The Gerstenslager Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 218 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Gerstenslager Company and International Union
Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO,
Amalgamated Local Union No. 813. Case
8-CA-6772
March 6, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On August 28, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and
the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Gerstenslag-
er Company, Wooster, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
I The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 Member Jenkins would additionally find, in agreement with the
Charging Party's exceptions, that Respondent's meat-rating proposal of
December 1971 was made for the purpose of undermining the Union's
position as bargaining representative and constitutes additional evidence of
Respondent's failure to bargain in good faith In his view, there is no valid
basis to distinguish the making of the merit-rating proposal from the other
more stringent provisions proposed by the Respondent which are herein
found to have constituted a part of the Respondent's total course of
unlawful conduct Indeed, a careful analysis of Respondent' s merit-rating
proposal reveals it as completely undermining previously agreed-to
provisions and totally destructive of prior negotiations Moreover, in
Member Jenkins' view, there is no basis for assuming , as did the
Administrative Law Judge, that the General Counsel treated the merit-
rating proposal different from the series of other proposals herein found to
be indicative of Respondent's failure to bargain in good faith To the
contrary, it would appear that this proposal, along with the other proposals,
was presented as one more facet of Respondent's unlawful bargaining
conduct Finally Member Jenkins finds little or no evidence supporting the
Administrative Law Judge's finding of "changed circumstances" Justifying
Respondent's proposal In his view, the "evidence" in this regard consists of
nothing more than unsupported, self-serving statements of Respondent's
witnesses, plainly insufficient in solid substance necessary to ground a
finding of "changed circumstances "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Trial Examiner: This case
was heard at Wooster, Ohio, April 18-21, 1972. The
original charge was filed December 17, 1971, and served on
the Respondent December 23, 1971. The complaint was
issued January 31, 1972. The issues are whether the
Respondent, on and after September 15, 1971, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by (1) failing and refusing to bargain in
good faith; (2) unilaterally instituting a merit-rating system
and a different method of computing seniority; (3)
conducting direct negotiations with employees, and negoti-
ating and entering into personal employment contracts
individually with employees; (4) withdrawing proposals
previously agreed to; (5) unilaterally eliminating supersen-
iortty of union officers; and (6),unilaterally terminating an
existing hospitalization plan
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT ' AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged at
Wooster, Ohio, in the manufacture of bookmobile trucks
and van trucks used in the transportation of mail and
freight by the U.S. Postal Service Corporation. It annually
receives materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
from points outside the State of Ohio, and ships finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside Ohio. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent also
admits, and I find, that the Charging Party (herein called
the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
i Except as indicated, the facts are undisputed The credibility findings
herein are based on demeanor, the knowledge upon which testimony is
based, whether it is specific or vague, whether or not it is corroborated or
supported. and the probabilities
I have taken into consideration Personnel Director C Robert Rasor's
admission on the stand that in 1965 he pled guilty to a charge of
embezzlement for which he was placed on probation for 2 years and
resigned from the bar of the State of Ohio This incident of dishonest
conduct has caused me much concern in assessing Rasor's credibility
However, the record also shows that Rasor has served his probation, made
restitution, and served in the responsible position of personnel director to
the Respondent's apparent satisfaction since 1967 In these circumstances,
and based on my observation of him on the witness stand, I have concluded
that his testimony is entitled to be evaluated on the same basis as that of the
other witnesses, and 1 have so evaluated it Cf N L R B v Dimon Coil
Company. Inc, 201 F 2d 484, 487-490, Federal Stainless Sink Div of Unarco
Industries, Inc, 197 NLRB No 76
202 NLRB No. 40
THE GERSTENSLAGER COMPANY 219
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
I find, as alleged in the complaint and admitted in the
answer, that the Union has been since 1941, and is now,
the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees
in an appropriate unit of all hourly rated plant employees,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The last collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and the Union expired April 4, 1971. Pursuant
to notice served by the Union, the parties met on February
10, 1971, to begin negotiating a new agreement. At this and
subsequent meetings Attorney Arthur Moore, Vice Presi-
dent and General Manager Richard Fishburn, and
Personnel Director C. Robert Rasor negotiated for the
Respondent. For the Union were Eugene Kroneker,
regional representative, subsequently replaced by Regional
Representative Nick Serraglio, and a shop committee of
employees-Howard Cooper, Robert Eyler, Christy Ni-
chols, Don McMichoels, and Joseph Hughes. After about
12 meetings, the Union struck the Respondent on April 4,
1971. The strikers were all eventually permanently re-
placed. On September 18, 1971, the pickets were removed,
and on September 21, 1971, the Union informed the
Respondent of the strikers' unconditional request for
reinstatement. The Respondent has hired no new employ-
ees since that date. Some of the strikers have been recalled;
others have not. The parties held a total of approximately
31 meetings, with a Federal mediator in attendance at most
of them, between February 10 and December 9, 1971, the
date of the last meeting. No agreement has been reached.
The Respondent stands ready to meet again upon request.2
At the first meeting, February 10, 1971, the Union
presented 91 proposed changes in the agreement which was
about to expire, including a yearly wage increase of $1 an
hour plus "cost of living" and more liberal fringe benefits,
union shop to be substituted for the maintenance-of-
membership clause in the old contract,3 abolition of
working foremen, and "plant-wide seniority." The Union
also proposed a substitute for a provision in the expiring
contract that the Company could subcontract "such work
as it has done in practice in the past," a new provision
restricting subcontracting to "the maintenance of the
buildings." During the ensuing months, the Union added
seven additional demands. The February 10 meeting was
devoted chiefly to an explanation of its proposals by the
2 To the extent that Union Representative Serraglio intended to imply, in
his testimony, that Attorney Moore refused a union request to meet after
December 9, I discredit him and credit Moore's testimony to the contrary
3 1 discredit the testimony of Union Representative Kroneker and
Bargaining Committee Chairman Cooper that Moore and Fishburn told
them, at this and subsequent meetings , there would never be a union shop in
the plant I credit Moore, Fishburn, and Rasor that they told the Union that
they would not agree to a union shop within the foreseeable future
4 Although the General Counsel contends that the Respondent's
proposal 9 would have imposed a new requirement that all grievances which
reach step 2 must give the names of all grievants, and be signed by at least
one grievant , both these requirements had been included in the expiring
contract (art. V, sec 4, step 2, p 17) In any event, the Respondent withdrew
this proposal before March 22. Similarly, with respect to the Respondent's
proposal 6, that no employee be permitted to leave his work to discuss any
matter with a shop committeeman or steward, but must request his steward
Union. In addition, at this meeting, and/or at subsequent
meetings, the parties agreed that, in accord with past
practice, all agreements would be tentative until a complete
collective-bargaining agreement was reached. Although all
witnesses testified to the same effect regarding the
substance of this agreement by the parties, they testified
differently as to their understanding of its meaning. Thus,
the Union's witnesses testified it meant that items agreed to
or tentatively agreed to were simply "agreed to" and would
not have to be negotiated further; the Respondent's
witnesses testified that all such items were merely "tenta-
tively agreed to" and could be reopened in changed
circumstances.
The second meeting was held February 17, 1971. The
Respondent presented its proposals, consisting of 30
changes in the old contract. Included in the Respondent's
proposals were the following, numbered as in the docu-
ment presented to the Union:
(5) A subcontracting clause giving the Company "the
right to subcontract out such work or services as it
believes can be done more expeditiously, more effi-
ciently, or less expensively than it can be done in
house."
(7) An amendment to the old contract requirement
that a steward or committeeman will acknowledge in
writing delivery of an employee discharge or discipline
notice, providing that any steward or committeeman
who refused to do so be suspended for 5 days.
(8) A new provision that grievances could be
initiated only by the employee or employees directly
affected, except that grievances which could directly
affect a substantial number of employees could be filed
by the Union.4
During subsequent negotiating sessions concessions were
made by both sides. The Union requested the Respondent
to prepare a "complete proposed contract" for submission
to its membership at a union meeting scheduled for March
24, and to provide each employee with a copy. The
Respondent did so, and the parties met on March 22 to
discuss it.
In paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of that document the
Respondent reaffirmed its original proposals 5, 7, and 8,
stating that those proposals had not been agreed to.
The document indicates that a total of 2 company
proposals had been agreed to; 15 (including a company-
proposed 3-year term, and a more liberal working foremen
provision) had not been agreed to and were still on the
table; and 6 had been withdrawn by the Company after the
be sent to the employee's work station, the Respondent withdrew this
proposal at or before the March 22 meeting when the Union acknowledged
that all employees knew they were not permitted to stop by the stewards' or
committeemen 's work stations to talk
At a meeting held on March 8, an issue was raised by the Respondent
regarding the establishment of a classification system There was no
classification system at the plant. all employees being paid at the same scale
whether they performed welding, assembly. finishing, or any other job
Although No 53 of the Union's initial proposals of February 10 was
"Standard Job Classification." the meaning of which is unexplained in the
record, there is testimony that the Union objected to the Respondent's
proposal, and was of the view that, in any event, there was no time to devise
a classification system during the current negotiations The parties then
agreed to put the question aside and to start work on such a system after a
new contract was signed
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union rejected them. It indicates that 19 union proposals
had been agreed to. The Company refused to agree to three
others and counterproposed as to them. Seven additional
provisions were designated as part Company and part
Union, to which agreement had been reached, at least in
principle, the Company suggesting language as to two.5
The Respondent put forward its first monetary offer at
this time, consisting of increased fringe benefits, and an
hourly wage increase, designated as "final," of 25 cents a
year for 3 years in increments of 15 cents and 10 cents each
year. Although several witnesses testified that there were
further monetary proposals and counterproposals during
this meeting, there is no credible evidence that the
Respondent varied from its offer of an immediate wage
increase of 15 cents effective April 4, 1971, with the second
1971 increment of 10 cents due October 4.
At the union membership meeting of March 24, the
employees voted to reject the new contract offered by the
Respondent, and to strike when the old contract expired.
Although additional negotiating sessions were held (a total
of 12 before the strike), the Union struck the Respondent
April 4, 1971, as indicated. All witnesses testified that the
major issues at the time of the strike were union shop,
working foremen, and Respondent's authority to subcon-
tract unit work .6 All testified there was no impasse on
wages.
During the strike, the parties continued negotiating, and
the Respondent continued to operate the plant, at first with
supervisors and office employees. In early June, however,
the Respondent put into effect the 15-cent-an-hour wage
increase offered to the Union in March, and began hiring
permanent replacements. Contrary to past hiring practice,
the Respondent hired all replacements at top scale which,
with the 15-cent increase, amounted to $3.10 an hour.?
At a meeting on June 22, the parties tentatively agreed to
change the definition "old" employees with plantwide
seniority for purposes of "layoffs, recall, promotions, and
transfers" from those employed before 1960, as provided in
the expired contract, to all those employed longer than 18
months; those employed for less than 18 months were to be
considered "new" employees with only divisionwide
seniority. The result of this change, which was to take
5 Figures are approximate, as the document is not altogether clear Some
provisions are designated as agreed to in part or in principle
The March 22 document made no reference to other proposals made by
the Union on February 10 and by the Company on February 17, and there
was no testimony concerning their status on March 22
6 Union Representative Kroneker testified that the Respondent's
proposal to restrict the kinds of grievances which could be filed by the
Union, to which the Union objected, was discussed at a number of
meetings, but no agreement had been reached at the time of the strike He
indicated, however, that this was not a major issue at the time of the strike
He also testified that another issue was the Company's desire to dispense
with the old contract provision giving an employee the right to have a
steward or committeeman present when he is disciplined or discharged
Other evidence indicates, however, that the Respondent made such a
proposal for the first time on October 12, 1971
7 At first the Respondent hired mostly students, informing them that
their jobs were permanent It advised the Union, however, that most of the
students would probably return to school, so there would be no problem
about recalling strikers when the strike was over As the summer wore on,
with no end of the strike in view, the Respondent, after late July, hired more
and more nonstudent replacements
8 I credit Kroneker's testimony, supported by documentary evidence,
that the Respondent made this proposal on June 25, despite Moore's
effect only after all strikers were recalled or on April 1,
1972, whichever occurred first, was to increase the number
of employees entitled to plantwide seniority. Tentative
agreement also was reached to accept the subcontracting
provision proposed by the Respondent.
At the next meeting, June 25, the Respondent proposed
that the seniority provision agreed to on June 22 be
changed by defining old employees as those hired before,
and new employees as those hired after , January 1, 1968.8
When the Union strongly protested, the Respondent
affirmed its June 22 agreement on this point. The
Respondent also dropped its proposed suspension of
stewards and committeemen for refusing to accept or sign
a discharge or discipline slip (original proposal 7), and
proposed that tender of such a slip would constitute
delivery and acceptance by, or notice to, the steward or
committeeman, and the employee affected.
On July 1, 1971, the Respondent offered the Union a
straight 25-cent-a-year wage increase.
On August 4, the parties conducted an in-depth review of
the bargaining. All witnesses agree that there was give-and-
take, both sides changing positions, at this session.
Thereafter, at the next meeting, in early or mid-August, the
Respondent submitted to the Union a document entitled
"Status of Negotiations," dated August 6, 1971.9 The
document listed some 6 company,10 20 union,ii and 5
point 12 proposed changes in the old contract as agreed
upon. Listed in paragraph 2, as agreed upon, was the
subcontracting clause proposed by the Respondent and
agreed to by the Union July 22 and 25. Although
paragraph 2 of this document also stated that agreement
on this change was contingent on the Company's accepting
a more liberal plantwide seniority provision, paragraph 9
listed among the union proposals agreed to the same more
liberal definitions of old and new employees agreed to on
June 22 and 25. The August 6 document also listed
agreement to a company proposal that the shop committee
chairman or co-chairman would sign any discharge or
discipline slip which the steward or committeemen refused
to sign (paragraph 3).
purported lack of knowledge of it
9 To the extent it is relevant , I do not credit Kroneker's testimony that
the Union had requested and expected a contract proposal, and not a
document summarizing the status of negotiations , from the Respondent at
this time I infer from Kroneker's testimony that there is no substantial
dispute that the August 6 document accurately reflected the status of
negotiations at that time
10 Checkoff, subcontracting, discipline slips, overtime records, union
officials' assignment to first shift, employee physical inability to do assigned
work
11 Loss of seniority, transfer to salary status , new and old employees,
discharge for garnishment or mental incapacity, waiver of doctor reports,
work clothes furnished , auditor's report of profit-sharing plan. industrial
injury, physical exams on company time, vending machine money,
company payments into pension plan, retirement awards, reactivation of
dormant departments. pay for attending grievance meetings , job-bidding
procedure, shift differentials , mandatory retirement , pension computations,
departments to be listed in contract furnishing copies of contract and
handbook
11 Absence due to ill health, injury, or layoff, job loans , overtime for
employees temporarily transferred, compulsory and noncompulsory over-
time, leaving company premises
THE GERSTENSLAGER COMPANY 221
The document indicated that 5 company proposals
(including a 3-year contract term)13 and 39 union
proposals (including union-shop)14 were still on the table.
It listed nine joint provisions (including working foremen)
as also still being negotiated.15
On August 30 the Union sent a telegram offering to
return to work on condition that all strikers be returned to
their jobs. The Respondent refused this offer as not
unconditional. The background period ended with a
request by the Union, made at a September 10 meeting,
that the Respondent state its position with regard to the
return of the strikers.
B. Events On and After September 15, 1971
The Respondent replied to the Union's September 10
request in a letter dated September 15, 1971, which stated,
in pertinent part:
The position of the Company is as follows with respect
to the specific matter hereinafter set out.
1. If the Union, on behalf of the striking bargaining
unit, offers unconditionally to call off the current
strike, the company will, when openings become
available, take back the presently striking employees in
line of strict "time" seniority. In other words the
employee with the earliest last date of hire will be taken
back first, then on down the line from there.
2. In the event of a subsequent layoff the company
will consider all employees, then working, for layoff
purposes, to be of equal seniority. The Company will
put into effect a rating system, the details of which have
not been definitely worked out, whereby each plant
worker will be rated by his supervisor and one other
Company official at periodic intervals. The rating will
be based primarily on the individual's productivity. In
a layoff, the least productive according to the last
ratings will be laid off.
The net effect of the foregoing is that for layoff
purposes all employees (1) hired during the strike, (2)
who continued working during the strike, (3) who
returned to work before the strike was over, (4) who are
recalled after the strike is terminated by the Union, will
have equal seniority as to "time."
Union Representative Kroneker advised the Respondent
by telephone about this time that the strike would be
terminated. The Respondent requested that this informa-
tion be put in writing. A letter dated September 16, 1971,
over the signature of Carl Smigel, region 3 director of the
13 Kroneker testified that the Company and the Union had agreed to a 3-
year term "as long as we were able to get along with the rest of the
proposals " Other company proposals still on the table dealt with work
rules, suspension and discharge procedure, distribution of overtime, job
bids
14 Union proposals not agreed to dealt with union security, leave for
death in family, job bids, holidays, eligibility for holiday pay, working
foremen, vacation pay, sick pay, eligibility for hospitalization, hospitaliza-
tion coverage, retirement pay, cost-of-living, time and a half for all Saturday
work, life insurance, dust system, departments, safety committee, "Choice
of arbitration or strike," selling merchandise to employees, inclusion of
truckdrivers in unit , vending machines , statement of relations between
company and union Some of these subjects were dealt with in two or more
union proposals
Union, containing an unconditional offer to return all
strikers to work was then dispatched to the Respondent.is
The Respondent received this letter on September 21 or 22.
The pickets were removed Saturday, September 18, 1971.
The last replacements were hired during the week ending
September 18, and reported to work Monday, September
20.
At a meeting held on Tuesday, September 21, the Union
expressed disagreement with the Respondent's September
15 letter, particularly paragraph 2 proposing equal time
seniority in future layoffs. The Respondent advised the
Union that it had not received a letter from the Union
offering unconditional return of the strikers, but agreed not
to hire any new employees and agreed to recall the strikers
as vacancies occurred.i7
In early October, the Respondent began recalling strikers
on the basis of strict time seniority.is The rate paid was
$3.10 an hour. Each recalled striker was sent a letter
inviting him to come in for interviews and "to sign
necessary employment forms" on a specified date prior to
reporting for work on a date also specified in the letter.
Upon arrival at the plant, the striker was requested to
sign a document entitled "Request for and Acceptance of
Recall." The document stated that the signatory "does
hereby request and accept such recall on the terms and
conditions set forth." The document further stated:
The employee acknowledges that no contract currently
exists between the Company and Allied Industrial
Workers Union and that any provisions of former
contracts do not apply to the employment relationship
between himself and the Company, except as the same
may be required by law.
The employee acknowledges that his employment shall
be upon the same terms and conditions as that of
employees hired since April 4, 1971, that the general
range of such terms and conditions have been ex-
plained to him by representatives of the Company, and
that he is aware that many such terms and conditions
will be further developed in the future by the Company.
The employee acknowledges that Company representa-
tives have explained to him the emphasis placed on
productivity in the company's management philosophy,
that employees will be periodically merit rated, that
wage rates will be classified as to skill and productivity
dependent upon the individuals skill and effectiveness,
and that persons failing to maintain certain merit levels
may be subject to discharge.
The employee acknowledges that lay-off or recall from
lay-off and certain other rights will be dependent upon
15 Death in family, posting, job bidding, discharge for insubordination,
holiday eligibility , working foremen , sick pay Some overlap of subjects
listed in various categories is noted
16 There is no record support for the Respondent 's assertion , in its brief,
that the Union requested reinstatement of union members only.
it f have discounted Kroneker 's testimony that he also requested at this
meeting that all office personnel be returned to the office but the
Respondent replied that this would not be done immediately As opposed to
this vague testimony. which was not pursued by the General Counsel, there
is otherwise undisputed and credible evidence that all strikers were
permanently replaced
1N Kroneker testified that the parties discussed recall procedures at a
number of meetings from August through October , the Union's chief
interest being in getting the strikebreakers out of the plant
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual merit rating rather than prior length of
service.
A copy of this document was signed by every striker who
returned to work and placed in his personnel folder. The
Respondent did not advise the Union of this document or
discuss it with the Union.
The next significant development in the negotiations
consisted of the submission of the Respondent's October
12, 1971, proposal. In contrast to the prior documents
containing proposals and counterproposals for changes in
specific provisions of the expired contract, the October 12
document was a new complete proposed collective-bar-
gaining agreement except for wages. This proposed
contract, which was discussed by the parties at several
sessions, contained the following provisions which, among
others, were advanced for the first time:.
(1) A 6-year term, with reopener privileges at the end of 3
years on everything except union security, working
foremen, and subcontracting (opening paragraph, p. 1).
(2) Maintenance of membership in the Union to be
reduced from duration of the agreement (as in the old
contract) to duration of 6 months; a checkoff provision
agreed to on August 6 deleted in favor of a no-checkoff
provision (art. II, p. 2).
(3) Except for an employee's discussion of his grievance
at step 1 with his supervisor (from which his steward was
excluded) and the shop committee's regular meetings with
company representatives, there was to be no grievance or
union activity during regular working hours (art. IV, pp.
6-8, and art. V, pp. 9-12)
(4) A proposal that:
After the company issues a discipline slip, warning
notice, or discharge notice to an employee, he shall
have the right to inform the employee's steward but
only at such time as the same can be done outside of
scheduled working hours [art. IV, sec. 10, p. 9].
(5) The following provisions:
Art. VI . . . Section 5. Recall of Sinking Employees.
Until such time as all employees who were on strike in
1971 have been given an opportunity to return to work
or until their right to recall is lost as herein set forth, the
Company will not hire new employees into the
Bargaining Unit. When the Company desires to fill
vacancies or add personnel to the Bargaining Unit it
will recall the oldest employee in point of continuous
service with the Company as of April 3, 1971 first, the
next oldest employee in such continuous service next,
and so on. An employee thus recalled to work must
report to work in accord with the provisions of Article
VII, Section 8(e) [i.e., within 5 days] or such employee
will be removed from the Company rolls, and seniority
shall be forfeited.
Section 5(a) Loss of Employee Status, if Employee
Not Recalled. Any employee who was out of work due
to the 1971 strike at this Company and who has not
been recalled to work on or before April 4, 1972, shall
be removed from the Company rolls and shall have no
further right to return to work nor any claim against
the Company except as he may have vested rights in
the Pension Plan.
(6) In layoffs between the time a new agreement is signed
and April 4, 1972, all employees to have equal time
seniority, the order of layoff and recall from layoff to be
determined by productivity (art. VII, sec. 3, p. 18).
(7) A drop below an unspecified number of productivity
points would be grounds for discharge (art. VIII, sec. 1(m)
and (o), p. 20).
(8) Although laid-off employees could continue their
hospitalization coverage by paying all premiums, unre-
called strikers were not to be considered laid off but "not
working due to a labor dispute" (art. XIV, p. 36).
(9) The Company is to be given carte blanch with respect
to working foremen (art. IX, sec. 12, p. 30).
The Respondent also resurrected its original proposal 8
(not referred to in its August 6 "Status of Negotiations"
document) that a grievance could be presented only by the
employee or employees directly affected, without, however,
the original addition that the Union could file a grievance
which could affect a substantial number of employees (art.
V, sec. 2, p. 9).
The October 12 document also included the subcontract-
ing clause originally proposed by the Respondent and
agreed to by the Union on June 22 and 25 (art. III, sec.
4(c), p. 6).
Over 15 of the provisions listed in the August 6
document as agreed to were either omitted or changed in
the Respondent's October 12 proposal.i9
The October 12 proposal was discussed at a meeting held
October 16 and/or October 22, the Union objecting to the
above provisions, particularly the exclusion of the Umon
from disciplinary meetings as contemplated in the pro-
posed article IV, section 10, and to the abrogation of prior
agreements.
At some time after October 27, the Respondent distribut-
ed to employees copies of a memo entitled "Attendance
Guidelines." It contained, among other things, the follow-
ing:
4. A written statement from a physician will be
required to substantiate the fact that absence was due
to illness and that the employee is released to return to
work under the following circumstances:
A. If employee is absent for five (5) or more
days in succession. B. If employee has four (4) or
more illness absences in any calendar year.
The memo added that disciplinary action would be taken
on each unexcused absence, and that the extent of
19 Those provisions dealt with such subjects as refusal of a steward to profit-sharing , industrial injury, physical examination on company tithe,
accept a discipline or discharge slip, job loans , transfer from hourly to pensions , vending machine money , payment to employee grievants for time
salary status , plantwide versus divisionwide seniority for layoff, recall , lost attending steps 4 and 5 grievance meetings, reactivation of dormant
promotion , and transfer, based on old versus new employee concept . departments , job bidding , employee attendance at industrial commission
overtime , sick leave , bumping into and out of first shift by union officials, hearing
THE GERSTENSLAGER COMPANY 223
absences would be considered in each employee's evalua-
tion for merit rating.20 The Union was not informed of this
document.
At a negotiating meeting held on November 23, the
Union made two alternate contract proposals, either one of
which it would accept: (1) the old agreement, with the term
to be negotiated, plus the 15-cent wage increase which the
Respondent had granted during the strike; (2) the same as
(1) "except including agreements reached from document
[status of negotiations] Dated August 6, 1971, pages 1
through 12." The Company rejected both proposals.
The final bargaining session was held December 9, 1971.
Under consideration was another draft agreement pre-
pared by the Respondent. In this draft, the Respondent
reverted back to a 3-year term, maintenance of member-
ship for duration of the agreement, and checkoff (art. II, p.
2). Practically all of the remainder of the Respondent's
October 12 proposals were included again in the December
9 draft in identical or substantially similar language. This
draft contained, in addition, a detailed merit-rating
productivity system (art. XIV) by which each employee
would be periodically classified by his immediate supervi-
sor by skill, and rated for productivity. The employee
could appeal his classification and productivity to a
committee made up of the general manager, personnel
director, and production-control representative. The rating
would determine the employee's wage rate (specific rates
proposed) and his share of the profits under the profit-
sharing plan (art. XVI, sec. 6). It further proposed that all
employees would have equal time seniority, and that layoff
and recall from layoff would be according to productivity
(art. VII); and that a drop in productivity below a certain
specified point would be cause for discharge (art. VIII).
Either at the December 9 meeting, or shortly thereafter,
one of the union representatives requested permission for
the Union's time-study engineer to conduct a job evalua-
tion study in the plant. Thereafter, the Respondent refused
permission because in its opinion a time study would have
little value in its particular situation or serve no practical
purpose for the Company's particular type of operation.
Shortly before Christmas, the Company distributed to
the employees along with their paychecks copies of a sheet
entitled "Gersco News Letter." The first section of the
letter was entitled "Merit Rating Plan" and began with:
As previously mentioned informally, management is
putting a Merit Rating System into effect.
After explaining that the purpose of the plan was to
compensate employees in relation to their contributions to
the Company's progress, the letter stated:
Full details of the plan will be furnished each employee
in the near future. In the meantime we wanted to
inform you of the general plan for your background
information.
There followed a list of the rating factors,, and a description
20 The expired agreement provided "In case of sickness absence more
than six (6) times in a year April 4 to April 3, each report off will be
accompanied by written doctor report. In the case of sickness, as reported
by a doctor report for more than five (5) days absence, a release report from
the doctor will be needed to indicate proper recovery to return to work"
(art X, sec 1, p 44) No change in this provision was listed in the August 6
"Status of Negotiations" document as agreed to or proposed No
comparable provision appeared in the Company's October 12 or December
of the method which would be followed in rating
employees. The name of Richard Fishburn, vice president
and general manager, appeared at the end of the message.
There is evidence that as of the date of the last meeting
of the parties, December 9, 1971, 63 strikers had been
recalled.
Striker Howard Cooper testified that as a member of the
union bargaining committee and executive board he was
entitled under the old contract to supersenionty dating
back to January 1, 1942, for purposes of layoff and recall.
He testified that he had not, however, been recalled even
though two employees named Messner and Hurst, who had
seniority dating from after 1942, have been recalled.
The parties stipulated that Christy Nichols, a member of
the shop committee on and after April 4, 1971, and
therefore within the supersenionty section of the expired
agreement, has not been offered reemployment.2i
Striker Friend Eikleberry had been employed as a spray
painter in the paint shop for 18 or 20 years. He testified
that he reported to the plant "sometime in the forepart of
October" in response to a notice to return to work. Rasor
gave him a "Request for and Acceptance of Recall" form
to sign, and told him there was a job for him in the
pressroom. Eikleberry responded that he would come back
to his old job, but would have to think over the pressroom
offer because "that wasn't my work." Eikleberry left the
plant, taking the form with him. Shortly thereafter,
Eikleberry received from the Respondent a document
dated October 26, 1971, entitled "Separation Notice,"
giving the reason therefor as "Failed to Report for Work."
Personnel Director Rasor testified that Eikleberry ex-
pressed reservations about the job offer because he was
operating his own well-digging business and because he
would not be back in his old job; he said if he decided to
come back to work he would bring the document "Request
for and Acceptance of Recall" and report for work
Monday, October 18. When he failed to do so, the
Respondent terminated him. Rasor testified without
contradiction there was no job opening in the paint shop.22
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Refusal to bargain in good faith
Although considerable evidence was introduced regard-
ing the course of the bargaining in the period before and
during the strike, chiefly at the insistence of the General
Counsel, who offered such evidence as background, it is
helpful mainly in providing a contrast to the Respondent's
conduct thereafter. Thus, the Respondent, as well as the
Union, negotiated during the background period on the
basis of proposals and counterproposals regarding suggest-
ed changes in and additions to specific provisions of the
old contract. Many meetings were held, and concessions
were made by both sides.
9 proposals
21 Striker John Keller testified that he was entitled to be recalled before
one Sam Horst who was recalled a couple of days before Keller was
However, I find that Keller's testimony in this respect was too vague to be
reliable in the absence of any substantiation
22 1 credit both versions of these events, but find that Rasor's was the
more complete
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent's witnesses , Fishburn and Rasor,
credibly testified that their original proposals 6, 8, and 9
(prohibiting employees from leaving their work to discuss
grievances with stewards or committeemen, requiring
grievances to be initiated by employees unless they could
affect a substantial number of employees, and requiring
written grievances to give the names of all grievants and be
signed by at least one grievant) were intended to reduce the
amount of company time spent on grievances by employ-
ees, stewards, union committeemen, and supervisors at
various steps of the grievance procedure, particularly
repetitive grievances, and to reduce the amount of
company time lost by employees not directly affected
congregating, as these matters had proved to be too
expensive in the past.23 As indicated above, two of these
proposals, 6 and 9, merely conformed with provisions
agreed to by the Union in the prior contract, or with past
practices, and were in any event withdrawn by the
Respondent before the strike. Proposal 8, regarding the
initiation of grievances, did not appear in the August 6
"Status of Negotiations" document, and presumably was
also dropped.
As to the Respondent' s original proposal 7, Fishburn
credibly testified that the suspension of stewards for
refusing to acknowledge a discipline slip was proposed
because a steward had refused to sign for such a slip as
required by the old contract. The facts set forth above
show that the Respondent on June 25 substituted a tender
provision for the 5-day suspension, and, on August 6,
accepted a third alternative method of solving this
problem.
The General Counsel also suggests that the Respondent
refused to bargain regarding the three subjects which were
the major issues at the start of the strike-subcontracting,
working foremen, and union shop. I do not agree. Both
parties vigorously pushed their positions on these issues.
The Respondent finally, on June 22, prevailed as to
subcontracting, apparently in exchange for an expansion
of the category of employees entitled to plantwide
seniority, one of the Union's chief objectives.24 Although
the Respondent rejected several different versions of union
shop, I have found above that its representatives did not
tell the Union there would never be a union shop, and the
record does not show that the Respondent refused to
bargain on this issue . The status of working foremen was
the subject of proposals and counterproposals throughout
this entire period.
Although the Respondent's unilateral raising of wages
while the issue was under negotiation, and unilateral
institution of top-scale hiring not previously offered to the
Union, early in June, may have been a breach of faith,25
that conduct was atypical of the Respondent during the
23 1 discredit Kroneker's testimony that the reason given him by the
Respondent for making these proposals was that the Company had lost too
many arbitrations, as he was unable to substantiate his statement that the
Company had indeed lost many arbitrations
24 1 interpret the language in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the status of
negotiations document referred to above as confirmation of this view There
is no basis , in my opinion , for interpreting this language as meaning that the
subcontracting clause agreed to was contingent on the Respondent's
agreeing to an even wider expansion of plantwide seniority , as the General
Counsel contends
25 See N L R B v Benne Katz, etc, d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products
background period. Moreover, I find that the Respondent's
momentary vacillation of June 25 regarding its June 22
agreement expanding the category of old and new
employees was insignificant , in view of the minor differ-
ences between what it had agreed to on June 22 and what it
proposed on June 25, and its eventual reaffirmation, on the
same day, of its previous agreement.
Upon consideration of the undisputed evidence that
although many differences had not been resolved, there
was much give and take by both sides, and considering the
greater number of union proposals accepted by the
Respondent than the other way around and the nature of
the proposals agreed to and still being negotiated, it is my
view that the Respondent's overall conduct during the
background period was not inconsistent with a desire
ultimately to resolve its differences with the Union.
However, with the termination of the strike, the
Respondent's attitude toward the negotiations clearly
changed. The Respondent attributes this to its developing
need to institute a meat-rating productivity system.
Fishburn and Rasor testified that early in the strike
company records indicated that strike replacements were
performing more efficiently than the regular employees
had performed before the strike. Confirmation by subse-
quent production figures and studies of the Lincoln
Electric Company of Cleveland, where a merit-rating
system was in effect, led management to conclude that
such a system was necessary to increase productivity and
maintain its competitive status. These circumstances,
however, do not explain the following conduct:
(a) The Respondent, early in October, began to deal
directly with the recalled strikers, bypassing the Union.
Thus, the Respondent required all such employees to sign
its "Request for and Acceptance of Recall" form, which
the General Counsel accurately describes as a personal
employment contract.26 The employee was required to
acknowledge statements implying that the role of the
Union had been reduced, that the Respondent alone would
determine the terms and conditions of employment, and
that the Respondent "will" institute a merit-rating system
under which the employee "may be subject to discharge"
and "will" determine the future order of layoff and
recall .27 Then followed the Gersco Newsletter which
advised the employees in even stronger language that the
Respondent "is putting a Merit Rating system into effect,"
with no reference whatsoever to the Union. The Respon-
dent again dealt directly with its employees, bypassing
their bargaining agent, when it distributed to them its
"Attendance Guidelines" containing ah apparent unilater-
al change in the sick leave provisions of the old contract.28
(b) As indicated above, the`parties had, prior to this time,
negotiated mainly on the basis of proposed changes in and
Company, 369 U S 736
26 Cf A BC Food Service, Inc, 176 NLRB 426,432
21 The facts surrounding the Respondent's use of this document, set
forth above, clearly refute the Respondent 's suggestion that signing it was
voluntary on the strikers' part
28 It is well established that bypassing the union and dealing directly
with employees is indicative of bad faith Quality Motels of Colorado, Inc,
189 NLRB No 49; Sherwood Ford, Inc, 188 NLRB No 16, U.Tote M of
Oklahoma, Inc, 172 NLRB No 21 Contrary to the Respondent's
contention , these communications with employees, with the intent of
bypassing the Union , cannot be equated with past communications at the
THE GERSTENSLAGER COMPANY 225
additions to specific provisions of the old contract. The
Respondent's October 12 proposal, however, was a whole
new ballgame. The Respondent has offered no reasonable
explanation for its withdrawal, in this document, from
many provisions to which it had previously agreed which
were unrelated to a merit-rating system, other than to insist
that this conduct was permitted by the parties' ground
rules. Although it seems clear that there was no meeting of
the minds on what the effect of an agreement or a tentative
agreement to a provision would be, I find that the
Respondent's wholesale abrogation without good cause of
agreement, or tentative agreement, to such provisions
painstakingly reached after 6 months of bargaining, was
intended to and did broaden instead of narrow the area of
disagreement, and was therefore inconsistent with a
genuine desire to resolve differences between the parties.29
(c) The Respondent failed to offer any reasonable
explanation for advancing the more restrictive demands
described above regarding maintenance of membership
and checkoff, grievance procedure, and union activity,
which would have reduced the role of the Union as the
representative of the employees and administration of the
contract. The Respondent's only justification for these
demands was reduction in costs, but there had been no
new developments regarding such costs since the start of
the bargaining, when the Respondent considered it
necessary to make less restrictive proposals, which it
abandoned before the end of the strike. In these circum-
stances, and in the light of the Respondent's direct dealing
with the employees and wholesale abrogation of provisions
previously agreed to, I find that the purpose behind these
demands contrasted with the Respondent's objectives at an
earlier stage of negotiations, was solely to undermine the
Union's position as bargaining representative.
(d) On December 9, the Respondent detailed its
proposed merit-rating classification system. Although
management representatives testified that they had been
engaged for months in evaluating employee performance
and developing this plan, they conceded that they afforded
the Union no opportunity to participate. Then, when the
Union, upon being presented with the plan, requested
permission to conduct its own time study, which, I find,
was relevant and necessary to intelligently deal with the
proposal, permission was refused. Such conduct was
further indicative of bad faith.30
Union's request or merely to inform employees of what offers had been
made to the Union In view of the Respondent's "duty to treat with no
other" than the Union (Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N L R B, 321
U S 678), its bad faith was not condoned or waived by the Union's failure
to express immediate opposition to this conduct See Webb Furniture Corp ,
158 NLRB 1003
29 M FA Milling Company, 170 NLRB 1079, 1098 See also American
Seating Co v N L R B, 424 F 2d 106 (C A 5), McCann Steel Company,
Inc, 190 NLRB No. 2, Shovel Supply Company, 162 NLRB 460
30 See General Electric Company, 192 NLRB No 9, General Electric
Company, 186 NLRB No 1, Wald Manufacturing Company, 176 NLRB 839,
844, enfd 426 F 2d 1328 (C.A 6). See also N L R B v Truitt Manufacturing
Co, 351 U S 149 1 do not understand the General Counsel to contend that
the merit-rating proposal itself was indicative of bad faith. In any event, I
would find changed circumstances constituting reasonable cause for the
Respondent's making of this proposal
31 1 have carefully considered the additional grounds relied on by the
General Counsel to support his bad-faith allegation, but find no merit in
them (1) I do not construe the proposal that unrecalled strikers be
In sum , I find that the Respondent , by refusing
permission for the Union to conduct its own time study, by
dealing directly with employees and entering into personal
employment contracts with employees in the unit and
bypassing the Union , and by abrogating agreements and
proposing more stringent provisions without reasonable
cause, failed and refused to bargain in good faith in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act.31
2. Alleged unilateral conduct
(a) The complaint alleges that the Respondent unilateral-
ly instituted a merit-rating system affecting its employees.
The only evidence presented by the General Counsel in
support of his contention that the Respondent actually put
its proposed merit system into effect was the testimony of
striker Carl Wade who returned to work October 19, 1971.
Wade testified that 2 days after his return, Production
Bodies Department Superintendent Eddie Shields told
him:
There would be a merit system put into effect shortly
and our performance from then on would determine
what pay or what we could receive through productivi-
ty or our actions. That this all meant profit if we kept
working, we would be sure to work 8 hours a day. . . I
asked him about seniority rights, he says we was
playing it by ear, he couldn't answer that.
When asked whether there is a merit-rating system in the
plant, Wade replied, "I couldn't answer that." He testified
that he did not know whether he had been merit-rated, and
that there has been no difference in his pay because of any
merit-rating system.
Fishburn and Rasor testified that no merit-rating system
has been put into effect, and that no one has been rated.
In my opinion, Wade's testimony fails to support this
allegation, leaving the denials of Fishburn and Rasor,
which I credit, substantially undisputed. I shall therefore
recommend dismissal of this allegation.32
(b) The complaint alleges that the Respondent unilateral-
ly eliminated superseniority of union officers, contrary to
past practice and its agreed-upon proposals during the
recent contract negotiations.
The evidence presented by the General Counsel consists
of the facts set forth above that the Respondent has failed
to recall striking union officials Howard Cooper and
Christy Nichols, who, it is undisputed, were entitled under
considered not working due to a labor dispute" as calling for their
exclusion from hospitalization coverage (2) No reason nor precedent has
been called to my attention for finding bad faith in proposing that strikers
not recalled within a year be terminated, nor would the evidence support a
finding that this proposal was made in retaliation against such employees
for striking (3) 1 find the termination of Friend Eikleberry was not unlawful
in the circumstances described above (4) The General Counsel's contention
with regard to the payment of replacements and recalled strikers on and
after September 15 at a rate which included the 15-cent wage increase
unilaterally granted early in June is time barred N L R B v Byran Mfg
Co, 362 U S 411 (5) In view of the number of issues upon which agreement
had not been reached on August 6. 1 find no bad faith in the Respondent's
refusal to accept either of the Union's two alternate proposals of November
23
32 The complaint alleges that the Respondent unilaterally discontinued
its past practice with respect to seniority and instituted a different method
of computing seniority To the extent that this allegation refers to the merit-
rating system, it is dealt with above To the extent it refers to superseniority
for union officers, it is dealt with below
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the old contract to superseniority dating back to January 1,
1942, and that other strikers with straighttime seniority
dating from after 1942 have been recalled.
The old contract provides as follows with regard to
superseniority:
Article IV, Sec. 11. Seniority of Designated Individuals.
The Stewards during the period of their office shall
have greater seniority than any other bargaining unit
employee other than shop committeeman and the
recording secretary. A member of the shop committee
and the recording secretary, during the period of their
office, shall have more seniority than any other
bargaining unit employee. However, employees who
were employed by the company and on the payroll on
or before January 1, 1942, shall not be affected by the
provisions of this paragraph. Superseniority provided
for herein to the designated individuals shall apply to
layoff and recall only.
The Respondent contends that this provision applied
only to recall from layoff and not to recall from a strike. I
find that the provision on its face is not clear as to whether
it applied to recall from a strike or to recall from a layoff
only. Union Representative Kroneker testified that under
this provision, a union committeeman "will have super
seniority over other employees for layoff purposes."
Kroneker was asked, "Would that operate in the case of
recall or layoff?" He replied, "Not recall, but layoff
because he wouldn't be laid off." It is also noted that the
Respondent in its September 15 letter advised the Union of
its intent to recall the strikers "in line of strict `time'
seniority." Although this proposal excluded granting
superseniority to union officers, there is no evidence that
the Union, at its September 21 meeting with the Respon-
dent or thereafter, questioned the exclusion.
There is no evidence of past practice. The record
indicates that the Union has struck this plant on three past
occasions; all three strikes were of short duration; none of
the strikers was replaced; and all returned to work at the
end of the strike.
There is no evidence that the parties reached agreement
or tentative agreement on any change in this provision of
the old contract or any new superseniority provision.
I therefore find that the evidence fails to show that
superseniority for recall of union officers from a strike was
required by the old contract, past practice, or any
agreement during the recent negotiations. In these circum-
stances, I conclude that a preponderance of the evidence
fails to support the allegation that the Respondent
unilaterally eliminated superseniority of union officers,
and I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint
be dismissed.
(c) The complaint alleges that the Respondent unilateral-
ly terminated the existing hospitalization plan.
The General Counsel's evidence consisted of testimony
by employee Wade to the effect that he has "a question
about" whether the health insurance plan in effect is the
same as the plan which was in effect before the strike,
because, he said, "We had on top of the form, we had 365
day coverage. On top of this form it says 120." No such
forms are in evidence, and Wade added that he has not
had occasion to apply for benefits since before the strike
and has not compared the insurance contracts.
As opposed to this vague and unsupported testimony,
Fishburn and Rasor credibly testified that although the
cost of the premiums has increased, there has been no
change in the hospitalization coverage of employees.
I therefore find that this allegation falls for failure of
support by a preponderance of the evidence, and recom-
mend that it be dismissed.
111. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and from any like or related interference
with the rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and that it take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended: 33
ORDER
The Respondent, The Gerstenslager Company, Wooster,
Ohio, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good
faith with International Union Allied Industrial Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, Amalgamated Local Union No.
813, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
an appropriate unit of all hourly rated plant employees,
excluding all office clerical employees , professional em-
ployees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act , concerning
rates of pay , wages, hours of work , and other terms and
conditions of employment , by refusing permission for the
Union to conduct its own time study , by dealing directly
and entering into personal employment contracts with
employees in the unit and bypassing the Union, and by
abrogating agreements and proposing more stringent
provisions without reasonable cause , or in any other
manner refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the above-described
appropriate unit, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached , embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement.
33 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections
conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
THE GERSTENSLAGER COMPANY
(b) Post at its plant in Wooster, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 34 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it 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 the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 35
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not found herein.
34 In the event that the Board's 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 Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
31 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 8 , in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has 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 fail or refuse to bargain collectively in
good faith with International Union Allied Industrial
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Amalgamated Local
Union No. 813, as the exclusive collective -bargaining
227
representative of our employees in the appropriate unit
described below , concerning rates of pay, wages, hours
of work , and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment , by refusing permission for the Union to conduct
its own time study, by dealing directly and entering
into personal employment contracts with employees in
the unit and bypassing the Union , and by abrogating
agreements and proposing more stringent provisions
without reasonable cause , or in any other manner
refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive collective -bargain-
ing representative of all our employees in the appropri-
ate unit , which is:
All hourly rated plant employees , excluding all
office clerical employees , professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
THE GERSTENSLAGER
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be latered , defaced,
or covered by any other material . Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board 's Office , 1695 Federal Office
Building, 1240 East 9th Street , Cleveland, Ohio 44199,
Telephone 216-522-3725.