Verona Dyestuff Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 109 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION
Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corpora-
tion and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases I I-CA-6799 and 11-CA-6816
October 28, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Upon a charge filed on November I and 15, 1976,
by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Verona
Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corporation,
herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region I 11, issued an order consolidating
cases, complaint, and notice of hearing on December
29, 1976, alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charges,
and the order consolidating cases, complaint, and
notice of hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on October 8,
1976, following a Board election in Case II-RC-
4094, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate; I and that,
commencing on or about October 20, 1976, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union as the duly
designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit. The complaint
further alleges that commencing on or about Novem-
ber 11, 1976, and at all times thereafter, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the unit employees. Specifically,
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section
8(a)(5) by: (1) Refusing the Union's request to
furnish the names, dates of hire, job classifications,
rates of pay, and existing benefits of all employees in
the unit; (2) refusing and failing, and continuing to
refuse and fail, to grant to unit employees a general
wage increase averaging 10 percent which Respon-
dent granted to production and other employees on
or about November 15, 1976; and (3) refusing and
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.
Case I I-RC-4094, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
1
02
.6
9
(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8. as amended. See
LTV Electroystemns, Inc. 166 NL.RB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4.
233 NLRB No. 22
failing, and continuing to refuse and fail, to grant to
unit employees an additional holiday, effective in
1977, which Respondent granted to production and
other employees. Subsequently, Respondent filed its
answer admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On March 7, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a motion to strike
portions of Respondent's answer to the complaint, a
Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support
thereof, with exhibits attached. On March 10, 1977,
counsel for the General Counsel filed an addendum
to his motions, with an exhibit attached. The General
Counsel submits that Respondent has defended its
refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union as
well as its refusal to provide presumptively relevant
information, solely on the grounds that the certified
unit is inappropriate and that, therefore, Respondent
is merely attempting to relitigate issues determined
adversely to it in the underlying representation case.
He further submits that Respondent's failure to grant
to unit employees the general wage increase and
additional holiday granted to other employees was
based on the fact that unit employees had chosen the
Union to represent them. Subsequently, on March
17, 1977, the Board transferred this case to itself and
issued a Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
the Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Respondent, in both its answer to the complaint
and its response to the Notice To Show Cause,
admits the factual allegations that it has refused and
failed to recognize and bargain, upon request, with
the Union. It asserts, however, that the maintenance
unit found appropriate in the underlying representa-
tion case is in fact inappropriate, and that therefore
the certification issued in that case is invalid.
The record in the underlying representation pro-
ceeding shows that on November 26, 1975, after a
hearing in which Respondent participated, the
Regional Director for Region 11 issued a Decision
and Direction of Election in which he found
appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of mainte-
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26
(C.A. 5, 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va., 1967);
Follerr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967). enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C.A. 7. 1968); Sec.
9(d) of the NLRA. as amended.
109
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nance department employees at Respondent's Bushy
Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina. Subsequent-
ly, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
with the Regional Director contending, inter alia,
that he made erroneous factual findings regarding
both the supervision of maintenance employees and
the extent of their interchange and functional
integration with production employees. The Regional
Director issued an Order on Petition for Reconsider-
ation denying the motion for reconsideration. There-
after, Respondent filed a timely request for review of
the Regional Director's decision alleging that in
reaching his determination he made erroneous
findings of fact and departed from precedent, and
that in any event there were compelling reasons for
reconsideration of Board policy. On February 11,
1976, the Board granted the request for review and
stayed the election pending Decision on Review. On
September 3, 1976, the Board issued its Decision on
Review 2 in which it affirmed the Regional Director's
decision. It thus appears clear that Respondent is
attempting to raise issues herein which have been
raised and resolved in the prior representation case.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.3
All issues raised by the Respondent in this
proceeding concerning the appropriateness of the
certified unit of maintenance employees were or
could have been litigated in the prior representation
proceeding, and Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that Respondent has not raised any issue
regarding the appropriateness of the certified unit
2 225 NLRB 1159 (1976). (Members Murphy and Jenkins; Member
Walther dissenting.)
3 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
4 It is uncontroverted that by letter dated October 20, 1976, the Union
requested Respondent to furnish it with the following information with
respect to the unit of maintenance employees: dates of hire and seniority by
job classification within the department; a list of all employees in the
certified unit by department; a list of job classifications for all employees in
the bargaining unit showing the hourly rate of pay for each employee, plus
the employee's position in the progressive rate structure; a description of
fringe benefits currently in effect in the plant; and copies of any employee
manuals describing senionty arrangements, leaves of absence, safety and
health rules, and other similar information. The Union again requested such
information from Respondent by letter dated November 12, 1976.
Respondent, by its attorney, has at all times declined to furnish the
requested information.
5 Western Electric, Inc., 225 NLRB 1374 (1976); Hotel Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Royal Inn of South Bend, 224 NLRB 810 (1976); Warehouse Foods, a
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly, we find that
Respondent has at all times material herein refused
to recognize and bargain with the Union, upon
request, and that its refusal to do so is violative of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
In its answer and response to the Notice To Show
Cause, Respondent admits that it has refused, upon
request, to furnish to the Union wage and employ-
ment information pertaining to bargaining unit
employees, 4 but again defends its refusal on the
grounds that the certified maintenance unit is
inappropriate. For the above-stated reasons, we find
such a defense without merit. Furthermore, it is well
established that such information is presumptively
relevant for purposes of collective bargaining, and
must be provided upon request to the employees'
bargaining representative.5 In addition, it is also well
settled that a union is not required to show the
precise relevance of such information unless the
employer has submitted evidence sufficient to rebut
the presumption of relevance.6 Respondent has not
attempted to rebut the relevance of the information
sought by the Union. Accordingly, we find that no
material issues of fact exist with regard to Respon-
dent's refusal to furnish the wage and employment
information sought by the Union through its letter of
October 20, 1976, and that its refusal to do so
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
In its answer to the complaint and its response to
the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits that
it did not grant to unit employees the general wage
increase and additional holiday which it granted to
all production and other employees at its Bushy Park
plant. It contends, however, that its withholding of
the wage increase and holiday was not unlawful
because such action is in accordance with its
"longstanding policy of not granting any benefits to
represented employees unless negotiated with their
representatives." 7
Division of M. E. Carter and Company, Inc., 223 NLRB 506 (1976); Dynamic
Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975); Building Construction Employers
Association of Lincoln, Nebraska and M. W. Anderson Construction Co., 185
NLRB 34 (1970); Cowles Communications, Inc., 172 NLRB 1909 (1968);
Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152
(1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3, 1965).
6 Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 347 F.2d at
69.
7 Respondent also denies the allegations of the complaint that on or
about October 22, 1976, it announced by posted notice that all production
and other employees, except the unit employees, would be granted the wage
increase and an additional holiday. Respondent contends that the wage
increase was not announced "by posted notice" and that the only posted
announcement of the additional holiday occurred on January 3. 1977.
Counsel for the General Counsel, however, has submitted a copy of a letter,
the validity of which is not disputed by Respondent, sent to a Board agent
by Respondent's attorney in which the latter admitted that the wage
increase and the additional holiday were announced by Respondent on
I10
VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION
In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment,8
counsel for the General Counsel submitted a copy of
the letter referred to in footnote 7. In that letter
Respondent's attorney stated, inter alia, that Respon-
dent has "endeavored to grant a wage or benefit
increase, or both, regularly .... " and that "[t]he
exclusion [of the employees in the maintenance unit]
was because wages are a bargainable issue and as the
maintenance employees had representation the mat-
ter is one for negotiation with such representative."
By letter dated December 7, 1976, the Union
requested that Respondent grant the wage increase
and an additional holiday to unit employees. In the
letter, the Union referred to the wage increase as "the
annual wage increase," a reference which Respon-
dent does not dispute.9 Counsel for the General
Counsel has also submitted a copy of Respondent's
January 3, 1977, announcement of an additional
holiday. The announcement expressly limited the
new benefit to "each employee not in a collective
bargaining unit ... " It is thus clear that both the
wage increase and the additional holiday granted to
nonunit employees at the Bushy Park plant would
have been granted to the unit employees as well but
for the fact that they had selected the Union as their
bargaining representative.
It is well established that the withholding of wage
increases and/or benefits from employees who are
awaiting the holding of a Board election, or who
have chosen a union as their collective-bargaining
representative, violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act if such employees otherwise would have been
granted the wage increases and/or benefits in the
normal course of the employer's business.10 Further-
more, Respondent's claim that its withholding of the
wage increase and the additional holiday from unit
employees is justified by virtue of its established
policy of negotiating such matters with the employ-
ees' collective-bargaining representative is unavail-
ing, particularly in the circumstances here in which
Respondent has admittedly refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union." Accordingly, we find that
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of
the Act by refusing and failing to grant to unit
October 22, 1976. We therefore find that Respondent's denials of these
allegations of the complaint do not raise any matenal issues warranting a
hearing.
I We hereby deny the General Counsel's motion to strike portions of
Respondent's answer to the complaint.
g Respondent also denies the allegation of the complaint that the Union
requested it to grant the wage increase and additional holiday to the
employees. The Union's letter to Respondent, dated December 7, 1976,
reads, in pertinent part:
This is to advise you that we are in full agreement of Verona
granting the Maintenance Department the annual wage increase and
additional holiday, effective November 15, 1976, the same date the
wage increase and holiday was granted the Production workers at the
Charleston, South Carolina plant.
employees the general wage increase and additional
holiday which it granted to all production and other
employees at its Bushy Park plant. 12
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by its failure and refusal to
grant unit employees the general wage increase and
additional holiday. In his brief in support of his
Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the
General Counsel specifically relies on the theory that
Respondent's withholding of such increases and
benefits from unit employees was because they chose
to be represented by the Union-a theory which is
clearly premised upon Section 8(a)(3). Respondent,
in its response to the Notice To Show Cause, fully
addresses itself to this theory of a violation. Further-
more, it is clear that, based on documents submitted
by Respondent itself, an 8(a)(3) violation has been
established. Therefore, as the facts herein are
essentially undisputed, our finding this 8(a)(3) and
(I) violation on the grounds set forth above is in the
circumstances proper.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a New Jersey corporation with a
plant located in Charleston, South Carolina, where it
is engaged in the manufacture of dyestuffs for the
coloring of textiles, paper, and leather.
During the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all times material herein, Respon-
dent recieved goods and materials from points
directly outside the State of South Carolina valued in
excess of $50,000, and during the same period
shipped products to points directly outside the State
of South Carolina valued in excess of $50,000.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, 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, and that
Contrary to Respondent's denial, we construe the Union's letter to be a
request that Respondent grant the wage increase and additional holiday to
the unit employees.
Finally, Respondent has filed a motion that the portions of the complaint
alleging that it violated Sec. 8(aXS) and ( I) of the Act by refusing and failing
to grant an additional holiday to unit employees be stricken on the grounds
that the charges filed failed to specifically allege such a violation. We hereby
deny Respondent's motion. Allis Chalmers Corporation, 224 NLRB 1199,
1217-18(1976).
'o Florida Ste'l Corporation, 220 NLRB 1201, 1203 (1975), and cases
cited therein.
it Id
12 See AMC Air Conditioning Compony, 232 NLRB No. 24 (1977). and
cases cited therein at fn. I I.
ill
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All maintenance department employees including
instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom
clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's
Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina,
but excluding all production employees, office
clerical employees, laboratory employees, techni-
cians, waste water treatment employees, profes-
sional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On September 30, 1976, a majority of the employ-
ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 11, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union
was certified as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in said unit on October 8, 1976,
and the Union continues to be such exclusive
representative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act.
B. The Unfair Labor Practices
Commencing on or about October 20, 1976, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about November 11, 1976, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, the
Respondent has: (1) Refused to recognize the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative for em-
ployees in said unit; (2) refused to bargain with the
Union over wages, hours, working conditions, and
conditions of employment; (3) refused the Union's
request for the names, dates of hire, job classifica-
tions, rates of pay, and existing benefits of all
employees in the unit; (4) refused to grant to unit
employees a general wage increase averaging 10
percent which it granted to production and other
employees on or about November 15, 1976; and (5)
refused to grant to employees in the appropriate unit
an additional holiday, effective in 1977, which it
granted to production and other employees.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since on
or about October 20, 1976, and November 11, 1976,
respectively, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit and that, by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. In addition, we find that Respondent has, since
on or about November 11, 1976, failed and refused to
grant a wage increase and an additional holiday to
unit employees because they selected the Union as
their exclusive representative and that, by such
conduct, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (I) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom. We
shall further order that Respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. We shall
also order that Respondent, upon request, furnish the
Union the information with respect to unit employ-
ees which it requested by letter dated October 20,
1976.
We additionally shall require that Respondent
make whole the unit employees for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them by granting them the general wage
increase averaging 10 percent, retroactive to on or
112
VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION
about November 15, 1976, the date Respondent
granted such wage increases to its production and
other employees at its Bushy Park plant, together
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977).13 We shall further require Respondent to
grant an additional holiday to eligible unit employ-
ees. 14
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB
1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical
Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. All maintenance department employees includ-
ing instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom
clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's Bushy
Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, but exclud-
ing all production employees, office clerical employ-
ees, laboratory employees, technicians, waste water
treatment employees, professional employees, watch-
men, 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.
4. By refusing on or about October 20, 1976, and
at all material times thereafter, to recognize and
bargain collectively with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all the employees of Respondent in the
appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in, and is
13 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
14 In its announcement of January 3, 1977, Respondent notified nonunit
employees that each could select a floating holiday on any day during the
week of his birthday in 1977, subject to the following conditions: (1) In
order to be eligible, the employee must have been employed by Respondent
for a period of 6 months; (2) the request for the holiday must be made at
least 5 working days in advance; (3) the holiday must be compatible with
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976,
and at all material times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with the above-named labor organization
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit,
and by refusing to furnish wage and employment
information concerning said unit employees, Re-
spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976,
and at all material times thereafter, to grant to
employees in the appropriate unit a general wage
increase averaging 10 percent which it granted to all
its production and other employees at its Bushy Park
plant on or about November 15, 1976, Respondent
has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
7. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976,
and all material times thereafter, to grant to the
employees in the appropriate unit an additional
holiday, effective in 1977, which it granted to all its
production and other employees at its Bushy Park
plant, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
8. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corpo-
ration, Charleston, South Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
i. Cease and desist from:
the needs of the employee's department, as decided by the department
heads. In requiring Respondent to grant an additional holiday to unit
employees, we recognize that particular unit employees may not have met
the eligibility requirement of 6 months' employment with Respondent.
These matters may best be resolved in the compliance stage of this
proceeding.
113
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All maintenance department employees including
instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom
clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's
Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina,
but excluding all production employees, office
clerical employees, laboratory employees, techni-
cians, waste water treatment employees, profes-
sional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization by refusing to furnish the
said labor organization with wage and employment
information concerning unit employees.
(c) Refusing and failing to grant to unit employees
the general wage increase averaging 10 percent and
the additional holiday which it granted to all
production and other employees at its Bushy Park
plant because such unit employees selected the
above-named labor organization as their bargaining
representative.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collective-
ly with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization by furnishing it
with the following wage and employment informa-
tion concerning unit employees: Dates of hire and
seniority by job classification within the department;
a list of all employees in the certified unit by
department; a list of job classifications for all
employees in the bargaining unit showing the hourly
rate of pay for each employee, plus the employee's
position in the progressive rate structure; a descrip-
tion of the fringe benefits currently in effect in the
plant; and copies of any manuals describing seniority
arrangements, leaves of absence, safety and health
rules, and other similar information.
(c) Make whole the unit employees for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them by granting them the
general wage increase averaging 10 percent and, to
those unit employees eligible, an additional holiday,
which Respondent granted to all its production and
other employees at its Bushy Park plant, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region II1,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
15 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 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 EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment
with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization by refusing
to furnish it with the wage and employment
information it has requested with respect to the
employees in the appropriate unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT refuse and fail to grant to the unit
employees the general wage increase averaging 10
percent and, to those unit employees eligible, an
additional holiday which we granted to all our
114
VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION
production and other employees at our Bushy
Park plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with the above-named labor organiza-
tion, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization by
furnishing it with the following information it has
requested concerning the unit employees: Dates
of hire, plus seniority by job classification within
the department; a list of job classifications for all
employees in the bargaining unit showing the
hourly rate of pay for each employee, plus the
employee's position in the progressive rate struc-
ture; a description of the fringe benefits currently
in effect in the plant; and copies of any employee
manuals describing seniority arrangements, leaves
of absence, safety and health rules, and other
similar matters.
WE WILL make whole the unit employees for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of our discrimination against them by granting
them the general wage increases averaging 10
percent and, to those unit employees eligible, an
additional holiday, which we granted to all our
production and other employees at our Bushy
Park plant. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All maintenance department employees
including instrument repairmen and me-
chanics, storeroom clerks, and utility opera-
tors at the Employer's Bushy Park plant,
Charleston, South Carolina, but excluding
all production employees, office clerical
employees, laboratory employees, techni-
cians, waste water treatment employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
VERONA DYESTUFF
DIVISION MOBAY
CHEMICAL CORPORATION
115