United Steel Workers Of America, Local # 7807

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 78 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Steelworkers of America and its Local #7807
and ITT Abrasive Products Company , Division of
International Telephone & Telegraph Co. Case 8-
CB-2784
May 24, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On January 8, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
John F Corbley issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, to which the Charging Party
filed an answering brief
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to
adopt his recommended Order
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondents, United Steelworkers of
America and its Local #7807, their officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F CORBLEY, Administrative Law Judge A hearing
was held in this case on October 30 and 31, 1975, at Tiffin,
Ohio, pursuant to a charge filed by ITT Abrasive Products
Company, Division of International Telephone & Tele-
graph Co , hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Em-
ployer or Charging Party, on August 11, 1975, which was
served on Respondents on or about August 14, 1975, and
on a complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Acting
Regional Director for Region 8 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board on August 29, 1975, which was also duly
served on Respondents The complaint alleges that Re-
spondents have refused to bargain in good faith with the
Employer in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by re-
fusing since about August 5, 1975, to recommend and/or
submit a collective-bargaining agreement for ratification to
its membership unless the Employer provided Respondents
with certain information concerning the identities of cer-
tain individuals to be disciplined for alleged strike miscon-
duct and the extent of the discipline and/or Respondents
rejected this agreement pending receipt of this information
The complaint further alleges that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act since the same date by condition-
ing the instant submission or recommendation for ratifica-
tion upon the Employer's abandonment of its decision to
discipline the instant employees and, since August 8, 1975,
by deferring a ratification vote until the Employer's aban-
donment of its decision to discipline the instant employees
Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by prolonging the strike and
picketing in order to enforce the demands referred to in
their other conduct complained of, supra, and to exert pres-
sure on the Employer to accede to these demands In their
answer to the complaint, which was also duly filed, Re-
spondents denied the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices
For reasons which appear hereinafter, I find and con-
clude that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act
essentially as alleged in the complaint
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel
They were given full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs
All parties waived oral argument at the conclusion of the
hearing Briefs have subsequently been received from all
parties and have been considered
Upon the entire record in this case including the briefs
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
The Employer is a division of International Telephone &
Telegraph Co a Delaware corporation The Employer op-
erates its only plant in Tiffin, Ohio, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of abrasives Annually, in the course and
conduct of its business it ships products valued in excess of
$50,000 from its Tiffin, Ohio, plant to plants directly out-
side the State of Ohio
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Employer 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 RESPONDENTS THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
There are two Respondents herein-the United Steel-
workers of America and its Local #7807 The complaint
alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that the Respon-
dents have been, and are now, labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
224 NLRB No 27
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #7807 79
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
The events in issue here occurred in 1975 near the con-
clusion of bargaining negotiations between the Respon-
dents and the Employer for a new collective-bargaining
agreement covering the Employer's employees working at
its facilities in Tiffin, Ohio
The following employees of such facilities constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees in the
plant of the Employer at Tiffin, Ohio, but excluding
office and plant clerical employees, inspectors and
timekeepers, guards, technical employees, professional
employees and supervisors, as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act of 1947 as amended
Since about June 4, 1972, as well as for many years prior
thereto, and at all times material herein, the Respondents
have been the joint representatives for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining of the employees in the unit described
above and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, have been,
and are now, the exclusive representatives of all employees
in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment
Harold Price and George Ferguson are, and were at all
times pertinent hereto, the president and vice president,
respectively, of Respondent Local, as well as being mem-
bers of Respondents' bargaining committee and represen-
tatives of Respondent Local in bargaining negotiations at
various times in August and September 1975 Walter Sledz
has been the subdistrict director of Respondent Interna-
tional since June 1, 1975 Robert Kemp is, and has been, a
staff representative of Respondent International Both
Sledz and Kemp represented Respondent International at
bargaining sessions with the Employer in August and Sep-
tember 1975 I accordingly conclude that, at all pertinent
times herein, and particularly in August and September
1975, Price and Ferguson were agents of Respondent Lo-
cal, acting in its behalf, and Sledz and Kemp were agents
of Respondent International, acting in its behalf, all within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act Since Respon-
dents represent the employees in the unit jointly and since
both supplied representatives to the bargaining committee
which conducted negotiations in the unit in 1975, the con-
duct of the agent of any one Respondent in these negotia-
tions and related matters is chargeable to both Respon-
dents 1
The Employer and Respondents were parties to a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which by its terms was in effect
from June 7, 1972, until June 3, 1975, and contained provi-
sions regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the above-described unit
Pursuant to the request of the Respondents, the Employ-
er and the Respondents commenced collective-bargaining
negotiations about April 18, 1975, in anticipation of the
expiration of their then existing collective-bargaining
agreement which remained in effect until June 3, 1975 2
From about April 18 until about September 4, the Em-
ployer and the Respondents participated in numerous col-
lective-bargaining sessions at which they negotiated con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the employ-
ees in the instant collective-bargaining unit
Since June 3, and continuously thereafter until at bast
September 8, when they ratified a collective-bargaining
agreement between Respondents and the Employer, the
employees in this unit have concertedly engaged in a strike
against the Employer in furtherance of their bargaining
objectives 3
This strike was attended with certain acts of misconduct
on the picket line and elsewhere These acts began in June
and continued throughout the strike The first serious inci-
dent occurred on or about July 7 The next day John Wells,
the Employer's director of industrial relations, telephoned
Harold Price, the president of Respondent Local and Rob-
ert Kemp, a staff representative of Respondent Interna-
tional, and advised them of this incident and informed
them that the Employer would not tolerate any further in-
cidents of violence 4
The most serious act of violence occurred on July 15
when a truck or trucks were damaged An injunction (ap-
parently from a state court) resulted At the bargaining
session between the Employer and Respondents about July
18 or 19 the Employer representatives pointed out these
matters to the Respondents' representatives and advised
them that any employees involved would be subject to dis-
cipline No employees were named, however, nor were any
specific disciplinary determinations discussed 5
At another bargaining session which took place on July
29, the Employer representatives advised the representa-
tives of Respondents that certain other incidents had oc-
curred which involved the breaking of windows and ac-
cused the Respondents of a breach of good faith Sledz
disclaimed any knowledge of these incidents and stated
that Respondents did not condone them 6
On August 5, 1975, the Respondents and the Employer
met for a bargaining session which resulted in a tentative
agreement Representing the Employer at this meeting
were Wells, Fenton Kelly (the Employer's director of man-
agement), and James Maloney from the ITT staff in New
York City The representatives of Respondent Internation-
Z Unless otherwise noted all dates appearing hereafter occurred in 1975
3 The foregoing findings are based on the admissions in Respondents
answer to the complaint as supplemented by undisputed facts of record
except the findings as to the agency status of Price Ferguson Sledz and
Kemp The latter findings variously are based on the uncontradicted tests
mony of witnesses for both sides
4 These findings are based on the essentially corroborative testimony of
Wells and Fenton Kelly the Employers director of management I find no
prior inconsistent statement in this regard in the affidavit of either of these
two witnesses
5 These findings are based on the essentially corroborative testimony of
Wells and Walter Sledz the subdistrict director of the Respondent Interna-
tional
i Indeed Respondents concede in their brief that representatives of both 6 These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Sledz in this
Respondents took identical positions on all issues regard
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
al were Bob Kemp and Walter Sledz Harold Price, the
Local's president, George Ferguson, the Local's vice presi-
dent, and Charles Stark, Pat Gillen, and Dean Nye repre-
sented the Local Also present was Harold Webber, a Fed-
eral mediator
Inasmuch as Webber had missed a meeting, Sledz began
the meeting around 1 15 or 1 30 p in by summarizing the
progress of negotiations to date All matters had generally
been agreed to except for a cost-of-living increase, the date
of termination for the new contract, the matter of insur-
ance premiums, and the question, introduced by Sledz, of
amnesty for any employees allegedly involved in strike
misconduct Agreement was eventually reached by about
midafternoon on all matters except for the requested am-
nesty 7
Sledz, when he introduced the subject, had suggested
that there be no recriminations and he had pointed out that
this result would restore a favorable atmosphere for the
bargaining relationship in the future The Employer how-
ever rejected this proposal Sledz stated that he would take
the tentative contract to a ratification meeting of bargain-
ing unit employees but that he would not recommend it
because of the Employer's refusal to grant amnesty 8
7 For example, as Sledz admitted, the Employer agreed to pay the insur-
ance premiums for August if the contract was ratified in August
The findings in the paragraph are based on the credible testimony of
Wells in this regard as generally corroborated by Sledz
8 Wells and Kelly credibly so testified Sledz for his part did not precisely
deny that he made this statement He instead denied that he made the
Employer's abandonment of recriminations a `condition of submitting the
matter for ratification and he further denied that he ever took the `position'
that, unless the Employer agreed to no recrimination, then the Union would
not recommend the package for ratification He likewise denied that he or
any other union official or member of Respondents' bargaining committee
took the "position' that they would not recommend the acceptance of the
tentative agreement because the Employer reserved the right to take disci-
plinary action against some employees Each of the denials falls short of
denying that he said he would not recommend the proposal because the
Employer would not agree to take no reprisals
In making these findings on the basis of the credible testimony of Wells
and Kelly, and in reading the denials of Sledz literally, and in limiting the
intrepretation of the denials to what they expressly contain, I am persuaded
that the logic of events supports the testimony credited I have particularly
noted in this regard the fact that it was Sledz who raised the amnesty matter
at the meeting of August 5, insistently tried to make the Employer change
its position on the matter and then, as will appear, he (along with other
members of Respondents' bargaining committee) did in fact recommend to
the membership on August 8 that a vote on the tentative agreement be
postponed and the contract be rejected until the Employer ceased its
claimed "unfair labor practices' in regard to discipline of employees alleg
edly engaged in strike misconduct Sledz also admitted that he asked the
Employer representatives at this meeting the question inter alia if the em-
ployees were supposed to ratify the contract and then run the risk of being
fired And he testified that he considered any such arrangement to be unac
ceptable
Price, who also testified in respect to the meeting of August 5 admitted
that the union representatives told the Employer representatives that the
former would not recommend the contract proposal to the unit employees
He also admitted that Sledz stated to the Employer representatives that he
did not feel the employees should be voting on a package without knowing
whether they would be disciplined I attach no weight to Price s testimony
as to the untruth of the allegations of the complaint that the recommenda-
tion of the tentative agreement to the membership for ratification was con-
ditioned upon a change in the Employer s decision to discipline or discharge
employees Such a denial really adds little if anything to the Respondents
denials in their answer to the complaint For this is one of the ultimate
issues which we came to try and involves legal as well as factual ramifica
tions Rather, what we are concerned with at this puncture is what was said
Sledz then strenuously sought to obtain the names of the
employees to be disciplined, the reasons for the discipline,
and the degree of discipline intended, the balance of the
meeting was primarily devoted to this effort The Employer
representatives declined to provide names saying that they
were not then in a position to determine which employees
would be charged The Employer representatives did, how-
ever, agree to submit all disciplinary actions to the contrac-
tual grievance and arbitration machinery-indeed to ex-
pedite such matters by beginning the action at the third
step of the grievance procedure 9
Sledz, however, continued to insist on being provided
with the names of employees to be disciplined In the face
of the adamance of the Employer representatives in this
regard, Sledz told them that his recommendation of the
contract for ratification by the employees depended upon
the Employer's capitulation on the matter of recrimina-
tions or discipline or at least giving Respondents the names
of the employees involved 10
Sledz with the aid of his attorney, Lackey, persisted in
these efforts to obtain the desired information about em-
ployees to be disciplined into the late evening but with no
avail Maloney only told Lackey that about 11 unnamed
employees were expected to be disciplined and that they
did not include Price, the president of the Respondent
Local l l
On August 6, the Employer sent a letter to all employees
advising them of the bargaining session of August 5 and
informing them, inter aha, that "The [Union] committee
indicated that they would not recommend the acceptance
of the [Employer's] proposal because of the Company's re-
serving the right to take disciplinary action against those
few individuals who may have been involved in serious
acts of misconduct and/or destruction of property "
Unit employees were notified by means of announce-
ments on the local radio and in the local newspaper that a
union meeting would be held on August 8 The meeting
took place, as scheduled, on that date and was attended by
some 148 employees out of 250 in the bargaining unit
Kemp, the staff representative of Respondent Interna-
tional, began the meeting by reciting to those present the
agreements reached between Respondents and the Em-
ployer Sledz then explained that "there was one issue re-
or done at the meeting of August 5 And Price did not precisely deny that
Sledz made the statement which I have found that Sledz made, based on
the credited testimony of Wells and Kelly
Nor am I persuaded that Kelly's testimony on cross -examination alters
my conclusions here This testimony adverted to in Respondents' brief was
that Respondents did not `by word or substance indicate that ' they would
not take the offer back to the membership unless the Employer stopped
insisting on [its] right to discipline Kelly was a cautious and literal witness
as the record shows Hence I read this and his other testimony literally He
was not asked on cross to deny his testimony on direct that Sledz stated he
would not recommend the contract `because Respondents couldn t tolerate
no recrimination with respect to the disciplinary action ' Consequently I
conclude that this last testimony which corroborates the credited testimony
of Wells was not contradicted by Kelly in his above-mentioned testimony
on cross
9 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Wells in this
regard as corroborated or not denied by Sledz or Price
0 These findings are based on the notes of Wells, as corroborated, in part
by the admissions of Sledz
11 These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Sledz and
Price in this regard as partly corroborated by Wells
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #7807 81
marning " That issue dealt with the matter of the
Employer's decision to discipline strikers for alleged strike
misconduct Respondents ' bargaining committee then
drafted a motion to defer voting on the contract proposals
until the matter was cleared up Specifically , the motion
recommended by the bargaining committee was as follows
It is the recommendation of your committee that
the ratification vote in the Economic and language
Package that has been agreed on, be deferred , but that
the contract should be rejected while the company
ceases its unfair labor practices regarding discharge
and disaphniers [ sic] of workers
Respondents ' counsel , Lackey , then took the floor and
explained the legal aspects of the statement in the motion
that the Employer 's conduct was an unfair labor practice
A vote was taken on the motion and all, who voted, cast
their ballots in favor of the above -quoted resolution
At the conclusion of the meeting Sledz directed Lackey
to file an unfair labor practice charge against the Employ-
er This was done shortly thereafter and was docketed in
Region 8 of the National Labor Relations Board on Au-
gust 11 as Case 8-CA-9372 12
After the meeting Price gave a written and oral state-
ment to the Tiffin Advertisor Tribune, a local mewspaper
In this statement (prepared by Price , Sledz , Kemp, and
Lackey) Price stated that the Employer 's proposal had
been rejected at the union meeting because "in a letter to
employees dated August 6, 1975, the Company insisted
that it was going to take disciplinary action against certain
unnamed workers for unknown reasons "13
Also on August 8, subsequent to the conclusion of the
ratification meeting , Kemp telephoned Wells to let him
know that the Employer's proposal had been rejected at
the meeting When Wells asked Kemp if there had been
any specific objections to the proposal , Kemp told Wells
that the employees had voted to set the proposal aside and
voted instead to back the Union with regard to the issues
on disciplinary actions and amnesty for picket line viola-
tors 14
12 These findings as to what transpired at the union meeting of August 8
are based on the admissions of Sledz and Price and the minutes of the
meetings
13 In his full testimony Price so admitted While he testified this item in
the newspaper article could be misconstrued he did not testify that what he
told the newspaper in his statement differed in any material respect from
what was reported (and quoted above) More will be said however in re-
spect to this vote in my `Concluding Findings
14 The findings are based on the credible testimony of Wells in this re-
gard I see no essential conflict in the version of Kemp who explained the
basis of the rejection as having to do with 'me (Kemp the Respondent
International official) not knowing who or how many people would be
subject to disciplinary action with this hanging over their heads there was
no way of knowing when they were going back to work The inclusion of
the ' me' in Kemp's version suggests in agreement with Wells version that
the employee vote was in support of Kemp hence in support of the Respon-
dents Kemp's additional comment in his version that he also told Wells that
we view" the Employers refusal to provide the names as an unfair labor
practice further suggests the accuracy of Wells version in all the circum-
stances For the vote at the meeting of August 8 was taken after Lackey
explained to the unit employees that it was Respondents' legal position that
the Employers action in not providing names was an unfair labor practice
Since the vote obviously supported this position the vote necessarily sup
ported Respondents in taking that position That Kemp should mention
Kelly, Employer's director of management, also received
a telephone call on August 8 in respect to the vote at the
union meeting The caller was Ferguson, Respondent
Local's vice president and a member of the Respondents'
bargaining committee After asking Kelly how Kelly liked
"eating crow," Ferguson went on to tell Kelly that the em-
ployees had set the Employer's contract offer aside and
voted, instead, to support the Union 15
On September 4 the Employer's and Respondents' repre-
sentatives again met Wells, Maloney, and Kelly were pre-
sent for the Employer-for Respondents the representa-
tives were Sledz, Kemp, Ferguson, Gillin, Nye, and Stark
At this meeting the Employer's representatives provided
Respondents with the names of the employees to be disci-
plined and generally the reasons why There was also a
discussion of insurance premiums for unit employees The
Respondents agreed to pay the premiums for August and
the Employer for September
On September 8 a meeting of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit was held Sledz gave the employees the infor-
mation, provided him by the Employer on September 5 in
respect to the employees to be disciplined There followed
some discussion of the contract package wherein Sledz an-
swered questions from the floor The package was eventu-
ally put to a vote and a majority of the employees agreed to
ratify it
Within a few days after September 9, withdrawal of the
charge in Case 8-CA-9372 was approved by the Regional
Director
The strike and picketing apparently ceased when the
contract was ratified on September 8
B Concluding Findings
As I have found, the Employer and Respondents
reached agreement as of August 5, 1975, on all items ex-
cept the matter of amnesty for employees allegedly in-
volved in strike misconduct which, of course, includes such
related elements as their identities, the discipline proposed,
and the reason for the discipline While, as I have further
found, some disagreement arose at the bargaining session
of September 4, as to the Employer's claimed obligation to
pay the insurance for August, this does not alter my con-
clusion that a final agreement-except for the amnesty is-
sues-had been struck on August 5 For, as Sledz admitted
and Wells' notes show, the Employer only agreed to pay
the August premiums if the contract was ratified in Au-
gust-which, of course, it was not And, as Wells' notes
further show, and I find, the Employer agreed that if there
was no ratification at Respondents' meeting of August 8,
then the Employer would pay premiums as they became
due after the date of ratification There is no indication
that the Respondents rejected this condition at the meeting
of August 5 In sum, therefore, I conclude that the total
and final agreement on this item was that the Employer
would pay premiums as they came due after the ratifica-
Respondents view in the context of telling Wells what the employees voted
on clearly indicates Kemp's intention to convey to Wells Kemp's opinion
that the employees voted to support Respondents
15 These findings are based on the credible and undisputed testimony of
Kelly in this regard Ferguson did not testify
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion whenever ratification took place Since all other items
were clearly agreed to on August 5, and since I have found
there was also a final agreement on this item, this means
that, as of August 5, there was final agreement in toto on a
new contract except on the amnesty problem and issues
directly related thereto
But the matter of amnesty for employees engaged in
strike misconduct with its related issues such as the identity
of the alleged miscreants, the discipline proposed, the rea-
sons for the discipline, and even the dates when all such
information would be provided to Respondents is not a
mandatory subject of bargaining
I reach this conclusion based on the following The Em-
ployer has the absolute right, as Respondents concede in
their brief, to discipline employees who engage in strike
misconduct 16 And, as Respondents further concede in
their brief, the matter of discipline for strike misconduct is
a permissive subject of bargaining and not a mandatory
subject 17 This means, of course, that the Employer had no
obligation to bargain with Respondents in respect to its
right to exercise such discipline 18
Inasmuch as the subject is a permissive one and does not
give rise to a bargaining obligation, it seems to me, consis-
tently, that the Employer thus had no obligation to furnish
information in respect to that subject-viz it was not re-
quired to identify the strikers subject to discipline, the rea-
sons for their selection, the nature of expected discipline
nor the time when such details would be provided 19
This is not, however, to say that the act of discipline
itself, if and when it is ever exercised will not then become a
mandatory subject Rather it seems clear that such an act
could become a mandatory subject at the time it takes
place or when the machinery to effect it has begun opera-
tion At such time the subject could become mandatory,
for example, if it were shown that the real reason any given
striker was being disciplined was a discriminatory one and
that such employee was not truly being disciplined for
claimed strike misconduct 20
But no such question had arisen at the time of the Au-
gust 5 meeting between the Employer and Respondents
No employee had been disciplined nor had those to be
selected been sorted out 21 Consequently the demands of
Respondents in this regard at that juncture were premature
and the Employer was under no obligation to respond at
that time The possibility of its later obligation to bargain
16 N L R B v Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation 306 U S 240 253
(1939)
17 National Carbon Division, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and
National Carbon Company, Inc, 100 NLRB 689, 695 (1952), Local No 611
International Chemical Workers Union AFL-CIO (Purex Corporation Limit-
ed), 123 NLRB 1507 (1959), Midwestern Instruments Inc 133 NLRB 1132
1141 (1961)
is N L R B v Wooster Division of Borg Warner Corporation 356 U S 342
349 (1958)
19 Whereas, of course, had the subject been a mandatory one, the provi-
sion of such information would be part and parcel of an employers duty to
bargain See, e g , N L R B v Truitt Mfg Co, 351 U S 149 (1956)
2 National Carbon Division supra at 695, Kohler Co 128 NLRB 1062
1108 In 20 (1960)
21 Respondent makes much of the fact that most of those selected for
discipline were involved in the truck incident of July 15 of which the Em
player was well aware and in fact had a videotape But most are not all and
the Employer was asked to identify all
after disciplinary action would have commenced was, how-
ever, clearly acknowledged by it at the meeting of August 5
when it agreed to submit all disciplinary determinations to
the grievance machinery under its previous contract with
Respondents At the time of any such submission the Em-
ployer would, of course, also be required to provide suffi-
cient information to Respondents to enable them to prose-
cute any such grievance intelligently 22 But that
requirement had not arisen at the time in question here,
hence is not before me 23
Insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargain-
ing and strike (or, as here, prolongation of a preexisting
strike) by a labor organization or organizations constitutes
an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act 24
Here I conclude that, as alleged in the complaint, Re-
spondents have insisted to impasse on this bargaining sub-
ject, continued to strike and picket in support of their de-
mands in respect to this subject, and have thereby violated
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act The specific allegations of the
complaint deal with the methods adopted by Respondents
to carry out their unlawful insistence in respect to this non-
mandatory subject
More precisely, as I have found (par 12,B of the com-
plaint) Sledz advised the Employer representatives on Au-
gust 5-after they had declined to grant the requested am-
nesty-that he would take the tentative contract to a
ratification meeting of bargaining unit employees but that
he would not recommend it for ratification because of the
Employer's refusal to grant amnesty The obvious implica-
tion of this statement when made was that, if the Employer
would grant the requested amnesty, Sledz would recom-
mend that the employees ratify the tentative agreement
Sledz did not obtain the sought after amnesty Although
the later emphasis of his efforts at the meeting of August 5
was directed at obtaining the details of the discipline for
alleged strike misconduct, he never withdrew his statement
that he would not recommend the contract because of the
Employer's refusal to grant the requested amnesty Fur-
ther, Respondents' bargaining committee did not on Au-
gust 8 recommend to the employees that they ratify the
contract-the committee rather recommended against it
And, as Price told the local newspaper, the contract was
rejected because the Employer "insisted it was going to
take disciplinary action against certain unnamed workers
for unknown reasons " It follows that Respondents from
August 5 to at least September 4 conditioned their recom-
mendation for ratification of the contract, at least in part,
upon the Employer's abandonment of its decision to disci-
22 E g Hawkins Construction Company 210 NLRB 965, 966 (1974)
23 In reaching my conclusion that the Employer was not bound to furnish
the instant information herein at the time it was requested on August 5 1 do
not deem myself bound by Administrative Law Judge Bisgyer s dictum
opinion to the contrary which appears in Food Service Company 202 NLRB
790, 805 (1973) No precedent was cited by Judge Bisgyer in support of his
view which exceeds the bounds, in my judgment, of National Carbon Divi
sion and Kohler which I have discussed, supra
24 Portland Stereotypers and Electotypers Union No 48 and International
Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL CIO 137
NLRB 782 787 (1962) Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No
2265 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO 136 NLRB 769 (1962), enfd 317 2d 269 (C A 6, 1963), see N L R B v
Wooster Division of Borg Warner Corporation supra
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #7807
pline employees for strike misconduct 25 (the other part
being that the employees to be disciplined were unnamed
and the reasons for their discipline was unknown to Re-
spondents)
Further (par 12,A of the complaint), as I have found,
and as Sledz essentially admitted, Sledz told the Employer
at the meeting of August 5 that he could not recommend
the contract for ratification unless the Employer at least
capitulated on Sledz' demand to provide him the names of
the employees to be disciplined He also sought to learn the
reasons for and extent of the discipline and the dates when
this information would be forthcoming Respondents con-
tinued to refuse their recommendation until the Employer
provided the information sought on September 4 Hence it
is clear, as the complaint alleges, that Respondents on Au-
gust 5 and thereafter until at least September 4 refused to
recommend the tentative contract for ratification until they
received information from the Employer regarding the
identities of the employees who were to be disciplined for
alleged strike misconduct as well as the nature of and rea-
sons for such discipline
Also, as I have found (par 12,C of the complaint), the
Respondents' bargaining committee proposed and recom-
mended a motion at the meeting of unit employees on Au-
gust 8 that voting on the contract be deferred until the
Employer ceased its "unfair labor practices regarding
[threatened, discharges and disapliniers [sic] of workers "
And Respondents represented to the employees at this
meeting that certain actions of the Employer in respect to
the matter of discipline of employees for alleged strike mis-
conduct were unfair labor practices These improper ac-
tions, according to what Sledz and Lackey told the employ-
ees, were the refusals to provide the names of the
employees, the reasons for the discipline and extent of it,
and the time when the information would be forthcoming
In the face of Respondents' recommendation and the rep-
resentation that the conduct of the Employer was an unfair
labor practice, the employees, not unpredictably, voted to
defer the ratification vote This also meant that until the
Employer changed its position the contract stood rejected
Inasmuch as Respondents led the employees to this vote,
Respondents are responsible for it Hence, Respondents
are correctly charged with having deferred a vote on ratifi-
cation and rejecting the contract until the Employer aban-
doned its decision to discipline or terminate employees for
alleged strike misconduct
While the testimony of Sledz suggests that the emphasis
of Respondents' position at the employee meeting of Au-
gust 8 was placed upon the Employer's failure to identify
the alleged miscreants and to give the reasons for and ex-
tent of the proposed discipline rather than on the decision
to discipline per se, Respondents, as I have found, did not
withdraw their initial demand (at the meeting of August 5
with the Employer) for a "no recriminations agreement"
nor their condition that no recommendation for ratifica-
25 In making this finding, I am not unmindful that Sledz denied that he
stated any such condition at the meeting of August 5 My finding as to the
instant condition is based not on what he said explicitly but the implications
of his remark that he would not recommend ratification because the Em-
ployer refused to grant amnesty
83
tion would be made until Respondents obtained such an
agreement Hence I conclude, at least as of August 8, that
Respondents' intentions in regard to obtaining full amnes-
ty had not changed-only the means that they used to ob-
tain their way That is, they garnered employee support for
rejecting the contract by means of their claim that the
Employer's refusal to provide names, reasons, etc , was an
unfair labor practice Moreover, the fundamental question
whether the Employer would discipline is, at least to a de-
gree, intertwined with the sought after details as to names,
reasons, etc , with respect to the employees intended to be
disciplined Certainly Price thought so when he told the
local newspaper that the employees' rejection of the con-
tract was because the Employer "insisted it was going to
take disciplinary action against certain unnamed workers
for unnamed reasons "
Finally, as I have found, the Respondents and the Em-
ployer had reached a tentative final agreement on all items
except the matter of employee discipline and issues related
thereto Inasmuch as the Respondents were not entitled to
insist to impasse on this nonmandatory subject-that is,
permit nonagreement on it to stand in the way of a tenta-
tive collective-bargaining contract covering mandatory
items-Respondents' insistence thereon at the negotiation
meeting of August 5 and their actions in support of that
insistence (their refusals to recommend the tentative agree-
ment for ratification, their condition that no recommenda-
tion would be made unless the Employer recanted, and
lastly their recommendation to defer ratification at the em-
ployee meeting of August 7) necessarily blocked the ratifi-
cation of the tentative agreement and prolonged the strike
and picketing which began on June 3 and which were in
support of Respondents' bargaining demands By thus pro-
longing the strike Respondents' actions as alleged in sub-
paragraphs 12,A, B, and C of the complaint had the effect
of enforcing Respondents' unlawful demands in respect to
the matter of employee discipline for alleged strike miscon-
duct and exerted pressure upon the Employer to acquiesce
in those demands
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Employer de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re-
spondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act The affirmative action will include a
requirement for the posting of appropriate notices by Re-
spondents The loci of posting by Respondent Internation-
al will be International offices in the same local geographi-
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cal area as the Employer's plant here involved, where said
offices (e g, subdistrict) have jurisdiction over Local
#7807 and provided representatives for the 1975 collective
negotiations with this Employer 26
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Each of Respondents is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 The following unit of the Employer's employees is
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees in the
plant of the Employer at Tiffin, Ohio, but excluding
office and plant clerical employees, inspectors and
timekeepers, guards, technical employees, professional
employees and supervisors, as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act of 1947 as amended
4 At all times material herein the Respondents, jointly,
have been and are now the exclusive bargaining represen-
tatives within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act of all
the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
5 By engaging in the following conduct, as found here-
in, Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act
(a) From on or about August 5, 1975, to at least Septem-
ber 8, 1975, refusing to recommend for ratification by its
membership in the above-described unit an agreed-upon
collective-bargaining contract until Respondents received
from the Employer information regarding the identities of
employees to be disciplined by the Employer for alleged
strike misconduct, as well as the nature of and reasons for
such discipline
(b) Since on or about August 5, 1975, to at least Septem-
ber 8, 1975, unlawfully conditioning their recommendation
for ratification of said collective-bargaining contract upon
the Employer's abandonment of its decision to terminate
and/or discipline certain employees for allegedly engaging
in strike misconduct
(c) Since on or about August 8, 1975, to September 8,
1975, deferring a ratification vote of its membership on the
aforementioned collective-bargaining contract and reject-
ing such contract until the Employer abandoned its deci-
zs I reject the Charging Party s requests in its brief that I recommend
additional remedies Its request that I recommend that employees be com
pensated for wages lost during the last month of the strike (the period occur-
ring after the unfair labor practices) with a waiver of union dues for 6
months is, in my judgment, manifestly inequitable The employees by vot-
ing to reject the contract for unlawful reasons thereby determined of their
own volition to continue the strike during the period for which wages are
now asked by the Employer As to the Employer's request for attorneys
fees, I reject it for the same reasons cited by the Board in Heck's Inc 191
NLRB 886 889 (1971) Finally, as to the Charging Party s request that the
Respondents be required at their expense to mail a copy of the Board notice
to each employee in the unit, I do not find in this case anywhere near the
same degree of massive and pervasive unfair labor practices which con-
strained the Board to grant such a remedy in J P Stevens & Co 157 NLRB
869 (1966), enfd 380 F 2d 292 (C A 2, 1967), cert denied 389 U S 1005
(1967), the case on which the Charging Party relies
Sion to terminate and/or discipline certain employees for
allegedly engaging in strike misconduct
(d) From August 5, 1975, to at least September 8, 1975,
prolonging a strike and picketing at the Employer's facih-
ties involved herein by employees of the Employer repre-
sented by Respondents wholly or in part for the purposes
of enforcing Respondents' unlawful demands described in
subparagraphs a, b, and c, supra, and to exert pressure
upon the Employer to accede to such unlawful demands
6 The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended
ORDER 27
Respondents United Steelworkers of America and their
Local #7807, their officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith, upon request, with
ITT Abrasive Products Company, Division of Internation-
al Telephone & Telegraph Co, concerning the wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
the employees in the following appropriate unit
All production and maintenance employees of the
above-named company at its plant in Tiffin, Ohio, but
excluding office and plant clerical employees, inspec-
tors and timekeepers, guards, technical employees,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act of 1947, as amend-
ed
(b) Refusing to recommend an agreed-upon contract for
ratification by the employees in the above-described unit,
until Respondents receive from the above-named Compa-
ny information regarding identities of employees to be dis-
ciplined for alleged strike misconduct and the nature of
and reasons for such discipline
(c) Conditioning a recommendation for ratification by
their membership in the above-described unit upon the
abandonment by the above-named Employer of any deci-
sion to terminate or discipline employees for allegedly en-
gaging in strike misconduct
(d) Deferring or obtaining a deferral of a ratification
vote of their membership in the above-described unit on an
agreed-upon contract until such time as the above-named
Employer abandoned any decision to terminate and/or
discipline employees for allegedly engaging in strike mis-
conduct
(e) Prolonging a strike or picketing at the business prem-
ises of the above-named Employer by employees repre-
27In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #7807
sented by Respondents in the above-described unit where
said prolongation is wholly, or in part, for the purposes of
enforcing unlawful demands such as those proscribed in
subparagraphs 1,b, c, and d, supra, of this Order
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named Employer in respect to the wages, hours,
terms, and conditions of employment of the employees in
the above-descnbed collective-bargaining unit without re-
fusing to recommend an agreed-upon contract for ratifica-
tion by their membership, conditioning such recommenda-
tion or deferring a ratification vote where said refusal to
recommend, condition, or defer is for the purpose in whole
or in part of exerting pressure on the above-named Em-
ployer to abandon any decision to discipline employees for
allegedly engaging in strike misconduct or to provide Re-
spondents with the names of such employees and the na-
ture of, and reason for, discipline proposed to be visited
upon them
(b) Post at Respondents' business offices and meeting
places copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "28
Copies of such notice on forms to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by
Respondents' representatives, shall be posted by Respon-
dents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
them for a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter
including all places where notices to their members are
customarily posted which in the case of Respondent Inter-
national will be those places described in the "Remedy"
section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision herein
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material
(c) Forward to the above-named Employer for posting
at its premises, the Employer willing, copies of such notices
duly signed by Respondents' representatives
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
25 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board' shall read `Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence it has been decided that we, United Steelworkers
85
of America and our Local #7807, have violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice
WE WILL NOT refuse, upon request, to bargain in
good faith with ITT Abrasive Products Company, Di-
vision of International Telephone & Telegraph Co,
concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit
All production and maintenance employees in the
plant of the above-named Employer at Tiffin, Ohio,
but excluding office and plant clerical employees,
inspectors and timekeepers, guards, technical em-
ployees, professional employees and supervisors, as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act of
1947, as amended
WE WILL NOT refuse to recommend for ratification
by our membership in the above-described unit an
agreed-upon collective-bargaining contract until we
receive information from the Employer regarding the
identities of employees to be disciplined by the above-
named Employer for alleged strike misconduct, as well
as the nature and reasons for such discipline
WE WILL NOT condition our recommendation for rat-
ification of an agreed-upon contract upon the aban-
donment by the above-named Employer of its deci-
sion to discipline or terminate employees for allegedly
engaging in strike or picket line misconduct
WE WILL NOT defer, or recommend deferral of, a rati-
fication vote on an agreed-upon contract nor will we
reject such contract until such time as the above-
named Employer abandons his decision to terminate
or discipline employees for alleged strike misconduct
WE WILL NOT prolong a strike and picketing at the
above-named Employer's premises in Tiffin, Ohio, to
enforce our demands that the Employer abandon any
decision to discipline employees for allegedly engaging
in strike misconduct or to provide us the names of
employees so involved along with the nature and rea-
sons for the discipline to be imposed, nor to exert pres-
sure upon the employer to acquiesce in such demands
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with
the Employer in respect to the wages, hours, terms,
and conditions of employment of employees in the
above-described unit without refusing to recommend
an agreed-upon contract for ratification or condition-
ing such recommendation upon the Employer's aban-
donment of any decision to terminate or otherwise dis-
cipline employees for allegedly engaging in strike
misconduct or upon the Employer's acquiescence in
our demand that the Employer furnish us the identites
of employees to be disciplined for alleged strike mis-
conduct along with the nature and reasons for such
discipline
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
LOCAL # 7807, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA