The Usadel Trophy Manufacturers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1347 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

THE USADEL TROPHY MANUFACTURERS, INC. 1347
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brunswick Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 107, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondents have not committed unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Usadel Trophy Manufacturers , Inc. and Jewelry Workers
International Union Local 23; and Metal Polishers, Buffers,
Platers and Helpers International Union Local No. 67, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 21-CA-4109. June 08, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 3, 1961, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Usadel Trophy Manufac-
turers, Inc., Inglewood, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing, if requested to do so by Jewelry Workers Interna-
tional Union Local 23, and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and
Helpers International Union Local No. 67, AFL-CIO, to reduce to
writing and to sign the agreement reached with the above-named
Unions on June 3, 1960, including a provision for maintenance-of-
membership, a clause permitting reopening for negotiations on union
security at the expiration of 120 days, and to be effective for 1 year
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Leedom].
131 NLRB No. 163.
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of execution, or, if no such request is made, refusing on
request to bargain collectively with the Unions as the exclusive bar-
gaining representatives of all production and maintenance employees,,
shipping and receiving employees, and truckdrivers at Respondent's
Inglewood, California, plant, excluding office and plant clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining,,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Unions or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Upon the request of the above-named Unions, reduce to writ-
ing and sign forthwith the agreement reached with the Unions on
June 3, 1960, including a maintenance-of-membership provision, a
clause permitting reopening for negotiations on union security at the
expiration of 120 days, and to be effective for 1 year from the date of
execution. If no such request is made, upon request of the Unions
bargain collectively with them as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the above-described unit, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Inglewood, California, plant, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding 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 the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken by the Respondent to comply herewith.
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."'
THE USADEL TROPHY MANUFACTURERS, INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1349
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, if requested to do so by Jewelry Workers Interna-
tional Union Local 23; and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and
Helpers International Union Local No. 67, AFL-CIO reduce to
writing and sign the agreement reached with the above-named
Unions on June 3, 1960, with a provision for maintenance-of-
membership, a clause permitting reopening for negotiation on
union security at the expiration of 120 days, and for a term of 1
year from date of execution. If no such request is made, we will
upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Unions
for the unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, 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 employees, shipping and receiving employees, and
truckdrivers at our Inglewood, California, plant, excluding office
and plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain in good faith, or in any
like or similar manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the above-named Unions or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
THE USADEL TROPHY MANUFACTURERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof;
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge jointly filed by Jewelry Workers International Union Local 23, herein
Local 23, and Metal Polishers Buffers , Platers and Helpers International Union,
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. 67, herein Local 67, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint against The Usadel Trophy Manufactures, Inc., Inglewood,
California, herein the Respondent. The complaint alleges that the Respondent from
about February 8, 1960, to the date of the issuance of the complaint had refused
unlawfully to bargain with Local 23 and Local 67, the bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit.
With all parties represented the matter was tried before Wallace E. Royster, the
duly designated Trial Examiner in Los Angeles, California, on October 3 and 4,
1960.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a California corporation with a place of business in Inglewood,
California, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of trophies.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint the Respondent
shipped from Inglewood, finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points
outside the State of California.
The parties agree and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 23 and Local 67 are labor organizations admitting to membership employees
of the Respondent.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The parties agree and I find:
1. That all production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving
employees, and truckdrivers employed at the Inglewood plant, excluding office
and plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. On January 29, 1960, a majority of the employees in the unit in an elec-
tion conducted by personnel of a Regional Office of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board designated Local 23 and Local 67 as joint bargaining representative.
On February 8, 1960, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the
National Labor Relations Board certified the status of Local 23 and Local 67
as bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate
unit.
3. At all times since February 8, 1960, Local 23 and Local 67 have been
and now are the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Beginning in February and continuing through June 3, 1960, the Locals met on a
number of occasions with Ivan Usadel, Respondent's president, and John C. Fretwell,
Respondent's negotiator, discussing terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. On
June 3, in the presence of a mediator supplied by the Federal Conciliation Service,
agreement was reached on the content of a contract. Representatives of Local 23
and of Local 67 agreed to submit the terms of the contract to the employees affected
for approval. Fretwell said that he would have the contract terms reduced to writing
and send the document to Usadel for signature. In late June both Locals advised
Fretwell that they had secured approval to the terms of the contract from their
constituents. On July 25, Louis Laufman, a representative of Local 67, at Fretwell's
invitation, went to the latter's office to examine the contract that Usadel had signed
and to which Laufman and Oscar Fuss, a representative of Local 23, were to affix
their signatures. Laufman testified that on this occasion Fretwell said that Laufman
would be disappointed in that the contract provided a term of 120 days instead of a
year. Laufman protested that this was not the agreement made on June 3. Fretwell
answered that it was the best he could do. Laufman refused to sign and, upon learn-
ing of the short term of the contract and that it included no maintenance-of-member-
ship provision, Fuss too refused.
The controversy centers about what was agreed to by the parties on June 3.
Laufman and Fuss testified that early in negotiations a contract term of 1 year was
mentioned and that thereafter it seemed tacitly to be agreed by all that any resulting
contract would run for that period. On June 3, according to Laufman and Fuss,
THE USADEL TROPHY MANUFACTURERS, INC. 1351
the Locals agreed to withhold their demands for a union shop upon Respondent's
agreement to maintenance of membership and to a reopening on union security 120
days after the effective date of the contract.
Fretwell testified that on June 3, the Respondent did not agree to any sort of
union security and that he understood the Locals to have then agreed to forgo any-
thing of that nature. During this meeting, according to Fretwell, there was discus-
sion of further negotiations on union security within 120 days from the date of the
contract. From this Fretwell assumed, he testified, that the Locals wanted to limit
the duration of the contract to 120 days. Usadel testified that Fretwell warned him
of the disadvantages of entering into an agreement for such a short period, pointing
out that a number of months had been spent in negotiations and that Usadel might
well be required to go through that process again at the expiration of 120 days.
Usadel testified that at the end of negotiations on June 3 he had no understanding
about the term of the contract but conceded that he had not heard during the
negotiations the mention of any period other than a year. After the meeting on
June 3 ended, according to Usadel, Fretwell said that he throught the Locals wanted
a contract to run for only 120 days. This did not comport with Usadel's recollection
of the agreement reached that day and he testified that until Fretwell informed him
otherwise, he throught that only the question of union security would be open for
negotiation at the expiration of the 120-day period. It is the sense of Usadel's
testimony that he signed the contract for the short period with misgivings and against
advice that it was an unwise thing for him to do. Although Usadel had first testi-
fied that no agreement was reached on June 3, granting any sort of union security
to the Locals, upon being confronted with an affidavit which he had given to a repre-
sentative of the General Counsel in early August, he conceded that he believed on
June 3 that he had agreed to a maintenance-of-membership provision.
I find on the basis of the testimony reviewed above that on June 3, 1960, the
Locals and the Respondent agreed to a complete contract to run for a term of 1
year with a maintenance-of-membership provision and with agreement that the Locals
might negotiate further at the end of 120 days in reference to union security. I
am unable to credit the testimony of Fretwell in respect to the agreement reached on
June 3. Fretwell testified to the effect that he did not urge the 120-day term upon
Usadel but on the contrary suggested to him that such a short period might be dis-
advantageous. One may infer from Fretwell's testimony that Usadel was reluctant
to sign a contract for a short term. Had this been so it is puzzling that on July 25
when Laufman told Fretwell that a contract for 120 days was unacceptable, he did
not immediately say that the Respondent was unhappy about it too. I am convinced
that for reasons which are obscure to me the Respondent, upon the advice of Fret-
well or otherwise, decided that it did not desire to honor its agreement of June 3
and chose the device of limiting the term of the contract to 120 days and omitting a
maintenance-of-membership clause to escape its contract commitments. It is true,
of course, that the wage increases negotiated on that day were promptly put into
effect but maintenance of membership was not enforced and the employees were
not afforded the full benefits of the agreement that the Locals had secured for
them.
I find that by failing to reduce to writing the terms agreed to on June 3, specifical-
ly by failing to include in the contract which was offered to the Locals for signature
a provision for maintenance of membership, a provision for reopening in 120 days to
negotiate on union security, and a provision establishing the term of the contract as
1 year, the Respondent refused unlawfully to bargain with the Locals and that the
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, has a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
By refusing accurately to reduce to writing the agreement reached with the Locals
on June 3, 1960, and by refusing thus to sign the agreement reached with the Locals
on that date the Respondent failed fully to perform its duty to bargain in good faith
as required by the Act. It will therefore be recommended that, upon request of the
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Locals, the Respondent reduce to writing and sign the agreement of June 3 including
a maintenance-of-membership provision , a clause permitting reopening for negotia-
tions on union security upon expiration of 120 days and for a contract term of 1
year from date of execution . If no such request is made by the Locals , it will be
recommended that the Respondent upon request of the Locals be required to bargain
collectively with them in respect to terms of a collective -bargaining contract and
if an agreement is reached to sign it.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 23 and Local 67 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees , shipping and receiving employees,
and truckdrivers employed by the Respondent at its Inglewood , California, plant
,excluding office and plant clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and
supervisors , as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the ,meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since February 8, 1960, Local 23 and Local 67 have been and
now are the exclusive representative of Respondent 's employees in the appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment.
5. On June 3 , 1960, the Respondent agreed with the Locals as to the terms and
content of a collective -bargaining agreement.
6. By failing accurately and completely to reduce the terms of the June 3 agree-
ment to writing and by refusing to prepare for signing and to sign the agreement
of June 3 the Respondent has failed to bargain in good faith with the Locals and
has thereby violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
7. By such refusal to bargain in good faith the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Nevada Tank and Casing Company and Operating Engineers,
Local Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-1708. June 28, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1960, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and supporting brief, were filed by the Re-
spondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
131 NLRB No. 165.