Extract
White's Uvalde Mines, 1128 (1957)
White's Uvalde Mines and Local 690, United Brick and Clay Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-CA-495. April 16, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1956, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon 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 the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board' has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner With the following additions and modifications :1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union, the duly certified bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees, and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. As discussed in the Intermediate Report, throughout the entire course of negotiations the Respondent insisted on reserving to itself absolute unilateral control over virtually -every significant term and condition of employment which it could change at will without first discussing the matter with the Union. The control extended to such matters as wages, promotions, demotions, merit increases, transfers, the determination as to when the rates of a higher position should be paid to an employee receiving -such a transfer, and the modification and amendment of the shop rules covering almost every working condition? In our opinion, an employer who is thus determined to deny his employees' bargaining representative the right to be consulted regarding practically all the terms and conditions under which the employees work does more than simply engage in hard bargaining, as the Respondent contends. On the contrary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in a comparable situation,' such an employer, 'while 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers].3 With respect to most of the matters, the Respondent's changes in terms and conditions of employment would not even be the subject of a grievance In fact, those few matters which would be, the Respondent insisted on reserving the right unilaterally to -determine the merits of the grievance subject to arbitration review only to determine -whether the Respondent acted arbitrarily.3Ma.ure Transport Co. v. N L. R B., 198 F. 2d 735, 739 (C. A. 5), enfg. 95 NLRB 311.117 NLRB No. 162.WHITE'S UVALDE MINES 1129' freely conferring, . . . [does] not approach the bargaining table with an open mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties.' Although it is true that the Act does not require the employer, or the union, as the case might be, to accept the other party's proposals or to make concessions, nevertheless, its response to the proposals is a 'material factor' in determining whether it performed its statutory duty to bargain in good faith.' In the present case, the only concessions the Respondent offered the Union were 'nominal and illusory' 5 commitments to refrain from discriminating against any employee because of union membership; to refrain from locking out employees provided that 'the exercise by the Company of any of the prerogatives of management herein reserved or referred to or possessed by the Company shall never be interpreted or construed to be a lockout' ; to grant the Union limited bulletin board facilities and the right to collect dues in the office and commissary areas; and to raise minimum wage rates subject, however, to its right to make unilateral wage increases, at a time when Congress was considering amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase minimum rates in excess of that agreed to by the Respondent. Viewing the ostensible concessions in the light of the Respondent' s total conduct during the negotiations which reveal a predisposition to exclude the Union from participating in discussions fixing the employees' terms and conditions of employment, we find that the Respondent did not engage in a good-faith effort to reach agreement on its differences with the Union, as the Act contemplates.That the Respondent was not disposed to accord the Union the bargaining status the Act vests in a majority representaive is also shown by the unilateral action the Respondent took in granting certain wage increases without notice to the Union shortly after the Union's certification and before...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
