Northland Camps, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 36 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Northland Camps , Inc. and Treasure Valley Metal
Trades Council , affiliated with the Metal Trades
Department , AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-4248
October 10, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 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
Act, 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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
refusing on and after October 28, 1968, to advise the
Union of the names of employees in the appropriate
unit and of wage increases granted to such
employees; by refusing on and after November 18,
1968, to meet and bargain with the Union, and by
making unilateral changes in the wages and other
working conditions of its employees on December
16, 1968. We note that although Respondent
contends in its brief that an impasse had been
reached on October 28, 1968, which justified its
subsequent conduct, the evidence, including that
presented through the testimony of its Secretary,
Freeman, refutes this contention. It is clear that the
parties were still bargaining on and after October
28.
The Union was certified on June 12, 1968, and
shortly thereafter the parties commenced
negotiations through some seven formal meetings,
the last held on October 28. Some progress was
made during several of these meetings, the last two
of which were held under the auspices of a Federal
Mediator. At the meeting of October 28, the Union
submitted a package proposal which was taken
under advisement by the Respondent. Although
there were differences remaining on several issues at
the conclusion of the last meeting on October 28,
the principal issues of concern to the Union were a
union shop and checkoff. On the next day, the
Respondent, through its secretary, Freeman,
furnished the Union with a counter offer, which
included among other things a maintenance of
membership clause as a response to the Union's
request for a union shop. On November 12, the
membership of the Union voted to reject this
counteroffer; and a reply proposal dated November
13 concerning seven issues, including the Union's
original wage demand and a renewed demand for
the union shop, was transmitted to Respondent. On
November 18, admittedly without ever having
considered the Union's proposal of November 13,
Secretary Freeman revoked the authority of his
chief negotiator, Smith, to engage in further
negotiations for the reason that "we have no
intention to continue to negotiate any of the items
further," and instructed him to make the Union a
last and final offer This last and final offer,
submitted to the Union on November 22, was
substantially identical to Respondent's October 29
proposal. On November 27 and on December 11,
the Union requested the Respondent to meet, but
the Respondent failed to respond. On the basis of
the foregoing, it is clear that the parties had not
reached an impasse on October 28 as contended by
Respondent inasmuch as both sides continued
bargaining by submitting altered proposals after that
time.
It is also clear that the deadlock resulting from
the Union's rejection of Respondent's "last and final
offer" of November 22 did not excuse Respondent's
actions, for a deadlock caused by a party who
refuses to bargain in good faith is not a legally
cognizable impasse justifying unilateral conduct.'
The abrupt decision on the part of the Respondent
to submit a last and final offer and break off
negotiations without considering the Union's
response either to Respondent's October 29
counterproposal or to its November 22 "final offer"
is not compatible with a good-faith effort to reach
agreement on mutually acceptable terms. The
inference that Respondent was not acting in good
faith when it broke off negotiations is heightened by
its refusal to honor the Union's request for further
negotiating meetings and by its failure and refusal to
furnish the Union with the names of bargaining unit
employees and information as to wage increases
granted to employees during the course of
negotiations as requested by the Union at the
October 28 meeting. Accordingly, we conclude that
the deadlock of November 22 did not justify
Respondent's later unilateral imposition of its
contract proposals inasmuch as the negotiations
leading thereto were tainted by Respondent's refusal
to furnish the Union with requested relevant
information necessary to the Union's proper
'See Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ( Bethlehem
Steel. Co . Shipbuilding Division) v N L R B , 320 F 2d 615, 621(C A 3),
Bethlehem Steel Co (Shipbuilding Division), 147 NLRB 977, 978
179 NLRB No. 7
NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC.
consideration of its last and final offer, and its
breaking off of negotiations without waiting for and
considering the Union's response to either its
October 29 counteroffer or to the last and final offer
itself.'
Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, we
find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and in
the absence of a legally cognizable impasse, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act in refusing after November 18 to attend further
negotiating meetings, in refusing on and after
October 28, to advise the Union of the names of
employees in the bargaining unit and of their wage
increases after being requested to do so; and in
unilaterally instituting changes in wages and other
working conditions on December 16.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Northland
Camps, Inc., Nampa, Idaho, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'Cone Mills Corporation v N L R B , 373 F 2d 595 (C A 4)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner On April 22
and 23, 1969, a hearing was held in the above-entitled
matter in Boise, Idaho, at which all parties appeared and
participated. The complaint, issued by the Regional
Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations
Board on April 1, 1969, is based on a charge filed by the
Union on January 8, 1969, as amended March 25, 1969,
and alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act Upon the entire record in
this case, including my observation of the witnesses, and
after due consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for
the General Counsel, by the representative of the
Respondent and by counsel for the Union, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Northland Camps, Inc , herein called Respondent, is an
Alaska Corporation engaged in Nampa, Idaho, in the
design and manufacture of relocatable buildings During
its last fiscal year, Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations at Nampa, Idaho, made sales of
relocatable houses valued in excess of $500,000 and caused
to be shipped from its Nampa plant to points outside the
State of Idaho, products valued in excess of $50,000
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
37
Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council , affiliated with
the Metal Trades Department , AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
The complaint alleges in substance that (I) Respondent
refused to comply with the Union's requests of October
28, 1968, And December 2, 1968, that Respondent advise
the Union of the names of employees hired or terminated
since October 10, 1968, and of all wage increases since
July 1968, (2) Respondent refused the Union's requests of
November 27 and December 11, 1968, that it meet with
and resume bargaining with the Union, and (3)
Respondent on December 16, 1968, without notice to, or
consultation with, the Union instituted unilateral changes
in wages and other working conditions Respondent
answers that it did its best to supply all information
requested, admits that it refused on and after November
27 to meet or bargain further with the Union, avers that
an impasse in bargaining had been reached, stating that
Respondent had submitted a last and final offer to the
Union on November 22, 1968, and that the Union's
requests of November 27 and December 2 were therefore
untimely. Respondent denies any unilateral action The
complaint was amended at the hearing without objection
to allege that the Union also requested bargaining on
November 13 1 have treated this allegation as having
been denied The Answer is signed, "Idaho Employers
Council by Fred J Smith " Mr Smith, who was
Respondent's chief spokesmen in negotiations with the
Union testified that the impasse in bargaining was reached
at the meeting with the Union on October 28, 1968
B The Bargaining
Pursuant to the results of a Board-conducted election
held June 4, 1968, the Union was certified on June 12,
1968, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of a unit of
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its Nampa, Idaho operations,
including all plant clerical employees, janitors, trainees,
and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
There are approximately 40 employees in the unit
Respondent and the Union met briefly on July 3, 1968
Respondent was represented by its secretary, Gilbert A
Freeman, who is also secretary of Respondent's parent
company, Atco Industries Ltd , and whose office is in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also represented by two
agents of Idaho Employers' Council, Fred J Smith and
Thomas H. Hazzard The Union was represented by its
secretary, A S. Rice, and a committee of Respondent's
employees The Union presented a written contract
proposal, complete except for wage schedule and asked
the Respondent to supply it with a list of employees'
names and wages. There was no negotiation. The list of
names and wages was given the Union on July 15
At the second meeting, August 6, 1968, with Mr.
Freeman absent, the Union presented a wage schedule and
the Respondent presented a contract proposal, complete
except for wages and duration The entire meeting was
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
devoted to discussion of Respondent's proposals Mr.
Freeman returned for the third meeting on August 14 at
which Respondent submitted a second draft of its contract
proposals. This second draft strengthened the proposal on
management rights, reduced the previous offer of vacation
benefits and added a proposal that supervisors be
permitted to do production work. The August 14 meeting
was devoted to a recapitulation, for the benefit of Mr
Freeman of the August 6 discussions
At the fourth meeting on August 27, with Mr. Freeman
present, the parties got down to business, working from
Respondent's second draft. Agreement was reached on I1
articles, including some matters of substance. On
September 4, Rice wrote to Smith summarizing
negotiations to date, listing 13 items still in dispute, and
requesting that continuous meetings be held to
consummate a contract
A fifth meeting was held September 18. There was
further discussion of Respondent's proposals of August 14
and of Rice's letter of September 4. No witness testified
to any progress. Although Smith first testified that more
items were agreed upon, he contradicted himself later by
testifying that there were a dozen or two issues still on the
table as of October 8
The sixth meeting was held October 8 with United
States Commissioner of Conciliation Roche presiding.
Respondent presented a third contract draft which differed
from its second draft by (1) further strengthening the
management rights clause, (2) adding a clause giving
Respondent the absolute right to subcontract work, (3)
adding a clause requiring that all union notices receive the
approval of the general manager prior to posting, and (4)
adding a wage schedule Respondent's third contract draft
contained concessions in the area of grievances,
computation of vacation time and length of probationary
period of new employees Practically the entire meeting
was devoted to familiarizing the Conciliator with the
status of negotiations Only one additional item was
agreed upon Respondent in its two prior contract drafts
had proposed that overtime rates be paid only after an
employee had worked 40 hours in I week, regardless of
the number of hours worked in any given day
Respondent, on October 8 conceded that overtime should
also be paid for all time worked over 8 hours in any one
day
On October 10, Respondent delivered to the Union a
list showing the names of all employees in the bargaining
unit as of that date.
The seventh and final meeting was held October 28
Respondent was represented by Smith, Hazzard, and
Freeman. The Union was represented by Rice, by its
attorney, Fuller, and by at least two employees of
Respondent Commissioner Roche kept the parties
separated throughout most of the day. Near the end of the
day, in a joint meeting Fuller, speaking for the Union
committee, made an oral "package proposal."
Respondent's representatives, after caucausing replied
through Freeman that there were several things in the
Union's proposal which they did not like, but that they
would take it under advisement and would make a
proposal to the Union the following day, October 29,
which Freeman felt sure the committee could recommend
to the membership for their approval Rice requested that
the employee list of October 8, and wage increases since
July 15 be brought up to date.
Freeman spent most of the day, October 29, with Smith
preparing a fourth contract draft which he delivered
personally to Rice in the early evening There was no
discussion, since Freeman was pressed for time to catch a
plane back to Calgary Respondent's fourth draft differed
from the third by (I) incorporating a clause providing for
maintenance of union membership, (2) adding a clause
dating a foreman's seniority from date of hire, (3)
transferring the clause permitting foremen to do
bargaining unit work from the seniority clause to the
management rights clause and (4) for the first time
proposing a terminal date of October 31, 1971 The fourth
draft contained no provision for health and welfare and
restricted overtime to work over 40 hours in any l week
Freeman told Rice that he was sure the document would
cover the Union's desires and Rice promised to present it
to the members.
Upon his return to Calgary, Freeman prepared the
following memorandum for the information of his
superiors in the parent company
November 1, 1968
TO. Mr. C. S Richardson
Mr. G. P Kiefer
Mr E. N Farch
FROM G A. Freeman
SUBJECT Union-Nampa
Last Union Offer
they would Recommend We Countered
NAGE SCALE
Starting Rate per hr. $1 75 Labourers Start $1.85
Automatic (1.85-1 Mon Prod Wkrs. Start 1.95
Progres- (1 95-2 Mons. increase of .10beginning
sions (2 05-6 Mons of month after 90 days
(2.15-9 Mons:
$2 15-$2 50 would be merit
area at Management's No limit on merit
discretion
Plus $ 10 at time of $.10 or up to minimum
signing commencing November 1/68
05 at 6 months 10 November 1/69
05 at 12 months .10 November 1/70
Health and Welfare all As at present-50/50 on costs
at Employers Cost and not part of agreement
O. T. 1-1/2 X over 8 and 1-1/2 X over 8 and 40
Steward - 3 with one as 2 with one as chief
chief
Vacation - 1 week with pay I week with pay after 1 year
after 1 year 2 weeks with pay after 3
years
2 weeks with pay
after 3 years
NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. 39
Security
Any existing employee may
join union - if not
joining authorize $5.00 per
month service fee
Any existing employee may
join Union
No service fee
mailed to Freeman, Mr Freeman testified that he did not
recall having seen the letter and that he knew that he was
unaware of the letter and had not been informed of its
content, when on November 18, he dispatched the
following communication to Smith:
Enclosed please find copies of contract completed as per
discussion, i e
All new employees required
to join in 30 days
Check oll
All new employees may join
and must then remain in
Union
No check off
Arbitration with all costs Arbitration l each and
to loser split 3rd
The left hand column of Freeman's November I,
memorandum is a fair summary of the proposal made by
the Union Committee near the close of the October 28
meeting The right-hand column is a summary of
Respondent's October 29 contract draft.
Respondent's employees met on November 12 and
reviewed paragraph by paragraph Respondent's proposal
of October 29. Rice stated that Respondent had verbally
agreed to overtime after 8 hours and stated that Mr
Freeman had asked for time to negotiate a contract with a
local company covering health and welfare. The meeting
voted to reject Respondent's offer and asked the
representatives to return to the bargaining table with the
Union's original wage proposal, and not to deviate from
that proposal and not to accept anything except a union
shop
Under date of November 13, Rice wrote to Smith
Notice was distributed and a meeting was held with
the employees of Northland Camps, Inc , Tuesday
November 12, 1968 for the purpose of consideration of
the latest contract proposal submitted by the Company
The entire proposal was gone over Article by Article
Reference was also made to the company's position
regarding verbal committments which were not included
in the last proposal submitted - overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 8 hours per day, health and welfare
coverage, etc It was also mentioned that a letter
confirming the inclusion of these items was requested
but never received
The employees, by secret ballot, rejected the
Company's proposal and approved with no dissenting
votes the following items to be entered in the
agreement, either as an addition or substitution to these
respective Articles and Sections.
The letter then listed seven items, dealing with
subcontracting, foremen doing production work, overtime
pay, union security, termination date, health and welfare,
and wages. The letter concludes
The employees recommended that the Company be
informed that the action taken on these issues were with
unanimous support it is requested that the Company
give serious consideration to all issues and the
employees are taking the stand that very little area for
deviation from these proposals will be considered, if
any
Although the carbon copy received in evidence indicates
that a copy of Rice's letter of November 13 had been
(1) Article 6 - 3 inclusion of words "Eight hours a
day or . "
and
(2) Inclusion of Group Insurance clause - Article 18
We have signed four copies of the agreement on the
basis that while item one above was verbally agreed to
and the item inadvertently omitted in the final draft,
item two at our discussions was not to be included in
the contract draft and the writer feels that the Union is
out of line in requesting this inclusion after our
discussion regarding same
At the present time these documents are being signed
and passed to yourself for completion by the Union as
the writer cannot visualize any reason for proceeding
again to Boise in regards to this contract as we have no
intention to continue to negotiate any of the items
further. Our decision at the present time is, in effect,
they can sign this contract or "Go their best lick."
We feel that after giving the Union two or three days
in which to consider this contract, that should they
refuse to sign same, we should then implement the
terms and conditions of the ageement and advise our
staff of the contract terminology in full and our reasons
for implementing the contract as presently drawn.
On November 22, Smith called Rice to his office,
handed him an unsigned copy of the agreement described
in Freeman's letter and told Rice that this was
Respondent's last and final offer.
Under date of November 27, Rice wrote to Smith:
Having received a revised contract proposal in behalf
of Northland Camps, Inc from you last week we again
submitted it to the employees for acceptance and it was
overwhelmingly rejected.
In view of the fact that there is no evidence that the
company accorded any consideration to issues proposed
by the employees, as stated in the letter dated
November 13, other than the previous verbal
committments being reduced to writing, there is little to
support the company's intent to bargain in good faith
It is our desire to set another meeting as soon as
possible, preferably the early part of the first week in
December, to discuss all items except 3 [Overtime pay
after 8 hours] in the letter mentioned above.
We are aware that your last proposal was to be your
last and final offer. Considering the fact that it was
overwhelmingly rejected is this still your position? If so
please let us know by return mail.
On December 2, Rice wrote to Smith renewing the
request which he made orally on October 28 that
Respondent furnish to the Union a "list of wage increases
of the respective employees who have received them since
July 12, 1968. Also the names of new hires or discharged
employees since October 10, 1968 "
On December 3, Smith dispatched to Rice by certified
mail, the following letter:
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 2, 1968
Since our election with you on June 4, 1968 we have
had a series of negotiations, including one called by the
Federal Mediation Service Also, we have honored your
requests for meetings on every occasion
I would also remind you that it was your wage offer
we accepted and further, that we reached agreement on
the fringe benefits contained in this last and final offer
On November 22, 1968, 1 submitted a last and final
offer to you and requested that you take it to the
employees for approval Your letter of November 27,
1968, states that the employees rejected this offer
Therefore, it is most evident that we have reached a
legitimate impasse Further, in order to maintain labor
peace and be in a position to maintain our present level
of employment, it is necessary for us to place our last
and final offer into effect on December 16, 1968
Under date of December II, Rice wrote to Smith,
protesting Respondent's proposed unilateral action and
requesting that negotiations be resumed on December 16
Respondent on December 16, 1968, instituted the wages,
hours and working conditions described in its contract
draft of November 22.
Respondent made no reply to the Union's letters of
November 13, December 2, and December 11 Freeman,
in justification of his silence testified that the letters were
not addressed to him Smith's self-justification is stated in
his following testimony.
Well, after October 28th, the date of our last meeting,
it was so obvious that we'd reached a legitimate
impasse that any requests made by Mr Rice after that
date would have no meaning
Freeman testified that the October 29 offer to the Union
did not contain a proposal on health and welfare because
at that time he did not have firm prices from a local
insurance company A health and welfare clause was
included in his "last and final offer" because, prior to
November 18 the prices had "firmed up "
C Conclusions
Respondent's refusal to meet with the Union is
admitted by its answer and established by the evidence
Respondent's refusal to advise the Union of the names of
employees in the bargaining unit and wage increases, if
any, granted to each is established by the evidence
Respondent's unilateral changes in wages and working
conditions are established by the evidence and admitted in
its brief Each of these actions, unless justified, constitutes
a separate violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act Since
justification is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the
Respondent.
The sole affirmative defense stated in Respondent's
answer, is that an impasse in bargaining had occurred
Smith in his testimony and in his brief states that the
parties came to an impasse on the subject of Union
Security in the meeting of October 28, and that agreement
had been reached on all other issues. I find that there was
no impasse There were only seven bargaining sessions
There was no bargaining at first, when the Union
submitted the contract proposals, little at the third which
was devoted to acquainting Mr. Freeman with the results
of the second meeting, and little at the sixth meeting
which was devoted to familiarizing the conciliator with the
then status of negotiations Real progress was made at the
seventh meeting At the conclusion of the seventh meeting,
as indicated by Mr. Freeman's memorandum of
November 1, 1968, the parties had not reached complete
agreement on six matters of substance I find that the
meeting terminated as testified to by Fuller and Barnard
with the promise of Freeman to give serious consideration
to the Union's package proposal and to give the Union his
answer on the following day Neither party at the
conclusion of the seventh and last meeting gave any
indication that its position on any of the unresolved items
was not subject to change
Nevertheless, without waiting to see whether or what
reply the Union would make to his proposals of October
29, Freeman, on November 18, 1968, wrote to Smith,
revoking Smith's authority to negotiate further, directing
Smith to lay an ultimatum before the Union which it
could accept or "go their best lick "
In his brief Respondent's consultant asserts that
Respondent's unilateral action in putting into effect its
"last offer" was justified by the "impasse" of October 28
Since there was no impasse, the unilateral action violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act It is true that a deadlock was
created by Respondent's decision of November 18 that it
would not meet nor confer further with the Union, but a
deadlock created by Respondent's unfair labor practice is
not a good-faith impasse, justifying unilateral action
Respondent offers neither explanation nor excuse for its
failure, after October 28, to advise the Union of the
names of current employees, and of wage increases
granted Such failure, by its long continuance, amounts to
outright refusal, and constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(5) independently of whether or not bargaining
negotiations at the time are in a state of impasse
Finally, Respondent's consultant in his brief, and for
the first time, seeks to justify breaking off negotiations by
asserting the claim that the Union Committee had no real
authority to negotiate He bases this claim on the
testimony of employee Bernard, that when, at
Respondent's request, Respondent's incomplete,
inaccurate proposal of October 29 was submitted to the
union membership, the bargaining committee was directed
to reassert its original demands in the areas of wages and
union security. This argument is a pure "legal
afterthought" and should be disregarded on that ground
alone Steel City Transport v N L R B, 389 F 2d 735,
740 (C A 3) All bargaining was effectively terminated by
Freeman's letter of November 18, written before he had
any knowledge of the results of the employee's meeting of
November 12 1 further find that in context the expression
of membership views as reported by Barnard did not in
any way limit or restrict the authority of the Union's
bargaining committee
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described 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 THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices. It will therefore be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
Recommended Order below, designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act
NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. 41
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Northland Camps, Inc is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council affiliated with
the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
3 All production and maintenance employees employed
by Northland Camps, Inc , at its Nampa, Idaho,
operations, including all plant clerical employees, janitors,
trainees and leadmen, but excluding office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
4 Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council affiliated with
the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO has been at all
times material herein and is now the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act
5 By refusing from and after October 28, 1968, to
advise the Union of the names of employees in the
appropriate unit and of wage increases granted to such
employees, by refusing on and after November 18, 1968,
to meet and bargain with the Union, and by making
unilateral changes in the wages and other working
conditions of its employees on December 16, 1968,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of
the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I recommend that Northland Camps, Inc , its
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to meet and confer with the Treasure
Valley Metal Trades Council, affiliated with the Metal
Trades Department, AFL-CIO with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employees in the
appropriate unit
(b) Refusing to advise the Union of the names of all
employees in the appropriate unit and of all wage
increases granted to such employees since July 15, 1968
(c) Unilaterally changing wages, rates of pay or other
conditions of employment of the employees in the
appropriate unit
(d) In any other manner refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or any other terms or conditions of employment. The
appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its Nampa, Idaho operations,
including all plant clerical employees, janitors, trainees,
and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) 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 affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, meet with and bargain collectively in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in
the appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Upon request, supply the Union with all
information necessary to the discharge of its statutory
obligations to the employees in the appropriate unit,
including, without limitation, the names of all employees
in the unit, and a statement of all wage increases granted
to unit employees since July 15, 1968
(c) Post at its plant in Nampa, Idaho, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix':' Copies of said
notice, on forms providied by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith 2
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 19 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL, upon request , meet with and bargain
collectively in good faith with Treasure Valley Metal
Trades Council , affiliated with the Metal Trades
Department , AFL-CIO as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the employees
in the appropriate unit and if an understanding is
reached will embody such understanding in a signed
agreement The appropriate unit is
All production and maintenance employees employed
by Northland Camps, Inc. at our Nampa, Idaho
operations , including all plant clerical employees,
janitors , trainees and leadmen, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards , and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, supply the said Union with
all information which it requires to discharge its duty to
you as your exclusive representative for collective
bargaining
WE WILL NOT change the present wages , hours or
working conditions of any of the employees in the
bargaining unit without first notifying the said Union of
our desire to make such change , and if the Union
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
requests, bargaining in good faith with the Union on This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
the subject of the proposed change from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
(Employer) directly with the Board's Regional Office, Republic
Dated By Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle,
(Representative) (Title) Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.