Proctor & Gamble Mfg., Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 953
The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company and
Independent Oil & Chemical Workers, Inc. and
Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of Kansas
City, Kansas and Independent Oil & Chemical
Workers of Dallas and Independent Oil &
Chemical Workers. Cases 29-CA-5366, 29-
CA-5410, 29-CA-5786, 29-CA-5787, 29-CA-
5789, 29-CA-6030, 29-CA-5785, 29-CA-5788,
29-CA-5874, 29-CA-5783, and 29-CA-6055
April 4, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On August 31, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ness issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondelrt filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and the
briefs' and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, which
is modified to reflect the amended remedy.
AMENDED REMEDY
The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia,
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act by discontinuing its longstanding
practices of making its premises available for con-
tract negotiations and of paying plant employees
who serve on the bargaining committee for work-
time lost during negotiations in retaliation for the
Unions' exercise of their right to select their bar-
gaining representatives. To remedy these viola-
tions, the Administrative Law Judge recommended
i The Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby
denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have
carefully examined the record ad find no basis for reversing his findings
For the reasons stated by the Administrative Law Judge. i.e., that de-
ferral would "fragmentize the issues," Member Penllo would not defer
to the arbitration process the issues of granting leave to and paying nego-
tiating comnlittee menlbers for tinme spent in negotiations. However,
Member Penello reaffirms his adherence to the sound principles of ol-
lyer Insulated Wire. .4 Gul/ and Weistern Systems Co.. 192 NLRIB 837
(1971) See his dissenting opinion in General Amer can Transportation (or-
poration. 228 NRB 80()8 I(477) and the majority opinion in Roy Rolhin-
son. Inc. d/hba Roy Rohinson Chesvrol 228 NLRB 828 (1977)
248 NLRB No. 119
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from refusing to allow bargaining in its plants and
refusing to pay employees who are on the bargain-
ing committees at their own plants for worktime
spent on negotiations.
Respondent's action in insisting that bargaining
take place off of plant premises, and its refusal to
pay employee-members of the Unions' bargaining
committees for worktime spent in negotiations at
their home plant represent unilateral departures
from practices which had been maintained for dec-
ades, and have caused unnecessary expenditures for
the Unions and a loss of pay to the employees in
question. In order to fully remedy the violations re-
ferred to above, therefore, we shall order the Re-
spondent to reimburse the Unions for money they
expended for the rental of outside facilities for bar-
gaining and to pay employees who were on their
Union's bargaining team at their employing plant
for worktime lost while negotiating.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company,
Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(a) and (b)
and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(a) Reimburse the Unions for sums each ex-
pended for the use of off-plant facilities for bar-
gaining during the 1976-77 negotiations at Respon-
dent's plants in Port Ivory, New York; Kansas
City, Kansas; Dallas, Texas; and Baltimore, Mary-
land.
"(b) Make employees of the four above-men-
tioned plants whole for any loss of pay which they
may have suffered as a result of spending working
time on bargaining for a new contract at their em-
ploying plant during the 1976-77 negotiations."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
3 It is well established that the Board has broad discretion in fashioning
remedies to undo the effects of unlawful conduct and to make employees
whole for losses suffered as a result of unfair labor practices See
.Â¥ L.R.B. . Joseph J Strong, d/h/a Strong Roofing and Insulating Co., 393
U S. 357 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. Florida Medical Center. Inc.., d/b/a Lauder-
dale Lakes General Hospital. 576 F.2d 666 (5th Cir 1978)1 N.LR.B. .
Warehousetnenns ULnion Losal 17. International L.ongshoremen s d Warehou-
semenIs Union [Los .4ngeles Bv-Products Co.], 451 F 2d 1240 (9th Cir
1971)
954 DECISIONS OF NATI{ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet and bargain
collectively with each of the labor organiza-
tions named below as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit at our plant indicated, even where
the bargaining committee of the Union in-
cludes persons not employed in the bargaining
unit as described after the respective labor or-
ganization below:
(a) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers,
Inc.
All production and maintenance employ-
ees at the Port Ivory plants, including cleri-
cals, laboratory employees, and fire inspec-
tors, but excluding confidential employees,
professional employees, the nurse, guards,
all managers and employees on leave of ab-
sence due to lack of work and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers
All employees employed at our Baltimore
plant exclusive of the plant manager, super-
visory employees, staff employees perform-
ing work of a confidential nature, and em-
ployees on a leave of absence due to lack of
work.
(c) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of
Kansas City, Kansas
All employees employed at the Kansas
City, Kansas, plant and Kansas City Ware-
house, exclusive of the plant manager all
other members of supervision, the plant
manager's secretary, general production
manager's secretary, the personnel manag-
er's secretary, the nurse, and employees on a
leave of absence due to lack of work..
(d) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of
Dallas
All employees, including the Fire Marshal
and the employees in any outside warehouse
operated by the Dallas plant, excluding
plant manager's secretary, operation manag-
er's secretaries, industrial relations manager's
secretary, the cashier, other staff employees
performing work of a confidential nature,
professional employees, guards, watchmen,
supervisors as defined in the LMRA, and
employees on a leave of absence due to lack
of work.
WE WILL NOT engage in conduct designed
to unlawfully interfere with the selection of
the bargaining committee even where the
committee includes persons not employed in
the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily deny uncom-
pensated leave and/or vacation time to em-
ployees where the purpose of such leave is to
attend and participate in contract negotiations
as an invited representative of the Union
which is the bargaining representative at an-
other of our plants then engaging in negotia-
tions for a collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT refuse to sign an instrument
embodying the terms and conditions of an
agreed-upon collective-bargaining agreement
because the instrument is to be or is signed by
the members of the union negotiating commit-
tee regardless of whether they are employed in
the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT suspend or otherwise disci-
pline employees for engaging in protected con-
certed activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the employees
would receive a less favorable contract if the
union negotiating committee included persons
not employed in the plant bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights under Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse the labor organizations
named above for sums each expended for the
use of off-plant facilities for bargaining during
the 1976-77 negotiations for contracts cover-
ing employees of our plants in Port Ivory,
Kansas City, Dallas, and Baltimore.
WE WILL make employees of the above-
named plants whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of spending
working time on bargaining for a new contract
at their employing plant during the 1976-77
negotiations.
WE WILL make whole Omer Jones for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
our discrimination practiced against him, with
interest. WE WILL expunge from the personnel
files the written data relating to such disciplin-
ary action.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTUR-
ING COMPANY
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 955
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated proceedings were held before me in Brook-
lyn, New York, on the General Counsel's complaints,
consolidated complaints, and answers filed thereto. Hear-
ing was held for 14 days during a period between April
17 through May 31, 1978. These proceedings involve
four of the Respondent's plants located at Port Ivory,
New York, Baltimore, Maryland, Kansas City, Kansas,
and Dallas, Texas. In general, the issues litigated were
whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),(3), and
(5) of the Act. The central issue stems from the attempts
of each of the Unions involved to include members of
the other unions as part of its negotiating team in con-
nection with the 1976-77 contract renewal negotiations.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent had
erected unlawful roadblocks to the Unions' attempts and
that these impediments are proscribed by the Act.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, and after due consider-
ation of the oral arguments and the exhaustive and help-
ful briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent,2 I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent maintains its principal offices in Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, with plants located in various States of the
United States, including plants in Port Ivory, New York;
Baltimore, Maryland; Kansas City; Kansas, and Dallas,
Texas. The specific plants named are those involved in
this proceeding. The parties agree, and I find, the Re-
spondent meets the Board's jurisdictional standards and
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties agree, and I find, the following are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, and each is the bargaining representative for the
employees in the plant indicated in parenthesis: Indepen-
dent Oil & Chemical Workers, Inc. (the Port Ivory
plant); Independent Oil & Chemical Workers (the Balti-
more plant); Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of
Kansas City, Kansas (the Kansas City plant); and Inde-
pendent Oil & Chemical Workers of Dallas (the Dallas
plant).
In this Decision, each of the Unions mentioned above
will be referred to, where appropriate, merely as the
Union, or as the Union with a parenthetical reference to
the plant where it represents the employees; e.g., Union
(Port Ivory).
An unopposed motion by Respondent to correct the transcript was
granted by my order dated August 10, 1978.
A reply brief filed by the Respondent has also been considered.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Complaints
Unfair labor practice charges initially were filed by the
respective Unions in the Board's Regional Offices in
Brooklyn, New York (Region 29); Baltimore, Maryland
(Region 5); Kansas City Kansas (Region 17); and Fort
Worth, Texas (Region 16). Thereafter, the unfair labor
practice charges were transferred to the Brooklyn Re-
gional Office (Region 29) from where the complaints
were issued. Below are listed each of the unfair labor
practice charges, the dates filed, the dates of the issuance
of the complaints and of consolidation, where appropri-
ate. The case number and date appearing in parenthesis is
that given to the charge upon transfer and the date of
transfer to Region 29. The letters A through E indicate
the companion cases with which each was consolidated:
29-CA-5366, 12/10/76, 7/22/77 A
29-CA-5410, 1/17/77, 7/22/77 A
5-CA-8206, 10/6/76 (29-CA-5783, 7/22/77), 11/
11/77 B
16-CA-6909, 11/26/76 (29-CA-5785, 7/22/77),
11/9/77 (amended complaint 3/20/78 C)
17-CA-7367, 11/3/76 (29-CA-5786, 7/22/77),
11/9/77 (amended complaint 12/29/77 D)
17-CA-7429, 12/8/76 (29-CA-5787, 7/22/77),
11/9/77 (amended complaint 12/29/77 D)
16-CA-7001, 2/1/77 (29-CA-5788, 7/22/77), 11/
9/77 (amended complaint 3/30/78 C)
17-CA-7471, 1/24/77 (29-CA-5789, 7/22/77),
11/9/77 (amended complaint 12/29/77 D)
16-CA-7201, 5/9/77 (29-CA-5874, 8/31/77), 11/
9/77 (amended complaint 3/20/78 C)
17-CA-7936, 10/25/77 (29-CA-6030, 11/28/77),
12/21/77 (amended complaint 12/29/77 D)
5-CA-8748, 7/13/77 (29-CA-6055, 12/1/77), 12/
15/77 E
B. Background
Each of the Unions involved is an independent labor
organization and has been the bargaining representative
for a number of years for the employees at the respective
plant. There have been separate bargaining units. Each
plant contract is made only with the Union at that par-
ticular plant. Each of the Unions is recognized as the
bargaining agent only at its particular plant. The issues
giving rise to this proceeding grew out of negotiations
beginning at Port Ivory in 1976, until the Baltimore ne-
gotiations were completed in December 1977. The
common thread in the four plants is that the Union in
each plant, beginning with Port Ivory, planned and at-
tempted to have employees from the other three plants
participate as members of the negotiating team at each
location.
In 1968, a number of the independent unions represent-
ing employees at various of the Respondent's plants
formed what was termed an Amalgamation-Indepen-
dent Oil and Chemical Workers, herein called the Amal-
gamated. The charter members consisted of four unions.
In 1971, there was a change in the membership and it
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then consisted of the four unions involved in this pro-
ceeding. The record clearly established that a aim of
the Amalgamation was and is to establish a mutliplant
unit. 3 The Respondent admittedly is opposed to multi-
plant bargaining. Membership in the Amalgamated is
confined to unions representing the Respondent's em-
ployees and its subsidiaries. It meets three times a year.
At an Amalgamated meeting held in Dallas in Septem-
ber 1975, the four Unions decided that, in the upcoming
contract negotiations with the Respondent, each Union
would have a member from each of the other three
Unions as a member of its bargaining team. The pro-
posed plan was published by the Union (Port Ivory) and
distributed to its members in October 1975 (G.C. Exh. 4)
It reads, inter alia, as follows:
each will participate in the bargain [sic] at each of
the four plants. The Amalgamation will bear the ex-
pense of the Amalgamated bargaining team. . .. By
having the other plants of the Amalgamation par-
ticipate in the bargaining we move closer to the
purpose of the Amalgamation, to sit down and bar-
gain our common contract.
Separate and apart from the Amalgamated, there also
exists a council. The council consists of a group of nine
independent unions representing employees at various of
the Respondent's plants around the country. it meets
once a year for the purpose of exchanging information of
common interest. The four Unions involved herein all
belong to the council.
The contracts at the four plants had differen't expira-
tion dates. In the past, contracts were negotiated at each
plant between plant management and the union bargain-
ing committee composed of employees of the particular
plant. Occasionally, the Union involved would have its
attorney present. Negotiation sessions have been held at
the plant and the union bargaining committee employees
were paid by the Respondent for the time spent in nego-
tiations during working hours. At some point before or
during the 1976-77 negotiations, the Unions let it be
3 The Amalgamated's constitution (Resp. Exh. 39) provides, inter alia,
as follows:
Article II, Purpose, Sec. I "To develop a spirit of cooperation and
to promote mutual understanding between its members for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, and to aid in collective negotiations."
Article 9, Committees
Sec. 2 Bargaining Committee
* . * es
B. Shall be duty of the Bargaining Committee to attempt to estab-
lish a multi-plant unit or units, and to conduct all negotiations with
the employers and shall report their progress to the local organiza-
tions making all recommendations it deems necessary.
G. Pending the establishment of a multi-plant unit or units, as con-
templated by the above sub-sections the bargaining committee shall
be authorized to, upon request, delegate a bargaining representative
or representatives to any of the participating local unions for the
purpose of aiding or assisting in local negotiations.
known to their respective plant management that they in-
tended to or may have "outsiders" present as members of
the respective Union's negotiating team. 4 In each of the
four plants the Respondent refused to permit outsiders to
come into the plant for contract negotiations for reasons
described later in this Decision. Thus, the 1976-77 nego-
tiations were conducted off the plant premises and the
bargaining committee employees were not paid for the
time spent in negotiations. Common in each of the com-
plaints directed to the plants involved herein, the Gener-
al Counsel has alleged the Respondent has refused to
permit contract negotiations to be held on the plant
premises and refused to pay its employees for time spent
in bargaining, contrary to past practice, with an object of
forcing the Union not to have outsiders on its negotiat-
ing team. The General Counsel also contends that the
Respondent unlawfully denied union and/or vacation
leave to employees to attend contract negotiations at the
other plants. Other unlawful conduct is also alleged per-
taining to that particular plant. No contention is made of
bad-faith bargaining concerning substantive issues during
the bargaining.
C. The Port Ivory Plant
The Port Ivory consolidated complaint alleges, in sub-
stance, as follows:
Paragraph 10. During June through September 1976,
Respondent's Port Ivory plant manager, Armin Scharfe,
unlawfully threatened employees.
Paragraph 11. Respondent, in October and November
1976,5 refused to permit contract negotiations to be held
on its premises and refused to pay its employees for the
time spent in bargaining during working hours with an
object of forcing the Union not to have outsiders partici-
pate on its bargaining team.
Paragraph 12. On October 6, Respondent refused to
continue to bargain if outsiders were present and partici-
pated on the Union's bargaining committee.
Paragraph 13. In September through November, Re-
spondent denied union leave and/or vacation leave to its
employees at the Baltimore, Dallas, and Kansas City
plants while simultaneously refusing to permit the Port
Ivory negotiations to be held outside of normal working
hours, with an object of preventing said employees from
participating in the Port Ivory negotiations.
Paragraph 14. During December and in January 1977,
Respondent denied union leave to its Port Ivory employ-
ees while simultaneously refusing to permit the Kansas
City negotiations to be held outside of normal working
hours, with an object of preventing said employees from
participating in the Kansas City negotiations.
Paragraph 15. In December and January 1977, Re-
spondent's Port Ivory personnel manager, Robert Jones,
unlawfully threatened employees.
Since the 1930's, the Union (Port Ivory) has been the
bargaining representative of the employees at that facili-
4 "Outsiders" as referred to in this Decision is the term used by the
parties and applies to employees of the Respondent's other plants sitting
in on contract negotiations at another plant.
5 All dates in this section of the Decision refer to 1976, unless other-
wise indicated.
---
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 957
ty. 6 The most recent contract which preceded the 1976
negotiations ran from November 18, 1973, until Novem-
ber 18, 1976. The Port Ivory plant was the first of the
four plants where negotiations began for a new contract.
1. The negotiations and the participation of
outsiders
Contract negotiations in the past had always been con-
ducted in the plant during working hours and employees
on the Union's negotiating committee had been paid for
the worktime lost in negotiations. The entire union nego-
tiating team was comprised of Port Ivory plant employ-
ees with the Union's attorney occasionally in attendance.
Ken McCauley has been the union president for the past
11 years. Philip Robinson has been the Port Ivory divi-
sion manager and in overall charge of the Port Ivory
plant. These two were the chief spokesmen for their rep-
resentative parties in the 1976 negotiations. Robinson
was assisted by Bob Jones, Port Ivory's personnel man-
ager. Robinson worked directly under R. M. Womack,
manager of maufacturing, package soap division, located
in Cincinnati. In labor relations matters, Robinson con-
sulted with and received advice from Bob Larsen, on the
Respondent's industrial relations staff in Cincinnati, At
least by the early part of 1976, Robinson was aware that
the Union intended to bring in outsiders to serve on its
negotiating committee and believed this was a ploy de-
signed to move the collective-bargaining process towards
a multiplant bargaining relationship which it opposed.
The Respondent's opposition to multiplant bargaining
was well known to the Union. Before the negotiations
began, Robinson consulted with Larsen concerning the
Union's intentions to bring in outsiders. According to
Robinson, Larsen advised him the Union had a right to
have outsiders on its negotiating team and, since the
Union would be changing the bargaining procedures by
bringing in outsiders, the Respondent could also make
changes in the ground rules for bargaining. Larsen also
reminded him of the plant security rule concerning visi-
tors to the plant. 7
Prior to the negotiations, Robinson attempted, without
success, to induce the Union to bargain only with its
Port Ivory employees on the committee as in the past.
The Union refused to name the outsiders who would
participate on the Union's negotiation team. In the latter
part of September, Robinson told the Union that if it in-
sisted on having outsiders on its committee he would not
permit negotiations to be held on the plant premises. He
also stated the Respondent would not pay the employees
for the working time lost during negotiation sessions.
6 The bargaining unit, as agreed to by the parties and as described in
the contract, is as follows:
All production and maintenance employees at the Port Ivory
plants, including clericals, laboratory employees, and fire inspectors,
but excluding confidential employees, professional employees, the
nurse, guards, all managers and employees on leave of absence due
to lack of work and supervisors as defined in the Act. There are
about 1,000 employees in the bargaining unit.
' The Respondent provided what is called a guided tour for visitors to
the plant. This applied also to employees of the Respondent's other
plants. Its policy did not permit non-Port Ivory employees to wander
around the plant by themselves. In past negotiations, union attorneys
were permitted access in the plant.
McCauley then said that since the Respondent would not
permit the outsider members of its negotiating team in
the plant, negotiations would then have to be held out-
side the plant. McCauley also proposed the parties meet
on weekends and after working hours, but Robinson re-
fused. I am convinced, based on the entire record, that
had not the outsider issue surfaced negotiations would
have proceeded, as in the past, in the plant with employ-
ees being paid for working time lost.8
Negotiations began on October 6. After 14 sessions
agreement was reached and a contract was signed by the
parties on November 16. All negotiation meetings were
held in a motel, the parties sharing the cost. Employees
were not paid for the working time lost. At the first ses-
sion on Wednesday, October 6, three outsiders were pre-
sent-Ray Bramble (Baltimore), Hoyt Middlebrook
(Dallas), and Omer Jones (Kansas City).9 McCauley had
contacted officials of the three other Unions and asked
them to have a representative attend. This was the only
meeting in which outsiders participated. At the outset of
the October 6 meeting, McCauley introduced the three
non-Port Ivory employees as members of the Union's ne-
gotiating team and said they were present to help negoti-
ate a Port Ivory contract. Robinson then posed a series
of prepared written questions to each of the three outsid-
ers. He had received these prepared questions from
Larsen. The questions concerned their role and purpose
in participating on the committee. He also asked how
they were selected and by whom. ° Some of the ques-
tions were not answered but Robinson was told they
were there as members of the Port Ivory team to negoti-
ate a contract for the Port Ivory team and that was their
sole purpose. McCauley also told Robinson that the addi-
tions to the Union's committee were not limited to the
three specific individuals in attendance. After Robinson's
interrogation, he adjourned the meeting and told the
Union he wanted time to study the ramifications of the
presence of outsiders at the negotiations." The next
meeting was held on October 12-3 working days later.
Outsiders did not participate in any of the remaining ne-
gotiation sessions. McCauley testified he made a number
of attempts, without success, to determine ahead of time
when the next meeting would be so he could notify the
other plants to have a representative present. Canney, a
union committeeman, also testified the Respondent
a Although Robinson would have it appear that the Union proposed
offsite negotiations and that he assented, it is clear the Union had no al-
ternative lest it submit to the exclusion of outsiders. When asked by the
General Counsel if the Respondent would have permitted negotiations to
be held in the plant as in the past had the Union announced only its at-
torney would be present rather than outsiders, he replied, "I don't know
how it would have come out. We were in as I was describing it, a dy-
namic situation where we were trying to accommodate each others need.
I'm not sure where we would have ended up because we found an
accommodation at least some other way " As noted earlier, before nego-
tiations began, Robinson had urged the Union to retain its negotiating
team composed exclusively of Port Ivory employees and obviously
wished to continue the bargaining procedures as in the past 30 years
I Bramble switched shifts with another employee in the Baltimore
plant in order to attend. Middlebrook was on vacation at the time. Jones
had been refused union leave He took a night flight and was able to
attend without losing time from work More about his tribulations, infra.
o G.C Exh. 11
' Larsen had told Robinson to seek advice if the answers were not
fully responsive.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not agree to a meeting more than 2 days hence.
The record does not support their contentions. Negotia-
tion sessions were held on October 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25,
and 26, and on November 1, 3, 4, 9, 10 , 11, and 16. By
mutual consent, a number of meetings were held on the
succeeding day. And at the October 19 meeting, Person-
nel Manager Jones suggested meeting next on October
25, 6 days later. The Union agreed. At the October 26
meeting, Robinson suggested meeting on November 1, 6
days later. The Union agreed. At the Monday, Novem-
ber 1 meeting, McCauley asked when the parties could
again meet. Robinson stated he would not be available
that Friday. The parties then agreed to meet Wednesday,
November 3. At the November 4 meeting, McCauley
suggested the parties next meet on November 9. The Re-
spondent agreed. 12 Nonetheless, McCauley did commu-
nicate with the presidents of the other Unions in order to
have a representative from their respective plants present
in the Port Ivory negotiations at given negotiation meet-
ings. They were unable to get leave.
2. Efforts of outsiders to attend the Port Ivory
negotiations
a. Baltimore
The Baltimore contract (1974-77) provided for leave
for union business. Section 6, article XVI, reads as fol-
lows: "By agreement between the Plant Manager and the
Union, leaves of absence without pay up to thirty (30)
days per year may be granted for the purpose of attend-
ing to Union business." (G.C. Exh. 23.) The preamble
refers to the "Union" as the contracting labor organiza-
tion. This provision has been in preceding contracts since
1947. In past years, the practice had been for the Union
to submit a written request for union leave. The request
identified the persons for whom the leave was requested,
the period involved and it also included the statement,
"for the purpose of attending to Union business." The
form request did not describe the particular "Union busi-
ness." Nor did the Baltimore plant management inquire
as to the nature of the union business. In past years,
union representatives were given union leave to attend
Amalgamation and Council meetings, to meet with gov-
ernment officials and to attend to its local union affairs.
But never before had leave been requested to attend ne-
gotiations for or on behalf of another labor organization.
On September 27, Donnellon submitted a union leave re-
quest on behalf of another union official and himself to
be off on October 5 and 6. (G.C. Exh. 25.)' a On Septem-
ber 29, Personnel Manager Capshaw told Donnellon he
must know the nature of the union business for which
the leave was requested. Donnellon refused to tell him.
Capshaw then denied the leave and said he assumed the
request for union leave was to participate in the Port
Ivory negotiations. On October 4, Plant Manager
Graham told Donnellon his interpretation of the union
leave contractual provision did not call for granting
leave to attend bargaining negotiations at another plant.
1l See transcripts of the negotiation sessions for those days. (Resp
Exhs. 44, 46, 47, and 49.)
't McCauley had requested his attendance at the initial Port Ivory ne-
gotiation meeting.
On October 5, Donnellon applied for and was granted 4
hours' union leave for the afternoon of October 6. Don-
nellon was not asked the nature of the union business.' 4
On October 6, Donnellon filed the unfair labor practice
charge in Case 5-CA-8206. As stated above, Raymond
Bramble of the Baltimore plant attended the October 6
Port Ivory meeting but he was on his own time. Donnel-
Ion submitted additional requests for the purpose of at-
tending the Port Ivory negotiation meetings subsequent
to October 6. Each time the request was denied. The re-
quest had been made for a date when a Port Ivory meet-
ing was scheduled. The record shows the leave was
denied by the Baltimore management because of the
belief the union leave request was to attend Port Ivory
negotiations. Plant Manager Graham informed Donnel-
Ion that union leave would not be granted to attend ne-
gotiations at Port Ivory or any other plant. I have no
doubt that Baltimore management was aware when the
Port Ivory negotiations were taking place. As Graham
stated, he knew of the October 6 meeting. A negotiation
meeting was also scheduled for October 15 at Port
Ivory. On October 8, Donnellon applied for union leave
for Wilkins and himself for October 15. The leave time
requested was to attend the scheduled October 15 Port
Ivory negotiation meeting. On the morning of October
13, although requested by Personnel Manager Capshaw,
Donnellon refused to reveal the nature of the union busi-
ness. Capshaw then said he assumed it was to attend the
Port Ivory negotiations and denied the requested leave.
Donnellon then asked his immediate supervisor, Garmen,
for a I-day vacation leave for October 15. Garmen said
he would have to get back to him. Shortly thereafter,
Garmen returned and denied the vacation request, stating
that a new company policy required 10 days' notice.'
Later that afternoon, on October 13, Capshaw told Don-
nellon the October 15 Port Ivory negotiation meeting
had been canceled. Yet the Union at Port Ivory was not
made aware of the cancellation until the afternoon of
October 14. McCauley testified that about 2:15 p.m. on
October 14, Port Ivory's Personnel Manager Jones told
him the scheduled October 15 meeting had to be can-
celed because both Robinson and he had to be in Cincin-
nati on October 15. When McCauley called Donnellon
the evening of October 14 to tell him of the cancellation,
Donnellon already had heard of the cancellation from
Capshaw. I find that Donnellon was denied the vacation
request to prevent him from participating in the Port
Ivory negotiations.
b. Kansas City
The Kansas City contract (1974-77) contained the fol-
lowing provision pertaining to union leave: "By agree-
ment between the Union and the Plant Manager, leaves
of absence without pay up to thirty (30) days a year may
be granted for attending to Union business." (G.C. Exh.
14 Graham was aware that Port Ivory negotiations would take place
on the morning of October 6. As he testified, he granted the 4 hours'
leave to Donnellon because he knew Donnellon could not have time to
attend the Port Ivory negotiations that day.
's Donnellon credibly testified that in the past such notice was not re-
quired. He also testified that two other employees applied after him for 1-
day vacation leave for October 15 and those requests were granted.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 959
15.) The language contained therein has been the same
since the 1952 contract except for one minor change."'
The preamble refers to the "Union" as the contracting
labor organization.
At the same time as the events herein involved, Omer
Jones had been president of the Union (Kansas City) for
about 12 years. It had been the practice for union leave
requests to be made orally. Apart from stating the re-
quest was for union business, the Union did not state the
specific purpose nor did the plant management inquire.
Like Baltimore, union leave had been granted to attend
periodic Amalgamation or Council meetings, to visit
with the Union's attorney, or to take care of local union
affairs. 17 Jones also testified that on some occasions
where he had been granted union leave, he visited other
plants and was present at a strike at the Baltimore plant
in 1971. Further examination of Jones revealed that on
those particular occasions, the union leave was for the
purpose of attending Amalgamation meetings in the cities
where one of the Respondent's plants was located. He
took those occasions to visit the plant and arrangements
were made with the plant manager to tour the plant.
And with respect to the Baltimore visit, Jones' presence
in Baltimore was also to attend a council meeting and
while there he talked to people on the picket line on Sat-
urday. On no occasion prior to 1976 had the Union
(Kansas City) ever requested union leave to represent an-
other Union in negotiations.
On or about September 27, McCauley called Jones and
asked him to arrange to come to the Port Ivory initial
negotiation meeting to be held on either October 5 or 6.
On September 28, Jones made his request to Plant Man-
ager Robert McIntire for union leave for October 5 and
6, first only for himself and if not available to him, then
to two other named union officials.'s McIntire admitted-
ly was aware that Port Ivory negotiations were begin-
ning and that the Unions intended to participate in each
other's contract negotiations. Jones admitted to McIntire
the purpose of the leave was to participate in the Port
Ivory negotiations. McIntire then denied the request and
stated the union leave contract provision did not encom-
pass situations to participate in negotiating for another
labor organization. As described above, Jones managed
to attend the October 6 meeting at Port Ivory without
taking any leave from work. On two later occasions,
Jones asked Industrial Relations Manager Partin for
union leave which he intended to use to attend Port
Ivory negotiations. Partin told him the leave was denied
if it was for the purpose of attending the Port Ivory ne-
gotiations. Jones did not go.
The General Counsel also contends Jones was denied
vacation leave because he intended to participate in the
Port Ivory negotiations.' 9 The practice at the plant was
6" Plant Manager substituted for superintendent.
" The Respondent normally was aware of the purpose of the request
in such situations.
1a At this time, Jones was on disability leave. Although he told McIn-
tire the doctor had cleared him for return to work, McIntire responded
that the time for his return to work was speculative and he would first
have to return to work.
' In his brief, the General Counsel mistakenly refers to October 6 as
the date of the vacation day requested by Jones. Jones initially testified
that April I was the cutoff date for scheduling firm va-
cations for that year. If an employee posted his proposed
vacation schedule prior to the cutoff date, his schedule
was not subject to bumping by a senior employee who
made a request after the cutoff date for a similar vacation
period. Where two employees made a request after the
cutoff date the senior employee could claim the date
even though his request was made later. Jones testified
that on October 14 or 15, he requested a -day vacation
for October 18, and his supervisor, Boiler House Man-
ager Steve Blasche, rejected his request, stating that he
just that morning had granted a junior employee, Al
Dietzel, a vacation for that time. Blasche's testimony,
which I credit, was that Jones did not request vacation
time for October 18. He testified Jones requested 4
days-October 12 through October 15. He turned down
Jones' request because Dietzel had been scheduled prior
to the April cutoff date to be on vacation October 13-19
and thus could not be bumped by Jones.20 Had both in-
dividuals applied after the cutoff date for the same vaca-
tion period, Jones would have been entitled to it as the
senior employee even if requested later than Dietzel.
c. Dallas
The Dallas contract (1974-77) contained the following
provision relating to union leave: "By agreement be-
tween the Union Executive Committee and the Plant
Manager leaves of absence without pay up to thirty (30)
days of a year may be granted for attending to union
business." 2 1 This same provision has been identical in
contracts going back to at least 1954.22 The preamble
refers to the "Union" as the contracting labor organiza-
tion.
For the past several years the requests for union leave
were made verbally to the industrial relations manager.
The information furnished to management included the
names of the individuals for whom the leave was re-
quested and the specific dates involved. The specific pur-
pose was furnished, either voluntarily or upon request.
Requests were denied if the specific purpose was not fur-
nished.23 A union leave request was denied in 1975 and
became the subject of a grievance ending in arbitration.
The Union had requested union leave to go to Alexan-
dria, Louisiana, to explain its contract to the Alexandria
union which represented the employees at the Respon-
dent's plant there. The arbitrator's decision issued on
January 5, 1978, upholding the Respondent's denial of
the union leave. 24
Hatton had been asked by McCauley of the Port Ivory
plant to attend the initial Port Ivory negotiations meet-
ing. He requested union leave for two other union offi-
cials, Osborne and Stephens, and also himself for Octo-
ber 5 and 6. Bruce Paton, industrial relations manager at
he requested October 6; later in his testimony, he changed it to October
18.
ao See Resp. Exhs. 103 and 105.
21 G.C. Exh. 21.
12 Testimony of Roger Hatton, president of the Union (Dallas).
23 In or about September 1976, union leave was denied to Hatton be-
cause he had not furnished a specific reason for the leave. He had intend-
ed using this leave to attend a negotiation seminar at Southern Methodist
University.
24 Resp. Exh. 51. The arbitration hearing was held on October 5, 1977.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Dallas plant, asked Hatton the nature of the union
business. When Hatton refused to divulge the purpose,
Paton said he would give Hatton an answer later. There-
after, Paton again asked Hatton the nature of the union
business and asked if it was to attend the Port Ivory ne-
gotiations. Hatton refused to say. Paton then said that
since he could not determine if the leave was for union
business, the leave request was denied. 25 Paton also told
Hatton, together with Stephens and Osborne, they would
be subject to disciplinary action if they took off and ap-
peared at the Port Ivory negotiations. None of the three
went to Port Ivory for the October 6 meeting. 2 6 Subse-
quent attempts were made by Hatton to obtain union
leave for October 15 and 28-29 and November 4-5.
Each time the requests were denied when Hatton refused
to give the reason. Paton testified he knew the Port
Ivory plant was engaging in bargaining on the dates re-
quested for union leave.27 Grievances have been filed re-
garding the denial of the union leave and are pending ar-
bitration.
When Hatton's request for union leave was denied, he
applied for vacation leave for 2 days-October 5 and 6.
Hatton was a pipefitter-welder assigned to the hydro-
lizer. There were 10 employees in the department,
grouped in different skills, under the supervision of the
mechanical manager, Don Lambeth. Newman was the
other pipefitter-welder assigned to the hydrolizer. The
practice generally was for no more than two employees
in the department to be off on vacation at any given
time, although there were exceptions. Single vacation
days were permitted. The grant of vacations was deter-
mined by seniority and the need for the particular skills
of the mechanics involved. Of the 10 mechanics on the
crew for the week ending October 10, Rhea, a general
mechanic, was out on disability. Hatton and Newman,
possessing the same mechanical skills both applied for
October 5 and 6. A third employee, Evans, an instrument
electrician, had requested October 5. Evans' request was
granted, there being other instrument electricians on
duty. The requests of Hatton and Newman were
denied.2 8 The General Counsel contends that the vaca-
tion time, as well as the union leave, was denied to
Hatton to keep him from attending the Port Ivory nego-
tiations. Hatton testified it was Reeves as well as
Newman and he that had applied for the vacation time
and Reeves was granted the leave. The record does not
support his testimony. The Respondent's records show
that Evans was on vacation on Tuesday, October 5
(Resp. Exh. 96) and Reeves was not on vacation at all
that week. (Resp. Exhs. 96 and 117.) I am satisfied with
Lambeth's explanation as to why he denied the vacation
time to Hatton as well as Newman. He credibly testified
the hydrolizer was down the early part of the week.
Hatton and Newman were the only two pipefitter-weld-
ers in the hydrolizer and he needed their skills at that
2 Paton testified the request would have been denied had Hatton
given attendance at Port Ivory as the reason.
26 As mentioned above, Middlebrook, a member of the nion execu-
tive committee Dallas, was on vacation at the time and attended the Port
Ivory meeting.
27 Testimony by Paton.
28 There is no contention Newman intended to go to Port vory.
time on some other job. In short, I find Hatton was not
denied vacation leave to prevent him from participating
in the Port Ivory negotiations.
3. The threats by Armin Sharfe
The complaint alleges that Plant Manager Sharfe
threatened employees at various times during June
through September.2 9 Sharfe was the Port Ivory plant
manager during the relevant period herein. In December
1977, he became the manager at the Baltimore plant.
Sharfe had participated in the 1973 Port Ivory contract
negotiations. He was not involved in the 1976 negotia-
tions but was kept informed by Robinson and Jones.
Gordon Canney, the Union's vice president, testified
he had several discussions with Sharfe concerning the
Amalgamation and the upcoming Port Ivory negotia-
tions. Sometime in May or June and also in July, during
informal discussions with Sharfe in the plant cafeteria,
Sharfe asked who the outsiders would be and where they
were coming from. Sharfe also said multiplant bargaining
would not work and the Company "would fight in every
way." 3 0 Canney further testified another discussion
about this subject took place in September, again in the
cafeteria, with Gordon Ritchie present. 3 ' Once again,
Sharfe voiced his disapproval of multiplant bargaining.
Sharfe again asked who the outsiders would be. 32 Ac-
cording to Canney, Sharfe said the Union would not get
a good contract if outsiders were brought in since it
would indicate to the other plants the advantages of mul-
tiplant bargaining. Then when Canney said the Company
should offer to the Union two contracts, one with and
one without outsiders in negotiations, Sharfe allegedly
replied the Company did have the two prepared. When
Canney asked what were the differences in the two con-
tracts, Sharfe replied that the one prepared in the event
outsiders were present would be about 5 cents an hour
less for the employees. 33
Ritchie testified that, in a number of informal discus-
sions Sharfe expressed his opposition to the presence of
outsiders in Port Ivory negotiations and multiplant bar-
gaining. He testified that, in the latter part of September,
Sharfe told him, if the Union persisted in the presence of
outsiders, it would set the plant back 10 years. Ritchie
testified on cross-examination that every time Sharfe and
he discussed the presence of outsiders (about five times)
Sharfe said "the same thing all the time. That we were
bringing the outsiders and the Company would fight us
with every means that they had."
Thomas Walsh, the Union's treasurer, testified he had
many conversations with Sharfe concerning multiplant
bargaining and the Union's intention to bring outsiders
into the contract negotiations. He testified that, in late
August or September, he sat down next to Sharfe in the
plant cafeteria to discuss informally a grievance. During
29 The initial charge relating to the Port Ivory plant was filed on De-
cember 10, 1976. (Case 29-CA-5366.)
30 On cross-examination, Canney said Sharfe added, "legally or other-
wise." Canney said that was "closest" to what Sharfe said.
31 Ritchie is a union executive committeeman.
32 Sharfe never was given the names.
a3 Ritchie substantially corroborated Canney's testimony above con-
cerning this September meeting, although he was not present during the
entire discussion.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 961
the discussion, Sharfe voiced his disapproval of the
Union's intention to bring in outsiders to the contract ne-
gotiations and that "the Company was going to use any
means available to them to fight it." Sharfe also said that
relations had been good in the plant and the Company
had spent money to improve the plant. According to
Walsh, Sharfe said if the Union persisted in moving to-
wards coordinated bargaining the Union could not
expect the Company to continue to spend money to im-
prove the plant.
Sharfe testified he was opposed to the presence of out-
siders in the upcoming contract negotiations because it
would lead to multiplant bargaining and outsiders were
not familiar with local plant problems. He admitted voic-
ing such opposition to employees as far back as May. He
also admitted inquiring as to the identity of outsiders and
their purpose in attending negotiations. He expressly
denied making any of the threats attributed to him. He
recalled having a conversation with Walsh in or about
late August on this subject. His version was that he
pointed out the Company had made a substantial invest-
ment in modernizing the plant and the relationship in the
past several years, as compared to earlier periods, was a
healthy one. He also mentioned he could not see why
the Union would now want to change the bargaining
procedure by bringing in outsiders. 3 4 He expressly
denied indicating the Company would discontinue
making future investments in the plant if the Union per-
sisted in bringing in outsiders. He also recalled a conver-
sation with Ritchie in September where they expressed
their views as to multiplant bargaining. He admitted
there was a discussion about 5 cents an hour but his ver-
sion differs from that of Ritchie and Canney.3 5 He testi-
fied Ritchie asked him why he was so concerned about
outsiders participating and why their presence should
have any effect on the negotiations or the contract itself.
It was at that point he spoke of the good relationship be-
tween the parties during the last several years. Ritchie
then inquired what the financial effect would be in either
case-a good or bad relationship. He replied it would be
about 5 cents an hour but he was speculating. He denied
saying anything about the Company having two con-
tracts. He admitted telling Ritchie bargaining would be
more fruitful if no outsiders were present and the parties
bargained as in the past. In connection with making any
statements about the Company's intention to fight multi-
plant bargaining his version was that he told employees,
on a number of occasions, "The Company would use
every legal and moral means at its disposal to oppose
amalgamation." 3
Considering the probabilities of the situation as it exist-
ed at the plant before bargaining began, and after consid-
ering the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, I find that Sharfe, on a number of occasions,
expressed his opposition to the presence of outsiders in
the Port Ivory negotiations and multiplant bargaining
and inquired as to the identity of the outsiders and what
34 He testified he made similar statements to Canney and Ritchie
as He testified this was a discussion with Ritchie alone and Canney
was not present He denied having a cnversationl with Canney and Rit-
chie on or about September 9. as testified to by Canney and Ritchie
3e Testimony of Sharfe.
their role would be in bargaining. He harped on the ad-
vantages of maintaining the status quo and of the stable
relations between the Union and the Respondent in the
most recent years and predicted the results of bargaining
would be as fruitful for the Union with the participation
of outsiders.3 7 I am convinced he said, in substance, a
contract finally negotiated with the presence of outsiders
in bargaining would be worth about 5 cents an hour less
for employees than if the parties negotiated as in the past
with the union committee consisting only of plant em-
ployees.38 He also stated the Union would not get as
good a contract with the participation of outsiders in the
negotiations because the Company would be concerned
that employees at the other plants would find it benefi-
cial to belong to the Amalgamation leading to multiplant
bargaining. These were informal discussions between
union officials and Sharfe. It could be argued that such
comments may have been speculative remarks since
Sharfe would not be engaged in the actual bargaining.
Perhaps had these remarks been made by a departmental
foreman such argument would be more cogent. Howev-
er, Sharfe was the Port Ivory plant manager and had
himself engaged in the 1973 negotiations. Such state-
ments as mentioned above connote clear and convincing
threats that the participation of outsiders in the Port
Ivory negotiations would result in a less favorable con-
tract. I find such conduct constituted unlawful threats
violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. When Sharfe re-
ferred to the Company's opposition to multiplant bar-
gaining, I find he said the Company would fight it "in
every way." I do not find such remarks reasonably could
be construed to mean the Company would use unlawful
means. Also, when referring to the Respondent's invest-
ment in modernizing the plant, I view Sharfe's remarks
as having reference to the stable bargaining relationship
that existed at the time and was in the context of con-
vincing the employees to continue the existing bargain-
ing procedures, rather than a threat to discontinue im-
provements at the plant.
4. The denial of union leave to the Port Ivory
employees and the threat by Personnel Manager
Jones
The General Counsel has alleged in the complaint that
in December 1976 and in January 1977 Respondent, at
Port Ivory, denied union leave to the Port Ivory em-
ployees to attend negotiations at the Kansas City plant
while simultaneously the Respondent, at the Kansas City
plant, refused to permit Kansas City negotiations to be
held outside of normal hours.3 9 The complaint further
alleges that, in this same period, Port Ivory personnel
manager, Robert Jones, threatened the Port Ivory em-
ployees in December 1976 and in January 1977 with ter-
mination and other reprisals if the employees attended
37 Although I have nlot detailed the credibility of each of the wit-
nesses, I have taken into account the probabilities of the subjective inter-
pretation by the witnesses of Sharfe's remarks to the employees
a" I do nit believe Sharfe said the Company had prepared two con-
tracts
39 The complaint does not allege the Port Ivory employees were
denied acation leave Such allegation is made in the Kansas City com-
plaint
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Kansas City negotiations. The Kansas City negotia-
tions will be discussed later in this Decision.
The 1973-76 Port Ivory contract relating to union
leave reads as follows: "By agreement between the
Union and the Division Manager leaves of absence with-
out pay may be granted for attending to Union business."
(Art. XIII, G.C. Exh. 2.) The preamble defines the
"Union" as the contracting labor organization. This same
provision has been in previous contracts between the
parties for at least 30 years.
The practice regarding union leave had been for the
Union to submit a printed form listing the employees in-
volved and the dates requested for the leave. The request
did not state the specific union business. Prior to Decem-
ber 1976, the Respondent did not ask the reason for
union leave. In most instances, it was aware of the pur-
pose when requested. In the latter part of December, the
Union put in a request for union leave for several em-
ployees to be off on dates ranging from January 4 to 7.
Personnel Manager Jones asked Canney if any of the
leave requested was to go to Kansas City to "aid them in
bargaining, to help them in bargaining."4 0 Canney re-
plied that it was except for the last three named for Jan-
uary 7, which was for leave to meet with labor organiza-
tions representing employees at Colgate and Lever
Brothers.4 ' The leave for the last three was granted but
the leave to attend the Kansas City negotiations was
denied. Jones told Canney if any of them showed up in
the Kansas City negotiations, "there will be serious re-
percussions." Further requests for union leave made in
January 1977, to participate in the Kansas City negotia-
tions, were denied by the Respondent. Jones told the
union representatives on several occasions if they used
union leave to attend the Kansas City negotiations they
would be subject to disciplinary action. The Union there-
after did not request union leave to attend the Dallas or
Baltimore negotiations. Requests for union leave for
other purposes were granted except for manpower re-
quirements. Prior to the initial request to participate in
the Kansas City negotiations, no union leave had been
requested, granted, or used to go to another of the Re-
spondent's plants or to another company and participate
on behalf of another labor organization in the bargaining
at such plant or company. The Union's requests to go to
Kansas City were, at the invitation of the Union (Kansas
City), to participate as members of the Union's (Kansas
City) bargaining committee in the negotiations there for
a new contract. It was the Respondent's position that the
Port Ivory contract did not mandate the use of union
leave for such purpose.42
D. The Kansas City Plant
The Union (Kansas City) has been the bargaining rep-
resentative of the Kansas City employees for more than
40 Testimony of Canney.
41 Granting of leave to meet with the Colgate and Lever Brothers
unions was always treated by the Respondent as union business since the
Port Ivory employees were meeting on behalf of the Union Port Ivory).
Such meetings were not with the employers.
42 do not agree with the Respondent's contention that this issue be
deferred to the arbitration process for reasons described in the Dallas sec-
tion of this Decision.
40 years. 4 3 The most recent contract which preceded
the negotiations involved herein ran from August 3,
1974, to February 3, 1977. Contract negotiations had
always taken place in the plant and the members of the
Union's bargaining committee, all employed at the
Kansas City plant, were paid by the Respondent for the
lost worktime spent in negotiations. On some occasions
in past years, the Union's attorney was present during
the contract negotiations in the plant. Omer Jones, em-
ployed at the Kansas City plant for more than 44 years,
was president of the Union during the relevant period
herein. 44 Robert McIntire, plant manager for the past 6
years, was the principal spokesman for the Respondent
during the latest contract negotiations, assisted by Indus-
trial Relations Manager Marvin Partin.
The unfair labor practice allegations of the consolidat-
ed complaint relating to the Kansas City plant (G.C.
Exh. lbbb) described in substance below will be consid-
ered seriatim.
Paragraph 11: In October and November 1976, Re-
spondent denied union leave to its Kansas City employ-
ees to attend Port Ivory negotiations while simultaneous-
ly refusing to permit the Port Ivory negotiations to be
held outside of normal business hours, with an object of
preventing said employees from participating in the Port
Ivory negotiations.
The above allegation has been discussed in the section
of this Decision above relating to the Port Ivory plant
and need not be repeated here.
Paragraph12: During October through December 1976
and January 1977, the Respondent refused to permit con-
tract negotiations to be held on its premises and refused
to pay its employees for the time spent in bargaining
during working hours with an object of forcing the
Union not to have outsiders participate on its bargaining
team.
In July 1976, the Union served notice to reopen the
contract due to expire on February 3, 1977. McIntire re-
plied it was premature to begin formal negotiations and
suggested it commence about 60 days before the expira-
tion date, as in the past. Jones' letter to McIntire of Oc-
tober 26 suggested a meeting to discuss ground rules, in-
cluding frequency of meetings and personnel who would
participate in the bargaining. Then began an exchange of
letters and meetings between the parties. McIntire
wanted to exchange contract proposals and discuss sub-
stantive contract terms whereas Jones said he first
wanted a resolution of the problem of the composition of
the Union's bargaining committee. They discussed the
ground rules. Jones indicated the Union intended to have
outsiders of the union bargaining committee and referred
to the problems of outsiders being present at the Port
Ivory negotiations. McIntire said he wanted to check out
the legality of the Union's intentions to add outsiders to
4a The bargaining unit, as agreed to by the parties, is described as fol-
lows: "All employees employed at the Kansas City, Kansas plant and
Kansas City Warehouse, exclusive of the plant manager, all other mem-
bers of supervision, trainees for supervision, the plant manager's secre-
tary, the general production manager's secretary, the personnel manager's
secretary, the nurse and employees on a leave of absence due to lack of
work." There are approximately 475 employees in the bargaining unit.
4 He had been the union president for 12 years, although not consecu-
tively, and also held other union offices during his period of employment.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 963
its committee. At meetings held on December 2 and 3,
Mclntire acknowledged that the Union had the right to
select its own bargaining committee representatives. He
stated that, since the Union was insistent on having out-
siders on its bargaining committee, the Respondent's po-
sition was that bargaining would be outside the plant, the
employees would not receive pay for worktime lost in
negotiations, and the Union should share the cost of the
meeting place facilities and of the transcript. Then fol-
lowed an exchange of correspondence. The Union reluc-
tantly agreed to meet off the premises because of the Re-
spondent's refusal to permit outsiders into the plant for
negotiations. Jones also protested to the other changes
announced by McIntire; i.e., nonpayment to employees
for lost working time spent in negotiations and sharing
the cost for the meeting room and transcript. McIntire
testified that he felt for some time it would be more ad-
visable for negotiations to be held on neutral ground.
When the Union changed the bargaining procedure by
its insistence on the participation of outsiders, it was for
this reason as well as its plant security policy concerning
the admission to the plant of individuals not working in
these that he wanted the negotiations away from the
plant.4 5 With respect to nonpayment to the employees
on the Union's bargaining teams, Mclntire testified he
found that in the past this tended to drag out the negoti-
ations and he had the opportunity to introduce this
change when the Union opened the door with its an-
nouncement of outsiders. McIntire testified that he
would have opted for bargaining off the plant premises
even had the Union not insisted on having the outsiders
present. His testimony follows:
Q. It is your position, Mclntire, that had the
Union proposed bargaining with Kansas City
people, but with the addition of an attorney rather
than the outsiders, this is their proposal, is it your
position that you would have then said, well, the
Kansas City attorney is an outsider and I can't let
him in the plant, therefore, we'll have to bargain
outside the plant?
A. Okay. It is speculative and I don't know what
I would have done, but my reaction to your ques-
tion is I would have requested that we bargain out-
side the plant premises.
Q. I'm not sure I recall your testimony that if the
Union wanted to bring their attorney in rather than
people from other plants-
A. I said I would opt for off the premises.
Q. You still would?
A. Yes.
However, in a letter to the Union on December 14 (G.C.
Exh. 45) Mclntire stated, inter alia, as follows:
' Kansas City employees are issued identity cards and are permitted
in the plant only when scheduled to work, except when specifically ap-
proved by the industrial relations manager. Non-Kansas City plant em-
ployees are permitted in the plant only on guided tours. On occasions in
the past, the union attorney participated in the negotiations in the plant.
. . . as we have repeatedly told you, the company
was prepared to bargain a new agreement in the plant
under the same conditions as in the past. [Emphasis
supplied.] However, you have changed the past
conditions by insisting on having P & G employees
from other plants present, even though you are
fully aware that P & G employees who are not as-
signed to work at the Kansas City plant are permit-
ted only on the visitors tour. Thereupon, as a solu-
tion to this dilemma, the company pointed out that
the obvious alternative was to hold the bargaining
sessions outside the plant and proposed that the
Union share the cost of the facilities. Secondly, be-
cause of rising costs involved in this bargaining and
previous bargaining, the Company proposed that
the Union share the cost of the transcript and that
there be no pay from the Company for time lost by
the Bargaining Committee regardless of where the
meetings are held.
In an earlier letter to the Union, dated November 24,
Mclntire stated, inter alia, "As I have told you in our
discussions, I am prepared to negotiate in the same
manner was we have in the past. .... If you are still un-
willing to proceed with bargaining on the same basis as
we have in the past, we apparently will have to devote
our meeting time on December 2, to discussing proce-
dures rather than bargaining." (G.C. Exh. 40b.)
I am convinced that had the Union not raised the out-
sider issue, the Respondent was prepared to and would
have engaged in the bargaining process as it had for the
past 40 years with no change.
In the past negotiations were held during regular
working hours. After several exchanges of letters, the
parties at the request of the Union met on Sunday, Janu-
ary 9. Thereafter, all the meetings were held on week-
days during working hours at a local motel and employ-
ees on the bargaining committee were not paid for time
spent in negotiations. 4 6 The Union requested negotia-
tions be held on weekends but the Respondent was not
amenable. At the January 18 meeting, Jones suggested
they also meet on the weekend. McIntire refused. (G.C.
Exh. 59, pp. 143-153.) His refusal was affirmed in a com-
pany notice to employees posted on the bulletin board.
He explained there were adequate numbers of workdays
left before expiration of the contract. (G.C. Exh. 60.)
Thereafter, the Union renewed its request for weekend
meetings. The Company repeatedly refused. (G.C. Exhs.
61-66.) At this first negotiation session on January 9,
three outsiders were present-McCauley (Port Ivory),
Wilkins (Baltimore), and Hatton (Dallas). 47 Jones intro-
duced the three outsiders and said they were there at the
request of the Union (Kansas City) to serve as members
of its bargaining committee and to assist in negotiating a
contract for the Kansas City plant. Then, as in the initial
Port Ivory negotiations, McIntire posed a similar series
of prepared questions to the outsiders concerning their
selection and function. As in Port Ivory, after the ques-
tion-and-answer period, the Respondent took a 30-minute
4' The subsequent meetings were held on January 18 and 31 and Feb-
ruary I and 2.
47 No outsiders participated in the later sessions.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recess.48 The questions had been supplied to Mclntire by
the industrial relations staff at the Respondent's head-
quarters in Cincinnati.
Paragraph 13: During December 1976 and January
1977, the Respondent denied union leave and/or vaca-
tion leave to the employees at the Dallas, Baltimore, and
Port Ivory plants while simultaneously refusing; to permit
the Kansas City negotiations to be held outside of
normal working hours, with an object of preventing said
employees from participating in the Kansas City negotia-
tions.
It is undisputed the managerial personnel at Baltimore,
Dallas, and Port Ivory denied union leave to their em-
ployees where the purpose was to attend the Kansas City
negotiations. Reliance was placed in each instance on the
Respondent's interpretation of the union leave provision
of the respective contracts heretofore discussed in the
Port Ivory section of this Decision. No evidence was
presented to show employees attempted to or that Re-
spondent denied vacation leave to attend Kansas City ne-
gotiations.
Paragraph 15: On February 7, 1977, the Respondent
conditioned the execution of an agreed-upon collective-
bargaining contract on the union president's signature
being the only signature to appear on the contract on
behalf of the Union.
In past years, the parties signed a single instrument-
this was the collective-bargaining contract. On behalf of
the Union, the bargaining committee members signed the
instrument, but not necessarily each and every
member.49 On February 2, 1977, the parties agreed to
the terms and conditions of a new contract. The Union
advised the Company a ratification meeting of the mem-
bership would be held on Friday, February 4. McIntire
said he would be available to sign the contract that even-
ing, following the ratification. The parties could not
agree to meet that Friday evening. McIntire told Jones
that Partin had a later engagement that evening so the
Company's time to execute the agreement was limited.
Jones said the time period was not adequate. On Sunday
afternoon, Mclntire called Jones after having learned
from Partin that Jones was pressing for a Monday meet-
ing to sign the contract. Jones told him he had the out-
siders available to sign the contract and asked for the
Monday meeting. McIntire said he had been ill but he
would be in the plant that Monday morning. He indicat-
ed he would not meet with the entire union group. On
Monday morning, February 7, McIntire was at the plant
and offered two copies of the agreed-upon contract with
only signatures for Jones and McIntire. Jones refused to
sign the contract and said that the committee members
must also sign the contract. 50 McIntire said only Jones'
signature was required. On February 9, Jones presented
his prepared contract to McIntire and asked McIntire to
sign. This copy contained the signatures of the bargain-
ing committee, including those of Hatton, McCauley,
and Bramble. (G.C. Exh. 16A.) McIntire refused to sign
4s See G.C. Exh. 53.
49 See the 1974 contract (G.C. Exh. 15).
0o Waiting in the wings at a local motel at Jones' reques.t were Hatton
(Dallas), McCauley (Port Ivory), and Bramble (Baltimore).
it and the copy was left with him. On February 18, Jones
was given a letter from Mclntire, together with an at-
tachment-a copy of the contract containing McIntire's
signature. Alongside it was a space only for Jones' signa-
ture and this had been crossed out by McIntire. (G.C.
Exh. 16B.) In his letter, McIntire stated that Jones' signa-
ture alone was required and, since the signatures of the
committee members on the copy given to him by Jones
were unnecessary, he would disregard them. Mclntire
also stated that the attached copy containing his own sig-
nature, attached to his letter, completed the signing pro-
cess. (G.C. Exh. 72.) Since that date neither party has
signed the other party's signed instrument although there
is no contention that a valid collective-bargaining agree-
ment does not exist. 5 1
Paragraph 18, 19, and 20: On March 24, 1977, Respon-
dent denied vacation leave to Omer Jones to prevent his
participation in the Dallas negotiations scheduled for
March 25 and, thereafter, on March 28, suspended Jones
for 1 day because he attended the March 25 Dallas nego-
tiations. 5 2
Jones is a boiler room engineer at the Kansas City
plant where he has worked for 44 years. He was presi-
dent of the Union (Kansas City). He was alerted during
the week of March 14 by Hatton of the Union (Dallas)
that a negotiation meeting at the Dallas plant would
probably be held sometime during the week of March
21. On or about March 18, Jones asked Steve Blasche,
the boiler room foreman, and admitted supervisor, if he
could get a day off on vacation with only I day's notice.
Blasche replied he could if he were on the day shift and
a relief man was available. On Wednesday evening,
March 23, Hatton notified Jones that a negotiation meet-
ing was scheduled for Friday, March 25, and requested
Jones' attendance. 53 On March 24, Jones asked Blasche
for the vacation day for March 25. He did not say it was
for the purpose of attending the Dallas negotiations but
such was indeed his intention. Blasche replied he had to
5 I discredit Mclntire's testimony that he would have signed a single
instrument on Friday, February 4, even if it contained the signatures of
the outsiders.
s: The Respondent contends this allegation is time barred by Sec. l(b) of
the Act. Three unfair labor practice charges were filed prior to March 1977.
in the Board's Kansas City Regional Office relating to the Kansas City
Plant. (Case 17 CA-7967, 7429, and 7471.) A fourth charge was filed on
October 25, 1977, 7 months after the March 1977, incident. (Case
17-CA-7936 ) The first three charges alleged violations of Sec. 8(a)( I ) and
(5). In substance, these three charges alleged imposition of discriminatory
conditions on the Union and its bargaining committee. refusals to grant
leaves of absence and vacations, and focused on the attendance at other
plant negotiations. The initial consolidated complaint based on these three
charges issued on November 9, 1977, and made no reference to the March
incident. The fourth charge, filed on October 25, 1977, alleged Jones was
discriminated against since July 18, 1977, and referred to his attendance at
the Baltimore negotiations in July 1977. The consolidated amended com-
plaint covering the four unfair labor practice charges, which issued on
December 29, 1977, included the March 1977 incident. Jones' March
suspension was not investigated by the General Counsel until more than 6
months had elapsed. In agreement with the General Counsel, I believe the
earlier charges are sufficiently broad to encompass the subsequent event
i.e., the Jones' suspension in March 1977 Even though they did not allege
aln 8(a)(3) violation, they did charge the Respondent with unlawfully
refusing to grant leaves of absence and vacations to present attendance at
other plant negotiations. Accordingly, this allegation will be considered on
the merits.
"3 This meeting was scheduled on March 23 by the Dallas parties.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 965
check the work schedule. Jones told Blasche there was a
work schedule in the immediate vicinity he could look at
but Blasche ignored this and left. There was another
identical work scheduled posted in another room.
Blasche returned about 1-1/2 hours later and told Jones
the vacation request was denied. Jones, nevertheless, ab-
sented himself from work on March 25 without notifying
the Company and attended the Dallas negotiations. Upon
his return to work on his next scheduled workday,
March 28, Blasche asked him why he was absent on
March 25. At first, Jones said he was at work on the
day. When Blasche said his timecard was not punched
and he was not seen at the plant, Jones asked Blasche if
he knew where Jones had been. Blasche replied he knew
Jones had been in Dallas and had purposely said he was
at work because he wanted to get an admission from
Blasche that the Dallas and Kansas City plants had been
in contact with each other concerning the negotiations. 54
Jones then was suspended for I day, March 29, and an
entry was made in his personnel file of the disciplinary
action taken. Jones credibly testified that on a number of
occasions in the past he had taken a -day vacation with
only I day's notice. Blasche testified he initially had told
Jones he would probably approve a -day vacation re-
quest on 1 day's notice. He further testified that after
Jones had requested to be off on March 25, he then re-
called a company policy which was instituted in 1975
and repeated again in 1976 which instructed employees
to schedule their vacations early in the year and to keep
a minimum short-notice vacation requests.5 5 He also tes-
tified he denied Jones' request because of the short
notice-he liked to be notified of the vacation request
the week before so that the work schedule could be pre-
pared. But he also admitted that, insofar as Jones' request
was made on March 24, it would not have interfered
with the scheduling of work.
I am convinced Blasche's denial of Jones' request for a
I-day vacation for March 25 was not because of the
short notice given. I believe that, after Jones requested
the day off, Blasche learned that a negotiation meeting
was scheduled in Dallas for that day and the request was
denied because the Respondent wanted to keep Jones, an
outsider, from participating in the Dallas negotiations. I
am convinced that had Jones' request been for a reason
other than to be at Port Ivory, it would have been grant-
ed. Blasche knew that Jones had earlier participated in
the Port Ivory negotiations and was aware that Dallas
was in contract negotiations at this time.
Paragraphs 23 and 24: On July 20, 1977, the Respon-
dent suspended Omer Jones for 5 days because he at-
tended the Baltimore negotiations on July 18, 1977.
A contract negotiation meeting at the Baltimore plant
was scheduled to be held on Monday, July 18, off the
company premises. On July 15 or 16, Donnellon, presi-
dent of the Union (Baltimore), telephoned Jones and
asked him to attend the Baltimore meeting. Jones did not
apply for union leave in advance, having been denied
union leave in the past to attend the Port Ivory negotia-
54 The above is based on Jones' credited testimony. I do not credit
Blasche's denial that the Dallas negotiations were mentioned.
5S Testimony of Blasche.
tions. Nor did he apply for vacation leave because he
had been denied such leave in order to attend the Dallas
negotiations. Jones was scheduled to report for work at
midnight on Sunday, July 17. He did not report for
work. Instead, he attended the Baltimore negotiations on
July 18. His wife called the plant on Sunday afternoon
and reported that he would be absent from work. Jones
also failed to report for work on July 19 because, upon
his return from the Baltimore negotiations, he had to
take his mother-in-law for an emergency operation.
Upon his return to work, Blasche asked him why he was
not at work on July 18. Jones asked if Blasche knew
where he had been. Blasche replied he did. Blasche al-
ready knew Jones had attended the July 18 Baltimore ne-
gotiation meeting. 5 6 Blasche then asked Jones why he
had been absent on July 19. Jones told him of the family
emergency. Jones' absence on July 19 was excused, the
determination being made that the reason for the absence
was justified. However, he received a 5-day suspension
for his absence on July 18. Blasche explained that this
was an unexcused absence and the reason later given,
i.e., to participate in the Baltimore negotiation, did not
provide a justifiable reason for being absent. Since this
was Jones' second offense, he received the 5-day suspen-
sion. Blasche testified it was his practice, when employ-
ees were out on an unauthorized absence, to question the
employees upon their return to work as to the reason for
the absence. He testified there was no prior instance
while he was the boiler house supervisor that an employ-
ee did not have a justifiable reason for being absent with-
out prior approval; e.g., illness or family emergency. 57
On the other hand, Jones, who had worked in this plant
for 44 years, credibly testified that in the past he had
taken time off after having called in beforehand that he
would not be in that day and had not been asked the
reason for the absence. He had never received a repri-
mand or suspension. He made the observation that he
had a good attendance record and this may had been a
reason in the past that he had not been asked the reason
for his absence.58
I have no doubt that had Jones been absent for a
reason other than to go to the Baltimore negotiations, he
would not have received the disciplinary suspension, par-
ticularly since his wife had called beforehand. The Re-
spondent does not contend it was unable to get a relief-
man-only that the reason for the absence was not "a
good reason."
The Collyer-Dubo Motion
Respondent's counsel5 9 argues that the issues of the
denial of union leave and vacations, the disciplinary
action imposed on Jones, and the refusal to pay the
union negotiators be deferred to the arbitration process. I
find deferral of these matters would be inappropriate for
the reasons expressed below in my discussion of the
Dallas plant where similar arguments were made.
56 Testimony of Blasche.
57 Blasche had been boiler room supervisor since June 1975.
58 Blasche testified Jones' attendance record was good and no entries
for disciplinary reasons had been entered in his record.
59 Referring to counsel representing the Kansas City plant.
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. The Dallas Plant
The Union (Dallas) has been the bargaining represen-
tative of the Dallas employees since 1953.60 There are
approximately 500 employees in the bargaining unit. The
most recent contract which preceded the negotiations in-
volved herein ran from April 8, 1974, to April 8, 1977.
In the past, contract negotiations had always been con-
ducted on the plant premises and the members of the
Union's negotiating team, all employees of the Dallas
plant, were paid by the Respondent for the lost working
time spent in negotiations. On occasions in the past, the
Union's attorney attended the negotiations. The Respon-
dent also paid for the preparation of the minutes of the
bargaining sessions. Roger Hatton was president of the
Union for the past 4 years. The plant manager was Niles
Millsap6e and Bruce Paton was the personnel manager.
The unfair labor practice allegations in the consolidat-
ed amended complaint relating to the Dallas plant (G.C.
Exh. 1 (iii)), described in substance below, will be con-
sidered seriatim.
Paragraphs 11(a), (b), (c), and (d): In September and
October 1976, the Respondent denied union leave and/or
vacation leave and canceled vacation leave previously
granted to Dallas employees while simultaneously the
Respondent refused to permit the Port Ivory negotia-
tions to be held outside normal working hours, with an
object of preventing Dallas employees from attending
the Port Ivory negotiations where the Union (Port
Ivory) had requested such assistance.
The above allegations have been discussed in the sec-
tion of this Decision above, relating to the Port Ivory
plant, and need not be repeated here. The procedural de-
fenses will be discussed later in this Decision.
Paragraphs 13(a), (b), (c), and (d): The Respondent in
January 1977 denied union leave to Dallas employees
while simultaneously refusing the Kansas City plant ne-
gotiations to be held outside normal working hours with
an object of preventing Dallas employees from attending
the Kansas City negotiations where the Union (Kansas
City) had requested such assistance.
These allegations too have been covered in the section
of the Decision relating to the Port Ivory and Kansas
City plants. The procedural defenses will be discussed
later in this Decision.
Paragraph 14: In September and October 1976, Re-
spondent's industrial relations manager, Bruce Paton,
threatened Dallas employees with disciplinary action if
they attended the Port Ivory negotiations.
These allegations too have been covered in he section
of this Decision relating to the Port Ivory plant. I have
found Paton told the Dallas employees they would be
subject to disciplinary action if they took off and attend-
ed the Port Ivory negotiations. He was referring to the
use of union leave for this purpose. The procedural de-
fense will be discussed later in this Decision.
60 The bargaining unit is described as follows: "All employees, includ-
ing the fire marshal and the employees in any outside warehouse operat-
ed by the Dallas plant, excluding plant manager's secretary, operations
manager's secretaries, industrial relations manager's secretary, the cashier,
other staff employees performing work of a confidential nature, profes-
sional employees, guards, watchmen, supervisors as defined in the
LMRA and employees in a leave of absence due to lack of work."
^' He was replaced by Roy Gillespie on February 1, 1978.
Paragraphs 15(a) and (b): During January through
April 1977, Repsondent refused to permit bargaining ses-
sions to be held on its premises, refused to pay its em-
ployees for worktime lost in bargaining, refused to
schedule negotiation sessions with 24 hours' notice, and
refused to meet with the Union's full bargaining commit-
tee. The Respondent engaged in such conduct to prevent
outsiders from being on the Union's bargaining commit-
tee and because the Union wanted the assistance of the
outsiders on its bargaining team.
The Respondent had been aware that in the forthcom-
ing negotiations the Union intended to add to its bargain-
ing team employees from the Baltimore, Kansas City,
and Port Ivory plants. In the past, the Union's bargaining
committee consisted of 15 Dallas employees, including
the union officers. At the January 1977 monthly meeting,
the Union notified the Respondent of its desire to negoti-
ate a new contract. Hatton also requested of Plant Man-
ager Millsap that one or two preliminary meetings be
held to establish ground rules. Millsap did not respond. 62
By letter dated March 7 to Hatton, with attached con-
tract proposals, Millsap proposed an initial negotiation
meeting to be held on the morning of March 10 in the
plant. In his letter, Millsap mentioned a proposed change
would be the elimination of payment to bargaining com-
mittee members for time lost while bargaining but said
that, at least for the March 10 meeting, the employees
would be paid (G.C. Exh. 86). A meeting was held on
March 11.e 3 No outsiders were present. Hatton told
Millsap and Paton the Union would call in others-non-
Dallas employees-to be on the Union's bargaining com-
mittee. Millsap remarked this was a change in negotiat-
ing procedure and while it was the Union's business who
would be on its committee, he had the right to know
who they were. Hatton said he would provide the names
before the meeting if a date would be set for negotia-
tions. Millsap replied the company policy prohibited out-
siders except on a visitors tour. He stated, if the Union
had outsiders participating, he would arrange meetings
off the plant premises, otherwise they could continue
meeting in the plant. He also said if the Union intended
to change the procedure for bargaining, Respondent re-
served the rights to make changes including nonpayment
of wages of the committee members for time lost. He
asked the Union to submit its ground rule proposals, in
writing, including the makeup of its committee and then
the Respondent would suggest a date for negotiations.
Hatton agreed to furnish the names and said the commit-
tee would include employees from other plants. 64 By
letter dated March 14, from Hatton to Millsap, the Union
furnished the names of the Dallas employees who were
on its bargaining committee. The letter also stated the
Company need only concern itself with the identity of
the Dallas employees on the committee for the purpose
of releasing them from work for attendance at negotiat-
ing meetings. Hatton suggested a meeting on March 16,
and again on March 18, and said the Union would need
at least I day's notice prior to the meeting. (G.C. Exh.
a2 Millsap did not testify. Personnel Manager Paton was not present at
this January meeting.
63 At the Union's request the meeting was put off from March 10 to
March II. (O.C. Exh. 87, p. 53.)
64 See minutes of March 11 meeting (G.C. Exh. 87).
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 967
88.) A meeting was held in the plant the morning of
March 16. No outsiders were present. The committee
members were again paid for the working time lost. Ini-
tially, Hatton said he wanted to discuss the ground rules
because the Company had said it would not permit out-
siders into the plant. He said if the Company still was of
this view, the parties would have to meet elsewhere.
Millsap requested they continue the same procedures as
in past bargaining. Hatton said he was ready to meet the
next day, nights, or weekends, and then proposed a
meeting at the union hall in the late afternoon and that
any of the Committee members who lost time would be
paid. Millsap said he would consider Hatton's proposal
and notify the Union.6"" Later that day, on March 16,
Hatton was given a letter from Millsap. (G.C. Exh. 91.)
In his letter, Millsap said his preference was to meet in
the plant on March 17. He then stated, "However, in
view of your insistence that we meet outside the plant
and your continued refusal to engage in meaningful bar-
gaining about our offer unless we meet outside the plant,
I am willing in the interest of moving negotiations along
to offer the alternative of meeting at a neutral site." This
appears to be a deliberate distortion of the Unions' posi-
tion which was to continue negotiations as in the past;
i.e., in the plant with the only change being the inclusion
of outsiders. It was only after the Respondent insisted on
not permitting outsiders into the plant that the Union
then said the negotiations would then be off the prem-
ises. In his letter, Millsap proposed to meet at a local
motel on March 17, at 1:30 p.m. rather than 4:30 p.m. as
the Union had proposed, since there should be no trou-
ble in completing negotiations during normal working
hours. He also proposed that unless otherwise agreed,
the bargaining committee members would not be paid
for time lost while bargaining and the time lost would be
considered union leave of absence. He also proposed the
parties share the cost of the motel facilities and continue
to share the cost of the court reporter. On March 17,
Hatton notified Millsap he did not agree with Millsap's
proposals except for the situs and suggested meeting on
March 18, at 8 a.m., and was prepared to meet again on
Saturday and Sunday, March 19 and 20. (G.C. Exh. 92.)
Millsap replied the same day that the Respondent was
willing to meet on Friday, March 18, but at I p.m.,
rather than 8 a.m., provided the conditions it outlined
earlier were agreed upon by the Union. He refused to
meet on Saturday or Sunday and stated there should be
no trouble completing negotiations during normal work-
ing hours. (G.C. Exh. 93.) On March 18, Hatton said he
disagreed with Millsap's proposed changes. (G.C. Exh.
94.) After further communications, the parties met again
on Friday, March 25, at a motel. Also present on behalf
of the Union were Donnellon (Baltimore), Omer Jones
(Kansas City), and Sal Deanovich (Port Ivory). With
these three, there were 18 on the Union's bargaining
committee. At Millsap's request, Hatton identified the
three outsiders and stated they were there to assist in ne-
gotiating a contract for the Union (Dallas). Then, as in
the initial Port Ivory and Kansas City negotiations when
outsiders appeared, Paton posed a similar series of pre-
pared questions to the outsiders concerning their selec-
tion and function.6 6 The parties then discussed the
es See minutes of meeting (G.C. Exh. 89).
6 See G.C. Exh. 98. The questions had been prepared by Lambert of
the Respondent's industrial relations division in Cincinnati.
Union's substantive contract proposals. Millsap then sug-
gested a further meeting on Monday morning, March 28.
Hatton countered the Union was prepared to meet on
Saturday or Sunday. Millsap said he wanted more time
to consider the proposals and they agreed to meet at 9:30
a.m., Monday, March 28. At the March 28 meeting, no
outsiders were present. Before a discussion on substan-
tive contract proposals took place, Hatton suggested a
further meeting for the next day, March 29, at 10 a.m.
Paton suggested waiting to see what progress was made
at the meeting. At the end of the meetings, Hatton sug-
gested the next meeting be held on Wednesday morning,
March 30, at 9:30 a.m. Millsap replied he would get back
to him the following day. The parties again met at 9:30
a.m., March 31. No outsiders were present at the begin-
ning of the meeting but after a morning recess, Omer
Jones (Kansas City) was present. After a discussion on
substantive proposals, the Respondent said it wanted to
consider the proposals and said it would get back to the
Union to set up another meeting. The next meeting was
held at 8 a.m., April 6.67 No outsiders were present. The
parties agreed to a contract subject to ratification by the
union membership. The contract was ratified by the
membership on April 7.
Paragraphs 16(a), (b), and (c): During January through
April 1977, the Respondent denied union and/or vaca-
tion leave to its employees at Baltimore, Kansas City,
and Port Ivory, while refusing to permit Dallas negotia-
tions to be held outside normal working hours, with an
object of preventing employees from the Respondent's
other plants from attending the Dallas negotiations.
With respect to the Port Ivory plant, McCauley testi-
fied they did not apply for leave to attend the Dallas ne-
gotiations because of Personnel Manager Jones' earlier
threats of disciplinary action if the employees used union
leave to attend the Kansas City negotiations.
As for the Kansas City plant, the issue has been de-
scribed in the section of this Decision relating to the
Kansas City plant. I have found that Jones was denied a
I-day vacation for March 25, to prevent him from at-
tending the Dallas negotiation meeting.
With respect to the Baltimore plant, there is no evi-
dence the employees applied for leave to attend the
Dallas negotiations. Donnellon had been told by Plant
Manager Graham in January 1977 the Union would not
be granted union leave to attend the Kansas City or
Dallas negotiations. Donnellon took a vacation day on
March 25, to attend the Dallas negotiations. He was not
asked the reason for his vacation request.
Paragraph 18: On or about April 7, 1977, Respondent
refused to execute an agreed-upon-collective bargaining
contract if the Union chose to have its full bargaining
committee as signatories to such agreement.
Since at least 1954, a single instrument was signed by
both parties after they agreed to the terms of a collec-
tive-bargaining contract. The plant manager signed on
behalf of the Respondent. The members of the Union's
negotiating committee signed the same instrument on
behalf of the Union.
As stated above, the parties agreed to the terms of a
contract on April 6 and the ratification by the member-
ship took place on Thursday, April 7. On the afternoon
of April 7, prior to the ratification, Paton approached
67 The contract was due to expire at midnight, April 7, and a strike
action had been authorized.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hatton regarding arrangements to sign the contract. He
told Hatton he would be on vacation the following week
and wanted everything wrapped up before he left. Paton
said Millsap would wait around at the plant until after
the ratification vote that afternoon and then Hatton
could come to Millsap's office where both Hatton and
Millsap could sign the contract. Hatton responded it
should be done as in the past at a meeting where the
plant manager and the committee would sign the con-
tract. Paton then suggested two alternatives: (1) the
Dallas employees on the bargaining committee and Mill-
sap sign the same instrument the following week, or (2)
the contract be signed in the same manner as in Kansas
City; i.e., one instrument to be signed by the Union's
entire committee and another identical instrument to be
signed by the plant manager.""8 Paton told Hatton he
could pick up copies of the contract at his office later
that afternoon. Hatton did pick up the copies. The testi-
mony of Hatton and Paton is conflicting as to whether
Hatton agreed to accept the Kansas City alternative and
as to the appearance of the signature page on the con-
tract given to Hatton. 69 I believe the copies presented to
Hatton showed that the space for Millsap's signature was
scratched out. I credit Hatton's testimony that when he
came to pick up the copies, Paton was in the process of
scratching out the space for Millsap's signature and said,
"He didn't want all the signatures to get on the same
page."7 0 Paton testified that in this conversation with
Hatton on April 7, Hatton rejected Paton's other sug-
gested methods of executing the contract but Hatton did
agree to the Kansas City method. Hatton's version was
that there was no complete understanding that the Union
would accept the Kansas City method. In any event, it
became clear by April 13 the Union wanted a single in-
strument executed by the Company and the Union's bar-
gaining committee as in the past. On that date, Millsap
asked Hatton when the Union would sign the contract.
Hatton replied the Union was prepared to sign any time
Millsap met with the committee. Millsap said that was
not possible and laughed and walked away.71 On April
18, Paton, who had returned from vacation, asked
Hatton when the Union would sign the contract. Hatton
replied he was waiting for a meeting to be set up. 72 On
April 21, Paton presented Hatton with a letter from Mill-
sap with the contract attached. (G.C. Exh. 109.) Mill-
sap's signature appeared on the signature page, dated
April 11. Completely around Millsap's signature ap-
peared typewritten x's to prevent any other signatures.
The x's also covered Hatton's typewritten name and date
of signing, April 7. Above and to the right of Millsap's
signature was the typewritten notation: "The Union
president was offered the opportunity to sign the Agree-
ment and refused to sign." In Millsap's letter, he stated at
es Paton was aware of the contract signing in Kansas City.
69 Resp. Exh. 94.
7' This comports with the Respondent's steadfast opposition to the sig-
natures of the entire union committee, including the outsiders, from ap-
pearing on the same instrument as the signature of the plint manager.
? Based on Hatton's testimony. Millsap did not testify
72 Hatton testified Paton told him it was not possible to have a signing
meeting where Millsap and the entire committee would ign the same in-
strument. Paton's version was that his response was such meeting was not
necessary and that he was not interested in such proposal, In any event,
at the May 5 monthly meeting, Paton stated he had rejected the Union's
proposed method. (See minutes of the May 5 meeting, Resp. Exh. 95.)
the close, "Rather than delay further, I have attached a
copy of the new Agreement, which I have signed. In so
doing, the Company has fully satisfied its obligations.
Only your signature as Union president is required to ful-
fill the Union's obligation to sign what has been agreed
to and put into effect. Therefore, in view of the legal im-
plications of your refusal to sign and other actions, I
strongly suggest that you should come to my office by
April 25, and give me your signature. Other signatures
are unnecessary and are unacceptable." Hatton did not
comply. At a May 5 monthly meeting, the parties again
discussed signing of the contract. Millsap said he already
signed the contract and that it was now up to the Union
to sign their copy. Hatton said he wanted to follow the
past practice of signing the same instrument.
During the course of the instant hearing, on April 25,
1978, a single instrument was executed by the parties.
Plant Manager Roy Gillespie, who had succeeded Mill-
sap, signed on behalf of the Respondent. Of the 18 mem-
bers of the Union's negotiating committee, 16 signed on
behalf of the Union. One of the 18 members of the com-
mittee was no longer employed by the Respondent at the
time of execution and I declined to sign. The 16 who
signed included Jones (Kansas City), Deanovich (Port
Ivory), and Donnellon (Baltimore). There was no formal
signing meeting. The contract was first signed by the
Union and then presented to Gillespie who then signed
it.
The Procedural Defenses
The Respondent's counsel 73 contends the allegation in
paragraph 11 of the consolidated amended complaint
dealing with the denial and cancellation of vacation and
the allegations contained in paragraphs 14 and 15 are
time-barred by Section 10(b) of the Act because they are
beyond the scope of the charges upon which the consoli-
dated amended complaint are predicated. (G.C. Exh. 1
(iii).)
None of the three charges filed in the Board's Dallas
Regional Office specifically refers to the denial or can-
cellation of vacation leave.7 4 The first two do charge
the Respondent with the denial of union leave. The third
charge refers to the refusal to sign the agreed-upon con-
tract. None refers to supervisory threats or to the allega-
tions contained in paragraph 15 of the consolidated
amended complaint. Each, however, contains the catch-
all phrase, "By the above and other acts .... " It
should be noted, however, one of the unfair labor prac-
tice charges filed in the Board's Brooklyn, New York,
Regional Office, as well as the consolidated complaint
issued thereon, did charge the Respondent with denying
and canceling vacation leave to Dallas employees, as
well as Kansas City and Baltimore employees, to prevent
them from assisting in the Port Ivory negotiations. 75 The
Union (Dallas) had also filed a charge on April 5, 1977
(Case 16-CA-7127), encompassing the allegations later
contained in the consolidated amended complaint (par.
15) which issued on March 20, 1978. This charge was
withdrawn by the Union on April 27, 1977, and was ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 16 without
's Referring to counsel representing the Dallas plant.
74 Case 16-CA-6909 (29-CA-5785 filed November 26, 1976; Case 16-
CA-7001 (29-CA-5788) filed February 1, 1977; Case 16-CA-7201(29-
CA-5874) filed May 9, 1977.
7a Case 29-CA-5366 filed December 10, 1976.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 969
prejudice. Thereafter on May 9, 1977, the charge was
filed in Case 16-CA-7201. The initial consolidated com-
plaint which issued on November 9, 1977, did not in-
clude the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the
subsequent amended complaint.
This is not the routine case involving only conduct or
acts at one of an employer's many plants. When we look
at the broad picture, the light focuses on an orchestrated
effort by the four Unions involved to blend nonplant em-
ployees into negotiating committees and a pattern
evolved whereby the management hierarchy at the four
plants engaged in a substantially similar course of con-
duct in expressing its opposition to the participation of
outsiders in the bargaining process. Under these circum-
stances, I believe the "catch-all" phrase in the charges
was legally sufficient to include the allegations com-
plained of here since they were related to the same
course and conduct pertaining to the bargaining process.
Accordingly, I find the General Counsel properly exer-
cised his discretion in expanding upon the specific allega-
tions in the charge.
I do not agree with the Respondent's contention that
the issues concerning the Union leave and vacations or
payment to committee members for working time lost in
negotiations should be deferred to the arbitration process
in accordance with Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB
837 (1971), and Dubo Manufacturing Corp., 142 NLRB
431 (1963). An arbitral interpretation of the contracts
would not fully resolve the basic issues in this case-
whether the Respondent's conduct was designed to inter-
fere with the Union's statutory right to select its repre-
sentatives for bargaining. To defer to arbitration would
only fragmentize the issues and would not effectuate the
purposes of the Act. Nor do I find merit in Respondent's
contentions that the revocation by the General Counsel
of the original deferrals of Case 29-CA-5785 (16-CA-
6909) and Case 29-CA-5788 (16-CA-7001), both involv-
ing the denials of union leave, was improper.
F. The Baltimore Plant
The Union (Baltimore) has been the bargaining repre-
sentative of the Baltimore employees for more than 30
years. 76 The most recent contract which preceded the
negotiations involved herein ran from July 24, 1974, to
July 24, 1977. (G.C. Exh. 23.) Contract negotiations have
always taken place in the plant 77 and the members of the
Union's bargaining committee, all employed at the Balti-
more plant, were paid by the Respondent for the lost
worktime spent in negotiations.
The allegations of the complaints relating to the Balti-
more plant, described in substance below, will be consid-
ered seriatim.
76 The bargaining unit is described as follows:
All employees employed at its Baltimore plant exclusive of the plant
manager, supervisory employees, staff employees performing sork
of a confidential nature, and employees in a leave of absence due to
lack of work
There are approximately 5(X) employees in the bargaining unit
77 Except for a period during a 1971 strike
1. Case 29-CA-5783 (G.C. Exh. (kk))
Paragraphs 11(a), (b), and (c): Between September 28,
1976, and November 2, 1976, the Respondent denied
union and/or vacation leave to the Baltimore employees
while simultaneously refusing to permit Port Ivory nego-
tiations outside normal working hours, with an object of
preventing said employees from participating in the Port
Ivory negotiations.
The above allegations have been discussed in the sec-
tion of this Decision relating to the Port Ivory plant, and
need not be repeated here.
Paragraphs 13(a), (b), and (c): Between January 17 and
February 4, 1977, the Respondent denied union and/or
vacation leave to the Baltimore employees while simulta-
neously refusing to permit Kansas City plant negotiations
outside normal work hours, with an object of preventing
said employees from participating in the Kansas City ne-
gotiations.
The above allegations have been discussed in the sec-
tion of this Decision relating to the Kansas City plant,
and need not be repeated here.
2. Case 29-CA-6055 (G.C. Exh. (uu))
The following two allegations described below will be
considered together.
Paragraph 10: During May through November 1977,
the Respondent refused to permit contract negotiations
to be held on the plant premises and refused to pay em-
ployees for lost worktime spent in negotiations, with an
object of forcing the Union not to have outsiders on its
negotiating team.
Paragraph 11: From May through July 1977, the Re-
spondent refused to meet or engage in bargaining if out-
siders were present and participated on the Union's ne-
gotiating team.
As stated above, contract negotiations have always
been conducted in the plant except for a period during
the 1971 strike and the employees had always been paid
for the lost working time spent in negotiations. The
Union's attorney, Blum, was present and participated in
the 1971 negotiations when they were held in the plant.
By letter dated April 27, 1977,78 to Plant Manager
Graham relating to the forthcoming contract negotia-
tions, Donnellon said the Union would select 19 mem-
bers from the Baltimore payroll to serve on its negotiat-
ing committee and reserved the right to have additional
members, not on the Baltimore payroll, serve on its com-
mittee. Donnellon also stated the parties would meet in
the plant with no loss of pay to the Baltimore employees
serving on the committee, as had been the practice.
(G.C. Exh. 110.) Graham responded by letter, dated May
3, stating it was the Respondent's intention to bargain
"using the same process and guidelines as were used in
1974." (G.C. Exh. 111.) On or about May 10, the parties
agreed to meet on Tuesday, May 17, at 9:30 a.m., in the
main conference room in the plant. In Donnellon's letter
to Graham, dated May 11, Donnellon stated he would
also arrange for another bargaining session for May 20.
(G.C. Exh. 113.) By letter also dated May 11, Donnellon
submitted the names of 19 Baltimore employees who
7' All dates hereinafter refer to 1977, unless otherwise indicated
970 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would serve on the Union's committee. (G.C. Exh. 114.)
The letter stated the names were being urnished to
enable the Respondent to arrange shift changes, where
necessary to make the Union's committee members avail-
able for bargaining sessions. The letter did not refer to
outsiders. On several occasions prior to May 17, Graham
asked Donnellon if he would have outsiders on the
Union's bargaining committee but Donnellon did not
commit himself.7 9 Prior to the May 17 meeting, Donnel-
Ion notified McCauley, Hatton, and Jones of the opening
bargaining session for May 17 and asked them to send a
representative to attend the meeting.
On the morning of May 17, employees of the other
three plants appeared on the scene-Sal Deanovich (Port
Ivory), Daniel Calgrove (Dallas), and Keith Firth
(Kansas City).80 It should be noted at this point the Bal-
timore plant policy, as in the other three plants involved
herein, was that employee visitors from other plants do
not have free access to visit the plant but they are con-
ducted around the plant on a guided tour. The three out-
siders told the guard at the gate to infornn Donnellon
they were there. They also told the guard they were
there to assist in contract negotiations. The head of secu-
rity, Jones, came to the gate, spoke to the guard, and
then made a telephone call. Burroughs, a group manager
and admitted supervisor, then appeared at the gate. Bur-
roughs told the outsiders Donnellon got off work at 4
p.m. and they could see him then. He told them to leave.
When Calgrove told Burroughs they were there to par-
ticipate in contract negotiations, Burroughs told them
there would be no bargaining that day.81 The outsiders
then went across the street from the gate to await Don-
nellon. 8 2 In the meantime, Donnellon had been called by
the guard and was asked to come to the gate to talk to
them. He came out and spoke to the three outsiders who
were then across the street. After receiving an account
of what had occurred, he then spoke to Burroughs. He
told Burroughs they were members of his negotiating
committee but Burroughs said they would not be al-
lowed in the plant. Donnellon reentered the plant and
went to the conference room. He told the union commit-
tee members present that, since the outsiders were denied
entry and the company representatives had not yet
shown up, it appeared to him the Company had canceled
the meeting and he returned to work.83 The other union
committeemen also returned to their work. Graham testi-
fied he left his office about 9:30 for the conference room.
En route he was told by one of the union committeemen
that Donnellon told him the meeting was canceled.
When he came to the conference room a few minutes
after 9:30, the union committee was no longer there.
Later that morning, Donnellon and Graham accused
79 Testimony of Graham.
'O They had been asked by their respective Unions to attend the May
17 meeting. They were not there on union leave but had used a vacation
day.
s' Graham testified he was told of the presence of the outsiders at the
gate and realized Donnellon intended to have them participate in the ne-
gotiations. He instructed Burroughs to tell the outsiders they could see
Donnellon when he completed his shift.
52 Based on the credited testimony of Calgrove and Deanovich Bur-
roughs did not testify.
'a Donnellon placed his return to work about 9:37 a.m
each other of canceling the meeting. Donnellon's posi-
tion was that Graham had not appeared at the confer-
ence room until after the union committee had left and
also that Graham refused entry to three members of the
committee. Graham said he would not permit the outsid-
ers to negotiate a contract for the Baltimore plant. Don-
nellon said if the Respondent would not permit the out-
siders to participate in the plant, perhaps the parties
should meet off the plant premises. Graham said that
having the outsiders appear represented a change in the
bargaining procedure and he was not prepared to bargain
right then. He said he would consider the impact of this
change and would communicate with the Union in a few
days.8 4 Graham called for a special meeting with the
Union's executive board for June 1 by letter dated May
26 to let the Union know his position "regarding your
proposed changes in the bargaining process." He also
stated if the Union was prepared to bargain exactly as in
1974,85 he was prepared to make the June I meeting the
first bargaining session. (G.C. Exh. 119.) At this meeting,
Graham contended the participation of the outsiders con-
stituted a change from prior bargaining practice and the
Union took a contrary position. Donnellon credibly testi-
fied Graham stated he had no intention of meeting in the
plant with outsiders present. s8 By letter dated June 8,
Donnellon stated that, in view of the Respondent's posi-
tion on the participation of outsiders, the Union was
forced to meet outside the plant. He suggested meeting
at a local motel. (G.C. Exh. 124.) Although Graham tes-
tified the Union initiated the proposal to meet off the
premises, the record shows it was made after Graham
would not permit outsiders in the plant.8 7 After an ex-
change of letters, in a letter dated June 28, Graham said
the Company was ready to meet in the plant on July 6,
to begin bargaining "in exactly the same manner as in
1974." (G.C. Exh. 131.) Donnellon responded by letter
dated June 30, agreeing to the July 6 date with the entire
committee being present in the plant or at a local motel
if the Company still insisted on refusing to permit entry
to the outsiders. (G.C. Exh. 133.) Finally, at a meeting
on July 14, the parties arranged to meet on July 18 at a
local motel. Graham said he would not pay the Balti-
more employees for working time lost in negotiations but
they would be granted union leave. He also stated the
parties would split the cost of the motel accommoda-
tions. The Union agreed to meet on those terms but
under protest.
The first bargaining session took place on July 18, at
9:30 a.m., at a local motel. Also present on behalf of the
Union were McCauley (Port Ivory), Hatton (Dallas),
84 Based on the testimony of Donnellon and Union Treasurer She-
menski. To a substantial extent, Graham's testimony is not inconsistent
with theirs. However. I discredit his testimony that he did not tell the
Union he would not permit outsiders in the plant to participate in con-
tract negotiations. He testified he told the Union he would allow people
to come into the plant on plant tours in response to a question why he
would not let the three outsiders into the plant.
sa Obviously without the participation of outsiders.
n6 Testimony of Graham.
87 Testimony of Graham.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 971
and Jones (Kansas City).8 8 They were identified by
Donnellon as members of the Union's bargaining com-
mittee. Graham then asked each of the outsiders the
series of questions prepared by Larsen of the Respon-
dent's Cincinnati headquarters concerning their role.8 9
They made clear they were present on behalf of the
Union (Baltimore) to assist in negotiating a contract for
the Baltimore employees.9 0 After this question-and-
answer period, a 45-minute recess was taken at the re-
quest of the Respondent.9 t When they resumed, Graham
asked each of the outsiders again which organization
they were representing at the bargaining sessions. Each
said they were there representing only the Union (Balti-
more). Donnellon then raised objections to the refusal of
the Respondent to pay the Baltimore employees for lost
working time. The parties then discussed the substantive
issues. Bargaining sessions were held each of the 5 work-
ing days. The contract expired and the employees con-
tinued working until a new agreement was reached in
December. Outsiders were present only at the first bar-
gaining session on July 18 and on the day the contract
was signed.
The above facts clearly show the Respondent was pre-
pared to bargain, and would have bargained in the same
manner as in 1974, i.e., in the plant, and the union bar-
gaining committee employees would have been paid for
the lost working time spent in negotiations, provided the
Union did not have the outsiders on its negotiating team.
Graham did not know whether outsiders would appear
at the first bargaining session scheduled for May 17.
When the outsiders did appear on the scene on May 17,
the session was aborted and it is clear the Respondent
would not have engaged in bargaining that day in the
plant with outsiders present. It was only because the Re-
spondent refused to permit the plant premises to be used,
as in the past, if outsiders participated in the bargaining
that the Union suggested meeting off the premises.
Although, as Graham testified, there was a company
policy restricting employee visitors from other plants to
guided tours, the Union's attorney was permitted in the
plant to participate in the 1971 negotiations. In distin-
guishing access to the plant by Blum for bargaining as
compared to the outsider employees, Graham testified as
follows:
Q. Inasmuch as you had permitted Mr. Blum, or
the Company had permitted Mr. Blum to attend the
negotiations in the plant in 1971, what was your
reason for not permitting negotiations-negotiators
from New York and Dallas and Kansas City enter-
ing the plant in 1977 as Mr. Blum had done in 1971?
A. As I stated earlier on the 17th of May, the
whole affair caught me off guard. I had not pre-
'8 They had been called by Donnellon to attend. As noted in the
Kansas City section of this Decision, the Kansas City management was
made aware by July 20 of Jones' participation.
89 Testimony of Graham.
'0 O.C. Exh. 139, pp. 5-17
91 O.C. Exh. 139, pp. 18-19. It appears to be more than coincidence
that Port Ivory Manager Robinson adjourned his meeting after question-
ing the outsiders pursuant to instructions from Larsen. (G.C. Exh. 11.)
And Plant Manager Mclntire at Kansas City recessed the meeting for 30
minutes after similar questioning. (G.C. Exh. 53.)
pared myself, had not talked to my personnel man-
ager, and had not talked to my IRD contact to get
any advice from him around the whole issue of
having people from other P & G locations there. So
on the 17th of May it was more a matter of how to
deal with it at this point in time.
Q. Then you did some homework?
A. Then I started to do some homework and on
the-
Q. You also found out Mr. Blum, when you did
your homework, you found Mr. Blum had been
there in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. Why did you distinguish between these
people and Mr. Blum as far as letting them into the
plant?
A. Mr. Blum from my standpoint is very familiar
with the plant, with the-say the plants in terms of
what was going on in the plant and knows the ex-
tensive issues that exist within the plant. I viewed
him as being an attorney. I viewed him as being one
who would know how to conduct himself within
the plant in relationship to his comments to any
other employees. I had no idea, neither did I ever
meet those gentlemen or people that did show up.
They were just names to me. I didn't know who
they were. I didn't know what interferences they
might provide to the negotiations from a standpoint
of going on recess and mixing with people in the
plant. To me it was just two different ball games.
Q. If the Union had withdrawn its proposal to
have outside negotiators in-meeting out-meaning
outside employees of P & G, present instead had re-
quested that Mr. Blum be substituted as their out-
side negotiators, would you have permitted Mr.
Blum to enter P & G premises as in 1971?
A. Yes.
Paragraph 12: From May 1977 to date,92 the Respon-
dent negotiated in bad faith with no intention to enter
into a final binding agreement.
The record shows a contract was executed by the par-
ties on December 27, 1977, after a series of negotiating
sessions beginning in July. (G.C. Exh. 22.) The signa-
tures of the parties were on a single instrument and con-
tained the signatures of the plant manager and the
Union's negotiating committee, including those of Hatton
(Dallas) and Jones (Kansas City). The General Counsel
explained at the hearing that he was not relying on the
Respondent's position on substantive proposals to sup-
port the above unfair labor practice allegation but rather
on the Respondent's throwing roadblocks to prevent the
participation of outsiders in the negotiating process.9 3
Discussion
The law is clear that a collective-bargaining represen-
tative may select, absent rare circumstances, whomever
ga The complaint issued on December 15, 1977.
gs Testimony of General Counsel.
N
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it wishes to represent it in collective-bargainlng negotia-
tions.9 4 The basic issue involved in this case is whether
the Respondent engaged in conduct which unlawfully in-
terfered with the right of the Unions involved to select
nonplant employees to serve on their plant bargaining
committees.
A collective-bargaining relationship has existed be-
tween the Respondent and each of the four Unions for at
least 25 years. Each Union is the bargaining representa-
tive only at its particular plant and each contract is only
with that particular Union. Each contract had a different
expiration date beginning with the Port Ivory plant on
November 18, 1976, followed by Kansas Citv on Febru-
ary 3, 1977, Dallas on April 8, 1977, and lastly, Balti-
more on July 24, 1977. Each Union is an independent
labor organization. Traditionally in past years, each
plant's negotiating committee consisted only of the em-
ployees at the plant with no outsiders participating,
except for its attorney on occasions. All prior negotia-
tions have been held in the plant and the employees on
the negotiating team were paid for lost working time
spent in negotiations.
In 1975, the four Unions, forming the Amalgamation,
decided that, in the forthcoming negotiations, each
Union would have a member from each of the other
three Unions as a member of its own negotiating team.
Other of the Respondent's plants are likewise represented
by independent labor organizations but they were not
members of the Amalgamation. It is uncontroverted an
ultimate objective of the Amalgamation was to establish
a multiplant unit for bargaining. It is also clear that the
Respondent, from its corporate headquarters, to its plant
hierarchies, was opposed to a multiplant bargaining unit
and to the concept of outsiders on the plant committees.
The Respondent was concerned that the participation of
outsiders in the bargaining was a step along the path to a
multiplant unit and it was intent on attempting to scatter
obstructions along the way. For the first time, beginning
with the Port Ivory plant and through the Baltimore
plant negotiations, each union attempted to bring in out-
siders representatives of the other three Unions, to par-
ticipate and assist in its bargaining negotiations for a new
contract. The Respondent, at each plant, acknowledged
the right of the Unions to bring outsiders into the negoti-
ations. However, at each plant, the Respondent accused
the Union involved of changing the bargaining proce-
dure by wanting to include outsiders on its bargaining
team. In each instance, the Respondent attempted to
retain the status quo as in the past years-only plant em-
ployees on the Union's negotiating team, with bargaining
taking place in the plant and the employees on the com-
mittee being paid for lost working time spent in the ne-
gotiations. As found above, had the Unions not attempt-
ed to include outsiders on their bargaining team, the Re-
spondent, at all four plants, would have continued to
make the plant premises available for bargaining and
would have continued to pay the employees for the lost
working time spent in negotiations. By utilizing the out-
94 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, 235 NLRB 1128 (1978),
supplementing 229 NLRB 576 (1977), enfd. 599 F.2d 185 7th Cir. 1979);
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 173 NLRB 275 (1968),
enfd. 415 F2d 174 (8th Cir. 1969)
siders on their bargaining teams, the Unions were engag-
ing in what has been termed a form of "coordinated bar-
gaining." However, the Unions were not using this tech-
nique as a clear and present danger to the destruction of
the single plant units and the establishment of a multi-
plant unit which was an ultimate aim of the Unions.
When outsiders first appeared at the bargaining table at
the four locations at the request of the Union involved in
the bargaining, questions prepared by the Respondent's
corporate headquarters were propounded by the Respon-
dent's negotiators to ascertain the role of the outsiders at
the bargaining table. In each instance, it was made clear
to the Respondent the outsiders were there to assist the
Union then engaged in bargaining and they were not
there as a representative of the bargaining agent at their
home plant. At no time, before or during bargaining, did
the bargaining representative indicate in any manner to
the Respondent the outsiders were there for the purpose
of bargaining on a multiplant basis. The position of the
Respondent at each plant was that, because of its securi-
ty policy, it would not permit outsiders into the plant to
participate in the negotiations. The record shows that
plant management discussed the outsider issue with the
personnel at the Respondent's corporate headquarters.
The advice given was that by bringing in outsiders on
their bargaining teams the Unions were changing the
bargaining procedures and the plant management had the
right to no longer make its premises available for bar-
gaining. I am not convinced the refusal of the Respon-
dent, at each of the plants, was based on its security
policy of nonplant employees being permitted only on
guided tours. The Respondent contends it was not re-
quired to change its security policy to permit the outsid-
ers into the plant to participate in negotiations. At first
blush this argument may appear to have merit but then
pales. I am convinced the Respondent seized on its secu-
rity policy as a pretext to dissuade and to make it more
difficult for the Unions to include outsiders on their bar-
gaining teams. As mentioned above, attorneys for the
Unions participated in negotiations in the plant in past
years and no objections were raised to their presence in
the plant. I am not impressed with the Respondent's ar-
gument it would have been difficult to police the con-
duct of the outsiders in the plant during bargaining re-
cesses, particularly where, as here, only three outsiders
were to participate in the bargaining. An employer is not
under any statutory obligation to make the plant prem-
ises available for bargaining negotiations or to pay em-
ployees on the union bargaining committee for lost
working time. The Respondent appears to argue that the
problems of access to the plants by outsiders and paying
the employees on the bargaining committees were re-
solved by mutual agreement. I do not agree. Simply put,
the Unions wanted the outsiders on their teams. In all
other respects they wished to bargain as the parties had
bargained for more than 25 years. I do not consider the
addition of the outsiders to assist in the negotiations as a
change in the bargaining process any more than would
be the addition of an attorney, a pension expert, an
economist, or anyone whom the bargaining representa-
tive believed could be of assistance in bargaining. On the
other hand, the Respondent refused to permit bargaining
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 973
on the plant premises and refused to pay the employees
for working time lost because outsiders were to partici-
pate. Under these circumstances, I find the Respondent
discontinued the practice of making its premises available
for bargaining and paying the committee members for
lost working time spent in negotiations, a practice in ex-
istence for more than 25 years, in retaliation over the
Unions' exercise of their statutory right to select repre-
sentatives from other of the Respondent's bargaining
units to assist each other in collective-bargaining negotia-
tions. Such conduct I find to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
When the Respondent was unsuccessful in its attempts
to induce the Unions to exclude the outsiders, it initially
discontinued the practice of bargaining in the plant and
paying the plant employees on the committee for the
time lost. The next phase then began-the bargaining
away from the plant and the denial of union leave and
vacation time. The Board and courts have found an em-
ployer unlawfully interfered with employee free choice
of bargaining representatives where multiple bargaining
units existed and the employer refused to meet with a
union negotiating committee representing a particular
bargaining unit because the committee included outside
negotiators from units other than the one for which the
negotiations were being conducted. 9 5 In the present
case, the Respondent did not refuse outright to meet
with the union bargaining committees which included
the outsiders. It did, however, impede the opportunities
for the outsiders to be present at the negotiations.
Each of the Unions made requests to use union leave
for the purpose of attending negotiations at another of
the plants. At all four plants, the requests for union leave
were denied by the Respondent on similar grounds-that
attendance at negotiations at another plant to represent
the other Union was not local union business as it inter-
preted the contract provision. Each of the four contracts
contains a clause which allows employees up to 30 days'
uncompensated leave per year to attend to "Union" busi-
ness. The preamble of each agreement defines "Union"
as the contracting labor organization. In view of the
statements by the union representatives that their role at
the negotiations elsewhere was to assist that local in ne-
gotiating a contract, the Respondent's interpretation was
reasonable. The Respondent contends it has no obliga-
tion to liberalize or abandon the contract provision and
equally employees have no right to be granted leave to
go elsewhere and represent employees in other plants on
behalf of other unions other than by applicable contract
provisions.
Having been unsuccessful in obtaining union leave to
participate in negotiations at other plants, attempts were
made to use vacation time for such purpose. Jones, the
Kansas City union president, was denied permission by
his foreman, Blasche, to take off on March 25 as a vaca-
tion day but, nevertheless, absented himself and attended
the Dallas negotiations.9 6 Upon his return he received a
I-day disciplinary suspension and an entry was recorded
95 Minnesota Mining d Mfjg. Co.. supra,- The Standard Oil Co. v
N.L.R.B. 322 F.2d 40 (6th Cir 1963).
D He had already been denied union leave to participate in negotia-
tions at the Port Iory plant
in his personnel file. I have found Jones was denied per-
mission to be off on March 25 to prevent him from at-
tending the Dallas negotiations and not for valid business
reasons. Accordingly, I find such denial of vacation
leave and the subsequent disciplinary action were dis-
criminatory in their application and violative of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Although an employer has the
right to discipline an employee for cause, including ab-
senting himself without permission, such right is not
available where the underlying reason is to deprive an
employee of his Section 7 rights. As stated above, the
motivation for denying the time off was to prevent Jones
from attending the Dallas negotiations and the subse-
quent disciplinary action imposed on him was in further-
ance of the Respondent's concerted efforts to discourage
and prevent as best it could the participation of outsiders
in the negotiations.
We turn now to the July 18 incident when Jones was
absent and attended the Baltimore negotiations. His wife
called beforehand that he would be absent. Upon his
return, he received a 5-day suspension. It should be re-
membered Jones had worked in the plant for 44 years
and had a good attendance record. In the past he had
taken time off after calling in beforehand and was not
asked the reasons for his absence upon his return. In this
particular instance, the Respondent was aware he had
been at the Baltimore negotiation meeting that day.
Here, too, I find the motivation for the 5-day disciplin-
ary suspension imposed on Jones was because he partici-
pated in the Baltimore negotiation meeting, a protected
activity, and was not based on a valid business reason. I
find the suspension violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of
the Act. I have also found that Donnellon (Baltimore)
was denied a vacation day for October 15 to prevent him
from attending the Port Ivory negotiations. Such con-
duct I likewise find violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
After the parties had begun negotiations away from
the plants, the Respondent rejected the Unions' requests
to meet evenings or weekends at the Port Ivory, Kansas
City, and Dallas plants. Parties are obligated to meet and
confer at reasonable times and hours. This does not mean
an employer must concede to a union's request to meet
outside normal working hours in all cases. The Respon-
dent was aware the Unions intended to bring into the ne-
gotiations representatives from the other three Unions.
The plant managements were all aware when the bar-
gaining meetings were taking place97 and were support-
91 Plant Manager Graham (Baltimore) admittedly was aware that the
Port Ivory negotiations were scheduled for October 6, when he denied
union leave to Donnellon. Personnel Manager Capshaw (Baltimore)
denied union leave and a vacation day to Donnellon for October 15. At
the time he was aware a Port Ivory negotiation meeting was scheduled
for that day. Later he told Donnellon the Port Iory meeting had been
canceled. He obviously was made aware of the cancellation by the Port
Ivory management even before the Port Ivory management had notified
the Union (Port Ivory) of its unavailability to meet on October 15. In
Kansas City, Blasche, a boiler room foreman there, was aware of Jones'
attendance at the [)allas ad Baltimore negotiations Robinsoin testified he
told Plant Manager Mclntire (Kansas City) and (irahiam (Bahlimire) their
cmploees were at the October meeting ill Port ltory Industrial Rela-
tions Manager Ptaton (Dallas) admitted he knew the Port Ivory plant was
Continued
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ive of each other in impeding the attempts of the repre-
sentatives to take time off to attend-first by the denial
of union leave and then denials of vacations where the
purpose was to attend the negotiations.
In the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company case,
cited supra, the employer refused to grant uncompensat-
ed leave to employee representatives from one bargain-
ing unit to permit them to engage in bargaining as a
member of another bargaining unit's bargaining commit-
tee at the same time the employer refused the union's re-
quest to bargain during nonworking hours. The Board in
that case stated:
[w]hile Respondent was under no obligation to ac-
quiesce to the Union's demands for bargaining ses-
sions outside normal business hours, it could not si-
multaneously refuse its employees' requests for
leave without pay to attend contract talks because
these employees were not employees of the unit in-
volved. Thus, if Respondent refused a request for
unpaid time off it then was incumbent on Respon-
dent to engage in negotiation sessions when em-
ployee representatives could attend, even, if neces-
sary, outside working hours.
The Board found that, by refusing either alternative, the
employer interfered with the union's right to select its
own bargaining representative in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. In the present case, the Respondent
likewise refused to allow uncompensated time off to em-
ployees to act as a bargaining representative of another
labor organization for the purpose of negotiating a con-
tract at the plant where this other labor organization was
the collective-bargaining agent. The facts are somewhat
dissimilar and the question arises whether the distinctions
require a different result. In the cited case only one labor
organization was involved, representing employees in
four separate bargaining units, whereas here we have
four independent labor organizations, each representing
separate bargaining units. Be that as it may, a collective-
bargaining representative may select whomever it wishes
to assist in collective-bargaining negotiations with an em-
ployer and is not restricted to selecting only members of
its own labor organization. Thus, the Unions here had
the choice of its own negotiators without interference by
the Respondent. The Respondent did acknowledge the
Unions had such choice. In prior bargaining in the cited
case, the union had made use occasionally o: outside ne-
gotiators and the fartherest distance between any two
plants was 133 miles. In the present case there was no
precedent for the use of nonplant employees to partici-
pate on a negotiating committee and the distance be-
tween plants was considerably farther. I do not attach
any significant difference in the fact that here the Unions
for the first time intended to use outsiders As I have
found above, the Unions did not attempt to engage in
multiplant bargaining in these negotiations-in both cases
the concern of the employers was the overhanging cloud
of the possibility of a multiplant unit. And because of the
distances involved in the present case, it was more diffi-
engaging in bargaining on the dates requested by Dallas employees for
union leave.
cult for outsiders to make themselves available to partici-
pate in the bargaining process, particularly where the
bargaining was during the week and not on weekends.
After negotiations began away from the plant, the Re-
spondent had rejected requests to meet evenings and
weekends. In the cited case, the denial of the leave was
based in part on the effect on the plant operation caused
by the absence of the outside negotiators. In the present
case, there was no such contention. Here, unlike the
cited case, the Respondent relied on its interpretation of
the union leave provision in the contracts when it denied
union leave to the employees who sought the uncompen-
sated leave to participate in the negotiations at the other
plants. The Respondent had denied union leave in the
past where it deemed such leave not to be "Union" busi-
ness. In one instance involving the Dallas plant, the re-
fusal to grant union leave led to arbitration. In that dis-
pute the Union (Dallas) had asked for union leave to
send a representative to the Respondent's Alexandria,
Louisiana, plant then engaged in negotiations to explain
its contract to the Alexandria Union. The arbitrator
ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating it was not par-
ticularly in the interest of the Dallas Union and it was
straining to find other than a remote or incidental benefit
to the Dallas Union. The employee in that case went on
the weekend to meet with the Alexandria Union to per-
form his mission.
The Respondent, by denying the uncompensated leave
and vacation days, where the purpose of the leave was
to participate as a member of the union negotiating com-
mittee at another of the plants, effectively impeded the
availability of such representatives to participate. In Port
Ivory, outsiders were present only at the first negotiating
meeting on October 6. Union representatives at the other
three plants had been refused union leave to attend.
Bramble (Baltimore) switched shifts with another em-
ployee and attended. Jones (Kansas City) took a night
flight to New York, attended the bargaining session, and
then returned to Kansas City in time to be present at his
shift. Middlebrook (Dallas) was on vacation at the time.
Outsiders did not participate in later meetings at Port
Ivory. Donnellon was refused a vacation request to
attend the scheduled October 15 meeting which was
later canceled. At the first bargaining session in Kansas
City, representatives of the other three plants were pre-
sent. McCauley was on vacation at the time. I assume
Wilkins (Baltimore) and Hatton (Dallas) who were pre-
sent were also on vacation since the three Unions were
all denied union leave to attend the Kansas City negotia-
tions. No outsiders attended later negotiations. In Dallas,
representatives of the other three Unions were present at
the first negotiation session. Donnellon (Baltimore) was
on vacation at the time. Jones had been denied a vaca-
tion day but attended. The record is silent as to the
status of Deanovich (Port Ivory) but, since union leave
had been denied, it is fair to assume he was on vacation.
In Baltimore, McCauley, Hatton, and Jones were present
at the first negotiation session on July 18. As described
above, Jones was suspended afterwards. The record is
silent as to the status of McCauley and Hatton but, since
union leave was not available, I assume they were on va-
cation at the time.
- ---- -- --- ___ - __ -
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 975
The Respondent refused to grant union leave to attend
and participate in the negotiations at the other plants as a
representative of the labor organization where the con-
tract negotiations were taking place. Thus, the Unions
were effectively restricted in selecting the particular indi-
viduals to be brought in. Not being able to get uncom-
pensated time off or to get vacation days where the Re-
spondent believed such requested time off was to attend
the negotiations left the Unions with no alternative
except to send whoever was on vacation at the time.
Because of the distances between the plants the prob-
lem in being able to attend was not limited merely to
meeting during working hours or nonworking hours to
hold negotiations. If some of the negotiations were held
on weekends, the outsiders would have been more read-
ily available to attend but the Respondent had rejected
such requests.
In its concerted efforts to resist the use of outsiders in
the negotiations, the Respondent first caused the bargain-
ing to be removed from the plant premises and ceased
paying the plant employees for the lost working time
spent in negotiations. It refused the Unions' requests to
meet after normal working hours and on weekends. It
then refused to grant union leave and refused vacation
requests. These combined actions, viewed in total, can
only be seen as an attempt to restrain the outsiders from
participating in the negotiations, thus interfering with the
Unions' rights to freely choose their bargaining represen-
tatives. I have found that the Respondent's interpretation
of the union leave was reasonable; i.e., the purpose of the
leave requested was not "Union" business. The denial of
union leave effectively precluded the Union then en-
gaged in bargaining from selecting its own representa-
tives for contract negotiations. The contract clause
cannot be interpreted to deny any other type of uncom-
pensated leave to the selected representatives. In light of
the Respondent's actions designed to impede the partici-
pation of outsiders in the negotiations, as described
above, it seems to me that the Respondent was obligated
to provide an alternative form of uncompensated leave
to the outsiders, particularly where, as here, the Respon-
dent does not contend their absence would have inter-
fered with its business operations. Accordingly, I find
the denial of uncompensated leave to the outsiders,
where the purpose of such leave was to participate in the
contract negotiations at another of the Respondent's
plants, restrained the contracting Unions' right to select
their bargaining representatives, and violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
The Remaining Allegations
1. The General Counsel has alleged that the Respon-
dent, at its Port Ivory and Baltimore plants, refused to
bargain if outsiders partipated in the bargaining negotia-
tions.
The record does not support these allegations. Rather,
it is clear the Respondent at all four plants refused to
make its premises available for negotiations if outsiders
were present. It did not, however, refuse to meet off the
premises. Accordingly, I shall dismiss these allegations.
2. The Dallas complaint alleges the Respondent re-
fused to meet with the full union bargaining committee
and refused to schedule negotiation sessions with 24
hours' notice.
The record shows the Respondent did meet with the
Union's bargaining committee, including outsiders, albeit
off the Respondent's premises. The record does not sup-
port the allegations relative to the 24-hour notice. Ac-
cordingly, I shall dismiss these allegations.
3. I find, as alleged in the Port Ivory case, Plant Man-
ager Sharfe told Port Ivory employees the participation
of outsiders in the Port Ivory negotiations would result
in a less favorable contract. Such statement constitutes a
threat violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Baltimore complaint alleges the Respondent ne-
gotiated in bad faith with no intention to enter into a
final and binding agreement. As found above, the parties
executed a collective-bargaining contract on December
27, 1977, after a series of negotiating sessions beginning
in July. In support of this allegation, the General Coun-
sel relies on the Respondent's action to prevent outsiders
from participating in the bargaining at Baltimore. I find
the evidence insufficient to support the contention that
the Respondent had no intention to enter into a contract.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation.
5. I have found, as alleged in the Dallas and the Port
Ivory complaints, respectively, that Industrial Relations
Manager Paton (Dallas) and Personnel Manager Jones
(Port Ivory) threatened employees with disciplinary
action if they used union leave to attend bargaining ne-
gotiations at other of the Respondent's plants. Inasmuch
as I have found the Respondent's interpretation of the
contract provision pertaining to union leave to be reason-
able, i.e., such activity did not constitute local union
business, I shall dismiss these allegations.
6. The General Counsel contends in both the Dallas
and Kansas City cases that the Respondent refused to ex-
ecute the agreed-upon contracts where such documents
would contain the signatures of the Unions' entire bar-
gaining committees.
Section 8(d) of the Act imposes as a good-faith bar-
gaining obligation on both employers and labor organiza-
tions "the execution of a written contract incorporating
any agreement reached if requested by either party."
Neither party may refuse to sign the contract once an
agreement is reached.g9 In both Dallas and Kansas City
the plant manager signed a separate instrument contain-
ing only his signature with markings which precluded
the possibility of signatures by the union committee.
Each plant manager refused to sign a copy containing
the signatures of the union committee. At Kansas City,
the parties have executed separate instruments. No con-
tention is made that a valid collective-bargaining agree-
ment does not exist. In April 1978, during the course of
the instant hearing and I year after the Dallas contract
had been agreed upon, a single instrument was finally
signed by the parties in Dallas. The instrument included
the signatures of the outsiders.
In Stylecraft Furniture Company, 111 NLRB 930
(1955), the Board found an 8(a)(5) violation where the
employer, after having reached agreement on the con-
tract, refused to sign the contract without all the individ-
'9 H. J. Heinz Company v. N.LR.B., 311 U.S. 514 (1941).
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ual employees signing the agreement. A similar result
was reached in H. N. Thayer Company, 99 NLRB 1122
(1952). The common rationale for a finding f violations
in those cases was that the employer was trying to un-
dermine the representative status of the union.
It is clear in the present case that the Respondent's re-
fusal to sign a single instrument was an attempt to keep
from recognizing the outsiders as members of the bar-
gaining committee. Traditionally, the entire union negoti-
ating committee had signed the contract albeit no outsid-
ers were on the committee. It was only in the face of the
Unions' inclusion of the outsiders that the Respondent
has refused to sign a single instrument. The Respondent
counters by stating it was the Union who refuised to sign
the agreement, and it was willing to sign a single agree-
ment signed only by the union president and the Respon-
dent. As authority for this proposition, the Respondent
cites several cases upholding the validity of multiple in-
struments constituting a single contract. The cases cited,
however, do not address a refusal to sign an agreement,
but only the question of whether a valid contract existed.
It is clear that the Respondent's actions were calculated
at each turn to frustrate the Unions' choice of bargaining
committee representatives. Having acknowledged the
Unions may insist on the inclusion of "outsiders" on the
bargaining committees, the Respondent could not then
refuse to recognize these outsiders as members of the
committee after an agreement had been reached by refus-
ing to sign a single instrument containing their signa-
tures. Accordingly, I find the Respondent, at its Dallas
and Kansas City plants, violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5)
of the Act by refusing to sign the agreed-upon contract
containing signatures of outsiders. The signing of the
single instrument at Dallas I year after its initial refusal
to sign does not preclude the unfair labor practice find-
ing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The following are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and at all times rel-
evant herein, each has been the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit
shown below for purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
(a) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers, Inc:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Port Ivory plant, including clericals, laboratory em-
ployees, and fire inspectors, but excluding confiden-
tial employees, professional employees, the nurse,
guards, all managers and employees on leave of ab-
sence due to lack of work and superv:isors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers:
All employees employed at its Baltimore plant
exclusive of the plant manager, supervisory employ-
ees, staff employees performing work of a confiden-
tial nature and employees in a leave of absence due
to lack of work.
(c) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of Kansas
City, Kansas:
All employees employed at the Kansas City,
Kansas plant and Kansas City warehouse, exclusive
of the plant, manager all other members of supervi-
sion, the plant manager's secretary, general produc-
tion manager's secretary, the personnel manager's
secretary, the nurse, and employees on a leave of
absence due to lack of work.
(d) Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of Dallas:
All employees, including the fire marshal and the
employees in any outside warehouse operated by
the Dallas plant, excluding plant manager's secre-
tary, operation manager's secretaries, industrial rela-
tions manager's secretary, the cashier, other staff
employees performing work of a confidential
nature, professional employees, guards, watchmen,
supervisors as defined in the LMRA and employees
in a leave of absence due to lack of work.
3. By discontinuing the practice of making its premises
available for contract negotiations and paying plant em-
ployees serving on the negotiating committee for lost
working time spent in negotiations in retaliation over the
Unions' exercise of their rights to select representatives
from other of the Respondent's bargaining units to assist
each other in collective-bargaining negotiations, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
4. By denying uncompensated leave and/or vacation
time to its employees where the purpose of such leave
was to participate in contract negotiations as a represen-
tative of a labor organization then the bargaining repre-
sentative at another of the Respondent's plants, the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminatorily denying vacation leave to Omer
Jones, to prevent him from participating in the negotia-
tions at the Dallas plant, the Respondent, at its Kansas
City plant, has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
6. By unlawfully suspending Omer Jones for his atten-
dance at the Dallas and Baltimore negotiations on March
25 and July 18, 1977, respectively, the Respondent, at its
Kansas City plant, has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
7. By discriminatorily denying vacation leave to
Walter Donnellon to prevent him from participating in
the negotiations at the Port Ivory plant, the Respondent,
at its Baltimore plant, has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
Act.
8. By refusing to sign an agreed-upon contract contain-
ing the signatures of nonplant employees on behalf of the
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MFG. COMPANY 977
collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent, at
its Dallas and Kansas City plants, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
9. By threatening employees that the participation of
nonplant employees on the Union's negotiating commit-
tee would result in a less favorable contract for the em-
ployees, the Respondent, at its Port Ivory plant, has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. Except for the foregoing, the Respondent has com-
mitted no other unfair labor practices under the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. I have found that the Respondent suspended
Omer Jones for his absences on March 25 and July 18,
1977, for reasons which violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act. I shall therefore recommend the Respondent
make him whole for any loss of pay which he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
him. Backpay computations shall be in accordance with
F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 9
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 100
The Respondent, The Procter & Gamble Manufactur-
ing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Independent Oil &
Chemical Workers, Inc., Independent Oil & Chemical
Workers, Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of
Kansas City, Kansas, or Independent Oil & Chemical
Workers of Dallas as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the designated appropriate unit
described above by:
(1) Refusing to make its plant premises available to any
of the Unions mentioned above for the purpose of nego-
tiating a collective-bargainng agreement relating to rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the employees in the designated appropri-
ate unit described above or to pay its plant employees on
the negotiating committee for that Union for lost work-
ing time spent in negotiations because the Union in-
~ See. generally. l 'l Pt,,hnbig & Ileuating (o, 138 NLRtB 716 1962).
o" I1 tihe cent l o xceptlions are filed ais provided hy Sec 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulatiis on the National labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and rectmlmended Order herein shall, as provLided
in Sec 11)2 48 of the Rules and Regulations, he idopted bh the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, Tlld ()rder alnd all ohiecllis tIhereto
shall he deenmed wraiied for all purposes
volved in the negotiations has invited or designated per-
sons not employed in the bargaining unit to attend and
participate in the negotiations of a collective-bargaining
agreement.
(2) Denying uncompensated leave and/or vacation
time to its employees where the purpose of such leave is
to attend and participate in contract negotiations as a
representative of the Union which is the bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees at another of the Respon-
dent's plants then engaging in negotiations for a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
(3) Refusing to sign an agreed-upon collective-bargain-
ing contract because the instrument is to be or is signed
by the members of the Union's negotiating committee re-
gardless of whether they are employed in the related ap-
propriate unit.
(b) Suspending or otherwise disciplining employees for
engaging protected concerted activity.
(c) Threatening employees that the participation in ne-
gotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement by per-
sons not employed in the appropriate unit as representa-
tives of the Union engaging in such negotiations would
result in a less favorable contract for the employees in
the appropriate unit.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Omer Jones whole for any loss of pay which
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy" and expunge the writ-
ten data relating to such disciplinary action from his per-
sonnel file.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Upon request of Independent Oil & Chemical
Workers of Kansas City, Kansas, execute the instrument
embodying the terms and conditions of the collective-
bargaining contract agreed upon on May 2, 1977, and
containing the signatures of the Union's negotiating com-
mittee.
(d) Post at its Port Ivory, Kansas City, Dallas, and
Baltimore plants, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."''l Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
"" I the event that this Order is einforced hby a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the Naliinal Labor Relations Hoard" shall read "Posted Pursu-
an t a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the
complaints be, and hereby are, dismissed insofar as they
have not been specifically found herein to be violative of
the Act.