Thompson Machine & Tool Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1671 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

THOMPSON MACHINE & TOOL, CORP. 1671
Thompson Machine & Tool Corporation and United TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
12-CA-3879(1-2)
August 21, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
On May 27, 1968, Trial Examiner A. Norman
Somers issued his Decision in the above proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, a motion to remand, and
a brief in support thereof. The General Counsel and
the Union then filed separate briefs in opposition to
the Respondent's exceptions and motion to re-
mand.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, exceptions, motion,' briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Thompson Machine
and Tool Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, its
officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended Order.
The Respondent 's motion to remand is hereby denied In Mar-Jac
Poultry Company, Inc , 136 NLRB 785, cited by the Trial Examiner, the
Board held that a certified union was entitled to a full year of good-faith
bargaining , even though there the employer was given credit for a substan-
tial period of bargaining that had taken place prior to its unfair labor prac-
tices (supra, 787, at fn 6 ) In the present case, the Respondent , by failing
to answer the complaint , admitted it had refused to bargain at all times
since the certification , and, moreover , admitted that , commencing shortly
after the certification , it had engaged in repeated , particular efforts to un-
dermine the Union's bargaining status In view of the above, we believe that
a full year of bargaining is warranted and adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order in this regard
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. NORMAN SOMERS, Trial Examiner: On June
20, 1967, United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter the Union), filed a charge
with Region 12 of the National Labor Relations
Board, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
Board (hereafter the Board's Rules),' that Thomp-
son Machine & Tool Corporation (hereafter the
Respondent or the Employer) engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On these charges, the
Regional Director for Region 12, on behalf of the
General Counsel, on April 17, 1968, issued a com-
plaint, duly served on the Respondent, alleging that
the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act refused and continues to refuse, on
the Union's request, to bargain collectively with the
Union for the employees in the bargaining unit
therein described in disregard of the fact that in a
representation proceeding under Section 9 of the
Act a majority of the employees in the unit in a
secret ballot election held March 3, 1967,
designated the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit and the Union on March 13, 1967, was duly
certified by the Board as said exclusive collective-
bargaining representative. The complaint further al-
leged that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in additional
respects in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Along with the complaint was a notice of hearing
setting the place of hearing and also the date
therefor-June 3, 1968, at 9:30 a.m. Included with
the notice of hearing was the following notification:
You are further notified that, pursuant to
Section 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Respondent shall
file with the undersigned Regional Director,
acting in this matter as an agent of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, an original and 4
copies of an answer to said complaint within
10 days from the service thereof, and that un-
less it does so, all of the allegations in the com-
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be
true and may be so found by the Board.
Respondent shall immediately serve a copy of
the answer on each of the other parties, as
required by the above sections of the Rules.
On May 2, 1968, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. It stated
that though Respondent was required to file an
answer to the complaint not later than April 30,
1968, Respondent has failed to file an answer to the
complaint and has submitted no application to ex-
tend the time therefor, nor has any such extension
been otherwise granted. The motion further stated
I Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor
Relations Board, Series 8, as revised January 1, 1965
172 NLRB No. 193
1672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Paul A. Saad, Esq., who has been and still is at-
torney for Respondent, notified the Regional
Director for Region 12 by letter dated May 1,
1968, that said counsel for Respondent has no in-
tention of filing an answer in this matter. Counsel
for the General Counsel, calling attention to the ap-
propriate section of the Board's Rules,2 requested
that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted
and that appropriate findings of facts, conclusions
of law, and Decision and Order be entered in ac-
cord with all allegations of the complaint. The mo-
tion further requested that it be ruled upon before
the date of the hearing scheduled for June 3, 1968.
On May 6, 1968, a Trial Examiner of the Board is-
sued and duly caused to be served an Order To
Show Cause on the Motion of the General Coun-
sel for Summary Judgment, which advised that:
All parties are hereby ordered to show cause
in writing, if cause they have, on or before May
20, 1968 as to whether or not the Motion for
Summary Judgment should be granted.
Responses shall be accompanied by any briefs,
proposed findings or other matter intended to
be submitted, whether in connection with
disposition of the motion or in connection with
disposition of the case on the merits. In default
of adequate response showing cause to the
contrary the Motion for Summary Judgment
may be granted forthwith.
On May 17, 1968, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed and duly served proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and a recommended order.
The time prescribed in the Order To Show Cause
to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
namely, May 20, 1968, has expired, and no
response has been received from Respondent.
No answer having been filed to the complaint, no
response having been filed by Respondent to the
Motion for Summary Judgment or to the Order To
Show Cuse, and no cause to the contrary being
shown, the allegations of the complaint are deemed
to be admitted to be true, and it is so found.
Upon the basis of the entire record, the portion
of the notice of hearing setting a date for hearing of
the complaint is rescinded, and the Motion for
Summary Judgment is hereby granted. The allega-
tions of the complaint are hereby deemed admitted
as true and found to be true, and there are hereby
made the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in
the business of operating a machine and tool shop
in St. Petersburg, Florida.
During the past 12 months Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations,
' Sec 102 20
All allegations in the complaint , if no answer is filed shall be
purchased and received at its St. Petersburg,
Florida, location goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Florida.
Respondent is now and has been at all times
material herein an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is now, and has been at all times
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In accordance with the allegations of paragraphs
4 through 9 of the complaint, the following findings
are hereby made and are set forth in the same
manner as alleged in said paragraphs of the com-
plaint as follows:
4.
At all times material herein, the following occu-
pied the positions set opposite their respective
names and were and are now agents of Respondent,
acting on behalf of Respondent, and are supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act.
Peter P. Thompson-President
Robert Click-Foreman
5.
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's St. Petersburg plant, including plant
clerical employees and truckdrivers, excluding all
office clerical employees, technical and profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6.
On March 3, 1967, a majority of employees of
the Respondent in the unit described above in said
paragraph 5, by secret-ballot election conducted
under the supervision of the Regional Director for
Region 12 of the National Labor Relations
Board, designated and selected the Union as their
exclusive representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with Respondent, and on March 13,
1967, said Regional Director, on behalf of the
Board and pursuant to the authority duly delegated
to him under the Act and the Board's Rules, cer-
tified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees in said unit.
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board,
unless good cause to the contrary is shown
7.
THOMPSON MACHINE & TOOL, CORP. 1673
At all times since March 13, 1967, and continu-
ing to date, the Union has been the duly certified
representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining of the employees described above in para-
graph 5, and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act,
has been and is now the exclusive representative of
all employees in said unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
8.
Commencing on or about March 13, 1967, and
continuing to date, the Union has requested and is
requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit described above in para-
graph 5.
9.
Since on or about March 13, 1967, and continu-
ing to date, Respondent refused, and continues to
refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
unit described above in paragraph 5, and since on
or about March 13, 1967, and continuing to date,
Respondent, by its officers and agents has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, by the following acts and conduct en-
gaged in at its St. Petersburg, Florida, location:
(a) By refusing to meet with the Union at
reasonable intervals between bargaining sessions;
and, when meeting, agreeing to meet only for rela-
tively short periods of time.
(b) On or about May 20, 1967, by Foreman
Robert Click, at the plant, telling an employee that
further negotiations with the Union was foolish and
advising that the employees themselves should meet
with President Thompson.
(c) On or about May 22 and May 23, 1967, by
President Thompson , at the plant, meeting with and
bargaining directly with unit employees concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment wherein
Thompson offered increased wage rates, medical
and surgical benefit plans , paid holidays, incentive
wage plan, and bonus plan, all of which offers were
contingent upon unit employees abandoning their
support of the certified bargaining representative.
(d) On or about May 23, 1967, by President
Thompson, at the plant, threatening an employee
that the plant would close if the employees did not
accept his offers of benefits and wage increases and
abandon the Union.
(e) On or about July 31, 1967, September 14,
1967, and at various other times (the exact dates
presently being unknown), by President Thompson
informing employees that negotiation with the
Union was a waste of time, and that he would never
agree to anything.
(f) On or about August 10, 1967, by President
Thompson informing an employee that union ad-
herents would be discharged because they were
troublemakers.
(g) On or about August 14 and 21, 1967, and at
various times in October and November 1967 (the
exact dates being unknown) and on or about Janua-
ry 19, 1968, by unilaterally granting wage increases
to unit employees, while refusing to make an
equivalent wage offer to the Union in bargaining.
(h) On or about December 18, 1967, by notify-
ing the Union that a Christmas bonus was to be
granted to employees and thereafter effectuating
such action, with the timing of such notice chosen
by Respondent so as to prevent the Union from en-
gaging in any meaningful or effective bargaining
concerning this monetary benefit with the full
knowledge of the Respondent that such bonus plan
had never been discussed in previous bargaining
sessions with the Union.
(i) By Respondent , in bargaining sessions sub-
sequent to May 23, 1967, offering the Union,
without economic explanation or justification, less
than President Thompson had offered the em-
ployees in his direct bargaining with the employees
on or about May 22 and 23, 1967, although the
Union specifically by letter dated August 23, 1967,
agreed to execute a collective-bargaining agree-
ment on the basis of such offers.
Upon the said findings of fact and the entire
record and in accordance with the conclusion al-
leged in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the com-
plaint, I hereby arrive at and state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described in paragraph 9
of the complaint, and as above found, and by each
of said acts, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced , and is interfering with,
restraining , and coercing, its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
By the acts and conduct described in paragraph 9
of the complaint, and as above found, and by each
of said acts, Respondent did refuse to bargain col-
lectively, and is refusing to bargain collectively,
with the representative of its employees, and
thereby did engage in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 34
1674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The acts of Respondent described in paragraph 9
of the complaint, and as above found, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent
found above in Section I herein, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and
the entire record in the case and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, it is hereby recommended
that the Board issue the following:
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the effective
period of the certification, the initial year of certifi-
cation shall be deemed to begin on the date the
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith
with the Union as the recognized bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit.'
B. Thompson Machine and Tool Corporation, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collective-
ly with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of its employees in
the following appropriate unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment:
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's St. Petersburg, Florida, plant, in-
cluding plant clerical employees and
truckdrivers, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, technical and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to meet and bargain with the
above-named Union at reasonable intervals and for
reasonable periods of time.
(c) Meeting with and bargaining directly with
unit employees concerning wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
(d) Offering directly to employees various em-
ployee benefits contingent upon the employees
abandoning the Union.
(e) Telling employees that Respondent would
not agree to anything; urging employees to meet
and negotiate directly with Respondent; and, in
order to cause employees to meet and negotiate
directly with Respondent, telling employees that
negotiations with the Union are foolish and a waste
of time.
' The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining
agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poulin Co , Inc , 136
NLRB 785, Commerce Co d/h/a Laniar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd
328 F 2d 600 (C A 5, 1964), Burnett Construction Co , 149 NLRB 1419,
1421,enfd 350F2d57(CA 10,1965)
' 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
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
(f) Threatening to close the plant if employees
do not abandon the Union.
(g) Unilaterally granting wage increases, Christ-
mas bonuses, and other benefits to unit employees
without offering the Union reasonable opportunity
to bargain or negotiate thereon.
(h) Threatening employees that union adherents
would be discharged.
(i) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, including the above-
named labor organization, to bargain collectively
with representatives of their own choosing, to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining for mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is hereby found will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collec-
tively with the above-named labor organization as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-described unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Upon request, meet and bargain collectively
with the above-named Union with promptness, with
such frequency as is reasonably called for, and for
reasonable durations concerning the negotiation of
a contract.
(c) Notify and consult the above-named Union
and afford it an opportunity to bargain collectively,
with respect to any changes in wages, bonuses, and
other terms and conditions of employment before
effectuating such changes.
(d) Post at its plant in St. Petersburg, Florida,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
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 Ap-
peals 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 Re-
gion 12, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
THOMPSON MACHINE & TOOL, CORP. 1675
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bar-
gain collectively with United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment , and other terms
and conditions of employment.
All production and maintenance em-
ployees at Respondent 's St. Petersburg,
Florida , plant , including plant clerical em-
ployees and truckdrivers , excluding all of-
fice clerical employees , technical and
professional employees, guards , and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet and bargain
with the Union at reasonable intervals and for
reasonable periods of time.
WE WILL NOT bargain or negotiate directly
with unit employees concerning wages , hours,
and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT offer directly to employees
benefits contingent upon the employees' aban-
doning the Union.
WE WILL NOT urge employees to meet
directly with Respondent or, in order to cause
them to meet directly with us, tell employees
that further negotiations with the Union are a
waste of time and foolish.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if
employees do not abandon the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that union
adherents would be discharged because they
are troublemakers.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally grant wage in-
creases or any other benefits to unit employees
without first notifying the Union and offering
the Union reasonable time to engage in
meaningful bargaining concerning these
benefits.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form , join , or assist labor organizations , includ-
ing the above -named labor organization, to
bargain collectively with representatives of
their own choosing , to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining for mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request , recognize and bargain
collectively with the above-named labor or-
ganization as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the above -described unit with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of em-
ployment , and other terms and conditions of
employment , and embody in a signed agree-
ment any understanding reached.
WE WILL, upon request , meet and bargain
collectively with the above-named Union with
promptness , with such frequency as is
reasonably called for , and for reasonable dura-
tions concerning the negotiations of a contract.
WE WILL notify and consult with the above-
named Union , and offer the above-named
Union an opportunity to bargain collectively
with respect to any changes in wages , bonuses,
or other terms and conditions of employment
before effectuating such changes.
THOMPSON MACHINE &
TOOL CORPORATION
Employer
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive 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 , Room 706 , Federal Office Building, 500
Zack Street , Tampa , Florida 33602 , Telephone
228-7711, Extension 257.