Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFLCIO. Case
6-CA-4806
March 8, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On November 6, 1970, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Pe-
terson issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that 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 at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel has filed limited
exceptions to the Decision, and a brief in answer to
Respondent's exceptions. The Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions to the Decision as well as an answer-
ing brief to Respondent's exceptions.
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 reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-excep-
tions, and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the ex-
tent consistent herewith.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent de-
clined to bargain with the Union during contract ne-
gotiations over the Union's proposals for increased
pension and insurance benefits for retirees. Respon-
dent maintained, despite its claim that it was not as-
serting a "final position," that it had no obligation to
bargain with respect to increased benefits on behalf of
retirees because retirees are not "employees" within
the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. Relying on the
Board's decision in Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 177 NLRB
No. 114, the Trial Examiner concluded that benefits
accruing to retirees are mandatory subjects of bar-
gaining and that Respondent's failure to bargain with
the Union over such matters was a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.' We agree, and accord-
ingly adopt that portion of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.3
t The record shows that the subject of benefits for retirees was discussed
on four occasions during negotiations
2 Respondent contends that the charge alleging failure to bargain concern-
ing benefits for retirees is barred by Section 10(b) It argues in support of this
885
2. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it unilaterally
increased pension benefits for retirees after the new
collective-bargaining agreement had been executed.
There is merit, in our view, in Respondent's excep-
tions to this finding.
The record reveals that Respondent initiated an
increase in pension benefits for retirees on July 10,
1970, effective January 1, 1971. The Union was ap-
prised of Respondent's intention shortly before the
plan was announced to the retirees. The Union ex-
pressed its objections to the increase in benefits in a
letter to Respondent, dated August 5, 1970.
Respondent argues that section 4 of article I of the
pension and insurance agreement, dated February 28,
1970, between Respondent and the Union, gave Re-
spondent the right to change the pension benefits
without prior notification to or consultation with the
Union. That section of the agreement provides:
The Company reserves the right during the term
of this Agreement, as to the employees in bar-
gaining units covered by this Agreement, to mod-
ify, amend, discontinue, change, add to or
terminate ... the Pension Plan ....
We find that this section affords Respondent sanction
for its unilateral increase in retirees' pension benefits.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss that portion of the com-
plaint alleging that Respondent's unilateral change in
retiree benefits was a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party have
excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to order Re-
spondent to mail a copy of the notice to all retirees at
their home addresses. The Board found such an order
contention that there is no suggestion of such an allegation in the original
or amended charge , and that the second amended charge containing the
allegation was filed some 7-1/2 months after the matter was last raised in
negotiations
The original charge, filed on November 5, 1969, alleged that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(5) in the course of the then-current bargaining
negotiations with the Union on the basis of five enumerated actions The
charge concluded with the additional allegation that , "By the above acts and
by its total conduct in the course of negotiations, the Employer has violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act " This allegation was repeated in the first amended
charge, filed on March 26, 1970
The Board stated in Stainless Steel Products, Incorporated, 157 NLRB 232,
234, that, "It is well established that the Board may base an unfair labor
practice finding on any conduct which occurred within the 6-month period
prior to the filing of a charge if the complaint issuing thereon alleges the
conduct to be an unfair labor practice even though the charge itself did not
specify such conduct as a violation of the Act " We find it clear that the
language of the original and amended charge "by its total conduct in the
course of negotiations " sufficiently encompasses the allegations later
specified in the second amended charge and contained in the complaint See
Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, 154 NLRB 1003, 1004-05 Accordingly, we reject
Respondent 's contention that the charge alleging that it refused to bargain
regarding improved benefits for retirees is barred by Section 10(b)
To the extent that this finding is in conflict with the decision of the U S
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v.
N L R B, 427 F 2d 936 (cert granted), we respectfully disagree and adhere
to our view until such time as the U S Supreme Court has passed on the
matter
188 NLRB No. 126
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate in Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, to insure
that retirees receive notice of the Board's decision.
Accordingly, we shall modify our Order to include a
provision for mailing the notice to all retirees at their
home addresses.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, Westing-
house Electric Corporation, Pittsubrgh, Pennsylvania,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively
with International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit, concerning bene-
fits for retired employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following action which is necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named Union as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the unit described above with re-
spect to benefits for retired employees and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix"4 to each retired employee and post copies at
its represented maintenance and repair plants. Copies
of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Region-
al Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by
a representative of Respondent, shall be mailed or
posted, as appropriate, immediately upon receipt
thereof. The posted notices shall be maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
uous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
It is further ordered that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not found herein.
C 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
CHAIRMAN MILLER , concurring and dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues that Respondent did not
violate the Act by unilaterally changing the benefits
of retirees . Nor would I find a violation based on
Respondent 's refusal to negotiate regarding the bene-
fits paid current retirees . As I have previously indica-
ted, I agree with the decision of the U.S . Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Co. v. N.L. R.B., supra, that retirees are not "employ-
ees" within the meaning of the Act .' Acordingly, I
would dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
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 with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate unit concerning benefits for retired employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, on request, with
the above-named union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit
with respect to benefits for retired employees
and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty
s See Hooker Chemical Corporation, a wholly owned Subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corp, 186 NLRB No 49, In 2
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
Avenue, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IVAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: I heard this case on
September 2 and 3, 1970,1 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, upon
a charge, twice amended, by the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as
the Union, which resulted in a complaint issued by the
Regional Director for Region 6, on June 29. The charge and
the complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. In its answer the Respondent denied that it had
committed any unfair labor practices. At the hearing, the
complaint was further amended and amendments to the
answer were received. At the conclusion of the hearing, time
for filing briefs was fixed and extended until October 14,
1970.
Upon the entire record in the case, including able briefs
filed-by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the
Respondent, and from my observation of the witnesses as
they testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal office in Pittsburgh, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale and distribution of electrical appliances and prod-
ucts in various States of the United States. During the year
immediately preceding issuance of the complaint, the Re-
spondent admittedly purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for use at its
facilities within that Commonwealth. The. Respondent ad-
mits, and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union, admittedly, is and I find, a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
For some years the Union has represented about 1,000
employees in 23 of the Respondent's 56 maintenance and
repair plants located in various states of the Union. Prior to
the termination of the immediately preceding collective-
bargaining agreement, on September 17, 1969, the parties
commenced negotiations which, after some 40 sessions, ter-
minated in a new agreement executed on February 28, 1970,
effective until June 11, 1973.
The current agreement, as well as prior agr'ineements, con-
tained provisions relating to the pension and surance ben-
efits of retired employees. Retirees were, prior to their
retirement, members of the bargaining unit and, as such,
were covered by and received benefits under the then-exist-
ing collective-bargaining agreements.
1 Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to the year 1970.
887
Although retirees were removed from the seniority list
and had no recall rights following their retirement, they
were, on occasion, recalled for employment by the Respon-
dent and often accepted for employment by other employ-
ers. During World War II, it was quite common for
employees of retirement age to remain in or return to, as the
case may be, employment in the bargaining unit. Under the
constitution of the Union, retirees are permitted to remain
as active union members, and, in consequence, eligible to
participate in union meetings and vote on any issue'
Bargaining sessions began on September 17, 1969, and at
that meeting the Union presented its collective-bargaining
proposals. It made proposals for increased insurance and
pension benefits for retirees then in retirement. At the meet-
ing on October 6 the parties discussed the issue of increased
benefits for retirees, and thereafter, it was raised and dis-
cussed at the October 7, 21, and 22 meetings . During these
several sessions, the Respondent's representatives, as I as-
sess their positions, refused to engage in meaningful bar-
gaining about retirees, claiming that the Respondent viewed
them as no longer its employees.
Preliminary, I think it plain that the individuals herein
involved are encompassed within the term "employee,, as
defined in the Act. As stated above, my frame o reference
are the decisions of the Board and those of the Supreme
Court. I have, with interest, read the Decision of the Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
case. With all deference I am constrained to follow the
Board's decision in that case, in view of the strictures placed
upon Board Trial Examiners by the Act and the Board's
decisions.'
In consequence, within this frame of reference, we ad-
dress ourselves to the factual merits of this proceeding.
As previously stated, the contracts between the parties,
for some years past, had contained provisions relating to
retired employees. In the negotiations, on October 6, 1969,
the issue of increased benefits for persons in that category
was discussed; the same issue was raised in the negotiations
on October 7, 21, and 22. I think it fair to say, upon an
appraisal of the details of these discussions, that the position
of the Respondent was that it was not, in law, olbiged to
negotiate with respect to retired employees for the reason
that they were not its employees. In this regard, it may be
observed that while the Respondent's representatives testi-
fied that the Respondent had never taken a "final position"
with regard to this subject, the minutes made by the Re-
spondent of the October 6 and 7 sessions reveal that the
Respondent was, in fact, taking the position it was not
obliged to deal with the Union regarding the subject of
increased benefits for retirees.'
While there can be no question that during the negotia-
tions the Respondent made no counterproposals regarding
increased benefits for retirees, the Respondent's position,
during the negotiations, was that the new National Agree-
ment executed on February 28 did not contain any in-
creased benefits for retired employees. In view of, or
despite, this position of the Respondent, its director of labor
relations, Clark Frame, on July 8 telephoned the Union and
spoke with Richard Mills, an International representative.
2 Here , in passing, it should be noted that unlike employees of the Respon-
dent, union members who retire from the electrical construction industry are
permitted to attend meetings but have no voice or vote. However, these
employees are members of the Electrical Workers Benefits Association, an-
other organization somehow associated with the Union, and they can vote
on pension and insurance matters under the Union's pension plan
3 Prudential Insurance Agents, 119 NLRB 768, Lenz Company, 153 NLRB
1399.
In this connection it is instructive to read the Respondent's minutes of
the October 6 and 7 sessions
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frame told Mills that Respondent was intent on making
"an upward adjustment in the pensions of retired employ-
ees." This discussion was the only one that occurred be-
tween the parties with respect to a change in the benefits
applicable to retired employees . Under date of July 10, the
Company wrote to the Union , which the latter received on
July 13 , and to each retiree in the bargaining unit that,
effective on : anuary 1, 1971, retirees would receive an in-
crease in monthly benefits.
The Union did not immediately respond or react to this
announcement . Indeed , the Union 's first and only response
was a letter , over the signature of Mills , the International
representative , dated August 5, protesting and objecting to
the change . 5
Minutes of the several sessions , beginning October 6, are
in evidence . The issue of added benefits for present retirees
was discussed during these sessions , including the sessions
on October 21 and 22 . During these discussions , representa-
tives of the Respondent maintained the position that it was
not obliged to bargain with respect to their benefits for the
reason that retired employees were not in the status of em-
ployees.
Before addressing ourselves to the evidence, it might be
appropriate to observe that the Union made no claim that
the Respondent had refused to bargain concerning retirees
until the second amended charge was filed on June 16, 1970,
some 3-1 /2 months after the conclusion of the collective-
bargaining agreement following rather lengthy negotiations
between the parties.
The subject of benefits for retirees was discussed on only
three occasions during the somewhat prolonged negotia-
tions . At the morning and afternoon sessions on October 6,
1969, and at a meeting on October 7, this subject was briefly
discussed while Mr. Dickenson , the Union 's expert on pen-
sion and insurance matters , was present ; the last occasion
at which this matter was raised was on October 21.
Mr. Gervas Closson , assistant director of labor relations
and the Company 's representative during the ne gotiations,
testified that at the morning meeting on October b, Dicken-
son, the Union's pension and insurance expert, stated,
among other things , that the Union was interested in im-
provements in insurance and pension benefits for retirees.
In this connection , Closson replied that the Respondent, in
times past, had never bargained for retirees for the reason
that it did not consider them to be employees. During the
afternoon meeting on that day , when the subject again came
up, Closson pointed out he was not taking a final position
as to whether or not the Respondent would bargain for
retirees , and that nothing was final in this area. At the
October 7 meeting , so Closson testified , Dickenson stated
again that the Union was interested in improved pension
and insurance benefits , and Closson remarked that the Un-
ion knew what he had stated the day before and that he had
not changed his position . In the October 21 meeting, after
going through the proposals made by the Company, the
3 Frame testified that on July 8, he telephoned Paul Menger , the Union's
director of manufacturing , and, being unable to reach him, spoke with Mills.
He explained to Mills that the Respondent was prepared to make an upward
adjustment in the pension benefits of retired employees , made some explana-
tion of the formula, and told Mills that the Respondent 's plans in this regard
would be released on July 10 Frame informed Mills that he was making a
series of telephone calls to the principal unions with which the Company
bargained, and that Mills raised no objection with respect to this proposal
A month later , on August 8, Menger acknowledged the letter the Union had
received from Frame and protested the timing of the announcement There
is no evidence, as I view the record, indicating that the Union raised any
objection regarding the proposed announcement made by Frame or request-
ed any meeting regarding the matter
spokesman for the Union, Mr. Babish, remarked that the
Company had included nothing for retirees. In this connec-
tion, it might be observed that the testimony of Babish does
not differ materially from that of Closson, the Company's
spokesman. Babish related that on October 6, when Dicken-
son raised the subject, Closson stated that the Company did
not bargain with regard to retired employees because it did
not consider them as current employees. Babish continued
to relate that on October 7, when the subject of pension
benefits for retired employees was raised, with particular
reference to the cost of living, Closson responded by stating
that the Company did not bargain with respect to retired
employees.
Cross-examined, Babish stated that Closson said that the
Respondent had "never bargained over pensioned persons
in the past." Moreover, Babish admitted that the minutes
made by the Union concerning the October 6 meeting dis-
closed the following exchange between Closson and Victor
Verdekel, an International representative of the Union:6
V. V.: Are you saying we won't be negotiating this
item?
G. C.: We never have in the past. We haven't given you
a final position on anything, we don't recognize any
obligation to retirees for they are not employees." [Em-
phasis supplied.]
The Company minutes, Respondent's Exhibit 5, also
show in the afternoon meeting of October 6, 1969, the fol-
lowing discourse:
Verdekel: If you are not saying you won't negotiate, are
you saying you can't do anything.
Closson: We haven't given you any final position on
this. We are ust saying we haven't negotiated anything
on benefits for retired employees in the past. This is our
judgment.
Succinctly stated, the Respondent's position, as I under-
stand it, is that it has and had no obligation to bargain with
respect to the increased benefits on behalf of retirees. It
argues that retirees are not "employees " within the meaning
of the Act and, in consequence, it has no duty to treat with
the Union or the representatives of the employees with re-
spect to retirees. In short, as I understand the Respondent's
position, retirees deal, by reason of their status, with the
Respondent as individuals, and not collectively. In this re-
gard, the Respondent pnncipally relies upon the recent de-
cision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh
Plate Glass, 427 F. 2d 936. In its brief, the Respondent
recognizes that I, as a Trial Examiner of the Board, am
bound by the Board's decisions, even though they may dif-
fer from those of a court of appeals; subject, of course, to
definitive decisions by the Supreme Court or reversals of
decisions by the Board. There is no essential dispute about
the facts of this case. The legal issue, as I view it, is whether
the Respondent, in violation of the requirements of the Act,
altered the benefits of its retired employees. A subsidiary
contention advanced by the Respondent is whether the de-
lay of the Union-approximately 1 month-constitutes ac-
quiescence in the alteration in retired employees ' benefits.
Taking up first the question of the Union's acquiescence
in the changes made, it ought to be observed that the
Board's decisions, sustained by the courts, make it clear that
any waiver of rights in this connection must be "clear and
unmistakable." The time lapse here involved, approximate-
ly I month, does not indicate to me that the Union had
relinquished its rights to protest in an official manner the
actions taken byte Respondent.
I have, with care, studied the agreements between the
6 V V referrs to Verdekel, and G C refers to the statements made by Mr.
Closson
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
parties and, in particular, the relevant provisions touching
upon the controversy before me. These matters are in the
record and, necessarily, available to reviewing authority. I
think it suffices to state that the contractual provisions do
not, in this factual situation, serve to exonerate the Respon-
dent.
The Respondent, so it seems to me, contends that retired
persons are not members of the bargaining unit and, in
consequence, no obligation devolves upon the Respondent
to bargain with the Union with respect to items"concerning
them. There can be little dispute about the fact that an
employer is obliged to bargain with the representative of his
employees regarding various aspects affecting retired em-
ployees. The Respondent's principal reliance, as I read its
brief, is upon the decision ofthe Court of Appeals in Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company, supra, in which the Court held
that the general definition of employees in Section 2(3) of
the Act is superseded by the provision in Section 8(a)(5), to
the effect that an employer has a duty to bargain collectively
only with the representative of his employees. In short, the
Respondent contends that, by reason of their status, retired
persons are no longer employees of the Respondent and, in
consequence, the Respondent is relieved of any duty to
bargain with respect to their emoluments or status.
As a Trial Examiner of the Board, it seems obvious that
I am constrained, regardless of my personal views, to follow
the decisional precedents of the Board, in areas where they
have not been altered by the decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States. Under these precepts, I think it fairly
plain that I am bound by the Board's decision in Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, 177 NLRB 911, in which the Board
stated that the protection of the Act "is not narrowly limited
to those who are recorded on the employer's current payroll.
Indeed, employees, who have been actually employed for a
sufficient number of years to have earned a pension, have
deep legal, economic, and emotional attachments to a bar-
gaining unit which measurably exceed the attachments of
others who have been held to be employees."
I think it reasonably plain that the benefits accruing to
retirees are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, ab-
sent a clear and unmistakable waiver by the collective- bar-
gaining representative. I think it necessarily follows that an
employer who refuses to discuss with the exclusive repre-
sentative a matter relating to retired persons, or who on his
own motion changes the terms and conditions relating to
retired persons without prior notice to the bargaining repre-
889
sentative or before a collective-bargaining impasse is
reached, violates the Act. See Flowers Baking Company, Inc.,
161 NLRB 1429, 1436, and cases cited therein at fn. 17.
Disregarding as I must my private views of the legal con-
sequences of this case, I am constrained to find that, consist-
ent with Board and Court precedents, the Respondent has
infringed the Act in the respects alleged in the General
Counsel's complaint. I therefore find that it violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1).
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist there-
from and take the necessary affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act. In addition to recommending that
the Respondent bargain upon request with the Union re-
specting benefits for retired employees, it will also be recom-
mended that, if so requested by the Union, the Respondent
rescind any adjustment in pension benefits for retired em-
ployees which Respondent unilaterally instituted.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees in the unit set forth in appendix A to the
complaint constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. At all times since October 6, 1969, the Union has been
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after October 6, 1969, to recognize
and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, concerning benefits for retired employees, the Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]