were any
joint negotiations contemplated at either of these meetings by the Union or
Mathers The record clearly shows that Mathers was appearing on May 10
and July 2, 1946, solely for the purpose of assisting the Union in its negotiations,
4 June B Wiltse, chanman , L R. Ellery , Marian Chandler and Wilma Knpker.
6 J C Wittner, duector of industrial relations , Roger Leslie, personnel manager, Archie
Howland , office manager
0 This appears from the credited testimony of June B Wiltse.
' This appears from the credited testimony of Wittner.
8 E D Kroft has succeeded Leslie as personnel manager. Leslie is not now with the
respondent.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the respondent, as its international representative and not as a representa-
tive for Local 115. The evidence is also clear and convincing that at both of these
meetings, the Union's bargaining committee was present for the sole purpose
of negotiating with the respondent, as provided by its contract, on matters affect-
ing the employees in its unit ° Accordingly the undersigned concludes and finds
that there is no merit in this contention of the respondent.
(2) As to thq contention that Mathers was not a duly authorized repi esentative
of the Union
The record shows and the undersigned finds that blathers, on May 10 and July
2, 1946, was a duly appointed international representative of the Union, and for
that reason it is not necessary to consider the respondent's contention that
Mathers had not been duly elected a member of the Union's bargaining commit-
tee as provided by the contract" The respondent contends that the contract
only provides for an international officer to assist in meetings with the plant
manager, and as the plant manager was not present at either of the aforemen-
tioned meetings, Mathers was not entitled to be present The provision of the
contract to which the respondent refers reads as follows: "The Union may call
in international officers to assist in meeting with the plant manager " The record
shows that this provision has never been enforced and furtheimore it is the
opinion of the undersigned, that the term "plant manager" was intended to mean
the authorized representative of the respondent. The undersigned finds that
Mathers as an international representative of the Union was duly authorized
to represent it at the meetings of May 10 and July 2, 1946.
Conclusions
The undersigned agrees with the respondent's counsel that the record shows
the bargaining relations between the Union and the respondent have been gen=
eially good. The matters for which Mothers was appearing, at the two meet-
ings ham e been negotiated without him. However this issue appears to be
current at the plant" and apparently cannot be settled without a determina-
tion by the Board The respondent refuses to bargain with the Union's inter-
national representative apparently because he belongs to another Local in the
plant. It is well settled that an employer may not dictate the personnel of the
group his employees select to represent them" The undersigned concludes that
the respondent's refusal to bargain under these circumstances was not justi
fled. The undersigned finds that the respondent, by refusing on May 10, 1946,
° The undenied and credited testimony of the Board ' s witnesses ' show that at the meeting
on May 10 the Union sought to bargain regarding point values of jobs and job descriptions
and at the July 2 meeting on lob evaluations, seniority set-up,; and details regarding
grievance procedure, concerning only the eniplovees in its own unit
10 The contract in iegaid to the bargaining committee has the following provision "A
committee of four, who are to be elected, and «ho shall constitute the bargaining and/or
grievance committee " . "The Union shall furnish the Conipanv a list of all the
above mentioned Union representatives and shall notify the Conipanv immediately of any
changes."
"The record shows that on another occasion Local 115 had sought to bargain with the
respondent, with one of its representatives, being a member of Local 222 The respondent
iefused to recognize this representative although he was an international representative,
for substantially the same reasons its its refusal now to recognize Mathers
12 Mattel of Lindeman Power amid Equipment Company, 11 N L Ii B 868, Mattes of
New Era Die Company, 19 N. L It B 227 , Matter of Hancock Brick tt Tile Company,
44 N L R B 920.
THE OLIVER CORPORATION 493
and at all times thereafter to accord recognition to Mathers as a bargaining
representative of the Union, has thereby refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit and has thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of 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 connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section 1.
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found
to constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Because of the basis of the respondent's refusal to bargain as indicated
in the facts found, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of
other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct
in the past, the undersigned will not recommend that the respondent cease and
desist from the commission of any other unfair labor practices. Nevertheless,
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend
that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, Local No 222,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. All office employees of the respondent at its Charles City, Iowa. plant, ex-
cluding supervisors, purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, technical eni-
ployees and confidential employees, at all tunes material herein constituted and
now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
3. United Farm Equipment and Metal Woi kei s of America, Local No 222,
C. I 0, was at all times material herein and now is the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4 By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union on or about May 10, 1946,
and at all times thereafter as the exclusive representatives of the employees in
the above-described unit, the res^naident has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act
5 By the above acts, respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coercea
its emplo.i ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
has thereby engaged in and, is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
The Oliver Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Farm Equipment and Metal
Workers of America, Local 222, C I 0, as the exclusive representative of all
office employees of the respondent at its Charles City, Iowa, 'plant, excluding
supervisors, purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, technical employees,
and confidential employees, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment for the reason that a bargaining repre-
sentative of the Union is also an international representative or a member of
another Local, representing other emplo} ees of the respondent, or both;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Farm Equipment and
Metal Workers of America, Local No 222, C I 0 , to bargain collectively with it
on behalf of the employees in the afoi esaid appropriate unit.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Farm Equipment and
Metal Workers of America, Local No 222, C I. 0., as the exclusive representa-
tive of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with i espect to i ates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment even
though a bargaining representative of the Union is also an international repre-
sentative or a member of another Local i epresenting other employees of the
respondent, or both;
(b) Post at its plant in Charles City, Iowa, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A" Copies of.such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall, otter being duly signed by an author-
ized representative of the respondent, be posted by respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive clays thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to insure that
said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any othei material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recoiumendations.
As provided in Section 209.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor
Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for
the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules
and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochainbeau Building, Washington 25,
D C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel
for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director Proof of service on the
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re-
THE OLIVER CORPORATION 495
quired by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of serv-
ice of the order transferring the case to the Board.
WILLIAM J. SCOTT,
Trial Examiner
Dated October 11, 1946.
"APPENDIX A"
NOTIes TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations 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 bargain collectively with the United Farm Equipment
& Metal Workers of America, Local No 222, C. I 0, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all our employees in the unit described below although the bar-
gaining representative of the Union may be an international representative
or a member of another Local in our plant, or both.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, although the bargaining representative of the Union may be
an international representative, or a member of another Local in our plant,
or both. The bargaining unit is:
All office employees at our Charles City, Iowa, plant, excluding supervisors,
purchasing agent, assistant purchasing agent, technical employees, and con-
fidential employees.
THE OLIVER CORPORATION,
Entployer.
Dated------------------ 1'y-----------------------------------
(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.
755420-48-vol. 74-33