Tex-Tan, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 253 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

TEX-TAN, INC. 253
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations 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 discourage membership by any of our employees in Warehouse-
men's Union Local 206, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by the
layoff or discharge of any employee, or by discrimination against them in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of their employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any of our employees with respect to their union
membership, activities, or desires, in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint , or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees, in any other
manner, in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Warehousemen's Union Local 206, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choice,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Nick Shubin, Paul Wauer, and Theodore Ballis immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of pay or other incidents of the employment relationship which they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or re-
maining, members of any labor organization, except as that right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment, against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any labor organization.
FRED LEONETTI AND BENJAMIN SUSSMAN, PARTNERS,
DOING BUSINESS AS LEONETTI FURNITURE MANU-
FACTURING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(ReprPsentntive) (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.
Tex-Tan, - Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO. Case No. P3-CA-920.
November 15, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13, 1961, Trial Examiner Fannie Al. Boyls issued her
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
134 NLRB No. 23.
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel,
and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
'of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tex-Tan, Inc.,
Yoakum, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, in the
unit heretofore certified by the Board as appropriate, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, by refusing to provide information as to job
rate classifications, and by unilaterally effecting rate of pay changes.
(b) Threatening job reprisals based on its employees' membership
in or support of the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and
embody any understanding reached in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its plant in Yoakum, Texas, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said notice, to be fur-
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Leedom].
2 The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that Respondent's threats to Supervisor Orsak
concerning his future with the Company because of his wife's union activity were in-
tended to interfere with her continued support of the Union. We affirm the Trial Ex-
aminer's finding of a violation in this instance because we find it reasonable in the circum-
stances to infer that these statements to Orsak regarding his wife's union activity were
communicated to her
3In 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."
TEX-TAN, INC. 255
nished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respond-
ent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be 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 Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, 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 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 threaten job reprisals based on our employees'
membership in or support of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT refuse to supply information as to job rate classi-
fications, and will not unilaterally effect rate of pay changes, or
refuse to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organi-
zation as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the
appropriate unit described below, and will, upon request, bargain
with it in such unit with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and
if an agreement is reached, we will embody such agreement in a
signed contract. The appropriate unit consists of :
All production and maintenance employees, including regu-
lar and extra truckdrivers, shipping and receiving employees,
and leadmen, employed in our Yoakum, Texas, plant, ex-
clusive of office clerical employees, confidential employees,
watchmen, guards, and superivsors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
TEx-TAN, 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.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, a complaint was issued on October 29, 1959, alleging
that Respondent, Tex-Tan, Inc, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent filed a motion to strike and dismiss certain allegations of the complaint,
and a motion for a more definite statement and an answer. The motions were re-
ferred to Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan who, on November 16, 1959, denied the
motion to strike and dismiss but granted, in substantial part, the motion for more
definite statement. Pursuant to this ruling, the General Counsel, on December 4,
1959, filed a bill of particulars. Thereafter, on July 1, 1960, the General Counsel
issued a first amended complaint, dropping the allegation that Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and had violated Section 8(a)(1) in one of the
respects previously alleged, but enlarging upon the allegations that Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(5). Again Respondent filed a motion to strike and dismiss,
a motion for more definite statement, and an answer. In his opposition to Respond-
ent's motions, the General Counsel asserted, inter alia , that the bill of particulars
already filed was applicable to the matters alleged in the first amended complaint.
Respondent's motions were thereupon referred to Trial Examiner S. Gilbert who,
on July 20, 1960, denied them.
A hearing, with all parties represented, was held before the duly designated Trial
Examiner in Victoria, Texas, between July 25 and August 8, 1960. Subsequent to
the hearing, all parties filed briefs, which I have duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Tex-Tan, Inc., is a division of General American Industries, a cor-
poration duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
Respondent has its principal office and place of business at Yoakum, Texas, where
it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of leather goods. During the 12-month
period preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period,
Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from its place of business in Yoakum to points outside the State of
Texas. During the same period Respondent purchased goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped to Respondent at
Yoakum from points outside Texas.
Upon the basis of the above facts, Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I further find that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Respondent.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint, as narrowed by the bill of particulars, alleges that Respondent,
on, or about January 1, 1959, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act by the conduct
of one of its foremen, Ernest Leister (misspelled in the complaint as Lesiter), and
its industrial relations manager, Denman, in threatening employees with loss of their
jobs for supporting the Union.
In support of the allegation as to Denman, William J. Orsak, formerly employed
by Respondent, testified that after a copy of the Union's representation petition was
served on Respondent,' Orsak was called into the office for a conference with Gen-
eral Manager C. C. Welhausen, Production Manager Philip Welhausen, and Indus-
1 The ouginal petition was filed on December 11, 1958, and the amended petition on
January 5, 1959
TEX-TAN, INC. 257
trial Relations Manager Denman; that the latter told him a rumor was going around
that he, Orsak, was "pushing" the Union; that this would hurt his position with the
Company; that if he wanted to continue with the Company, he should get out of
the Union altogether; and that, because he was a supervisor, it was not proper for
him to belong to the Union. Orsak replied that he was only a supervisor "trainee,"
that he was not getting a supervisor's pay, and had not been placed on manage-
ment's staff. General Manager Welhausen then stated, "Well, we will see into that"
and several weeks later, the word "trainee" was stricken from the "Credit Manager
Trainee" description of his title on Respondent's organizational chart, but no change
was made in his duties or rate of pay.
At a supervisors' meeting attended by Orsak, and held 2 or 3 weeks after the
conversation related above, Denman announced that some of the supervisors had
noticed Orsak's wife, a nonsupervisory employee, wearing a union button and that
when asked by her immediate supervisor if she was a part of the Union, she had
replied in the affirmative and said that she was proud of it. Denman asserted that
"this would definitely have a bearing" on Orsak's future with the Company and that
it was not good for a man in Orsak's capacity to have a wife in such a union. There-
after, shortly before the election which took place on March 6, 1959, Denman told
Orsak that he would have to start working for the Company rather than the Union,
or it would mean his job, and that if he continued to support the Union, he would
possibly have to be transferred to another department-as had happened to the
Union's president-or that he might lose his job
Orsak's testimony in these respects stands uncontradicted and I credit it. How-
ever, it is obvious from statements made to him by management representatives,
as well as by his attendance at supervisory meetings , that Respondent considered him
a part of the supervisory hierarchy. Accordingly, the admonitions to him to refrain
from participation in union matters were, under the circumstances, proper. The
references to Orsak's wife, on the other hand, present a different problem. Denman's
warning that her union acitvities would definitely have a bearing on Orsak's ad-
vancement with Respondent, was manifestly intended to interfere with her continued
support of the Union. Since employer interference of this nature has the natural
effect of restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their organizational
rights, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by its admonition
to Orsak.2
In support of the allegation of the complaint with respect to Belt Department
Foreman Ernest (Buddy) Leister, employee Isabella Schaeffer credibly testified that
about a week before the election, which took place on March 6, 1959, when she
and other employees were wearing union buttons, Leister told them they were "a,
:bunch of stupid people" and "he didn't think he had people like that working for
him." He told Schaeffer in particular that if she "didn't ditch the Union [she]
would be the first one to be laid off." Schaeffer, though having less seniority than
another employee whom Leister had laid off about 6 months earlier, had been re-
tained, as Leister explained to her, because she could do more jobs than the other
employee .3 His threat that she would be the first to be laid -off if she did not "ditch"
the Union was therefore unquestionably coercive and in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.4
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
1. Preliminary statement
Following the Union's certification on March 16, 1959, as the bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees,5 Respondent and
3 Cf N L R B. v Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc, 213 F 2d 208 (C A 5).
3 Schaeffer impressed me as a more forthright and ieliable witness than Leister The
latter, moreover, while testifying that 'he did not tell Schaeffer she would be the first to
be laid off if she joined or voted for the Union, was not asked and did not testify whether
he told her she would be the first to be laid off if she did not "ditch" the Union
4 Schaeffer and also employee Maidie DeBault testified that General Manager Welhausen
made certain preelection statements of a coeielve nature, which Welhausen denied making
Since these statements, if made, occurred prior to the bill of particulars and are not
encompassed within the complaint as so limited, I find it unnecessary to consider the
testimony concerning them
B Specifically, the unit certified consists of "all production and maintenance employees,
including regular and extra truckdrivers, shipping and receiving employees, and leadmen,
employed by Respondent at its Yoakum, Texas, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees,
confidential employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
030849-02-vol 134 18
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union met on 21 occasions between April 10, 1959, and June 8, 1960, for the
purpose of negotiating a contracts At these meetings Respondent's counsel, Theo.
F. Weiss, acted as its chief negotiator and the Union's International representative,
Phil Parr, acted as the latter 's chief negotiator except upon a few occasions when he
was absent and International Vice President Sam Twedell or someone else served in
his place.
The complaint, as particularized, and the first amended complaint, as further
amended at the hearing, allege that Respondent refused to bargain in good faith by
the following acts and omissions : ( 1) changing production quotas, announcing new
piece rates, changing various employees included in the unit from piecework to a
straight-time work basis, changing job descriptions and job content, and changing
classifications of piecework jobs and/or the minimum base rates of pay for piece-
work jobs and straight-time work jobs-all without notice to or consolation with the
Union; (2) refusing to furnish the Union data and other information requested by
it on or about April 19, 1959, and thereafter, pertaining to time studies, job descrip-
tions, and content, and pertaining to the establishment of production standards,
quotas, and piecework rates, and related matters which Respondent proposed to
change; (3) soliciting its employees to abandon the Union and to bargain individually
with Respondent; and (4) demanding acceptance by the Union of proposals designed
to frustrate and abort collective bargaining.7
Most of the evidence regarding the alleged refusal to bargain centers around
Respondent's method of compensating its employees-particularly its standard hour
incentive wage plan-and the Union's efforts to understand it and to obtain data
or information which would enable it to bargain intelligently with respect to the
employees' compensation for their services. An understanding of the issues and of
the contentions of the parties with respect to the refusal-to-bargain charge requires
some familiarity with Respondent's complicated wage system. I shall therefore at-
tempt at the outset to describe briefly the manner in which it has operated.
2. Respondent 's standard hour and time rate systems for
compensating its employees
Respondent employs about 281 employees in the maintenance and production
unit represented by the Union (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6) Its manufactur-
ing operations are carried on in six production factories-the belt, billfold, saddle,
moccasin, tannery, and tree factories. For many years prior to the advent of the
Union at its plant, most of the work in Respondent's production factories or de-
partments was paid for on the basis of Respondent's standard hour incentive wage
plan. However, each employee working under that plan usually performed some
operations on a time rate basis . Other jobs , such as those in the warehouse and
shipping department , the display factory, the maintenance department, and the
tannery, were completely on timework (Charging Party's Exhibits Nos. 10A and B).
a. The standard hour incentive plan
The standard hour , as explained in a bulletin issued to Respondent's employees
about June 1960, is a "unit for measuring human labor ." It "represents the standard
amount of Effective Ei9'ort which is reasonable to expect from a worker during One
Hour by a Normal Operator working at a Normal Rate of Speed under Normal
Working Conditions. This includes an allowance for Fatigue and Personal Needs."
The standard is expressed in terms of decimal hours and is set up on individual opera-
tions in terms of so many standard hours per 100 units-or per 10 units in the case
of saddles (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 18).
9 These meetings were held on April 10, 17 , and 29, May 14 and 27, June 5, July 3, 9,
and 23, September 1 and 22, October 15 and 29, November 4 and 18, and December 22,
1959, and on January 28 , February 23, March 9 and 30, and June 8, 1960.
71 have attempted above to condense and simplify the issues posed by the complaint
by grouping them under four categories The original complaint , dated December 29,
1959, listed five respects in which Respondent allegedly refused to bargain. The first
amended complaint, dated July 1, 1960, listed eight such respects This complaint, over
Respondent 's objection , was further amended at the commencement of the hearing to add
a ninth, to wit: "(I) In or about March and April 1960, instituted changes in classifica-
tions of piecework jobs and/or the minimum base rates of pay for piecework jobs and
straight-time work jobs " In permitting the amendment , I assured Respondent that if,
as a result of evidence introduced under the amendment , it should claim surprise or de-
sired more time to prepare its defense, I would entertain a motion for adjournment for
that purpose . No such motion was ever made.
TEX-TAN, INC. 259
For the purpose of assigning a standard hour value to a given operation that
operation is normally broken down into steps or movements, usually referred to in the
record as "elements." Time and motion studies of each operation are made and a
standard is assigned for each operation .8 Respondent does not necessarily time
every person performing the same operation; nor does it always time every element of
an operation. It occasionally times the whole cycle, composed of all the elements;
or it may apply standard data to some of the elements, without making a time study
specifically for them.
Respondent sometimes uses a temporary standard "until a correct department
standard can be put into effect." This temporary standard may be set from
standard data taken from other operations. Although Respondent's aim is to have
all its standards correct, it recognizes that a margin of error of from 3 to 5 percent
exists in timing the operations. Also, because of other circumstances, such as its
modernization programs,9 it has been unable to keep current on its time studies
and many employees have worked for substantial periods of time under standards
which do not fit their operations. For these reasons, "loose" standards, under which
employees have been able to earn more than they normally would earn, and "tight"
standards under which they have been unable to make what they would normally
earn, have existed. Tight standards, however, have usually been corrected when
employees complained about them.
Respondent manufactures about 300 or 350 new items a year and has a total of
about 1,800 items. Works Manager Philip Welhausen defined a new item as a
product which is "made a little different than anything in the line up to that point."
It might result from a change in style, in size, or in material. The change, whether
minor or radical, may result in a new standard hour value for the operations in-
volved. A new item, however, is not the only factor responsible for a change in
standards. According to Respondent's Time-Study Engineer McClain, standard hour
values change when there is a change in the method of doing the job, in the ma-
terials used, or in the layout or equipment. If at the time a new item or changed
operation is started, a time-study man is not available to time the new or different
operations, the work may be put on a time rate temporarily. Or, in order to avoid
a decrease in the employees' cadence-which usually results when they are put on
time rates-employees are sometimes permitted to continue working under the old
standards which no longer fit the operation as changed. The latter practice, however,
is inconsistent with the operation of the standard hour system as explained in the
booklet distributed to employees about June 1960.
Works Manager Welhausen estimated that Respondent has about 4,500 standards
in existence and that 1,500 to 2,000 of these are in operation each week. As a
result of Respondent's frequent changes in designs, styles, and materials for its
products and its continuous effort to improve methods, equipment, and layouts,
many new or changed standards for the job operations occur throughout the year.
For example, during the last half of 1958-which was typical of 1959 prior to a
B Works Manager Welhausen estimated that normally at least 1,000 "time and motion
studies are made in a year. In timing an element, the time-study man uses a stopwatch,
makes 10 readings for each element, and averages those. He then multiplies the average
by a percentage figure which levels the operation. He decides what percentage figure to
use from his experience in observing the work. That may be different for each employee.
To this figure there is added some time for fatigue. The fatigue time is not constant
for every operation, but it is for most The formula for obtaining standard hour values
was explained in the bulletin to be :
Actual minutes X speed rating percent X fatigue percent= Standard minutes per
unit.
Example:
1 00 minutes actual for the element of work
115% speed rating
10% fatigue allowance
then-
1 00 X 115% X 110%=1.265 minutes per unit (Standard)
1.265 minutes X 100 units - by 60 minutes=2 110 hours per 100 units
(Standard)
*Commencing about 1954 , Respondent undertook a major modernization program which,
In a number of its factories, interfered with the normal operation of its standard hour
system. This modernization program was completed in the shipping department in 1955;
In the belt factory in 1956 ; In the billfold factory in 1957 ; and in the saddle factory
in 1958
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
freeze of Respondent 's standards in May-there were 71 changed standards in the
billfold factory and 74 in the belt factory.
As Respondent 's Time-Study Engineer McClain explained, in order to determine
whether a standard needed to be changed one would have to understand how the
job had been done and what change in it occurred which would affect the standard.
This means that one would have to know the job elements before and after the
change. And to ascertain whether a change in standards was correct , one would
have to know "the breakdown of the standards for each element" both before and
after the change, that is, the evaluation of each element . io McClain testified that
in order to study the material which went into the determination of a particular
standard , he would have to look at at least four pieces of paper and that since "you
could have possibly three time study sheets to one study ," there are "possibly six
or seven" pieces of paper which would have to be inspected . Union Representative
Parr conceded that it was "possible" although not "probable " that 15 or 20 such
pieces of paper might have to be examined before a change in standard could be
properly evaluated . In any event , it is clear that much paperwork is involved in
the changing of standards or setting of new standards under Respondent 's standard
hour incentive wage plan and that an examination of this data is necessary to deter-
mine whether the new or changed standards are correct.
b. Classification of jobs under the standaid hour plan
Assuming the correctness of the standard under which an employee performs his
piecework , it is still necessary to know the classification , or base rate , of his job.
to ascertain what the normal operator working at a normal rate of speed under
normal working conditions will earn. Respondent had eight classifications for
piecework jobs at the time bargaining negotiations commenced ( General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 7). Class 1 paid $1 an hour and 3 cents was added to each successive
class through class 6; class 7 was not in use; and class 8 paid $1 .20 an hour ( General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 7).11
In determining what classification should be given to a job operation , Respondent
uses a point system in which it assigns point values to such factors as skill, time
needed to acquire the skill, difficulty of the job, fatigue , heaviness of the work, and
finger dexterity.
c. Hourly time rated jobs
As already stated, some of the jobs within the bargaining unit are entirely time
rated and others are partly time rated. They are divided into at least six classes-
classes A through F (Respondent 's Exhibit No. 22) and each class, in turn, has a
number of stations-usually four in addition to the beginning station. Each station
within a class is assigned an hourly rate based upon Respondent 's judgment as to
the value to be assigned to such factors as experience , mental effort, and physical
effort and the points to be assigned to each factor.
Increases in pay within each class were, prior to the spring of 1960 , on a quasi-
automatic basis for at least the first two stations-'that is, an employee who had
been in one of those stations for as long as a year might receive an increase in pay
by being advanced to the next station if his departmental superintendent brought
the matter to the attention of higher management . Since March or April 1960,
the progression has been automatic. Employees , however , may advance to the
last station in their job classes only by receiving merit increases.
3. The unilateral changes in April and May 1959
For a time following the employees ' selection of the Union as their bargaining
agent on March 6 , 1959, Respondent continued , as it had before, to release new
standards under its standard hour incentive plan, to incorporate some hourly time
rated operations into its incentive plan, and to convert some incentive jobs to time
rated jobs-without notice to or consultation with the Union . During April and
May 1959 changes of this nature involving 19 employees and 102 job operations in the
billfold and saddle factories were effectuated ( General Counsel 's Exhibits Nos. 2
and 5 ). The earnings of about half the employees were adversely affected as a result
10 It is only when a job is so radically changed that it is really a different job that the
elements of the old job and their evaluations are of no further use In that event the data
for the old job is normally destroyed
"Thereafter , as shown infra, class 7 was activated and classes 9 and 10 were added on
or about March 7, 1960 An employee earned more or less than his base rate under these
classifications depending on his production under the standard hour system
TEX-TAN, INC. 261
of the changes.la Some received warning slips stating that if they did not meet their
production quotas pursuant to the new standard hour evaluations for their jobs,
they would be laid off or discharged.
Prior to the first bargaining conference on April 10, 1959, some employees had
reported to the Union the changes which were being made in their job standards and
earnings. And at the first or second bargaining conference the Union protested
against Respondent's unilateral action in effecting these changes, stated that the
proposed changes were subjects for collective bargaining, and requested that Re-
spondent cease making similar changes without first giving the Union an opportunity
to bargain about them. Respondent replied that it had been preparing these changes
over a long period of time and that, in order to operate its business efficiently, it was
necessary that Respondent make the determination as to whether the changes were
to be put into effect. It contended in this or later conferences that its rates were
scientifically arrived at, that it would be impossible to negotiate every standard, and
invited the Union to accept the new standards and grieve later. The Union replied
that it was not asking that every standard be negotiated but that the Union be fur-
nished with sufficient information to determine whether those standards were correct
in the first place before signing a contract accepting Respondent's standards The
Union also requested that if Respondent was still insisting on its standard hour system
at the time a contract was signed, there should be a period after the institution of new
standards when the employees would be paid their average earnings-presumably in
order to avoid a decrease in the employees' wages for a period during which the Union
might have an opportunity to check the new standards and discuss them with Re-
spondent. Respondent was never willing to accede to this proposal.
Respondent continued, despite the Union's protest, to put into effect changes of the
nature described above until after the Union on May 13, 1959, filed an unfair labor
practice charge with the Board, alleging that Respondent had unlawfully refused to
bargain, inter alia, "by changing standards of productivity without bargaining with the
Union" and a Board field representative began investigating the charge (General
Counsel's Exhibit No. la). On advice of its counsel and chief negotiator, Theo F.
Weiss, Respondent froze the operation of its standard hour plan about mid-May 1959
and, as shown infra, made no further changes in standards until May 1960. Weiss
advised Respondent's officials that although he did not believe Respondent was legally
required to do so, it would be best under the circumstances to freeze its incentive wage
system for a while.13
4. Union requests for information, April through September 1959,
and Respondent 's responses
The General Counsel and Union contend that on and after April 10, 1959, the
Union requested information from Respondent which would enable it to understand,
evaluate, and bargain with respect to the employees ' wages and that Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the requested information . Respondent , on the other
hand, contends that in attempting to comply with the Union's requests, it has fur-
nished the Union with a great mass of data and information and finally even offered
to permit the Union to examine any data it wished in the offices of Respondent's
Works Manager Welhausen or its Time-Study Engineer McClain and make tran-
scripts of it but that the Union, bent on wrecking Respondent's standard hour system,
has continuously claimed that its requirements have not been satisfied . In weighing
these contentions, I shall set forth below, in chronological sequence insofar as the
record permits , the evidence pertaining to this issue.
a. Information pertaining to operation of Respondent's
standard hour incentive wage plan
Under this heading I shall attempt to set forth the Union's requests for data and
other information pertaining to Respondent 's incentive wage system , as distinguished
12 As shown by data prepared on April 6 , 1960, and furnished to a Board agent, during
the 5- to 7-week periods preceding and following the changes in standards, the average
hourly earnings of nine of the employees dropped 2 to 44 cents-the average decrease
being 22 cents an hour; the average hourly earnings of nine others increased 1 to 13
cents-the average increase being 6 cents an hour; and the average hourly earnings of
the other employee remained the same (General Counsel's Exhibit No 5)
1s The findings in this subsection are based upon the undenied and mutually corrobora-
tive testimony of the Union's International Representative Parr, Ruth Morgan, an em-
ployee member of the Union's negotiating committee , and Respondent's works manager,
Philip Welhausen , as well as upon documentary evidence.
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from its system for paying time rated employees, and Respondent's responses to such,
requests. This will include information as to the piecework standards-that is, the
amount of work Respondent expected an employee to produce in a standard hour
to earn his base rate, as well as the classifications of the job operations which deter-
mine the rate of pay values set by Respondent for 100 percent of production on the
various job operations.
Because the ability of an employee to make 100 percent of production or more
under a standard may affect the amount of his pay just as much, if not more, than
the piecework rate classification under which an operation falls, a change in
standards is sometimes referred to in the record as a change in the piecework rate-
though technically, as I understand it, a change in piecework rates should mean a
change in the classification for an operation. Adding to this confusion is the fact
that during the early bargaining sessions, the Union's negotiators may not have been
sufficiently familiar with Respondent's standard hour system to make its demands
for information as definite and clear as might be desired. I have in mind Union
Representative Parr's testimony that at the early bargaining conferences, company
representatives would usually say they were willing to furnish information requested
but sometimes said they did not understand what was wanted and why it was needed
and that he would then explain what was wanted and why it was needed. I also
have in mind that in a few instances the Union's written requests for information
were somewhat ambiguous.
It is undisputed that at the first bargaining conference, held on April 10, 1959, the
Union asked Respondent for data showing the employees' current earnings as well
as their earnings for a like pay period in 1958 and for material which would better
acquaint the Union with Respondent's standard hour system. It also asked for in-
formation as to the specific changes in job rates which had occurred "during the
period since the filing of the [representation] petition," including a list of the changes
and the time-study records on the piecework, showing the elements and their values,
so that the Union could see the differences between the new and old standards
and why some of the employees were not making their time.
At the second bargaining conference on April 17, Respondent gave the Union a
'document, listing alphabetically the 281 employees in the bargaining unit and show-
ing their last date of employment and their earnings for the 2 weeks ending
March 28, 1958, as compared with their earnings for the 2 weeks ending March 27,
1959 (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6). The letter accompanying this document
recited that "All of the data which you requested is handed you herewith. . .."
The Union accepted this material but protested, either at this meeting or the next
one, that the information was not sufficient and that the Union still had no informa-
tion "on the time studies and the rates that were being changed, the jobs that were
being changed, restudied and put into effect, as well as other matters such as
pension and profit sharing system, and so forth."
On April 25 Weiss mailed to the Local Union's secretary-treasurer and business
agent, Irvin Horton, nine pages of material listing job operations under the various
incentive job-rate classifications, showing the rate for each classification, in the
saddle department and its subdivisions, the belt department, the billfold department,
and the tree and stirrup department (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7). The
letter accompanying the material recited that "Here is the job classification material
for which you asked."
The third bargaining conference was held on April 29. At that meeting Union
Representative Parr told Respondent that the information mailed to the Union on
April 25 was in part the material the Union had asked for but that it "still did not
have the material and the information that was necessary to determine how they
arrived at these various classifications and that following the receipt of that kind of
material then we would have to determine how they arrived at the individual time
allowances for the various jobs and operations in these various classifications."
Parr had asked at the first bargaining conference for material showing how the
job classifications had been arrived at but this information was never furnished.
General Manager C. C. Welhausen explained to the Union that its classifications
were determined by considering certain aspects such as skill, time needed to acquire
skill, difficulty of job, fatigue, heaviness of work, and finger dexterity but he never
told the Union how the points assigned to these factors were arrived at. He stated
that the classifications were scientifically set up by its engineers and that the Union
"possibly" could not understand its point evaluation system.i4
14 The above findings are based principally upon the credited testimony of Parr Works
Manager Philip Welhausen testified that Respondent has a system for determining piece-
work classifications wherein it weighs "certain factors embodied in the job by experience,
TEX-TAN, INC. 263
Most of the requests for information during the early 1959 conferences, how-
ever, were related to standards rather than classifications, for it was the changed
standards and employee protests concerning them that caused a focusing of atten-
tion on that aspect of the wage system.
At the May 14 bargaining conference, Respondent furnished the Union with 31
pages of current data, listing the job operations, their code numbers, the standard
hour quota for each operation, and the base rate classifications for operations in
the moccasin, belt, saddle, tree, and collar and harness departments (General Coun-
sel's Exhibit No. 8). But with respect to these departments as well as its other
departments, Respondent still failed to supply the requested information as to
elements of the current job operations and the, time value of those elements or the
old standards and a breakdown of the elements and values for them. During the
course of the meeting, the Union handed to Respondent a letter dated May 13, 1959,
from Union Secretary-Treasurer Horton to General Manager C. C. Welhausen,
reading as follows (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9) :
As previously requested in past meetings we are requesting your produc-
tion standards.
Our request is for the specific number of units required to reach the standard
on the various job classifications, including job descriptions.
It is requested that this information be furnished for the year 1958, March
1959 and the present standards and descriptions.
On June 1, 1959, Horton sent C. C. Welhausen another letter requesting infor-
mation. It states (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 10) :
Reference is made to our letter of May 13, 1959, relative to request for job
classifications, including job descriptions.
It is further requested that we be furnished with job descriptions for the job
classifications furnished by you. The job descriptions requested should include
all movements required to perform the specific job and the time required.
The information requested is for the calendar year 1958 and from January
1959 to present date.
Also it is requested that we be given the date on which the standards were
changed.
Following the receipt of these last two requests for information, Works Manager
Welhausen and his assistants removed from the walls, posts, and other places at
the work stations of employees throughout the plant, sheets of paper and cards
which, according to Welhausen, had been posted for the purpose of reminding the
for one ; maybe mental effort, physical effort, etc " and that it gives specific points to each
specific factor and assigns jobs to a particular classification on that basis With respect
to collective bargaining on this matter, Welhausen was asked and testified as follows:
Q . . . In the course of the collective bargaining with the Union was that matter
brought into collective bargaining?
A. It was mentioned, yes.
Q And did the Union ask you for, specifically for, the points and the evaluation of
the points in the system to determine whether or not the jobs were appropriately
within the classifications under which they appear?
A. We discussed it I don't know whether they asked us or not
Q. Wasn't it one of their positions and complaints that they could not evaluate
the company's time standard hour program unless they had the information with
respect to the job classifications as to whether they are appropriate within the
classification and with respect to the standards that were set for each specific job,
don't you recall that?
A I am not sure. I think they did. I may be influenced by Mr. Parr's testimony
yesterday
Q Your best recollection is that they did, isn't that trues
A. I think they were interested in that. They wanted to know about that
Q There was no information given on this aspect, was it, that is, the aspects
relating to the factors and the points with respect to each factor upon which the
company predicated its classes 9
A I don't think so.
Q. You know that was not done, do you not 9
A. I didn't give it to them, and unless someone else in the company did without
my knowledge
Q And you know it was not done at the bargaining table when you were there?
A That's right.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of their operation standards. Thermofax copies of this data, consisting of
150 pages, were made and delivered to the Union at the June 5 bargaining con-
ference (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 11). This document, described by Parr
as "a maze of miscellaneous information," shows on many of its pages what were
apparently the current standards for job operations, but in most instances the
factory or department to which the information pertained does not appear; nor does
the document show the breakdown of the job operations into elements and their
values, or past standards, elements, and values for any of the job operations which
had recently changed.
On June 5, 1959, Respondent submitted to the Union a proposed contract which
included a provision for new and apparently higher base rate classifications for 11
saddle factory operations (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12(a)). Thereafter, at
the July 9 bargaining conference, the Union asked that these proposed new base
rate classifications be put into effect and that Respondent at the same time restore
the old standards that were in existence prior to the certification of the Union. Parr
testified that the Union "didn't want to keep the employees from getting an increase"
but was insisting on a restoration of the old standards because "with the new standards
tied to the base rates it could result in a decrease in wages, and we still hadn't been
given the information to determine whether or not the actual studies were acceptable
to the Union." 15
The Union continued to press for the standards information. According to the
credited testimony of Union Committee Member Ruth Morgan, the Union, at the
September 22 bargaining conference, renewed the request made by it at the first
bargaining conference for a list of the job changes and the time-study records which
would enable the Union to see the difference between the jobs under the new, and old
standards and understand why employees could not make their time under the
new standards.
Despite any lack of clarity in the Union's original demands, it is clear, as General
Manager Welhausen testified, that even before the June 5 bargaining conference, Re-
spondent knew the Union was seeking data as, to the job operation standards broken
down into elements of the operation and the time value for each element-this
information to embrace the old as well as new standards so that the Union could
"compare changes in standards brought about by changes in operations of the
various jobs." 16
Respondent, while never specifically refusing to furnish any of the information
requested, took the position that the furnishing of all this information would be
impossible in those instances in which old standards had been destroyed and would
otherwise be very difficult because of the voluminous data involved. It also took
the position that its standards were scientifically arrived at and probably could
not be understood by the union representatives even if they had the detailed
information.
b. Information pertaining to time rated jobs
The classifications for time rated jobs were also discussed at bargaining confer-
ences in 1959. Respondent explained that these, like the piecework rate classi-
fications, were based on factors and points and were scientifically set up. At a
bargaining conference or conferences prior to June 30, the Union requested in-
formation relative to these straight time rated jobs. Union Representative Parr
credibly testified: "At that time we asked the company for information setting
forth how it arrived at its classification system with a full schedule of the factors
used in evaluating each job and the values attached to each of these jobs; for in-
stance, we asked them what factors did they use in evaluating the jobs and putting
them in their classification. We asked that that material be submitted to us." Ap-
parently in response to this request, Respondent's counsel, Weiss, mailed to Union
Representative Horton three pages of material, listing the class A, B, C, and D job
15 Actually an increase in the base rate classifications could not have resulted in a
decrease in pay, but such an increase would not necessarily compensate for any decrease
in pay suffered by some of the employees whose standards had been changed between the
date of the certification and the date in May when the standards were temporarily frozen.
See, e g., General Counsel's Exhibit No 5, showing that 9 of the 19 employees in the
billfold and saddle factories whose standards had been changed in March and April
suffered losses averaging 22 cents an hour in their earnings
10 See also the testimony of Works Manager Philip Welhausen that although he was
unable to remember many of the details of the 1959 meetings, he remembered that the
Union at different times "in certain instances requested minute details on all standard
elements "
TEX-TAN, INC. 265
operations and the hourly rate paid in each of the three or four stations for the
warehouse and shipping department, the tannery department, and the maintenance
and display shop positions (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 10(b) ). The letter en-
closing this material stated (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 10(a)) :
Enclosed is additional data and material concerning the time wage rate
ranges in the Warehouse and Shipping Department, Tannery Department and
Display Shop.
The company has furnished you with such a mass of material that it may be
that this duplicates data that you already have.
Thereafter, in one of the bargaining conferences, the time rates, at least those of
employees in the tannery, were discussed but no question was apparently raised as
to the sufficiency of the information furnished.
5. The alleged refusal to discuss wages
The complaint, as particularized, alleges, as one of the respects in which Re-
spondent refused to bargain, that on July 23, September 1 and 22, and October 19,
1959, Respondent, through its counsel, told the union negotiators that Respondent
"would not discuss wages or any wage increase until and unless the Union would
agree to accept without change all of the company's proposals previously submitted
to the union."
An understanding and evaluation of the evidence on this issue requires some back-
ground information other than that already stated relative to the contract negotia-
tions prior to the July 23 bargaining conference. Respondent, as early as the first
bargaining session on April 10 had presented some contract proposals and on May
24 it presented to the Union a complete proposed contract (Charging Party's Ex-
hibits Nos. 13(a) to 13(e) and Charging Party's Exhibits Nos. 14 and 8). It
also presented a revised proposed contract on June 5 (General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 12(a)). It was these proposals by Respondent which furnished the basis for
most of the discussion of contract terms. Although, according to the credited
testimony of Parr and Morgan, the Union, prior to the commencement of nego-
tiations, submitted a proposed contract which apparently called for a 30-cent general
wage increase, this was set aside at the first bargaining conference as the result
of Respondent's complaint that it was a packinghouse agreement and inappropriate
as a basis for negotiating an agreement with Respondent. Respondent's proposals,
during the period here considered, did not provide for any kind of general in-
crease.17 The Union, in general, had contended that Respondent's wages were too
low and Respondent had contended that they were as high or higher than other
wages paid in the Yoakum area.
Toward the conclusion of the July 23 bargaining conference, and after the parties
had reached agreement on some minor changes in Respondent's proposed contract,
Respondent proposed that if the Union would accept all provisions except those
pertaining to wages, Respondent would offer "a small concession on wages" or a
modest" wage increase and stated that it would not discuss wages until the other
provisions of -a contract were agreed upon. Respondent repeated and maintained
this position at the September and October conferences. The Union rejected this
proposal, stating in effect that it "couldn't buy a pig in a poke." During this
period, however , negotiations on a limited scale, even as to the standard hour
system, continued. On July 29, Respondent mailed to the Union a proposed
contract and, on September 4, submitted 'a proposed amendment to the effect that
Respondent had been in the process of revamping and rearranging its production
facilities; that resulting changes in standards had not been completed; and that once
those standards had been established and released on a current basis, they would
17 Respondent's June 5 proposed contract provided that it would pay the base rates for
job classifications as shown by Respondent 's records except in the case of 11 saddle
factory operations specifically named and that as to them it would pay base rates listed
opposite each such operation. A comparison of this offer (General Counsel's Exhibit
No 12(a)) with job classification material furnished the Union on April 25, 1959
(General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7) indicates that Respondent apparently proposed an in-
crease in the base rate for 6 of the 11 operations-though I cannot be certain that these
two exhibits refer to the same operations since the code numbers are not shown. The
remaining five operations listed in the June 5 proposed contract may also show proposed
increases in base rate classifications but, with my limited understanding of those job
operations, I cannot find their equivalent on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 In any
event, as shown in subsection 4(a) supra, the Union, at the July 9 bargaining conference,
appears to have understood the specially listed classifications as increases
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not be changed unless there occurred a change in job content, method or materials
(General Counsel's Exhibit No. 13-B).
Thereafter Respondent abandoned the conditions imposed on its willingness to
make a modest wage offer. Thus, at the end of the November 4 bargaining con-
ference, Respondent submitted another proposed contract providing inter alia, that
3 cents be added to each time work range, as well as to each piecework base rate
classification, for employees with over 90 days of continuous service, except for
certain specified job operations whose rate was elsewhere set forth in the proposed
contract (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 15).18
6. The 1960 requests for information and the changes in piecework standards and
classifications and in hourly time rates and stations
In November and December 1959, bargaining conferences were held between
representatives of Respondent and the Union, with International Vice President Sam
Twedell substituting for Parr as the Union's chief negotiator. As a result of these
meetings Respondent's last complete written proposed contract was submitted to
and rejected by the union membership. This proposed contract, insofar as it related
to the operation of Respondent's standard hour system and the offer of a 3-cent
increase in time rate ranges and piecework classifications, except for the operations
specifically set forth, contained the same provisions as those embodied in Respond-
ent's November 4 proposed contract (cf. Respondent's Exhibit No. 52 and Charging
Party's Exhibit No 15).
Thereafter, at a meeting held on February 23, 1960, Respondent offered to change
its previous contract proposal that a pieceworker could receive 95 percent of his
base rate if he achieved less than 90 percent of his standard; it proposed, instead,
to make the base rate the guaranteed minimum rate.
Also at this conference, Respondent submitted to the Union a 35-page document
entitled, "Proposal of new operation standards and new base rates for the saddle
and riding equipment factory" (Respondent's Exhibit No. 32, Exhibit No. 1 attached
thereto). In this document were listed the old and new style number of each opera-
tion, its code number, the proposed new standard hour per 10 or 100 units, and the
proposed new classification. The list included 823 proposed new or changed stand-
ards. On the first page of the document it was explained, inter alia, that all but
two of the seven types of operations listed would carry an increased base rate.19
In presenting these proposed new standards and changed classifications, Weiss
stated that Respondent wished to put the new standards into effect "at the earliest
possible moment." He explained that Respondent's incentive wage plan in the saddle
shop was in a "chaotic condition" because of the freeze in standards since May 1959
and the fact that when the Union came into the picture, the saddle shop was being
moved into a new building and changes were being made which affected virtually
all of the standards. He also explained that the proposed new classifications for
the operations listed represented the 3-cent increase in base rates and other specified
rate increases already proposed -in Respondent's contract offers 2° The latter, he
stated, included many rates which were to be increased "far more than 3¢." The in-
creases were to be accomplished by moving the job operation up into a higher classi-
fication, not by changing the value of the classifications. Respondent did not indi-
cate to the Union any need or desire to put the new classifications into effect at an
early date-as it did with respect to the new standards.
Parr requested and Respondent agreed to furnish further information showing the
current standard for all the saddle shop operations then under the standard hour
system and the current time rate for those which were time rated. Pursuant to
Parr's request, Respondent also agreed that where two operations had been com-
bined into one or where one operation had been broken into two, this information
's The operations not included in the 3-cent Increase proposal consisted of the 11 opera-
tions in the saddle factory whose proposed new rates had been listed in the previous
contract proposal, plus 3 more operations in the saddle factory ; 4 operations in the
saddle tree factory ; 3 in the belt factory ; 5 in the billfold factory ; 6 In the tannery
factory; and 2 in the moccasin factory (Charging Party's Exhibit No 15, article III,
section 2)
19 The two excepted operations were "machine edge and edge point" riding equipment
and "notch and stamp" riding equipment The base rates for these operations were later
Increased without any prior notice to the Union of Respondent's intention to increase them
20The document offered showed only the proposed new classifications and not the base
rates for those classifications. The Union in prior negotiations had been Informed as to
the base rates for most of the classifications (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7). A fur-
ther explanation was given at the February 23 meeting.
TEX-TAN, INC. 267
would be furnished. Parr explained that until the Union received the requested in-
formation, it could not evaluate Respondent's offer and it therefore was neither
accepting nor rejecting it at that time.
Works Manager Welhausen testified that after the February 23 meeting "We made
a new list and we inserted the old standards where we had them and we inserted
time work in some instances," but that "We didn't give them the detailed informa-
tion that they asked for." 21 He believed that part of the information was mailed to
the Union and that part was handed to the union representatives at the next meeting
on March 9.
In the meantime, on March 7, Respondent, without any notice to the Union of its
intention to do so, put into effect many of the base rate classification changes for
piecework operations which had been proposed in prior contract offers. On the
same date it also increased the number of job stations for some of the time rated work-
ers in the tannery and increased the hourly rate for those stations. Respondent, in
prior contract proposals, had offered to increase the rate for the "normal station,"
one of the intermediate stations in certain tannery and other time rated job classifi-
cations,22 but had never proposed to the Union that the number of stations be in-
creased (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 15). Indeed it was specifically provided in
Respondent's last proposed contract (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 15, article III,
section 8): "Employees regularly on time work shall be paid rates within the ranges
now provided according to company records." [Emphasis supplied.] Works Man-
ager Welhausen testified that the number of stations in the tannery as well as in the
saddle, moccasin, belt, billfold, and tree factories and possibly in the maintenance
and display factory also, were increased either on March 7 or April 11 in order to
provide additional wage rate steps for employees who might merit increases. No
prior notice to the Union was given before any of these stations were increased.
At the next bargaining conference, on March 9, Respondent handed to the Union
a 17-page document dated February 15, 1960, entitled "Saddle Department Opera-
tion Point, Notch and Stamp Riding Equipment" (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 20).
On the first page of this document, it was explained that "These operations were
combined because of their relationship." 23 It appears that the new operation was
comprised of one and part of another of the seven operations listed on the docu-
ment (Respondent's Exhibit No. 32, Exhibit No. 1) given the Union at the Feb-
ruary 23 meeting and that the information furnished was of the type requested at
that meeting. The new document was not discussed in particular, but Parr pointed
out with respect to all the information furnished that it was insufficient to enable
the Union to ascertain the respects in which the jobs had changed and how Respond-
ent had reached its conclusion with respect to the new standard to be applied. He
requested detailed information as to the jobs whose standards were proposed to be
changed-similar to that previously requested for the changes made in 1959-which
would include the elements of each job and their values before and after the pro-
posed change in standards. He stated that it would be necessary for the Union to
have this information before it could accept or reject the proposed new standards.
Respondent replied that the task of preparing the detailed information sought would
be tremendous and would require the services of several time-study engineers for a
prolonged period. Weiss stated that Respondent wished to put the proposed new
standards into effect, that he was not asking that the Union accept the changes but
only that it withdraw its objection to the changes being put into effect.
At one point during the discussion, the Union suggested that it might send its own
industrial engineers into the plant and Weiss replied, "I don't suppose we can stop you."
Respondent suggested that its proposed new standards be put into effect and that the
Union might then send its time-study engineers to review them. The Union asked,
however, that the proposed changes be held in abeyance until the Union had had an op-
n In making the latter statement, I believe that Welhausen was under the erroneous
impression that the Union had asked for information as to the job elements at the
February 23 conference. This information was in fact requested at the March 9
conference.
22 The proposed rate changes were described in the contract proposals as "base rates"
on "classifications" and there was nothing in the proposals to indicate that they applied
to one of several job stations in a time rate classification rather than to a classification
for a piecework operation (Charging Party's Exhibit No. 15 and Respondent's Exhibit
No 52)
21 There followed a list of 183 items within the operations, their old and new style
numbers, their old standard hours per unit (where the items had been on standard), the
new standard hours per unit, the new code number, and information showing that the
base rate classification remained class 1.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
portunity to study the changes already effected. During the conference the Union was.
told that any information Respondent had in its office regarding standards was avail-
able to it but Parr insisted that the information requested should be furnished "in
an organized fashion." Denman stated that if the Union had any one specific job in
mind, the requested material might be furnished but that it would take too much
time to work up all the information requested 24
At no time during the March 9 conference did Respondent inform the Union
that 2 days earlier it had already put into effect some of the rate increases for piece-
work and time rated employees which had been offered in its contract proposals.
Employees learned of these changes by observing their production sheets posted on
the bulletin boards. Thereafter between March 18 and 22 individual employees
were called into the office of their superintendent and informed what their new
classification rate would be and their new rates were reflected in their first paychecks
thereafter, apparently on April 11.
At the March 30 bargaining conference, Respondent submitted a new contract
proposal which, insofar as here relevant, provided (Charging Party's Exhibit No_
16):
Article III, Section 1.
Wages in the Company's production departments shall be those achieved
under the Company's established standard piece work system, with the hours of
accomplished multiplied by the base rate for each job classification as shown by
the Company's records, which shall reflect the new rates submitted by the Com-
pany to the Union on March 30, 1960. The Company agrees that all base
rates submitted by the Company have been increased not less than three (3)
cents per hour for all employees with more than 90 days of continuous service.
Section 7. Employees regularly on time work shall be paid rates within
ranges now provided according to Company records which shall reflect new
rates submitted by the Company to the Union on March 30, 1960, which new
rates include increases of not less than three (3) cents per hour for all employees
with more than 90 days of continuous service.
The Company in fixing the time rates within such ranges may reward excep-
tional skill, versatility, productivity and efficiency.
This proposal, however, was not discussed at the meeting.
At this meeting Respondent also submitted two documents, one pertaining to
proposed changes as to the piecework employees and the other pertaining to time
rated work. The first (Respondent's Exhibit No. 21), consisting of 18 pages, listed
jobs or operations in the belt, billfold, saddle, moccasin, and saddle tree factories
under their proposed new classifications, and their base rates. The other (Respond-
ent's Exhibit No. 22), consisting of 11 pages, listed time rated jobs in the moccasin,
tannery, billfold, tree and stirrup, belt, design, saddle, warehouse and shipping, and
maintenance and display factories or departments, according to their proposed class
positions and stations , and showed the proposed new rate for each station and in
which stations there would be automatic progression at the end of a year for
satisfactory work and in which ones there would be progression only on a merit basis.
These documents, however, did not show the old or current rates for any of the
jobs; and even a comparison of these document with all previous information sub-
mitted does not enable one to determine the amount of the proposed increase in
rates for many, if not most , of the operations listed.
At the time it submitted its latest contract proposal and information, Weiss stated,
as far as wages were concerned, "this is just about it." Parr stated that the Union
was still not in a position to accept or reject Respondent's "wage offer embodied in
its proposal that the Union accept the standard hours and job standards" proposed
by Respondent "due to the lack of necessary information . . . [to] evaluate exactly
what the proposal meant."
As already noted, a number of increases in rates had already been effected on
March 7. Works Manager Welhausen testified that 34 of the changes included in
the March 30 proposed increases were already in effect.
On April 11, without any notice to the Union of its intention to do so, Respondent
put into effect the remainder of the piecework classification and time rate station
increases which had been proposed on March 30. At the time, Respondent also put
into effect its offer submitted on February 23 to make the base rate for piecework
"There is no substantial dispute as to what occurred at the March 9 conference. The
findings with respect to that conference are based upon the composite testimony of Parr,
Philip Welhausen, and Morgan.
TEN-TAN, INC. 269
.employees the minimum rate. The intent of Respondent in effecting these changes
on April 11, as well as those made on March 7, according to Works Manager Wel-
hausen 's credited testimony , was to give a general wage increase to all employees 25
A wage increase in general terms had been offered in the proposed contract sub-
mitted by Respondent at the end of the November 4, 1959, bargaining conference
(Charging Party's Exhibit No . 15) and in its last proposed contract , which the
union membership had rejected ( Respondent 's Exhibit No. 52 ). But in its Febru-
ary 23 proposals , Respondent had expressly excepted two of its operations from the
proposed increase (Respondent's Exhibit No. 32, Exhibit No. 1).
Also on April 11, Respondent , as already noted, instituted more increases in the
number of stations within the various classes for its time rate workers. Although
Respondent , during negotiations had explained to the Union that its job stations were
set up in a scientific way, based upon specific factors and points relating to those
factors, it had never discussed with the Union any proposal to change the number
of stations , nor had it given the Union any notice of an intention to increase them.
Works Manager Welhausen explained that although the proposed increase in time
rates may have had some bearing on Respondent 's decision to increase the number
of stations , Respondent was principally motivated by a desire to provide "additional
steps in the event an employee merited it."
On the afternoon of the following day, April 12, union representatives brought a
Mr. Loughmiller , one of its time-study engineers from Chicago, to the plant to make
some spot checks on piecework jobs which had been changed and learn more about
Respondent 's standard hour system. During that afternoon and the following
morning, Loughmiller , in cooperation with Respondent 's time-study personnel, made
on-the-job studies of three of the jobs, and examined the records available which
pertained to those jobs.
Thereafter , commencing on May 9, 1960 , and without any further discussion with
the Union regarding wages, Respondent started putting into effect the new or changed
standards which it had theretofore proposed in contract negotiations . On May 16
and on other dates thereafter Respondent has notified the Union of additional new
standards which it wished to put into effect and has subsequent thereto made them
effective without any further notice to the Union ( Respondent 's Exhibit No. 20).
Since May 9 Respondent has also changed time rated jobs to incentive jobs in
accordance with its policy of having as much of its production under incentive
rates as it can . In some instances it has advised the Union in advance that it would
make such changes and in some instances it has not.
7. The alleged solicitation of employees to bargain
individually with Respondent
The General Counsel and the Union contend that Respondent in 1959 and again
in 1960 violated its duty to bargain in good faith by soliciting employees to bargain
individually with it 26
The 1959 conduct consisted of a letter dated May 12, 1959 , written by General
Manager Welhausen and distributed to the employees ( General Counsel 's Exhibit
No. 4). In the letter, Respondent purported to bring the employees up to date on
its negotiations with the Union , stated , inter alia, that the Union had presented a
proposed contract containing "many provisions that would make it very difficult or
impossible for the Company to carry on its business in a competitive and efficient
's But compare the testimony of General Manager C C. Welbausen that all of the
classification changes made in 1960 were based upon Respondent's point - evaluation sys-
tem , that the jobs were reviewed " to see whether they were all correctly classified" ;
that the assignment of points to most of the jobs-based on such factors as skill, length
of time required to acquire skill , difficulty of the job , and fatigue-resulted in their being
placed in higher classifications, and that the purpose of the changes was not to give a
wage increase He further testified that some of the jobs stayed in the same classification
and were not changed in 1960
2i The original complaint was issued on October 29, 1959, and the first amended coin-
plaint on July 1, 1960 As the result of an order by Trial Examiner Buchanan granting
a motion for a bill of particulars to the original complaint, it was alleged that the solicita-
tion occurred in a letter dated May 12, 1959, from General Manager C C. Welhausen to
the employees At the hearing and over the objection of counsel for Respondent, I re-
ceived testimony covered by the allegation in the original complaint with respect to con-
duct occurring in 1960, subsequent to the bill of particulars , which was of the same
general nature as that specifically alleged The occurrences in 1960 were thereafter fully
litigated
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner," listed six of the union demands, called attention to a 10 -week old strike.
then going on in San Antonio , Texas, and ended with the following paragraph:
We hope that the same situation that has arisen in San Antonio will not be the
case in Yoakum. You will be kept informed of further developments. We want
you to know that the management of your Company is still interested in you and'
your family, and if you wish to talk to any of us about these matters at any time,
you are free to do so.
The evidence regarding the 1960 conduct complained of may be summarized as.
follows :
In March 1960 , prior to the March 9 bargaining conference , Respondent's In-
dustrial Relations Manager Denman approached Rudy Neusser, an employee mem-
ber of the bargaining committee , and asked whether the employee bargaining com-
mittee would meet with Respondent's officials , without any outside representatives-
that is, nonemployee union representatives or Respondent 's counsel and chief negoti-
ator-being present. Neusser replied that he would have to obtain the permission
of Irvin Horton, the Local 's business agent. Upon calling the Local's office, he was
unable to obtain such permission at that time and so informed Denman.
At the March 9 bargaining conference the matter was discussed . Works Man-
ager Welhausen explained that "the whole idea was an attempt to get together to
find out what the problems were between management . and the Union to see
what were the stumbling blocks between them." During the discussion Weiss
"charged that the Union was hindering the reaching of an agreement when a simple
request had been made by management that a local meeting take place without the
outsiders and Mr. Horton had stopped it." Parr explained that Irvin Horton had
not stopped the meeting; that he was not in the office when Neusser had called;
and that it was Horton 's brother who had answered the telephone and advised against
such a meeting. Parr stated that if Respondent would make its request then and
there, the Union would state whether or not it objected . Both Weiss and Respond-
ent's officials , however, stated that they were not making any such request.27
Thereafter the Union gave its consent for the employee committee to meet with
Respondent 's officials but cautioned the committee that it could make no agreement
with Respondent . Several such meetings were held. At these meetings the parties
discussed some of the matters about which contract negotiations had been taking
place 28
8. Analysis and conclusions with respect to the refusal to bargain issues
a. Respondent's release of new or changed standards
Of first and foremost importance in the minds of the parties throughout the
bargaining conferences was the reaching of an agreement in regard to the operation
of Respondent 's standard hour plan. As General Manager Welhausen testified,
Respondent 's position on this issue from the first day to the last was that Respondent
should put its new standards into effect whenever they were ready for release and
that if a problem arose as to any specific standard , the Union could discuss it
with Respondent and Respondent would be glad to show the Union the elements of
that particular standard, to make a correction if any inaccuracy should be found,
and to submit its standards to a grievance and arbitration procedure . I believe
that Respondent 's representatives were sincere in their view that this was the only
practical way in which to operate under the standard hour system.
Respondent points out that constant change in methods, procedures , layouts, or
materials, which necessitates the setting of new standards , is an integral part of
Respondent 's standard hour system . At least 1,000 such changes occur annually.
Any such change may affect the number of units a pieceworker can produce in a
standard hour and make the old standards under which he has worked inapplicable
or inaccurate so that his continuation under the old standards will likely result in a
27 The above findings are based upon the undenied testimony of Neusser and Parr, cor-
roborated in part by Philip and C. C Welhausen Neusser testified that the initial request
for it meeting without "outside" representatives being present was about the middle of
March, but in view of the fact that the request was discussed at the .March 9 conference,
I have not accepted that part of his testimony
23 Neusser testified that all of these meetings were held pursuant to requests of Denman
General Manager Welhausen, however, testified that following Respondent's initial re
quest, the committee itself made a number of requests for meetings Since the Union by
that time had consented to the meetings, I find it immaterial that they may ha-0 been
held at the specific request of one or the other of the parties
TEX-TAN, INC. 271
change in his wages-either an increase or decrease, depending on the nature of
the change in operation. To avoid this change in wages, Respondent must put the
employee whose operation has changed on timework-paying him the average of
his piecework wages-until such operation has been retimed or restudied and the
new standard released 29
The Union, by proposing, as it did during negotiations, that Respondent restore
all pieceworkers to the standards under which they operated prior to the certification
was, therefore, not proposing a restoration of the status quo ante but, rather, was
proposing that the employees whose operations had changed continue to work under
a standard which was no longer applicable while the Union studied and bargained
about the accuracy of the standard set by Respondent for the changed operation.
This, it seems to me, would require at least a temporary suspension in the oper-
ation of Respondent's standard hour plan. Respondent, of course, had in the past
upon numerous occasions in this manner voluntarily suspended the operation of its
plan, but this does not mean that good-faith bargaining required it to do so at
the request of the Union.
Respondent argues in its brief that the Union by insisting upon stagnation or
freezing of the standards is in effect demanding a change in pay. I find merit in
this argument. Indeed, if, as Respondent asserts, its standards never change unless
the method, procedure, layout, or material changes, it could be argued that Re-
spondent's statutory obligation not to make changes in its employees' wages without
first bargaining with the Union about them, required Respondent to change its
standards quickly, or at least put the employees temporarily on timework rates equal
to their former piecework rates, when it made changes in its operations. To the
extent that Respondent continued to operate under old standards which no longer
fit the job, it was making changes affecting the employees' wages-a matter about
which the Union might have had cause to complain had it not suggested that this
very action be taken.
It follows from what has been said above that Respondent did not violate its
statutory bargaining obligation by continuing, after the Union's certification, to set
and release new standards on operations which had changed. It follows also that
Respondent was not legally required to freeze its standards for the period of approxi-
mately a year following May 1959, as it did when the Union protested Respondent's
unilateral action with respect to the institution of its new standards, and that Re-
spondent was warranted in resuming its normal practice of releasing new and
changed standards in the spring and summer of 1960 and of temporarily converting
piecework jobs to the time rated jobs and vice versa, in connection with setting and
releasing the appropriate standards.
b. Respondent's failure to furnish the Union with all the information requested
regarding its standards
My conclusion that Respondent was not obliged to freeze the normal operations,
of its standard hour system while giving the Union an opportunity to study the
proposed new standards and bargain about them does not resolve the issue as to
Respondent's duty to furnish the Union with the information requested regarding
those standards. Since, as I have already pointed out, the releasing of new or
changed standards could and sometimes did result in substantial decreases or in-
creases in the employees' pay, the standard hour system and its application were
important subjects of collective bargaining. The Union was clearly entitled to suffi-
cient information to permit it to understand the system and to make proposals for
the correction or prevention of deficiencies and inequities which may have existed
in the operation of the system. Respondent could not lawfully limit the furnishing
of this information to those cases in which individual grievances might be filed.
Taylor Forge & Pipe Works v. N.L.R B, 234 F. 2d 227, 230 (C.A. 7); J. I. Case
Company v. N.L.R.B., 253 F. 2d 149 (C A 7); N.L R.B. v. The Item Company,
220 F. 2d 956 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S. 836.
Respondent did supply the Union with a great deal of data or information re-
quested but never supplied it with a breakdown of the elements and their values on
^ In its information bulletin distributed to the employees about June 1960, Respondent
states that when a change in the operation occurs, the worker will be taken off standard
and put on timework until a new standard is set and that "no operator will be allowed
to use the old standard until a new standard is set" (General Counsel's Exhibit No 18,
p 5) Respondent apparently was describing the manner'in which it expected its standard
hour plan to operate in the future, or its operation in theory The record is replete with
instances in which the plan did not operate in the manner described in the bulletin,
Numerous employees had performed changed operations under the old standards
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the job operations whose standards were being changed, or even with the old stand-
ards themselves in many instances. As Respondent's time-study engineer conceded,
it is necessary to have this type of information for the jobs before and after the
changes in order to evaluate the changed standards and determine whether they are
correct. Respondent's position throughout most of the bargaining conferences was
that it would be glad to furnish such information as to any specific standard about
which a problem might arise but that to furnish it for all the standards requested
would be a Herculean task which should not be required of it. Finally, at the
March 9, 19'60, conference, when the Union's proposal to send its own time-study
engineer to the plant was being discussed, Respondent told the Union that any
information regarding standards it desired was available to it in Respondent's
office 30 The Union, as already noted, replied that to be helpful, the information
would have to be furnished in an organized fashion 31
I think there can be no question but that Respondent could not satisfy its obliga-
tion to furnish the information regarding standards merely by giving the Union ac-
cess to all its records or even permitting the Union to make copies of them. But
this interpretation need not be given to Respondent's offer. When the Union's time-
study engineer, accompanied by Union Representatives Parr, McCord, and Horton,
went to the plant on April 12 and 13, they were accorded every courtesy and shown
whatever information they requested which was available. They had selected about
six jobs whose standards had changed for spot checks and did check about half
of these. The other three jobs were in the process of being changed again and old
standards were apparently not available. The difficulties encountered by the Union
in making the spot checks on April 12 and 13 were inherent in the nature of the
standard hour system and not due to any lack of cooperation or bad faith on the
part of Respondent's officials.
The General Counsel, in his brief, disclaims any contention that Respondent has
a duty to photostat or otherwise duplicate the standards information requested by the
Union. He states: "All that is necessary . . . is that the Respondent enter into
reasonable arrangements with the Union so that it may be made available for them
for intelligent examination (or duplication by them.)" 32 I find no basis on the record
before me for concluding that Respondent has refused to do so. Nor do I find any
basis for concluding that Respondent, if requested, would have refused to make this
information available for inspection in an organized fashion or that it would have
refused to explain any of its records which might on their face be unintelligible to a
union representative.33 Accordingly, despite Respondent's stated position that it
30 General Manager C. C. Welhausen testified that he believed it had been Respondent's
position "all the time" that the Union could see any of Respondent's records it wished,
including information about standards, and make transcripts of it and that Respondent
had so informed the Union across the bargaining table early in the negotiations Although
I doubt that any such offer specifically relating to standards had been made prior to the
March 9 conference, clearly Respondent had made a suggestion of this nature in response
to the Union's requests in September 1959 for a great mass of information and data per-
taining to Respondent's profit-sharing program, the jobs and performance records of saddle
department employees, and a seniority list, by departments, of all the employees (Respond-
ent's Exhibits Nos 27, 28, 29, and 30). And the Union's business agent, Horton, had
apparently agreed that an inspection at the plant of the records needed for the informa-
tion then requested would satisfy the Union's requirements (Respondent's Exhibit No 27)
31At the hearing, after Parr testified that the Union was still seeking the standards
information it had theretofore requested, Weiss volunteered that "all he has to do is to
go to Mr McClain's office and Mr Welhausen and ask for any information or data he
needs and he may look at it" and that the Union "may at its expense make such copies
as it cares to make." When interrogated as to whether Weiss' offer made at the hearing
would satisfy the Union's requirements, Parr replied that the offer would have "to be
defined considerably," that it "wouldn't be of any help to negotiations" for the informa-
tion "to be given in 49 boxes" (referring to 49 boxes of records in the hearing room) ;
that the records would have to be presented "in such a fashion that it will dispatch
negotiations "
33 Cf Southern States Equipment Corporation, 124 NLRB 833 , George Hick, d/b/a
Yakima Frozen Foods, 130 NLRB 1269.
33 An inspection of some of the time-study observation sheets and job operation cards
introduced in evidence makes it apparent that some of the handwriting might need de-
ciphering and the entries interpreted or explained (see e g, Charging Party's Exhibits
Nos. 1 to 6(k) and Respondent's Exhibits Nos 1 to 16). Respondent argues in its brief
that the technical data involved was largely over the heads of the union representatives
with whom Respondent was dealing and that they were not qualified by training or
TEX-TAN, INC. 273
would be futile to furnish the detailed information requested because of the great
mass of material involved and the day-to -day changes taking place in its operations
and standards as well as because of its lack of confidence in the ability of the union
negotiators intelligently to evaluate the material even if furnished, I find that the
General Counsel and Union have not established that Respondent refused to bargain
in good faith by failing to furnish the detailed standards information requested.
But this does not mean that the Union was not also acting in good faith in re-
questing that the information be furnished it. The information, in an organized
fashion, was important to it in representing the employees in an intelligent manner.
I find no basis for concluding that the Union, in making its requests for this infor-
mation was bent on wrecking the standard hour system, as Respondent alleges.
c. Requests for information as to job rate classifications and the rate changes
effected by Respondent in 1960
I turn now to the question whether Respondent's failure to furnish all of the job
rate classification information requested by the Union and the changes effected by it
on March 7 and April 11, 1960, constituted a failure by Respondent to bargain in
good faith.
Although the Union during the early bargaining conferences in 1959 and again
on March 9, 1960, requested information as to the points assigned to each factor
considered in placing jobs under their respective classifications-at least with respect
to the piecework jobs-Respondent concededly never furnished this information. In
failing to supply it, Respondent did not contend that the data for its point evaluation
system was too voluminous, as it did with respect to the requested standards records,
and did not suggest that the Union come to its plant to obtain such information.
Apparently its only explanation for not supplying the information was that its point
evaluation system was scientifically set up and that the union representatives prob-
ably would not be able to understand it. I do not regard this explanation as a valid
excuse for Respondent 's failure even to attempt to present and explain its system.
The requested information was needed in order to enable the Union to understand
the basis for Respondent's placement of the various jobs in their respective classifi-
cations and to bargain intelligently with respect to the classification rates. Taylor
Forge & Pipe Works v. N L.R.B., 234 F. 2d 227 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 352 U S. 942.
On March 7 and April 11, 1960, Respondent put into effect the reclassifications
of both its piecework and time rated employees which it had theretofore offered
the Union in contract proposals, thereby effecting wage increases of 3 cents or
more for its employees. It also increased the rates for two of the operations which
it had expressly stated in its February 23 contract proposal, it was not increasing.
In addition,' it made the base rates the guaranteed minimum rates. It took these
steps without any prior notice to the Union of its intention to do so. Although
at the February 23 bargaining conference, it had informed the Union that it wished
to put in effect "at the earliest possible moment" certain new standards in its
saddle department, it expressed no desire or need to effect early changes in its
rate classifications. At the time it increased the hourly rates of pay for its time-
workers, it also increased the number of stations within the classifications for
those jobs, thereby creating more opportunities for progressive rate increases but
it did not consult the Union about these changes or even inform the Union of
what it had done. Moreover, it appears that Respondent was not entirely frank
with the Union about what it had done, for, as Works Manager Welhausen testified
at the hearing, 34 of the classification changes which Respondent offered to the
Union in its March 30, 1960, contract proposals had already been put into effect.
Respondent asserts that an impasse had been reached when the union membership
in January rejected its then contract proposals, and that this justified it in putting
the classification changes into effect. I cannot accept the contention that an im-
passe had been reached in January or even on March 7 when Respondent started
the reclassification of jobs, for on the latter date Respondent had not yet furnished
the Union all the pertinent data which it had promised at the February 23 conference
to furnish and on March 30, it presented to the Union what purported to be a
new contract proposal. Furthermore, as stated above, some of the changes effected
by Respondent had not theretofore been offered the Union. But even if an apparent
impasse had been reached, this would not have excused Respondent's action, for
experience to intelligently evaluate it. I am not convinced that this was true, at least
with respect to Chief Negotiator Parr . But even if it were true , Respondent , in my view,
would nevertheless have an obligation to attempt to explain its records to these repre-
sentatives upon their request.
630849-62-vol . 134-19
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent had not yet furnished the Union the point evaluation information which
would have enabled it to bargain more intelligently about the wage rate classifications
and which might have increased the chances of an agreement being reached. "M"
System, Inc., Mobile Home Division Mid-States Corporation, 129 NLRB 527.
In concluding that Respondent's conduct described above is inconsistent with the
requirements of good-faith bargaining, I am aware of the fact that the Union's
continued insistence upon being furnished with voluminous standards data, and its
failure to take advantage of Respondent's offer at the March 9 bargaining conference
to make all its standards data available to the Union at Respondent's offices, may
well have precluded an agreement being reached anyway. Nevertheless, I do not
believe that such possibility or probability should relieve Respondent of its obliga-
tion to satisfy the requirements of good-faith bargaining in other respects.
It is possible that if Respondent had informed the Union of its reasons for desir-
ing to put the rate increases into effect immediately,34 and had sought the Union's
permission to do so, the Union might not have objected and might even have wel-
comed this action, particularly if it was done without prejudice to the Union's right
to bargain for further increases if those appeared to the Union to be warranted
after receiving the information it had requested.35 Indeed, the Union had indicated
in July 1959, when the reclassification of 11 saddle factory operations was proposed
by Respondent, that it did not want to keep the employees from getting an increase.
The manner in which Respondent went about effecting the reclassifications in 1960-
merely putting them into effect without advance notice of its intention to do so
or of any urgent necessity to do so, and without mentioning the Union to the
employees when informing them of their increases-was in disparagement of the
Union's position as their bargaining representative 36 I note also that some of the
changes effected-such as those making the base rate the guaranteed minimum rate
and the creation of additional wage rate stations for time rated workers-were
more favorable to the employees than the proposals theretofore rejected by the
union membership in January. In all the circumstances, I am constrained to con-
clude that Respondent's actions discussed above violated the proscriptions of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
d. The solicitations for individual bargaining
Likewise having a tendency to disparage and undermine the, Union's bargaining
position was the letter distributed by Respondent to its employees in May 1959,
listing and criticizing some of. the Union's demands and inviting the individual em-
ployees to talk with management about these bargaining matters. So also was
Industrial Relations Manager Denman's invitation to the employee members of the
bargaining committee in March 1960 to meet with management representatives,
without the presence of outside union or company representatives, for the purpose
of discussing subjects about which the parties had been unable to agree. It is not
that the latter idea should be criticized. The Union itself, in later giving its con-
sent to such meetings, apparently welcomed this approach as a possible way of set-
tling the differences. The vice in Respondent's action was its failure first to ask
the designated bargaining representative's permission to try such an approach. Ac-
cordingly, Respondent's endeavors to treat with individual employees, in disregard
of the bargaining representative, must be regarded as "a violation of the essential
principle of collective bargaining." Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. N.L.R.B.,
321 U.S. 678, 684.
e. The alleged proposals designed to frustrate and abort collective bargaining
There remains one other type of employer action alleged in the complaint to
constitute bad-faith bargaining. This was Respondent's assertion during several
meetings in the latter part of 1959 that if the Union would accept all of Respondent's
other contract proposals, Respondent would make the Union a small wage conces-
sion and its further assertion that it would refuse to discuss wages until the Union
accepted those other proposals. As we have seen, Respondent did not adhere to
this asserted position and even during the meetings at which that position was
34 Respondent indicated at the hearing , but did not inform the Union, that it needed to
put increases into effect in order to retain employees whose services it was losing to
competitors
35 Cf. N .L R B. v . Crompton -Highland Mills, Inc, 337 U S. 217, 224-225; N .L.R B. v.
Bradley Washfountain Co, 192 F. 2d 144, 150 (CA 7)
ae Cf May Department Stores d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v . N.L R B ., 326 U . S. 876,
382-385; Langlade Veneer Products Corporation , 118 NLRB 985.
THE HOWE SCALE COMPANY 275
stated, Respondent did bargain about other matters, including the standard hour
system in general. In these circumstances, I need not decide whether Respondent's
bargaining technique, if adhered to, would have been consistent wtih good-faith
bargaining. I am convinced that in the situation here involved, it was not bad-
faith bargaining.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, my
Recommended Order, among other things, will direct that Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will require that
Respondent bargain with the Union, upon request, as the exclusive representative
of its employees within the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
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. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
is and has been at all times since its certification on March 16, 1959, the exclusive
representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
2. By failing and refusing to furnish information requested by the Union as to
how its job rate classifications were arrived at; by changing the classifications for
piecework jobs and the minimum base rates of pay for those jobs and for timework
jobs without notice to the Union of its intention to do so and without furnishing
the requested information pertaining to the classifications of the piecework jobs;
by increasing the number of job rate stations for its timeworkers without notice to
or consultation with the Union; and by soliciting employees to bargain individually
with it, Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit and has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct, by warning its credit manager trainee that his wife's
union activities would have a bearing on his chances for advancement with Re-
spondent, and by threatening another employee that she would be the first to be
laid off if she did not abandon the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Howe Scale Company and District No. 8, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-3827.
November 15,1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27,1961, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider 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 Intermediate Report.
134 NLRB No. 32.