Southern Coach & Body Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 80 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

8O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truckdrivers , warehousemen , and shipping clerk , with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment , and, if agreement is reached,
sign a contract with that Union.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish that Union with the financial and other data
on which we rely in support of positions we take in opposition to wage increases
proposed by the Union.
WE WILL NOT advise our employees that they can obtain better working con-
ditions by bargaining directly with us rather than through their Union.
CINCINNATI CORDAGE AND PAPER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 525
Peachtree -Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE ., Atlanta 23, Georgia, Telephone
No. Trinity 6-3311 , Extension 5357 , if they have any questions concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Southern Coach & Body Company , Inc. and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA-2015 and
15-CA-.058. March 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 5, 1962, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate 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 attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
' The Respondent has moved to reopen the record for the purpose of taking additional
testimony . This proposed new evidence contains an affidavit from the manager of the
Respondent In which he states that on or about September 5, 1962, while acting in his
official capacity , he received a petition containing the valid signatures of more than
70 percent of the then 168 employees in the production and maintenance unit previously
determined appropriate by the Board in Case No . 15-RC-2212 . The Charging Party,
hereinafter called the Union , was certified by the Board as the representative of this
unit on May 26, 1961. The aforesaid petition purports to show that a substantial majority
of the employees in the unit did not wish to be represented by the Union , and that a
question did in fact exist as to the majority status of the Union . It is clear that the
petition in question was not received by Respondent until almost 6 months after the issue
of loss of majority was raised by Respondent In Its meeting with the Union on March 19,
1962 . Therefore , we find that the aforesaid affidavit can be given no weight in our con-
sideration of the Instant cases. Accordingly , the Respondent 's motion Is hereby denied
141 NLRB No. 9.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 81
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions
and modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that after the Union's certifi-
cation in May of 1961, the Respondent continued to grant unilateral
wage increases and change conditions of employment at will without
prior consultation or bargaining with the Union until charges were
filed by the Union in Case No. 15-CA-2015 on November 27, 1961. A
comparison made of two employee lists admitted into evidence reveals
that wage increases were granted to approximately 84 employees in
the bargaining unit. The General Counsel and Respondent stipulated
at the hearing that these increases were granted to members of the unit
between May and November 1961-or while bargaining negotiations
were in progress between Union and Respondent. Respondent's
attempt to justify these increases as automatic or as a result of
increased duties appears to be without merit. Uncontradicted evidence
in the record clearly establishes that none of the increases was negoti-
ated with the Union, and that by giving such increases, Respondent
was acting in derogation of the bargaining rights of its employees'
designated bargaining representative. The Board, with the approval
of the courts, has held such conduct to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5) of the Act.'
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the Board's Regional
Director should be sustained in his action in setting aside the settle-
ment agreement in Case No. 15-CA-2015 and filing a consolidated com-
plaint herein. Notwithstanding this settlement agreement, the
Respondent continued to lay off and recall employees at will without
any consultation with or notice to the Union. The Respondent's deter-
mination to adhere to past company practice in its layoff and recall
procedure is shown by the fact that during the negotiations toward a
collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent steadfastly insisted that
the layoff and recall of employees must remain within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the employer. The principle is well established that
layoffs and recalls of employees come within the term "working con-
ditions" and are, therefore, mandatory subjects for bargaining.'
Although the privilege of deciding that an economic layoff is required
belongs to the employer, absent an emergency or other reasonable
explanation, it is the employer's duty at least to notify and discuss
2 See N L.R.B. v . Bonne Satz, etc., 369 U . S. 736; N.L.R .B. v. Crompton -Highland Mills,
Inc, 337 U.S. 217 ; and May Department Stores d/b/a Famous Barr Company, 326 U.S. 376.
3 United States Gypsum Company, 94 NLRB 112.
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the employees' lawful representative the methods of selecting
employees to be laid off before the event takes place.' We find that
the failure of the Respondent to bargain with the Union on these mat-
ters was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
3. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that following
the settlement agreement of March 1, 1962, the Respondent at the next
negotiating meeting on March 19, 1962, proposed to limit the duration
of any contract with the Union to June 1, 1962, thereby refusing to bar-
gain for a reasonable period following the settlement agreement.' The
record discloses that this proposal was repeated and adhered to by
Respondent at the final negotiating meeting on May 3, 1962, with less
than a month to the end of the certification year. Therefore, we fur-
ther find that by its insistence upon a contract of such short duration,
the Respondent was manifestly guilty of bad-faith bargaining.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in these cases,
we hereby renumber the Trial Examiner's conclusions of law num-
bers "2" and "3" as numbers "3" and "4," and make the following
additional :
CONCLUSION OF LAw
2. (a) By the Respondent's unilateral acts of laying off and
recalling employees at will without prior consultation and bar-
gaining with the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
(b) By the Respondent's unilateral grant of wage increases
without prior consultation and bargaining with the Union, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southern Coach
& Body Company, Inc., Evergreen, Alabama, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the certified exclusive bargaining
representative of all its production and maintenance employees in the
unit found previously to be appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
` Aztec Ceramics Company, etc., 138 NLRB 1178.
5 See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 83
(b) Instituting changes in the terms and conditions of employment
in the appropriate unit, such as wage increases and economic layoffs
and recalls, without first consulting with and bargaining with the
aforementioned exclusive representative concerning wages, hours, and
conditions of employment.
(c) In any manner delaying or obstructing the efforts of the afore-
said Union to bargain with Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its production and maintenance employees in the
appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a written agreement.
(b) Post at each of its plants in Evergreen, Alabama, or vicinity,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of 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 Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 NOT institute changes in the terms and conditions of
employment in the appropriate unit herein without first consult-
ing with and bargaining with the International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of such employees.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the aforementioned labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
708-00"4-vol. 141-7
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of all our production and maintenance employees
in the unit heretofore found by the National Labor Relations
Board to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and when an understanding is reached embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement for a reasonable term.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Federal Building, 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans 12, Loui-
siana, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Section 151 et seq. (herein called the Act), was heard
before Trial Examiner Lee J. Best in Evergreen, Alabama, on July 10 and 11, 1962,
pursuant to notice and with all parties represented.
Based upon charges and amended charges filed on November 27, 1961, February 27
and March 20, 1962, by International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (herein
called the Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
on May 11, 1962, issued a consolidated complaint alleging in substance that since
May 29, 1961, Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc. (herein called Respondent),
has continuously, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union as the duly certified and exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit
The Respondent filed an answer admitting allegations of the complaint with respect
to commerce, but denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. Respondent also
filed a written motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all alleged
violations of the Act in Case No. 15-CA-2015 were compromised and settled by
entering into and complying with the terms of a settlement agreement approved by
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board on or about March 1, 1962, which should bar the reinstatement of charges
or complaint with respect to conduct of the Respondent prior thereto. Ruling on
this motion was deferred.
All parties were present at the hearing, represented by counsel, afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues involved,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally upon the record, and there-
after to file written briefs with the Trial Examiner. Oral argument was waived by
counsel for all parties. Briefs submitted by counsel for the General Counsel and
the Respondent have been given due consideration.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc., is an Alabama corporation having its
principal office and place of business at Evergreen, Alabama, where it operates two
plants (the Elrod plant and the bus plant) engaged in the manufacture of bodies for
milk trucks, buses, and other vehicles to fill current orders from its customers through-
out the several States. During the past 12 months, which period is representative of
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 8U
all times material herein , the Respondent purchased and received materials valued
in excess of $50 ,000, which were transported to its two plants from points outside
the State of Alabama; and during the same representative period also performed
services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside said State. The
Respondent admits, and : find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or in part for the
purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work.
The Appropriate Unit
I find, and it is admitted by Respondent that: All production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Evergreen, Alabama, plants, including leadmen, layout
men, production clerks, plant clerks, and inspectors exclusive of office clerical em-
ployees, professional and technical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronological background
On May 19, 1960, the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, filed a
petition in Case No. 15-RC-2212 seeking representation of Respondent's employees
in the appropriate unit. A representation hearing was conducted on June 16, 1960,
and on July 22, 1960, the Board issued its Direction of Election (not published in
NLRB volumes). The election was held on August 12, 1960, and both parties filed
exceptions and objections to the conduct thereof. Thereafter, on September 27,
1960, the Union filed a charge in Case No. 15-CA-1830 alleging surveillance of
union meetings by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; and
on May 4, 1961, filed a charge in Case No. 15-CA-1920 alleging further violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon a consolidated complaint in these
two cases, the Board sustained findings of a Trial -Examiner (Fannie M. 3oyls)
that the Respondent did not engage in surveillance of union meetings prior to the
election in July and August 1960, or in April 1961; but that the Respondent in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by unlawfully inter-
rogating I. C. Waters (employee) concerning a strike vote taken at a union meeting
on April 3, 1961, and also by soliciting Samuel New (employee) to attend a union
meeting to be held on the night of May 4, 1961, and report back whether the Union
intended to call a strike. No violation of Section 8(a)(3) was found. See- 135
NLRB 1240.
The Union called a strike on May 9, 1961, at both plants of the Respondent in
Evergreen, Alabama, which continued until November 20, 1961. In the meantime,
the Union was certified by the Board on May 26, 1961, as exclusive bargaining
representative for employees of the Respondent, and negotiations were initiated
at the first meeting of the parties on June 21, 1961.
On November 27, 1961, the Union filed its original charge in the instant Case
No. 15-CA-2015, alleging that Respondent was engaging in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain in good
faith with International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargain-
ing representative of its employees, and refusing to reinstate its striking empioyees.
After an investigation, the Board's Regional Director for the Fifteenth i ag:on
declined to issue a complaint therein on January 12, 1952, but shortly thereafter on
January 17, 1962, revoked such refusal, and reopened his investigation of the case.
Thereafter, on February 26, 1962, the Union filed an amended charge in the same
Case No. 15-CA-2015 alleging in substance that Respondent in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, since on or about May 27, 1961, has unilaterally
granted wage increases to its employees without giving notice to or consulting with
the Union as bargaining representative . Prior to the issuance of a complaint, the
Respondent and the Union entered into a settlement agreement dated March 1,
1962, which was approved by the Regional Director on March 2, 1962, agreeing that
no further action would be taken in Case No. 15-CA-2015 contingent upon com-
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pliance with the terms and provisions thereof. Pursuant to this settlement agree-
ment the Respondent duly posted on March 9, 1962, for at least 60 consecutive days,
and furnished required proof thereof, the prescribed notice to all employees, as
follows:
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement approved by the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region 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 unilaterally grant wage increases to our employees or
change their terms or conditions of employment, without first giving notice
thereof to, and consulting with, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, or in any like or related manner refuse to bargain collectively
with said union as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees
in the bargaining unit described below:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Ever-
green, Alabama plants, including leadmen, layout men, production
clerks, plant clerks, and inspectors, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional and technical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with International Association
of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees
in the bargaining unit described above , with respect to wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, 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.
Pending the posting and maintenance of the foregoing notice as compliance with
the settlement agreement by Respondent , the Union filed another charge on March 20,
1962, in Case No . 15-CA-2058, alleging further violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5 ) of the Act by the Respondent since November 20, 1961 , by refusing em-
ployment to employees because of their participation in a strike and other concerted
activities , and by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union regarding wages,
hours, working conditions , and other conditions of employment , including layoff
and recall of employees . Thereafter , on May 4, 1962, a letter to Marion A. Prowell,
attorney for the Respondent , was posted from the Fifteenth Regional Office, as
follows:
DEAR MR . PROWELL : After a careful and complete investigation of the facts
in the above-captioned case, the Region concluded that Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act was violated in that the Company refused to discuss layoffs of employees
with the designated Union bargaining representatives after being requested to do
so by the aforesaid representatives. Specifically, the Company laid off Jessie
Cleve Baggett and Clinton Brown on April 10, 1962 , without consulting the
Union representatives.
The Region further concluded that there was no evidence of independent
8(a)(1) violations nor any evidence of 8(a)(3) violations . Accordingly, if
these charges are not withdrawn they will be dismissed.
This letter is forwarded to you in an effort to determine whether a formal
settlement of the 8(a) (5) violation might be concluded prior to the issuance of
Complaint . A formal settlement would require the posting of a "Notice To
All Employees ," similar to the prior notice.
Please inform this office of your intentions in this matter not later than
May 9, 1962.
Very sincerely yours,
(S) William J. Oberhelman, Jr.,
WILLIAM J. OBERHELMAN, Jr.,
Attorney.
Thereafter, on May 11, 1962, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 87
Relations Board, Series 8, as amended , issued an order consolidating Case No.
15-CA-2015 and Case No . 15-CA-2058 for purpose of complaint , hearing, and
further disposition , and issued herein the consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing alleging that the Respondent by acts described in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
as follows:
10.
On and before June 21 , 1961 , and at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
refused and has continued to refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees of Respondent in the appro-
priate unit described in Paragraph 6.
11.
In the period from May 29, 1961, to date, including but not limited to June 5,
June 19, July 3, July 5, July 6, July 31, August 14, 21, 27, September 4, 11, 25
and November 1961, Respondent unilaterally changed wage rates and other
working conditions of employees in the unit described in Paragraph 6 above
without prior notice to and bargaining with the Union.
12.
In the period from May 29, 1961, to date, including but not limited to March,
April, and May 1962, Respondent unilaterally laid off employees for varying
lengths of time without prior notice to and bargaining with the Union.
B. Refusal to bargain
The principal issue litigated in this case is whether the Respondent has failed and
refused to negotiate in good faith with the Union since its certification by the Board
as the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in the appropriate unit on May 26,
1961. Such refusal to bargain is alleged in paragraph 10 of the consolidated com-
plaint as a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. As indicia of such refusal to
bargain it is contended by the General Counsel that (1) prior to a settlement agree-
ment, the Respondent unilaterally changed wage rates and other working conditions
within the unit without notice to and bargaining with the Union; (2) both before
and after the settlement agreement, the Respondent unilaterally laid off employees
for varying lengths of time without prior notice to and bargaining with the Union;
and (3) Respondent engaged in excessive delays in reaching agreement with the
Union within 1 year following certification, and then refused to enter into a contract
extending beyond June 1, 1962, for the purpose of contesting the majority status of
the Union in another election.
Throughout negotiations between the parties herein, the Union was represented by
Willis D. Christy (Grand Lodge Representative) as chief negotiator, and the Re-
spondent was represented by M. A. Prowell (attorney-at-law) except at one meeting
held on October 12, 1961, at which nothing of consequence was accomplished. Prior
to the settlement agreement on March 2, 1962, the parties negotiated at meetings on
June 21, July 25, September 26, October 12, November 14, and December 20 in
the year 1961, and on January 29, 1962.
1. Negotiations in 1961 1
Immediately following the Board certification of May 26 , 1961, the Union on
May 29 , 1961 , addressed a letter to the Respondent demanding a meeting in Ever-
green , Alabama, either on June 2 or 5 , 1961, and that it be furnished a list of the
names, rates of pay, and classification of all production and maintenance employees at
the first meeting. In reply thereto , the Respondent on May 31, 1961 , posted a letter
to the Union , as follows:
This will acknowledge your letter of May 30, 1961 , and the letter of Mr. W. D.
Christy dated May 29, 1961, to Mr . J. S. Easter.
Due to prior commitments it will not be convenient to meet on the date you
suggested . In order to save time we request that you submit to us three copies
of the Union's proposed contract . After we have had an opportunity to study
1 Deduced from correspondence between the parties and other documentary evidence in
the absence of oral testimony with respect thereto.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the proposal we will communicate with you suggesting several possible meeting
dates.
We will get for you the information requested as soon as it is convenient.
We have designated Constangy & Prowell, 1404 Candler Bldg., Atlanta 3,
Georgia, to represent us in these negotiations. We suggest you make any future
contracts with them sending a copy of your letter to me.
By letter of June 1, 1961, the Union submitted to the Respondent its first complete
proposal in writing for a year-to-year contract with effective date to be inserted when
agreement was reached, subject to 60 days' notice of a desire to amend or terminate
the agreement. Thereafter, the first meeting was held in Brewton, Alabama, on
June 21, 1961, at which the Respondent furnished to the Union a list of employees
with their classification and rate of pay. The union proposal was discussed paragraph
by paragraph, and the Respondent agreed to thereafter submit a counterproposal.
Respondent's first counterproposal for a year-to-year contract, subject to 60 days'
notice of a desire to amend or terminate the agreement, was submitted to Mr. W. D.
Christy, Post Office Box 61, Evergreen, Alabama, by letter from M. A. Prowell
dated June 29, 1961, with the suggestion that the next conference be held in Mont-
gomery, Alabama, on a date to be agreed upon by telephone communication. There-
upon, Christy notified Prowell by letter of June 30, 1961, that he would insist that
all future meetings be held in Evergreen, Alabama, and that he had made arrange-
ments with the Rabun's Cottage Court, Evergreen, Alabama, for a conference room.
The next or second meeting was held at Rabun's Cottage Court in Evergreen,
Alabama, on July 25, 1961, at which there was discussion and comparison paragraph
by paragraph of the Union's initial written proposal and the Respondent's first
written counterproposal. It is evident that controversy arose at this meeting concern-
ing the rights of management as contended for by the Union in article III of its
proposal and by the Respondent in article VI in its counterproposal, because the
Union referred thereto in its subsequent letter of July 29, 1961, proposing a modifi-
cation thereof, as follows:
UNION PROPOSAL-July 29, 1961
ARTICLE III
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The right to hire, discipline, suspend, discharge for just cause, transfer, pro-
mote, and the right to lay off employees because of lack of work or for other
legitimate reasons, is vested exclusively in the Company provided that this will
not be exercised in violation of the terms of this Agreement or be used for
,the purpose of discriminating against any member of the Union as such, or for
Their legitimate activity on behalf of the Union or any organization with which
it is affiliated; for upholding Union principles, for serving on any committee of
the Union or for performing any work with which the Union is concerned. In
addition, the management of the plant, the control and regulation of the use
of all equipment and other property of the Company, the direction of the work-
ing force, the operation of the plant, the products to be manufactured, the loca-
tion of the plants, the schedules of production, the methods, processes and
means of manufacturing are solely responsibility and right of the Company. It
is not intended by the foregoing recitation to limit the normal or usual functions
of Management or to define all such functions.
Thereafter, by letter of August 3, 1961, the Respondent proposed that the next
meeting be held at the Jefferson Davis Hotel in Montgomery, Alabama, on August 17,
1961; and Christy for the Union replied on August 4, 1961, as follows:
DEAR MR. PROWELL: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated
August 3, 1961, regarding the above subject matter.
With reference to the next session being held in Montgomery, Alabama, which
is approximately ninety (90) miles away from the plant and Local Union
involved. I advised you during our conference of June 21, 1961; by letter
dated June 30, 1961; by letter dated July 8, 1961 and during our meeting on
July 25, 1961, that we desired and expected the future meetings be held in
Evergreen, Alabama.
Unless I hear from you by August 10, 1961, stating your willingness to hold
future meetings in Evergreen, Alabama vicinity, I will have no alternative other
than to file Charges with NLRB regarding this matter. [Emphasis supplied.]
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 89
Attorney Prowell outlined the Respondent 's objections to further meetings at
Rabun's Cottage Court in Evergreen, Alabama, by letter to Christy on August 7,
1961 , and to the conciliator on August 14, 1961 , as follows:
DEAR MR. CHRISTY: This will acknowledge your letter of August 4, 1961,
relating to our negotiations at Southern Coach & Body Company, inc.
After reading your letter , I can only assume that it was written by someone
other than yourself. The statements contained therein do not conform to the
facts. In our conference on June 21 , you indicated that you would be receptive
to having a meeting at Montgomery , Alabama, but that you wanted to think
about the matter further and would advise us later . The only advice we
received from you was your letter of June 30 . In our meeting on July 25, we
advised you that the arrangements that you were able to make for a conference
room in Evergreen were most unsatisfactory . The parties had a small type-
writer table to use as the table for our bargaining session . This was placed in
a small motel room and your representatives either sat or lounged on the bed
during the negotiations , as there were no seating arrangements for all the rep-
resentatives and space would not allow additional seats. We expressed to you
our dissatisfaction and again suggested that the meeting be held in Montgomery
and you promised to give further consideration to the matter and advise us.
We heard nothing from you until your letter of August 4.
We have previously advised you of our inability to secure a satisfactory meet-
ing place in Evergreen . In keeping with the desire expressed in your letter to
meet in the vicinity of Evergreen , we have arranged for a meeting place in
Greenville , Alabama, a short distance from Evergreen . We have reserved a
conference room at "The Steak House" in Greenville , Alabama, and will be
available to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday , August 17, 1961.
Allow me to state that your threat to file charges with the National Labor
Relations Board is not conducive to good bargaining relations . We can only
interpret your threat as an effort to disrupt and impede our efforts to have the
bargaining sessions take place in an atmosphere conducive to a mutually satis-
factory agreement . We likewise do not consider it conducive to good relations
for you to indicate in the bargaining sessions that your home is in Montgomery,
Alabama, and meeting in Montgomery would be satisfactory to you , but you
want to consider the matter further , and thereafter in your correspondence
indicate that our request is unreasonable and contrary to your previously stated
position . We have made every reasonable effort to hold the meetings in places
mutually satisfactory to both sides. Our final effort has resulted in a meeting
place approximately an equal distance between the members of your Committee
and your home and office. Unless we hear from you to the contrary, we will
be available to meet at the time and place indicated.
Mr. JOHN ANDERS,
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
216 Federal Office Building
Mobile, Alabama
Re: Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc.
DEAR MR. ANDERS: This will confirm my conversations today with you and
Mr. Henry Baker of your Atlanta office concerning the negotiations between
Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc., and Mr. Christy of the International
Association of Machinists.
It was my understanding from our several telephone conversations Mr.
Christy had requested that you arrange a meeting between the parties to be
held at Rabun Tourist Court in Evergreen, Alabama. I advised you that we
were willing to meet at most any neutral, suitable place; however, we had
advised the Union that we would not meet at the Rabun Tourist Court because
conditions were undesirable . I described the conditions to you and also pointed
out that the Union has had a strike on for some weeks and that a truck, as
well as residences , have been dynamited ; shots have been fired into automobiles
and homes of employees; violence has occurred; tacks have been spread on
many occasions on streets and driveways. As a result, we have been unable to
secure a satisfactory meeting place in Evergreen, Alabama. The community
is considerably aroused.
We have suggested to the Union that we meet at the place of their office in
Montgomery . We have also suggested several other nearby towns and the
9O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union has declined each of them. We agreed today to meet in your office or
in Montgomery, Alabama, or any other suitable place that you could arrange.
We understand from our conversations with you and Mr. Baker that the
Union has refused to meet at any point except Rabun Tourist Court.
It is my understanding that since the Union has taken this position, the Con-
ciliation Service had for the moment withdrawn from his efforts to arrange a
collective bargaining session between the parties, particularly in view of the
fact that Mr. Christy will be on vacation the last two weeks in August and a
meeting could not be scheduled during that period.
Thank you very much for your efforts in this matter and please rest assured
that we are always willing to cooperate with members of your organization.
Sincerely yours,
M. A. PROWELL.
MAP/bd
cc: Mr. Henry Baker
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta 23, Georgia
bcc: Mr. Anthony Smith
On August 21, 1961, the Respondent submitted in writing to Christy certain modi-
fications that it was willing to make in articles of the proposed contract with respect
to grievance procedure, seniority, leaves of absence, bulletin boards, and union dues.
Under auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service further meetings
of the parties were held at the courthouse in Evergreen, Alabama, on September 26,
October 12, November 14, and December 20, 1961, but little in the way of agree-
ment was accomplished. At the meeting on November 14, 1961, the Respondent
proposed that the Union draft a new contract proposal embodying therein all agree-
ments reached and other provisions acceptable to the Union. Upon Christy's re-
fusal to do so, the conciliator suggested that the Respondent prepare such a proposal.
Thereupon, the Respondent on November 28, 1961, submitted through the concilia-
tor its second complete written proposal for a year-to-year contract, subject to the
usual 60 days' notice required for amendment or termination at the end of each year,
including exhibit "A" to continue current wage rates and wage policies for the life of
this agreement . In the meantime, the Union terminated its strike against the Re-
spondent at midnight on Sunday, November 19, 1961, and demanded that all of the
strikers be returned to work or placed on a preferred hiring list according to seniority
if and when work was available. In reply thereto, the Respondent addressed a letter
to the Union on December 1, 1961, as follows:
DEAR MR. CHRISTY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of Novem-
ber 15, 1961, addressed to Southern Coach & Body Company, Evergreen, Ala-
bama, which has been referred to me for reply.
We note that you have made an offer to return a large number of people to
work for the Company. In checking through this list, we find that a substantial
number of them had been terminated at the time of the strike and that others
do not appear to have been employed by the Company for a long period of time,
if ever. In addition, some of the people appearing on your list engaged in acts
of misconduct during the strike which would disqualify them from further
employment.
With a few days after your Union called a strike on May 9, all of the available
positions at the Company's plant were filled. Subsequent thereto, it was neces-
sary for the Company to make substantial reductions in its operating schedule.
As a result, a large number of employees were laid off. This resulted in a com-
plete realignment of the Company's processes.
Following receipt of your letter, arrangements were made to take the names
of those persons who appeared at the plant on Monday, November 20, 1961.
We have a current list of those people who appeared and after we have had an
opportunity to thoroughly check our production processes, we expect to recall
those for whom work is available in keeping with the limitations set forth
herein.
We wish to point out to you that the Company has never maintained a pre-
ferred hiring list and we are unwilling to institute one at this time. It has al-
ways been our practice to employ people at the gate as the need arises. We
expect to continue to follow this practice until such time as we think a change
is dictated.
Yours truly,
M. A. PROWELL.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 91
Thereafter, on December 20, 1961 , the Union requested the Respondent to furnish a
list of those employees referred to in its foregoing letter of December 1, 1961.
Thereupon , the Respondent on January 3, 1962 , reported the names of Daniel Bell,
J. C. Brantley , James E. Baggett , Jerry Blackmon , Leroy Baggett , and C . C. Green
as persons who had been convicted of misconduct in connection with the strike; and
on January 9, 1962, furnished a complete list of 55 employees working at its plants
during the week of December 20, 1961 , along with their rates of pay.
2. Negotiations in 1962
The first meeting of the negotiating parties in 1962 was arranged and conducted by
John L. Anders, commissioner of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at
the courthouse in Evergreen , Alabama, on January 29, 1962, with W . D. Christy as
chief negotiator for the Union. Other members of the union team present were
Lee Otis Baggett ( local president ), Billy Fred Lingo ( secretary-treasurer ), Homer
Brantley, I. C. Waters, and E. Q. Wiggins. The Respondent was represented by
Anthony Smith (personnel manager ) and Attorney A. M. Prowell . There is no
substantial conflict in testimony as to what occurred at this meeting. From the com-
posite testimony , I find that the Union demanded that all strikers be recalled to work,
and especially requested that I . C. Waters ( striker ) be recalled immediately . Prowell
for the Respondent contended that production had practically stopped , and that the
plants of Respondent were operating only part time, but agreed that Waters and
other strikers would be recalled to work when any jobs were available. Christy de-
manded that the Respondent recognize and deal with three separate union commit-
tees: shop stewards as to grievances , a safety committee , and a committee for nego-
tiations. The Respondent asserted its preference to simplify matters by dealing with
only one central committee in its relations with the Union . Christy demanded wages
and benefits for employees as typified by its contracts with other employers through-
out the automotive industry, and Prowell replied to the effect that he was represent-
ing only one company. The Union proposed specific job classifications with match-
ing wage rates , but Prowell contended that the Respondent could not adopt job
classifications ( as such ), and proposed to continue its present basic rates, practices,
and policies as the basis of negotiations . Christy protested that employees hired
during the strike had received wage increases , but that the 12 strikers since recalled
to work had received none. Whereupon Prowell inquired whether it would now be
permissible to grant such wage increases and Christy replied:
Mr. Prowell , you have been at this long enough to know that you are not sup-
posed to place anything into effect without consulting with the Union.
Thereupon, Christy demanded that the Union be consulted before making any changes
regarding wages, working conditions , or other conditions of employment with respect
to members of the certified appropriate unit, including any layoffs and recalls to work.
Prowell contended that the type of operations engaged in by the Respondent would
not permit advance notice to the Union before closing down or laying off employees
engaged in a particular operation or department , but that such situations would be
taken care of by the application of seniority and grievance procedure in the proposed
contract along with some qualifying factors such as ability to perform the job, etc.
Prowell insisted that time would not permit the Respondent to wait for a conference
and agreement with the Union before stopping work. The parties discussed and
agreed on arbitration in principle, but did not agree on the source and method of
selecting an arbitrator. Christy accused Prowell of prolonging the negotiations for
the purpose of exhausting the certification year without agreement in order to seek
decertification of the Onion, but the Respondent denied such intentions . At the close
of this meeting the Respondent requested the Union to draft and submit another
complete written contract proposal outlining minimum demands that it would accept
in a proposed contract Thereupon, Christy submitted to Respondent the Union's
second and final written contract proposal on February 3, 1962. On February 22,
1962, Respondent rejected this proposal, and the Union thereafter filed an amended
charge in Case No. 15-CA-2015 on February 26, 1962. The settlement agreement
followed on March 2, 1962. By letter of March 13, 1962, the Union requested the
Respondent to submit its final contract proposal, and to fix specifically a termination
date therein.
The next meeting for negotiations was held at the courthouse in Evergreen, Ala-
bama, on March 19, 1962 The principal issues discussed at this meeting were (1)
management rights and ( 2) a termination date for the proposed contract. The Union
demanded a contract for 1 year from date of execution, but Prowell for the Respond-
ent suggested a termination date of June 1, 1962, in order to preserve the right of
employees to hold another election at the end of the certification year.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to management rights, the Respondent continued to insist that the contract
contain its proposed clause, as follows:
ARTICLE VI
Management
Except as expressly limited by the terms of this Agreement, it is agreed by
both parties that the management of the Company, direction of the working
forces, the right to hire, discharge, promote, maintain order, and adopt and en-
force reasonable rules and regulations effectuating these rights shall be vested
exclusively in the Company. It is further understood and recognized that all
rights heretofore exercised by or inherent in the management and not expressly
contracted away by the terms of this Agreement are retained by the Management.
Among the rights which are and continue to be vested in the Company, but
not intended as a wholly inclusive list of them, shall be the right to decide the
number and location of plants; the manner and method and schedule of its op-
erations and services, the right to introduce new, changed, and improved methods,
to determine the quantity and quality of production, and the right to discontinue
and liquidate operations or to move to another location, and the right to dis-
charge for inconsistent attendance and excessive absence, subject to the Grievance
Procedure herein.
It is not intended that the rights of Management set forth herein above under
this Article shall in any way take away from or limit the rights of employees
as expressed in this Agreement.
Christy persisted in his demands that no changes be made by Respondent with
respect to the bargaining unit, payroll periods, rates of pay, layoffs, recalls, etc.,
before consulting with the Union. Objection by the Respondent to such consultation
was limited to layoffs for lack of work. At the close of this meeting, Prowell agreed
to draft and submit to the Union (for approval or rejection by its local membership)
a final written contract proposal on behalf of the Respondent.2 Thereafter the Re-
spondent submitted such final proposal to the Union by letter of March 23, 1962,
as follows:
Re - Southern Coach & Body Co., Inc.
DEAR MR. CHRISTY: In keeping with the Union's request, I am enclosing
herewith the Company's proposal which embodies, insofar as we have been able
to determine from our notes , all of the points that have been agreed upon between
the parties and the Company's position on those items which were in dispute
that the Company feels should be incorporated.
You will note that in keeping with our discussion in the last bargaining session,
we have included a provision that the contract expire on June 1. For some time
we have been convinced that a majority of the Company's employees do not wish
to be represented by your organization. In order that the employees may have
an opportunity to express their desires at an appropriate time, we feel that the
contract should expire about June 1, 1962.
We have not been able to complete the investigation of the question you raised
with respect to vacation pay for the strikers. We hope to finish this shortly and
will advise you as soon as an investigation is completed and a decision is reached.
Yours truly,
M. A. PROWELL.
MAP/bd
The final written proposal of Respondent to the Union was as follows:
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ------ day of -----------
1962, by and between SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC., hereinafter
referred to as the "Company" and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
AFL-CIO, and its LODGE No. 955, hereinafter referred to as the "Union"
ARTICLE I
Recognition
The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative for all its Evergreen, Alabama plants; production and maintenance
employees, including plant clerical employees, but excluding office, office clerical
2 On the next day following the meeting of March 19 , 1962, the Union filed a new charge
against the Respondent in Case No. 15-CA-2058, which was later consolidated with
Case No. 15-CA-2015 already under investigation.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY CO.AiPAti Y, I C. 93
employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and as set forth in NLRB
Case No. 15-RC-2212.
ARTICLE II
Company Rules
It is recognized that rules of conduct for employees are necessary to the
efficient operation of the plant. The Company shall have the right from time
to time to make and enforce rules governing conduct of employees. The Union
may, within five (5) days after the institution of a rule which it considers dis-
crimineory, take up such rule as a grievance under the Grievance Procedure of
this Contract.
ARTICLE II-B
Union Dues
It is agreed that the Financial Secretary of the Union may collect Union dues
on Company time at the Bus Plant between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on the first
Monday of each month and at the Elrod Plant between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
on the first Monday of each month. The right to collect such dues shall be
without any intimidation of any employee in any manner. The Union shall
make the Company whole for any loss or liability that may be incurred as a
result of any action by the Financial Secretary of the Union during such period
of time.
ARTICLE III
Grievance Procedure
A. Step I. In the event an employee covered by this Agreement has a griev-
ance concerning his discipline, discharge or claim of discrimination arising out
of the operation or application of this Agreement, he shall, during non-working
time, take the matter up with his immediate Supervisor within two (2) working
days of the occurrence of the event. If the grievance is not raised during such
period, it shall be considered dropped and not entitled to consideration there-
after.
Step 2. In the event the grievance is not settled by the employee and his
immediate Supervisor, the grievance may within forty-eight (48) hours of the
answer in Step 1 above, be reduced to writing and presented to the Plant Super-
intendent by the Union Committee composed of not more than three (3) em-
ployees within two (2) working days of the receipt of the answer in Step 1
above. The Superintendent will give his answer within three (3) working days
of the time the grievance is presented.
Step 3. In the event the grievance is not settled in Step 2 above, it may be
appealed within two (2) working days of the answer in Step 2, and thereafter
the representative of the Union, with or without the Union committee, and the
Company Manager or his Representative will meet not later than ten (10) days
after notification of a desire to hold such a meeting. The Company's answer
in this Step will be the final position of the Company.
B The Company may present grievances in Step 3 above to the Local Repre-
sentative of the Union from time to time. In the event a satisfactory answer is
not received, the Company may, within three (3) days, notify the International
Union of its desire to process the grievance further, in which event a representa-
tive of the International Union, along with a representative of the Local Com-
mittee, will meet and discuss the grievance with the Company within ten (10)
days after the notification of the desire for such a meeting. The Union's answer
at such meeting will be the final position of the Union.
In the event the Union has a grievance under Step 1 that applies to all of the
employees or all of the employees in a department, it may be taken up by the
designated representative of the Union in Step 3 of the Grievance Procedure as
outlined herein. A Representative of the International Union, with or without
the Local Committee, may present grievances in this Step and the Company
will give its answer within three (3) days which will be the final position of the
Company.
C. If the Representatives in Step 3 or Paragraph B above are unable to settle
the dispute, they may within ten (10) days agree to submit the matter to arbitra-
tion on a basis mutually agreed upon. If arbitration is agreed upon, the ar-
bitrator will be selected from a list of seven (7) names of arbitrators within
400 miles of Evergreen, Alabama, to be requested from the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service.
In any dispute submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator shall be limited to
rendering an award which is remedial and under no circumstances shall an em-
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployee be made more than whole or receive back pay for more than thirty (30)
days. In rendering a decision regarding a violation of Company rules, the ar-
bitrator shall be restricted to deciding the guilt or innocence of an employee.
ARTICLE IV
Scope of Agreement
SECTION 1. The Union hereby expressly waives all right to request that the
Company bargain with it with respect to any economic or non-economic de-
mand, including any demand for pensions, holidays, annuities , or insurance, or
otherwise, for the employees covered by this Agreement prior to the date herein
set forth as the expiration date of this Agreement. In the creation of new jobs
and rates for such jobs, the Company will, where time permits, discuss with the
Union Committee such jobs and rates before they are installed.
SEC. 2. The Union hereby acknowledges and agrees that there are no
grievances outstanding against the Company as of the date of this Agreement
and that any and all alleged grievances which arose prior to the date of this
Agreement have been or are disposed of and dismissed and have no standing
under the grievance procedure set forth herein.
ARTICLE V
Union Activities
The Union agrees that there will be no Union activities conducted on Com-
pany time or property, except as otherwise provided herein and except that a
duly authorized representative of the Union may contact the Manager of the
Company and by prearrangement confer with the Company at times mutually
satisfactory to both parties.
ARTICLE VI
Management
(Same as Article VI above)
ARTICLE VII
Discharge and Discipline
It is recognized that the Company has the right to discharge and discipline
employees in the performance of the operation of its business . This right shall
be vested exclusively in the Company, subject to the grievance procedure in this
Contract.
ARTICLE VIII
Seniority
SECTION 1. In any layoff or recall the total length of service of an employee
with the Company, as shown by Company records, shall govern as between
employees determined to be substantially equal as to ability to perform the work,
efficiency, productivity, quality of work, and attendance.
SEC. 2. All employees shall be regarded as probationary for the first sixty
(60) working days of employment. During said period an employee may be
separated by the Company without recourse to the grievance procedure herein
set forth. If an employee is retained beyond the sixty (60) working days, his
seniority shall date back to the first date of original hire.
SEC. 3. An employee shall be considered terminated and his seniority lost:
(a) if he quits; (b) if he is discharged for cause; (c) if he does not return to
work within two (2) days after notification to return after layoff; (d) if he
fails to notify the Company within three (3) days prior to expiration of leaves
of absence or fails to report to work at the end of a leave of absence; (e) if he
fails to perform any work for the Company for a period of nine (9) months.
ARTICLE IX
Holidays
The Company agrees to recognize the following holidays:
New Year's Day Labor Day
July 4th Christmas Day
Thanksgiving Day
Employees will be paid eight (8) hours' pay at their regular hourly rate of pay
for such holidays provided they worked the last day scheduled before and the
first day scheduled after the holiday.
Holidays falling on Sunday shall be observed on the following Monday.
Holidays falling on Saturday may be observed on Saturday or the preceding
Friday.
Holiday pay will be paid in addition to vacation pay, where appropriate.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC. 95
ARTICLE X
Vacations
After completion of one (1) year's service, and provided an employee has
worked seventy-five percent (75%) of the time made available to him, and
provided the employee is working for the Company on June 1st, the employee
shall be entitled to one (1) week's vacation with forty (40) hours pay at his
regular rate of pay.
The Company shall have the right to schedule vacations in keeping with
production requirements giving preference as between employees within a
classification based upon their length of service within the classification. The
Company may close all or part of its operations in order to accomplish the
vacation schedule.
ARTICLE XI
Hours and Work Week
The work week shall begin Monday morning at 12:01 a.m. and end Sunday
night at 12 :00 p.m. Shift employees will normally work from 7:00 a.m. to
3:45 p.m. on the first shift and 3:45 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on the second shift, with
a 45-minute lunch period on each shift. It is recognized that due to the nature
of the Company's operation and the change in weather, that the Company will
from time to time be required to change the starting time of employees. All
employees will commence work on the day and time indicated by their respective
operations.
ARTICLE XII
Leave of Absence
Upon the request of an employee, the Company may grant a leave of absence
without pay and without break in service in case of noncompensatory illness
or injury upon presentation of a doctor's certificate certifying to the need of such
leave due to injury or illness. (The Company reserves the right at any time to
have such certificate investigated by the Company doctor and upon certification
by him that the basis for such leave for injury or illness is not valid, to cancel
such leave upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice. Any controversy regarding
the cancellation of such leave would be subject to the grievance procedure
hereinbefore described.) Such leaves shall be for a reasonable length of time,
not exceeding ninety (90) days. In the event the leave of absence is required
as a result of pregnantcy. The Company will grant a maternity leave without pay
not exceeding six (6) months. If at the expiration of such six months' maternity
leave there is a bona fide showing by a doctor's certificate of the necessity, be-
cause of the physical condition of the employee for an additional leave, an
extension of not exceeding ninety (90) days' additional leave will be granted.
Leaves of absence without break in service may also be granted by the Company
for other reasons and for such length of time as it deems appropriate. The
Company reserves the right to deny leaves of absence in any situation where
the granting of a leave of absence would create difficulties in its production
( illness and injury excepted) or where the privilege of requesting leaves of
absence has been improperly used by an employee. Any employee who per-
forms no work for the Company in any nine (9) months' period shall lose his
seniority.
ARTICLE XIII
Wages and Rates
During the life of this Agreement, the Management agrees that the wage
scale attached as Exhibit "A" shall become and remain a part of this Agree-
ment during the life hereof and the wage rates shall not be reduced below
the amounts shown.
ARTICLE XIV
No-Strike Clause
The Union agrees that they will not call, authorize , or condone a strike or
work stoppage of any kind or character until the grievance procedure has been
fully carried out. The Company agrees that there will be no lock out until the
grievance procedure had been fully complied with.
ARTICLE XV
Military Clause
The seniority of employees who join the armed forces of the United States
will accumulate during the period of their service and their re-employment at
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the termination of such service shall be governed by and subject to the terms
and provisions of the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940 , and amend-
ments thereto.
ARTICLE XVI
Bulletin Boards
The Company agrees to provide a space in its plant where Union notices may
be posted . Such notices must relate to notice of Union meetings , notice of
Union elections , the results of Union elections , social or recreational activities,
and may not contain any controversial , political, or derogatory information. All
notices will be submitted by an official designated by the Union to a designated
Company representative for his approval and posting notices in keeping with
this paragraph.
ARTICLE XVII
Safety and Health
The Company agrees to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health
of the employees during the hours of their employment . The Union agrees to
promote in every way possible the realization of the individual employee with
regard to preventing accidents to himself or his fellow employees during the
hours of their employment . It is agreed that any complaint concerning the
health or safety of any employee may be taken up as a grievance under the
grievance procedure set forth in this Contract.
ARTICLE XVIII
Insurance
The Company agrees that during the life of this Agreement it will continue
in effect its present Insurance Program.
ARTICLE XIX
Physical Examinations
The Company may at any time, at its own expense, require an applicant for
employment or any employee to submit to a physical examination by a physician
selected by the Company . Any dispute as to the results of such physical exami-
nation and any action taken thereon may be handled as a grievance under the
terms of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XX
Rest Periods
The Company agrees that it will continue its present practice with respect to
allowing employees appropriate rest periods during the course of the working
day.
ARTICLE XXI
Duration
This Agreement shall become effective on the --- --- day of ----------
1962, and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight , May 31, 1962.
Signed and entered into this ------ day of ---------- 1962 , by the author-
ized parties.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC.
BY --------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 955.
BY --------------------------------------------------
A final meeting of the parties for negotiations was held at the courthouse in
Evergreen , Alabama, on May 3, 1962, at which the Union was represented by
W. D. Christy ( chief spokesman ), Lee Otis Baggett ( local president ), Robert L. Lane,
I. C. Waters , and E. Q. Wiggins. The Respondent was represented by Personnel
Manager Anthony Smith and Attorney M . A. Prowell Christy resumed negotiations
with respect to the recall , vacation pay, and seniority status of strikers . Prowell
maintained Respondent 's position that strikers were being recalled to work whenever
work was available , and agreed to investigate and report on vacation pay to which
they were entitled and to furnish a revised seniority list to include production clerks
and strikers.3 The subject of arbitration was discussed , but no final agreement was
reached. The Union requested Respondent to submit in writing a summary of its
'Such a list was subsequently furnished by the Respondent on May 28, 1962, and
strikers received their vacation pay.
SOUTHERN COACH & BODY COMPANY, INC.
policies with respect to wages and rest periods, which it had proposed to continue;
and Prowell subsequently did so by letter of May 18, 1962 , as follows:
The Company 's policy with respect to Rest Periods is:
"To grant employees reasonable and adequate times for rest periods depend-
ing on the circumstances . Before taking a rest period, the employee must secure
the permission of his supervisor . Any employee who abuses the privilege of
taking a rest period will be disciplined."
The Wage Policies of the Company are as follows:
"To employ persons at the plant minimum or in a job at a rate in keeping
with past experience where such experience is beneficial to the performance of
the job assigned . At the end of the first three months new employees receive
an automatic increase of 50 per hour and at the end of 6 months an additional
50, provided their services are satisfactory . Any increases thereafter are based
on merit . Employees who are promoted will receive the rate applicable to
their new duties."
Yours truly,
MAP/bd
CONCLUDING x INDINGS
M. A. PROWELL.
From a study of the written contract proposals and statements of policy herein
submitted by the Respondent , I am impressed by the paucity of provisions with
respect to wages, hours , and working conditions , and the austere superfluity with
which the Respondent presents the rights of management to discipline and restrict
the rights of its employees throughout the course of their employment . Article I
of the Respondent 's proposal, set forth above, retains for management all rights
exercised prior to certification of the Union as bargaining representative ; and from
that position the Respondent refused to deviate throughout negotiations for a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. To such an attitude of bargaining with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment , 1 am, therefore , constrained
to attribute the failure of the Respondent to reach even the semblance of an agreement
with the Union . The primary objective of Respondent at all times was to preserve
and maintain the status quo.
It is admitted a..d stipulated in the record that after certification of the Union
on May 26, 1961 , the Respondent continued to grant wage increases and change
conditions of employment at will without consulting the Union until charges were
filed by the Union in Case No. 15-CA-2015 on November 27, 1961 , coincident
with the end of the strike. It thereafter entered into a settlement agreement with
the Union in that case on March 1 , 1962, in which it agreed and posted notices to
the effect that it would bargain collectively upon request with International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees,
and specifically agreed that it would not grant wage increases to its employees or
change their terms or conditions of employment , without first giving notice thereof
to and consulting with the Union . Notwithstanding this settlement agreement, it
is now shown by uncontradicted testimony , and indeed admitted , that the Respondent
continued to lay off and recall employees at will ( including Jessie Cleve Baggett
and Clinton Brown ) without any consultation or notice whatever to the bargaining
representative. Since the layoff and recall of employees is a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining , this conduct constituted a refusal to bargain within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as well as a breach of the settlement agreement
in Case No . 15-CA-2015. I, therefore , sustain the Board's Regional Director in
setting aside the settlement agreement and filing a consolidated complaint in Cases
Nos. 15-CA-2015 and 15-CA-2058, after the Respondent declined to purge itself
of these later violations of the Act by entering into a further settlement agreement
and posting notices similar to those in the previous case. It is evident from that
declination that Respondent was insisting on the right to lay off and recall its em-
ployees at will without notice to or consultation with their baragining representative,
thereby repudiating such issues as being a subject for collective bargaining
Following the settlement agreement of March 1, 1962, the Respondent at the next
negotiating meeting on March 19, 1962, proposed to limit the duration of any
contract with the Union to June 1, 1962 , suggesting that employees might want
to hold another election at that time . Respondent thereby raised a fictitious doubt
of the union majority within the certification year, thereby refusing to bargain
for a reasonable period following its settlement agreement. This proposal was
repeated and adhered to by the Respondent at the next and final meeting on May 3,
1962, less than 30 days prior to the end of the certification year. Although the
duration of a contract is a bargainable matter , it does not abdicate the rule of the
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board and adjudication of the courts that an employer is required to bargain in good
faith for at least 1 year after certification with the certified exclusive representative
of its employees and also for a reasonable time following a settlement agreement.
In Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785, the Board recently held: "We
shall, therefore , in this and in future cases revealing similar inequities , grant the
Union a period of at least 1 year of actual bargaining from the date of the settlement
agreement."
The foregoing conduct of the Respondent affords clear and unmistakable indicia
that throughout its negotiations with the Union it has merely engaged in surface
bargaining with no intention of reaching a reasonable agreement or entering into
a collective-bargaining contract with the representative of its employees except upon
terms dictated by itself. I find , therefore , as alleged in the complaint , that the
Respondent on June 21, 1961 , and at all times thereafter to date, has refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union as the certified exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5)
and (1 ) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, which is and has been at all times
material to this case, the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
of Southern Coach & Body Company, Inc., in a unit appropriate for collective bargain-
ing as follows:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Evergreen , Alabama,
plants, including leadmen , layout men , production clerks, plant clerks, and inspectors
exclusive of office clerical employees , professional and technical employees , guards,
watchman , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the certi-
fied exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in such appropriate unit
on June 21 , 1961 , and at all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1 ) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Perkins Machine Company and Local 223, International Union
of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No.
1-CA-3814. March 4, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 1962, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., 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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
141 NLRB No. 11.