Zenith Radio Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1971

187 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

RAULAND DIV. OF ZENITH 785
Rauland Division of Zenith Radio Corporation and
American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, Local 93 . Case 13-CA-9137
January 11, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On July 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders
issued his Decision 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
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.
In essential agreement with the Trial Examiner, we
find that by the conclusion of the negotiating session
of May 5, 1970, the parties had reached agreement in
principle on the substantive terms of a collective-
bargaining agreement, and that what remained to be
done was the drafting of the precise language
necessary to embody the agreements reached by the
parties, a task which the Respondent undertook to
complete by May 9. We find further, again in basic
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that after the
Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against
the Respondent as to another matter on May 6, the
Respondent failed and refused to conclude the
negotiations in the manner previously agreed upon
because of the pendency of the Union's unfair labor
practice charge.
Thus, at the May 9 meeting, Schachte indicated that
he was upset with the Union for filing the charge and,
although he had agreed at the May 5 meeting to
submit final contract language, he advised the Union
that he had been busy preparing an answer to the
charge and, therefore, he did not have a new contract
ready nor did he have additional contract language to
present. When Phillips, one of the Union's negotia-
tors, informed Schachte that the unrelated charge had
nothing to do with the execution and signing of the
contract under consideration, Schachte stated that he
was not going to sign a contract with charges pending.
At the next meeting on May 15, which began with a
paragraph by paragraph discussion by the parties of
the prepared written material, Schachte informed the
Union that the Respondent had no intention of
signing a contract until every "I" was dotted and every
"t" was crossed. The Union objected to going over the
contract in detail because its membership had already
accepted the Respondent's final offer of April 24. On
May 21, the parties held their last meeting. The Union
stated that it would like to get a signed contract as
soon as possible, and that this could be done by
leaving the same language as in the old contract with
the exception of the new economic benefits agreed to.
Schachte asked Phillips if the Union's charge had
been withdrawn. Although a meeting was scheduled
for May 27, Schachte canceled it and no further
meetings were scheduled and no contract was signed.
It is well settled that the pendency of unfair labor
practice charges against an employer does not relieve
it of its duty to bargain with the union filing those
charges and that a refusal to bargain because of
pending charges constitutes bad-faith bargaining on
its part.' Accordingly, we find that by such conduct
the Respondent refused to bargain within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
We have found that the Respondent and the Union
had reached agreement in principle as to the substan-
tive terms of a collective -bargaining agreement and
that the Respondent , acting in bad faith , failed to
reduce the agreement to writing . However , in all the
circumstances of this case , including the fact that
there was no agreement as to the language to go into
the contract , we shall not order the Respondent to
execute a particular document, but shall order it to
cease and desist from its refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union , and, upon request, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of its employees in the appropriate unit , and, if
an understanding is reached , to embody such under-
standing in a signed contract.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
' Monarch Hardware & Mfg Co, 145 NLRB 775, Revere Metal Art
Company, Lac 146 NLRB 253
187 NLRB No. 103
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent, Rauland Division of Zenith Radio
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
modified below:
1. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Recommended
Order and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accord-
ingly.
2. In footnote 18 of the Trial Examiner's Decision,
substitute "20" for "10" days.
3. Substitute the attached appendix for that
recommended by the Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request, meet with and bargain
collectively in good faith with the American
Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO,
Local 93, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit , and, if understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a written agreement. The
appropriate unit is:
All technical employees employed by the
Respondent in its plants numbered one (1),
two (2) and four (4), located on Knox
Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, and plant
number five (5) located in Melrose Park,
Illinois , excluding all production and mainte-
nance employees, all employees currently
represented by labor organizations, engi-
neers , professional employees, office and
plant clerical employees, draftsmen, time-
study employees, temporary employees, part-
time employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
RAULAND DIVISION OF
ZENITH RADIO
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 compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office , Room 881 , Everett McKinley Dirksen Build-
ing, 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago , Illinois
60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL W. SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
on May 23, 1969,1 by American Federation of Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 93, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel issued a complaint on February 27,
1970, against Rauland Division of Zenith Radio Corpora-
tion , herein called the Company or Respondent, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. At the trial all parties were
afforded full opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on
the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived
but the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Zenith Radio Corporation is a Delaware corporation,
and Respondent Rauland is an unincorporated division of
Zenith . The Respondent 's administrative offices and No. 5
plant are located in Melrose Park, Illinois , and Respon-
dent's Nos. 1, 2, and 4 plants are located on Knox Avenue
in Chicago , Illinois , and at these plants the Respondent is
engaged primarily in the manufacture of monochrome and
color cathode ray tubes. The Respondent annually
produces and ships finished products directly to points
outside the State of Illinois valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent is, as it admits , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization under the Act.3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that since May 5 the Respondent
has failed and refused to bargain in good faith; since May 5
the Respondent has refused to reduce to writing and sign an
agreement embodying rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment agreed upon between the Union and the Respondent;
and Respondent, on or about May 15 and 21, engaged in
dilatory tactics and refused to sign the above agreement
I
All dates are 1969 unless specifically stated otherwise
2 All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite
evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the
evidence as a whole
Most of Respondent's approximately 2,500 hourly rated production
and maintenance employees are represented by Local 1031 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers with whom the Company
has had a bargaining relationship for many years A relatively small
number of such employees are represented by District 8 of the
International Association of Machinists
RAULAND DIV. OF ZENITH
agreed on until charges previously filed with the Board
were disposed of.
The Union was certified by the Board in November
1967.4 A contract was then entered into between the
Respondent and the Union with an expiration date of
March 31. After notice by the Union, negotiations for a
new agreement were begun in February, and it is from these
negotiations that the present controversy has arisen.
During February, March, April, and May, 16 negotiating
meetings were held between the parties. The Union went
out on strike from April 1 to 20. On May 2 the Union filed a
charge against the Respondent-Case 13-CA-9093-and
by letter dated May 5 the Company was notified by the
Board of this pending charge.5
The position of the General Counsel is that on April 24
the Respondent made a final offer to the Union and which
the Union accepted on May 4, and then communicated this
acceptance to the Company, but thereafter the Company
refused and failed to execute the agreed-upon terms and
conditions into a written contract because the Union filed
unfair labor practice charges relating to another
matter-Case 13-CA-9093-as aforestated. In essence, the
Respondent maintains that the parties had not reached
agreement on all the terms and provisions of their proposed
contract by the time negotiations broke off.6
At all meetings the Company's chief negotiator was
Director of Labor Relations E. J. Schachte. Schachte was
assisted by Director of Personnel John Parker and General
Personnel Manager James Kinal, whose responsibilities at
the negotiations included preparing minutes for company
use.7 The Union was represented by a six-man committee
whose principal spokesmen were Paul Bogdanowicz,
Wallace Phillips, and Donald Phillipe. Employees of
Respondent on the Union's bargaining team were paid by
the Company for time spent in negotiations. The Union
submitted written contract proposals early in the negotia-
tions. These were reviewed by the Company, and provided
the basis for discussions during the initial meetings. The
Union asked for a union-shop clause, and one area the
Company felt needed changing was the seniority article.
During these initial sessions the Union requested and was
given information relating to insurance, past salary raises,
and the profit-sharing trust agreement, and tentative
agreement was reached on some minor noneconomic
issues, but such understandings wee not reduced to writing.
At the negotiating session on February 20, the Company
proposed no changes from the provisions of the existing
contract in the areas of union secunty,8 management rights,
unit work, hours of work and shift premiums, overtime, rest
4 The appropriate unit is
All technical employees employed by the Respondent in its plants
numbered one (1), two (2) and four (4), located on Knox Avenue, in
Chicago, Illinois, and plant number five (5) located in Melrose Park.
Illinois, excluding all production and maintenance employees, all
employees currently represented by labor organizations , engineers,
professional employees, office and plant clerical employees, draftsmen,
time-study employees, temporary employees, part-time employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
5 By letter dated June 27, the Board notified the parties that there was
insufficient evidence at this time to issue a complaint in Cases 13-CA-9093
and l3-CA-9137 On January 13, 1970. the Regional Director approved
the Union's withdrawal request in Case 13-CA-9093, but the June 27
dismissal of the charge in Case 13-CA-9137 was then revoked
6 On June 15, 1970, the Respondent filed a motion to strike portions of
the General Counsel 's brief on the grounds that certain statements or
787
periods, probationary period, number of holidays, leaves of
absence, and insurance, and the Union was informed that
under the merit review system many unit employees
received increases in 1968. Seniority provisions were also
discussed and tentative agreements were reached on several
subjects or paragraphs pertaining thereto.
At the meeting on February 25, the Respondent
tentatively agreed to give an employee the option of
payment in lieu of time off; tentatively agreed to extend
holiday qualification while on a leave of absence; and
reached several other accords in this general area.
On March 11, the Company proposed a 2-percent across-
the-board wage increase, and a 2-percent increase in range
maximums. The Union stated that this offer was unaccept-
able, and submitted five "hard core" items they felt
necessary under their proposal; cost-of-living, merit review
system, increased salary ranges (maximum and minimum),
a 12-percent across-the-board salary increase, and union
shop. Schachte stated that the Company was strongly
opposed to a cost-of-living provision and a union-shop
provision.
At the meeting on March 19, the Union enlarged their
major demands by including several economic proposals.
The Respondent then informed the Union their proposed
cost-of-living proposal, the 12-percent across-the-board
increases , and the union-shop provisions were unaccepta-
ble, but that the Company was willing to consider salary
ranges and a general wage increase , and that they would
make a proposal on insurance.
At the session on March 26, the Company agreed to
modify its existing insurance plan and the parties discussed
the Union's request for a change in the merit review system
and the Company replied that it would agree to a system of
semiannual performance reviews which would be distinct
delete demands on several of their proposals and also
agreed to modify their sick leave plan and merit review
proposals, and would accept a meaningful agreements on
these items, but the Union stated that the Company's
position would be presented to their membership meeting
on Sunday. On March 30 the Union's membership rejected
the Respondent's offer.
The meeting on March 31 was held with the Federal
Mediator and Conciliation Service. The Union summarized
for the commissioner the 13 or 14 points or issues still
unresolved. The parties then discussed the union-shop
proposal, but without any change by either party. This
session concluded after certain guidelines for the strike
were brought up and discussed.
assertions therein were without support . were highly prejudicial to
Respondent's defense , and were based on completely distorted version of
the record I have made my decision and findings based only on evidence
substantially documented and reflected in this record, and in no way have
I given any consideration whatsoever to possible unsupported arguments
and assertions by the General Counsel which might fall within the area of
the Respondent 's motion . On the basis of the above, the motion to strike is
hereby denied
r Kinal testified he dictated the minutes from his notes taken at the
bargaining sessions The minutes were introduced into evidence without
objection as Resp Exhs 1(a) through l(p)
' The contract between the parties which expired on March 31,
provided that union membership was not a condition of employment, and
there was no provision for the checkoff of union dues
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union struck the Company for 3 weeks from April 1
to 21, as aforestated, but during this period there was one
bargaining session between the parties on April 18, again at
the offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service. Attending for the first and only time was Union
International Representative Jack Dunn. The Company
proposed a 27-month contract with a 3 1/2 percent salary
increase for the first year and a 4-percent salary increase for
the remaining 15 months. The Union then indicated that a
meeting of their membership was scheduled for the
weekend.
On April 20, Schachte received a call from Wallace
Phillips, president of Local 93, who advised that the
membership had rejected the Company's revised economic
offer, but had voted to return to work starting April 21.
At the session on April 24, the Union presented a revised
economic proposal, and the Company then made a
counterproposal. The Company's final offer on salary
increases continued to be 3 1/2 percent for the first year,
and 4 percent for the remaining 15 months of a 27-month
contract. The Company also offered an extra holding, Blue
Cross-Blue Shield insurance, seniority provisions as
tentatively agreed on beforehand, the current merit review
plan with a 6-month performance evaluation, 4 weeks'
vacation after 20 years' service, salary ranges increased by 5
percent at the maximums, and the current sick leave and
shift-differential plans. The Company further indicated
that it would review other items on which tentative
agreements had been obtained. The Union then came back
with their counterproposals, but the Company insisted on
its final offer as outlined above. While there is some
conflicting testimony on how this session on April 24
concluded, the most reliable evidence establishes that the
Union indicated they would take the Respondent's final
offer to their membership for a vote on whether or not to
accept it.9
This record reveals that on Sunday, May 4, the Union's
negotiating committee met with its members to outline the
Company's final offer, and the members voted to accept the
offer; thereafter, Don Phillipe and Wallace Phillips called
Schachte to advise him that the Union had accepted the
Company's offer of April 24 and requested a meeting as
soon as possible to get the contract signed.10 A negotiating
meeting was then arranged for the next day.
The meeting on May 5 dealt mainly with a review of the
language on those items on which previous agreements had
been made. These efforts included language clarifications
on arbitration procedure, job postings, various aspects
seniority, holiday pay and return rights while on leave of
absence, time off for voting, vacation time off, company-
union meetings, performance evaluations, discharges, and
9 General Counsel witnesses Bogdanowicz and Gerrettie testified that
Schachte specifically told them to take his final offer back to the union
membership Schachte emphatically denied ever making such request or
statement However, Respondent's director of personnel, John Parker,
admitted that at this meeting the Union indicated they would take the
Company's final offer to their membership
10 Schachte admitted that "at some stage in this period" he did receive a
call from Phillips at his home, and was then informed that the Union had
accepted his offer
ii On May 6, as pointed out, Schachte received a copy of the charge in
Case 13-CA-9093 which had been filed by the Union alleging that the
Company unilaterally had made changes in insurance benefits for
the grievance procedure was to be rewritten by the
Company. This meeting concluded with the Company
agreeing to submit final language at the next session (May
9) covering provisions for a new contract, and the contract
would be retroactive to May 5.11
At the session on May 9, Schachte let it be clearly known
to everyone that he was extremely upset and angry with the
Union by the filing of their charge (Case 13-CA-9093), and
then advised the Union he had been busy preparing an
answer to the charge, and so he did not have a new contract
ready nor did he have additional contract language to
present. Phillipe then informed the Company that this
charge had nothing whatsoever to do with the execution
and signing of the contract under consideration, but
Schachte replied that he was not going to sign a contract
with charges pending.
The meeting on May 15 commenced with a paragraph by
paragraph discussion of the prepared written material.
Schachte informed the Union that the Company has no
intention of signing a contract until every "I" is dotted and
every "T" was crossed.12 Garrettie testified that he objected
going over the contract in detail because the union
membership had already accepted the Respondent's final
offer of April 24.
The last meeting was held on May 21. The Union stated
they would like to get a signed contract as soon as possible,
and this could be done by leaving the same language as in
the old contract with the exception of the new economic
benefits agreed to 13 Schachte testified that at this May 21
meeting he asked Phillips "for one thing, if the charge had
been withdrawn." He stated that Phillips again indicated to
him that he had suggested that the charge be withdrawn
Schachte related in his testimony that there were many
areas of contract language that had not yet been agreed to,
and based on the Union's recent actions he did not trust it
sufficiently to enter into a verbal contract. He also stated
there were provisions in the old agreement that were
unacceptable and unworkable. Schachte further indicated
that once in final form the agreement would then have to be
approved by the corporate legal department. The meeting
for May 27 was canceled by Schachte the day before, and
no further meetings were scheduled and no contract was
signed.
The Respondent raises several defenses. In their brief it is
argued that at the close of the May 5 bargaining session
there were still contract provisions that had not been agreed
to and by the end of the May 15 meeting the parties had
initiated only a handful of pages; the Company also points
out that the totality of its conduct over the 4 months of
negotiations shows good-faith bargaining, and that the
filing of the charge by the Union, in Case 13-CA-9093
bargaining unit employees and had refused to process grievances
Apparently, the Union had not given Schachte any advance knowledge
that such a charge would be filed even though Phillipe had telephoned him
on May I requesting information relative to insurance and had been
specifically told by Schachte that no changes in insurance benefits had
been put into effect for unit technicians here involved
12 Schachte admitted that "somewhere along the line" he made this
statement as to dotting I's and crossing T's
I I Schachte stated that on May 18, Phillips telephoned him to advise
that a membership meeting had been held at which the employees had
voted to accept the Company's economic offer
RAULAND DIV. OF ZENITH 789
merely introduced an element of distrust into the
negotiations.14
This record clearly establishes that the Company 's failure
to consummate and execute the contract was due to the fact
that the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge relating
to matters extraneous to the negotiations , as aforestated. It
is well settled that the filing of unfair labor practice charges
do not relieve an employer of his obligation to bargain with
the Union , and his refusal to do so on that ground or until
the proceedings have been disposed of or withdrawn, is
plainly indicative of bad -faith bargaining on his part.
Revere Metal Art Company, Inc, 146 NLRB 253; Monarch
Hardware & Mfg., Co., 145 NLRB 775.
For all intensive purposes the parties reached agreements
on April 24 , and the only steps remaining were acceptance
of the Company's final offer by the union membership, and
the routine drafting of formal or suitable language to
implement the provisions already agreed upon . Subse-
quently, both these steps took place . On April 24, when the
Company made their final offer, as aforestated , they did so
with the further understanding that all other provisions
would remain the same, and the contents of Respondent's
own notes covering this session negates any contention
otherwise . Therefore , there were understandings and
agreements between the parties on all other items not
specifically covered in the final offer because the old
provisions on such were incorporated by reference into the
new contract . On May 4, the union membership then
accepted the Company's offer of April 24, and there is no
question that Schachte was immediately so notified. On
May 5, the parties agreed on the necessary language
changes to put into effect previous agreements , and for
clarification purposes discussions also took place on
paragraph dealing with discharges , seniority , and a few
other subject matters .15 The grievance procedure was to be
rewritten by the Company but there is no showing that the
parties were not in full or substantial accord as to its
contents . A careful review of this record will not support a
conclusion that there were unsettled contract provisions to
be agreed upon.
The filing of the charge in Case 13-CA-9093, and which
the Company had knowledge on or about May 6, raised
more than an element of distrust in the Union .16 It is
obvious from this record that following the strike the
parties had made considerable progress in their negotia-
tions and to such an extent that by the conclusion of the
session on May 5, there merely remained the formal
adoption or rewriting of language and paragraphs to match
their prior agreements . However , after receiving notifica-
tion of the charge the Company's conduct and attitude
immediately changed, and from then on the Respondent
acted in derogation of its statutory duty to bargain in good
faith.
14 On May 27. a decertification petition (Case 13-RD-748) was filed by
an employee seeking an election to decertify the Union as the bargaining
representative (Resp Exh 6) Schachte testified that prior to this time,
including once in May and on another occasion, employees had come to
his office asking how they could get rid of the Union and during the
negotiations this had prompted Schachte to ask the Union whether it
represented a majority of the unit employees Phillipe admitted that the
Union was aware that some employees were considering such a move
Apparently neither the Company nor the Union requested the resumption
of negotiations after the filing of the RD petition An election was directed
Schachte admitted he was "angry" because of the charge,
and would look for the dotting of "I's" and crossing of
"T's," and he would not finalize any contract until every
last bit of language had been clarified. Dilatory tactics also
took place on May 15 and 21. After almost 4 months of
negotiations the Company insisted on a paragraph by
paragraph review of the previous contract. At the last
meeting the Company again specifically inquired if the
charge had been dropped. Another clear indication that the
filing of the charge was the only factor in the Company's
refusal to consummate a contract.
Personnel Manager Kinal admitted that on May 5 there
were only language disputes remaining and also admitted
there was a general understanding on seniority. Director of
Personnel Parker agreed in his testimony that the May 5
meeting was spent on language clarifications and that the
contract would be retroactive to May 5. I question very
much whether the subject of retroactivity would have been
agreed upon, or even approached, had not the parties
reached a meeting of the minds beforehand. During these
negotiations Schachte was initially following the normal
practice he had adopted over the years while negotiating
with unions. He first of all made notes of the various
agreements as the discussions went along , and in some
instances operated on such verbal understandings with the
different unions, and then on a later occasion the execution
in the formalities of contract language and signing took
place. In the final analysis, it is obvious from this record
that Schachte was following his normal procedure in this
case until the filing of the charge and notification of the
same on May 6.
I have found on the basis of Respondent's course of
conduct that its refusal to execute the agreement negotiated
by the parties on or about May 5, 1969, was in bad faith and
by such conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company described in section 1, 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.
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
in Case No 13-RD-748 and scheduled for August 22, but it was later
postponed
15 As pointed out Schachte offers no explanation as to who requested
this meeting and for what purposes it there was no contact with the
Union, it would be difficult to ascertain who arranged the meeting on May
5, and how would such plans be made if Schachte did not receive a call
from Phillips on May 4 telling him the Union accepted the Company's
offer
16 For purposes here I need not express my sentiments relating to the
timing by the Union in filing this charge.
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, which, at all times
material , has been and continues to be the exclusive
representative of Respondent's employees in the appropri-
ate unit , as set forth previously herein, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
3. By the acts and conduct herein found violating of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As it has been found that on May 5 the parties reached
complete agreement on terms and conditions of employ-
ment and that Respondent thereafter repudiated such
agreement and refused to execute a written contract
embodying such terms and conditions, it will be recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to execute such a
contract, and which shall be effective retroactively from
May 5, 1969.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended
that Respondent, Rauland Division of Zenith Radio
Corporation, its officers, agents, and representative, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody
same in a signed agreement,
(b) If requested by the Union, execute the contract upon
which agreement was reached on May 5, 1969, and as set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at their offices and plants in Melrose Park and on
Knox Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by it 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 such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.18
it In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's 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 "
i" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "