Staco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

$TACO, INC. 1329
Staco, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-16631
April 22, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on October 1, 1979, by
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Staco,
Inc., herein called Respondent, the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Acting Regional Director for Region 1, issued a
complaint on November 27, 1979, against Respon-
dent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge and complaint and notice of hearing before
an administrative law judge were duly served on
the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on September 6,
1979, following a Board election in Case -RC-
15176, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Respon.
dent's employees in the unit found appropriate;'
and that, commencing on or about September 10,
1979, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has
refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative, although the Union has re-
quested and is requesting it to do so. The com-
plaint further alleges in substance that commencing
on or about September 19, 1979, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent has failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse, to provide the Union,
upon the Union's written request, with information
relative to the employees in the unit found appro-
priate, including, inter alia, the names of unit em-
ployees, their job classifications, rates of pay, and
certain other specified information related to the
employees' rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and terms and conditions of employment, all
of which requested information is alleged in the
complaint to be necessary for and relevant to the
Union's performance of its function as the exclusive
I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case I-RC-15176, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68
and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
See LTV Elecrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683
(4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd 397 F.2d 91
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
248 NLRB No. 171
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the unit, as well as for purposes of negotiat-
ing a collective-bargaining agreement with Respon-
dent.
On December 6, 1979, and January 18, 1980, Re-
spondent filed its answer and amended answer, re-
spectively, to the complaint, admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint,
and requesting that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety,
On January 28, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on February 4,
1980, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter filed a response to Notice To Show
Cause, and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judg-
ment. The General Counsel thereafter filed an op-
position to Respondent's Cross-Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment
In its answer and amended answer to the com-
plaint, Respondent admits that it has failed and re-
fused, and that it continues to fail and refuse, to
recognize or bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit found appropriate.
Respondent further admits that it has failed and
refused, and that it continues to fail and refuse, to
provide the Union with the requested information
described above. However, Respondent denies that
the Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit. While
Respondent denies that the information requested
by the Union is necessary for and relevant to the
Union's performance of its function as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees, its denial is predicated on its general denial
that the Union is the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the unit, and that it is
thus without any legitimate function in this context,
rather than on any denial by Respondent of the rel-
evancy of the particular information requested by
the Union with respect to the Union's carrying out
its obligations as the employees' bargaining repre-
sentative.
Staco, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of Amer-
STACO, INC.
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel argues that Respondent, by
its answer to the complaint, seeks to relitigate prior
issues heretofore determined in the representation
proceeding, Case -RC-15176. Thus, the General
Counsel argues that there are no litigable issues
warranting a hearing. We agree with the General
Counsel.
Review of the record herein, including the
record in the representation proceeding, Case 1--
RC-15176, establishes that pursuant to a Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election, approved
by the Regional Director for Region 1 on May 25,
1977, an election was conducted on June 29, 1977.
The tally was 68 votes for, and 67 votes against,
the Union, with 1 void ballot and 8 challenged bal-
lots, a sufficient number to affect the results of the
election. Thereafter, Respondent timely filed objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the elec-
tion. Respondent's objections alleged that the fair-
ness of the election was interfered with because: (a)
prior to the election, eligible voters were informed
by the Union that individuals who did not sign
union cards prior to the election would be liable to
pay a $25 initiation fee if the Union won the elec-
tion; (b) prior to the election, employees were in-
formed by the Union that if the Union won the
election all employees would have to join the
Union and those that did not do so would be fired;
(c) at the election, one ballot was declared void
when it was the clear intent of the voter to cast a
"NO" vote, as evidenced by the word "NO" being
written on the blank reverse side of the ballot; and
(d) during the course of the election, the Board
agent required all individuals who were wearing
"VOTE NO" buttons to remove them prior to get-
ting a ballot, whereas supporters of the Union were
not required to remove their emblems and badges.
After investigating Respondent's objections, the
Regional Director, on August 10, 1977, issued his
Report on Objections and Challenged Ballots, in
which he found insufficient evidence of any con-
duct that would warrant setting aside the election.
The Regional Director further found that the
Board agent properly declared void the ballot
which was unmarked on the printed side, but
which was marked with the word "NO" on the
blank reverse side. Finally, the Regional Director
found that the Board agent properly and neutrally
requested voters to remove their "VOTE NO" or
"VOTE YES" buttons while in the polling area,
and that the Board agent properly declined to re-
quest that any voters remove their prounion T-
shirts while in the polling area. 2 Accordingly, the
Regional Director recommended that Respondent's
2 There were apparently no voters who wore antiunion apparel in the
polling area.
objections be overruled in their entirety. With
regard to the eight challenged ballots, the Regional
Director found that there were substantial and ma-
terial issues involved, including, but not limited to,
issues of credibility, which were, in view of the
Regional Director, best resolved after an eviden-
tiary hearing. Accordingly, the Regional Director
recommended that a hearing be conducted to re-
solve the issues relevant to the challenged ballots.
Respondent timely filed exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's Report on Objections and Chal-
lenged Ballots. Therein, Respondent excepted to
the Regional Director's recommendations that its
objections based on the actions taken by the Board
agent, as described above, be overruled.
On January 31, 1978, the Board issued its Deci-
sion and Order Directing Hearing, 3 in which it
adopted the Regional Director's recommendations
that Respondent's objections, including its objec-
tion to the Board agent's voiding of the improperly
marked ballot, be overruled. With regard to the
eight challenged ballots, the Board directed that a
hearing be held for the purpose of receiving evi-
dence to resolve the issues raised by the challenges.
The hearing on the eight challenged ballots in
Case -RC-15176 was consolidated with the hear-
ing in certain unfair labor practice proceedings be-
tween the parties. This consolidated proceeding
was heard by Administrative Law Judge Claude R.
Wolfe on various dates between January 30 and
April 14, 1978. On January 25, 1979, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge issued his Decision and Order in
this consolidated proceeding, in which, insofar as is
relevant herein, he recommended that the Union's
challenges of six voters and the Respondent's chal-
lenge of one voter (Phyllis Jones) all be sustained,
as he found that all seven voters were supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.4
Thereafter, both Respondent and the Union
timely filed exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's findings and recommendations in regard to
the challenged ballots.
On August 21, 1979, the Board issued its Deci-
sion and Order5 in which, inter alia, it adopted the
Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that
the Union's challenges to six ballots be sustained.
However, the Board did not adopt the Administra-
tive Law Judge's recommendation that Respon-
dent's challenge to one ballot (Phyllis Jones) also
be sustained. In this regard, the Board found insuf-
ficient evidence to support Respondent's contention
that Jones was a supervisor within the meaning of
3 234 NLRB 593 (1978).
4The parties stipulated during the proceeding that the eighth chal-
lenged voter, Charles Ward, was ineligible to vote because he was not an
employee on the election eligibility cutoff date.
5 244 NLRB No. 49 (1979).
STACO, INC. 1 31
Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, the Board
overruled Respondent's challenge to Phyllis Jones'
ballot and directed the Regional Director to open
and count that ballot, prepare and issue a revised
tally of ballots, and issue an appropriate certifica-
tion based thereon.
Thereafter, pursuant to the Board's Order, the
Regional Director opened and counted the ballot
of Phyllis Jones6 and issued a revised tally of bal-
lots.7 Finally, on September 6, 1979, the Regional
Director issued a Certification of Representative,
certifying the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in question.
In its response to the Notice To Show Cause and
its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Respon-
dent renews the contentions it earlier put forth in
support of its exceptions (a) to the Regional Direc-
tor's Report on Objections and Challenged Ballots,
and (b) to the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion, with respect to the challenged ballots.8 Thus,
Respondent reasserts its contention that the im-
properly marked "NO" ballot should not have
been declared void. Respondent also asserts its con-
tention that the six voters challenged by the Union
were not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, and that their ballots should have been count-
ed. Also, Respondent reasserts its contention that
the voter it challenged, Phyllis Jones, is a supervi-
sor and that her ballot should not have been count-
ed.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 9
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding.'0
8 She voted for the Union.
There were 69 votes for, and 67 votes against, the Union, with I
void ballot and 7 sustained challenges (ineligible voters).
8 The Board has, of course, considered and rejected these exceptions.
in 234 NLRB 593 (1978) and 244 NLRB No. 49 (1979), respectively
" See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v V.L.R.B, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board. Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.6
9
(c)
'0 Respondent contends that it was denied due process in not being
given the opportunity or notice to be present at the opening of Phyllis
Jones' ballot. In this regard, Respondent submitted as an exhibit to its re-
sponse to the Notice To Show Cause a copy of an August 24, 1979, letter
from the Regional Director to counsel for Respondent and the Union,
with copies to Respondent and the Union. The letter advised the parties
and their counsel that the ballot of Phyllis Jones would be opened and
counted, and a revised tally of ballots would be issued, on August 28,
1979, at II am., in the Region I office Respondent asserts that its coun-
We therefore find that Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and deny Respondent's Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma-
terial herein, a corporation duly organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the Virgin Is-
lands, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of clinical thermometers and pipettes and re-
lated products, at its Poultney, Vermont, facility.
Respondent annually purchases materials valued in
excess of $50,000 at its Poultney, Vermont, loca-
tion directly from points outside the State of Ver-
mont, and annually ships products valued in excess
of $50,000 from its Poultney, Vermont, location di-
rectly to points located outside the State of Ver-
mont.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
sel did not receive this letter until August 31, 1979, one day after he had
been furnished the revised tally of ballots As a result of its counsel's late
receipt of the Regional Director's August 24, 1979, letter, Respondent as-
serts that it was denied the opportunity to be present to inspect the ballot
to ascertain whether or not it was properly marked. Respondent contends
that under these circumstances "The ballot of Phyllis Jones should be
voided because of lack of due process."
We find Respondent's contention in this regard to be wholly without
merit. Respondent asserts, by way of an exhibit to its response to the
Notice To Show Cause, that its counsel received the revised tally of bal-
lots from Region I on August 30, 1979. Sec. 102.69(h) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, provides:
(h) In any such case in which the regional director or the Board,
upon a ruling on challenged ballots, has directed that such ballots be
opened and counted and a revised tally of ballots issued, and no ob-
jection to such revised tally is filed by any party within 3 days after
the revised tally of ballots has been furnished, the regional director
shall forthwith issue to the parties certification of the results of the
election, including certification of representatives where appropriate,
with the same force and effect as if issued by the Board. The pro-
ceeding shall thereupon be closed
Respondent does not claim to have filed either an objection to the re-
vised tally of ballots, or a request for an extension of time in which to do
so, within the time period permitted by Sec. 102.69(h). Rather, it appears
from the aforementioned exhibit to Respondent's response to the Notice
To Show Cause, that Respondent did not object to the revised tally of
ballots, on the procedural grounds discussed above, until September 20,
1979, in a letter from Respondent's counsel to the Regional Director. In
any event, Respondent has not even belatedly contended that the ballot
in question was improperly marked, or was otherwise deficient on its
face, or that the Regional Director unfairly or inaccurately counted and
tabulated the ballot in question, or erroneously compiled the revised tally
of ballots. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in Respondent's
contention that the ballot of Phyllis Jones should now be declared void.
STACO. INC. 3
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All production and maintenance personnel, in-
cluding leadmen and local truckdrivers em-
ployed by Staco, Inc., at its Poultney, Ver-
mont, location, but excluding office clerical
employees, over-the-road truckdrivers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On June 29, 1977, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 1, designated the Union as
their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certi-
fied as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in said unit on September 6, 1979,
and the Union continues to be such exclusive rep-
resentative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and For Information
and Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about September 10, 1979,
and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about September 10, 1979, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
in said unit.
On or about September 10, 1979, the Union, by
letter, requested that Respondent supply the Union
with certain information relative to the employees
in the aforesaid unit, including, inter alia, the names
of unit employees, their job classifications, rates of
pay, and certain other specified information rela-
tive to their rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and terms and conditions of employment.
Commencing on or about September 19, 1979, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, Respon-
dent has refused, and continues to refuse, to pro-
vide the Union with the requested information.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
September 10, 1979, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that Respondent has, since Sep-
tember 19, 1979, and continuing thereafter to date,
refused to provide the Union with requested infor-
mation, described above, and that, by such refusals,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and,
upon request, furnish the requested information and
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
- ____ ------
STACO, INC. 1333
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Staco, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance personnel, in-
cluding leadmen and local truckdrivers employed
by Staco, Inc., at its Poultney, Vermont, location,
but excluding office clerical employees, over-the-
road truckdrivers, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since September 6, 1979, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about September 10, 1979,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
6. By refusing on or about September 19, 1979,
and continuing to refuse thereafter, to provide the
Union with certain information relative to the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit, including, inter alia,
the names of unit employees, their job classifica-
tions, rates of pay and certain other specified infor-
mation relative to their rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and terms and conditions of em-
ployment, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain and to
provide information, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering
with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Staco, Inc., Poultney, Vermont, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance personnel, in-
cluding leadmen and local truckdrivers em-
ployed by Staco, Inc., at its Poultney, Ver-
mont, location, but excluding office clerical
employees, over-the-road truckdrivers, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with certain
information requested by the Union relative to the
employees in the aforesaid unit, including, inter
alia, the names of unit employees, their job classifi-
cations, rates of pay, and certain other specified in-
formation related to their rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and terms and conditions of
employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, provide the Union with infor-
mation relevant to, and necessary for, the Union's
performance of its function as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the aforesaid unit, including the names of unit em-
ployees, their job classifications, rates of pay and
certain other specified information relative to the
employees' rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and terms and conditions of employment.
(c) Post at its Poultney, Vermont, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Relations Board."
STACO, INC.
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posted by 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
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 bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide United Fur-
niture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, with
information relevant to, and necessary for, its
performance of its function as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance personnel,
including leadmen and local truckdrivers
employed by Staco, Inc., at its Poultney,
Vermont, location, but excluding office
clerical employees, over-the-road truck-
drivers, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
STACO, INC.