Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG . Co., INC. and
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , C. I. O.
Case No. 3-6L-939.-Decided April 30, 1947
Mr. Philip Licari, for the Board.
Messrs. John L. Coclerill and Richard Winicler, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the respondent.
Mr. John Wolski, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Paul Bisgye.r, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 1, 1946, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On April 1, 1947,
the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C., in which the
respondent participated; the Union did not appear.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and brief, the contentions advanced at oral argument before
the Board, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the modifications and additions noted below.
The respondent has admittedly refused to bargain with the Union,
the duly certified bargaining representative of the respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit described in the Intermediate Report.
It urges, however, as a defense, that notwithstanding the Union's cer-
tification issued in the prior representation proceeding as a result of a
Board-conducted secret election, the Union never represented a "true
majority" because of its fraudulent and illegal preelection campaign.
In support of its defense, the respondent offered to adduce at the hear-
73 N. L . R. B., No. 143.
744
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG. CO., INC. 745
ing evidence that the Union (1) promised the employees, if selected
as their bargaining representative, to obtain for them a 30-cent hourly
wage increase in disregard of lawful wage patterns established by the
Wage Stabilization Board; (2) misrepresented to the employees that
they were required to sign union membership cards to be eligible to
vote in the Board election ; and (3) represented that it was necessary
to sign a second card in order to acquire membership in the Union.
The Trial Examiner, on Board counsel's objection, excluded the prof-
fered evidence, with certain exceptions, as insufficient to invalidate the
certification. These rulings, the respondent argues, deprived it of a
fair hearing in contravention of due process guaranteed by the Con-
stitution. In its exceptions and brief, the respondent requested the
Board to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to remand the
case for further hearing to receive the proffered evidence."
We have considered the respondent's contentions and offer of proof,
and find them to be without merit. Assuming that the respondent
were able to prove all the facts which it specified in its offer of proof,
these facts do not suffice to nullify the election results. The Union's
so-called promise of a 30-cent wage increase,2 even though such an in-
crease might have been in excess of the then existing wage stabilization
rates, constituted, at most, campaign propaganda which did not tend
to impair the employees' freedom to select a bargaining representative.,'
Moreover, as the Board stated in the Maywood Hosiery case,4 "Absent
violence, we have never undertaken to police union organization or
union campaigns, to weigh the truth or falsehood of official union utter-
ances, or to curb the enthusiastic efforts of employee adherents to the
union cause in winning others to their convictions."
1 After oral argument before the Board, the respondent sent the Board a letter in which
It proposed additionally that the Board "revive the [representation] case and arrange
for a new election" to redetermine representatives. For the reasons hereinafter set
forth, we reject this proposal
This so-called promise appears to be nothing more than a proposal to negotiate such
a raise. In fact, the union circular, which the respondent offered in evidence and which
the Trial Examiner rejected, meicly stated that "In one of your plants in Schenectady,
we are negotiating for a 30-cent an hour increase we could do the same in Buffalo [the
plant -involved herein] if you vote for the C I 0 "
3 Mattes of Curtiss-WVright Corporation, 43 N. L R B 795
The record discloses that at least the Union's preelection campaign promise of a 30-cent
wage increase came to the respondent's knowledge before the election Thus, Plant Alan-
ager Cook testified that a day before the election he found it union circular purporting to
contain such a promise (see footnote 2, supra) Consequently, having failed to make
timely objection to the results of the election in the representation proceeding on this
ground, the respondent, under the Board's settled practice, was theieby precluded from
raising the question in this complaint proceeding Matter of Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, 15 N. L. R B 515, enf'd 113 F. (2d) 698 (C. C A 8), aff'd 313 U S. 146;
Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company, 57 N L It B 89, enf'd as modihed 152 F. (2d)
198 (C. C A. 6), cert. den June 10, 1946; Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing
Company, 70 N L. R. B. 348 The respondent asserts, however, that after the election
employees voluntarily informed it of the other two representations in question.
4Matter of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc, 64 N L. R. B. 146, 150. See also Matter of
Corn Products Re inino Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 1441.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nor are we persuaded, under the circumstances of this case, that the
Union's alleged misrepresentation that employees were required to
sign a union membership card in order to be eligible to vote affected
or prejudiced the outcome of the election 5 Significantly, no assertion
is made that the election was not attended by the customary procedural
safeguards and certainly concerning eligibility; in fact, neither at the
hearing nor in its brief did the respondent offer to show that any em-
ployee actually refrained from voting because of the misrepresentation
in question. The Tally of Ballots discloses that out of 57 eligible
voters, 51 cast valid ballots, of which 32 were for the Union, 19 against,
and none was challenged. Consequently, even if it be assumed that
the remaining 6 employees, who failed to vote, abstained from voting
because of a misapprehension as to eligibility," and that they would
have cast ballots against the Union if they had voted, the Union never-
theless polled a majority.? Moreover, we find, contrary to the re-
spondent's contention, that the misrepresentation was not of such a
nature as to prevent a free choice of a bargaining agent by the em-
ployees who participated in the election, and that the ballots, cast in
secrecy, reflected their true desires.
Finally, we are unable to perceive in what manner the Union's
alleged representation that employees were required to sign a second
membership card in order to become union members interfered -with
their freedom to select a bargaining representative by secret ballot.
Inasmuch as the excluded evidence is legally insufficient to nullify
the results of the-election which, we find, establishes the Union's ma-
jority during the period of the respondent's refusal to bargain, the
Trial Examiner's failure to receive it was neither prejudicial to the
respondent nor a denial of due process. Accordingly, we reaffirm
our certification in the representation proceeding and find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that the respondent refused to bargain collectively
with the Union, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Employee Vogel , a witness called by the respondent, denied that it was his "under-
standing" that he had to sign a union card to be eligbile to vote , in fact, he testified,
he believed he signed a card after the election . However, contrary to the Implication in
the Intermediate Report, we do not infer , for the purposes of decision , that the respond-
ent, if permitted , would not have produced other witnesses to testify to the alleged repre-
sentation in question.
6 According to the stricken testimony of the respondent 's witness , Holmes , a visiting
superintendent of one of the respondent ' s other plants , he advised three or four employees
before the election that they were eligible to vote without signing a union membership
card.
4 Matter of The Lennox Furnace Company, 64 N. L. R. B 669
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG. CO., INC. 747
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Wilson Athletic Goods
Mfg. Co., Inc., Buffalo, New York, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the respondent's Buffalo, New
York, plant, including watchmen, inspectors, shipping and stockroom
clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, time-study clerk,
plant superintendent, production foreman, chief inspector, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively to recommend such action;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Textile Workers
Union of America, C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with it, as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
described above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its plant in Buffalo, New York, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies
of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo,
New York) in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
8 This notice , however , shall be , and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER"
and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER ." In the event
that this order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals , there shall be inserted,
before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words "DECREE OF THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Phillip Licai i, for the Board.
Mr. John L Cock) ill, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. John Wolski, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed July 15, 1946, by Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New
York), issued its complaint dated July 30, 1946, against Wilson Athletic Goods
Mfg Co, Inc, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 ((;) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent on or about April 15, 1946, and thereafter, failed and refused
to bargain collectively with the Union although since March 22, 1946, the Union
has been the exclusive bargaining representative of a majority of the respondent's
employees within an appropriate unit.
On August 5, 1946, the respondent filed an answer admitting some of the allega-
tions of the complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 27 and 28, 1946, at Buffalo,
New York, before Horace A. Ruckel, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly
appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union was repre-
sented by its regional manager Full opportunity to be heard and to examine
and cioss-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were advised that they might argue
orally before the Trial Examiner, and might file briefs with the Trial Examiner
within ten days from the close of the hearing Counsel for the Board and for the
the respondent argued orally. No briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation. It is en-
gaged, at its plant in Buffalo, New York, in the manufacture of golf bags. Dur-
ing the past 12 months the respondent, at its Buffalo plant, has purchased raw
materials valued in excess of $500,000, approximately 55 percent of which was
purchased outside the State of New York. During the same period the re-
spondent sold finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approxi-
mately 85 percent was shipped outside the State of New York.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent. It is affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations.
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG. CO., INC. 749
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
On March 4, 1946, the Board issued its decision and direction of election in a
representation case,' finding that all production and maintenance employees
of the respondent at its Buffalo plant, including watchmen, inspectors, shipping
and stockroom clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees, time study
clerk, plant superintendent, production foreman, chief inspectors, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
No contention was made at the hearing in the instant case that the unit as
found by the Board in the representation case was inappropriate„ and no evi-
dence was adduced in support of any other unit. It is found that the above-
described employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On April 9, 1946, the Board, pursuant to an election conducted on March 22,
1946, among the employees in the appropriate unit, certified the Union as the
exclusive representative of all the employees within the appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment and other conditions of employment. As discussed and disposed
of below, the respondent contends that the Union does not represent a "true
majority" of its employees.
3. The refusal to bargain
The facts are not in dispute. On April 15, 1946, John Wolski, manager of the
Buffalo Regional Joint Board, of the Union, wrote the respondent requesting a
conference to discuss the terms of a proposed contract, a copy of which he en-
closed. The respondent did not reply to this letter On at least two occasions
thereafter Wolski talked to It. C Cook, the respondent's plant manager, on the
telephone, and requested a conference with a representative of the respondent
and recognition of the Union as bargaining representative of the respondent's
employees. Each time, Cook stated, in effect, that he would refer the matter
to the respondent's Chicago office. The last of such telephone conversations be-
tween Wolski and Cook was about May 15. Not having heard from the re-
spondent, the Union, in June, took a strike vote, and Commissioner Driver of
the United States Conciliation Service was assigned to the case. On June 25,
1946, in response to several telephone calls by Driver, the respondent wrote
Driver refusing to meet with him to discuss the issues posed by the strike notice
on the grounds that the Union did not represent a "true majority" of the re-
spondent's employees This refusal was communicated to the Union.
On July 23, 1946, after the filing of the charge in the instant case, the Regional
Board wrote the respondent with respect thereto. The respondent replied on
July 23 stating that it had not met with representatives of the Union because the
Union had used "unfair" methods in its pre-election campaign, and contending
IMatter of Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Company and Textile Woihers Union
of America, C. I. 0, 66 N. L. R B. 263
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Union did not represent a "true" majority of employees at the Buffalo
plant, as evidenced by declarations of several employees to officers of the re-
spondent, made subsequent to the election, that they did not wish to be represented
by the Union.
The reasons set forth in the respondent's letter to the Board for not meeting
with representatives of the Union, constituted, with minor embellishments, the
respondent's sole defense to the complaint. For example, the respondent offered
in evidence as an exhibit a circular distributed by the Union prior to the election
stating, in effect, that if it won the election, it would attempt to negotiate for a
30-cent an hour wage increase. The respondent contends that this promise was il-
legal, and sufficient to excuse it from bargaining with the Union, because the maxi-
mum increase possible under a pattern set by the Wage Stabilization Board was
18y^ cents an hour. The undersigned rejected the proffered exhibit. The respondent
also attempted to show that several of its employees were misled by the Union
into believing that it was necessary for them to sign some card other than one
designating the Union as their bargaining representative before they could become
full-fledged members of the Union, and that one employee believed that it was
necessary for him to join the Union in order to vote in the election 2 The under-
signed sustained objections to most of such questions.
It would be difficult to discern the relevancy and sufficiency of the respondent's
defense even were the Union relying for its proof of a majority on membership
cards instead of, as here, on the result of an election. The Board has consistently
held that when employees have expressed their considered opinions by a secret
election which leaves no room for doubt as to their true desires, repudiation of
their selection can be established only through the medium of an equally probative
technique.' Even accepting the respondent's defense at its face value, the result
of a Board election, in the absence of special circumstances not here shown, must
be regarded as conclusive evidence of the employees' desires at the time of the
election.'
The undersigned finds that on April 15, 1946, and at all times material there-
after, the respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with the duly
designated representative of a majority of its employees within an appropriate
unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE U NFa1R LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent as described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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 commerce.
V. TIIE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
8 The employee in question, when called at a witness, was permitted over Board counsel's
objections to testify that, in fact, he did vote in the election and was not asked to join
the Union until after the election.
3 Matter of The Century Oxford Manufacturing Corporation, 47 N L R B 835, enf'd 140
F. (2d) 541 (C C A 2), cert den 323 U. S 714; Matter of Appalachian Electric Power
Company, 47 N L R. B 821, enf'd as mod, 140 F. (2d) 217 (C. C A 4).
4 Cf Matter of Anderson Mannfactuiing Company, 58 N L. R B 1511
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS IIFG. CO., INC. 751
It has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. The
undersigned will recommend that, upon request, the respondent bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of Its employees in the
appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its Buffalo,
New York, plant, including watchmen, inspectors, shipping and stockroom clerks,
but excluding office and clerical employees, time-study clerk, plant superintend-
ent, production foreman, chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a
unit appropriate for the pun poses of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3 Textile Workers Union of America was, on March 22, 1946, and at all times
thereafter h.is been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such
it for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America
as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5 By the above acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America
as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees
at the respondent's Buffalo, New York, plant, including watchmen, inspectors,
shipping and stockroom clerks, but excluding office and clerical employees,
time-study clerk, plant superintendent, production foreman, chief inspector,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Textile Workers Union
of America to bargain collectively with it
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
739926-47-vol 73-49
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of
America as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees employed at the respondent's Buffalo, New York, plant, including
watchmen, inspectors, shipping and stockroom clerks, but excluding office and
clerical employees, time study clerk, plant superintendent, production fore-
man, chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written, signed
agreement ;
(b) Post in its Buffalo, New York, plant, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Third 'Region within ten (10)
days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report a report in writing
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied
with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from
thq date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies
said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requir-
ing the respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Seises 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington 25, D. C, an om iginal and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the
same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the In-
termediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of ex-
ceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the other parties of all
papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section
203 65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should any party desire
permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made
in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the
order transferring the case to the Board.
HORACE A. RUCKEL,
Trial Examiner-
Dated October 1, 1946.
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG. CO., INC. 753
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
"WE WILL NOT in any mariner interfere with the efforts of TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C I 0, to bargain collectively with us.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees, including watchmen, in-
spectors, shipping and stockroom clerks, excluding office and clerical
employees, time-study clerk, plant superintendent, production foreman,
chief inspector, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action
WILSON ATHLETIC GOODS MFG . CO., INC,
Employer.
Dated ------------------- By -------------------------- ----------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date, hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.