*1 WISDOM, Before RIVES and Circuit CARSWELL, Judges, District Judge. Judge. RIVES, Circuit difference between the up by separate concepts pointed their question petition- to be decided. The er-employer submits that the issue is: *2 certified “Whether a the that the demand of each of the unions bargain- representative for common of a dates all con- ing may employer law, require was, of an tracts a matter of the as within bargaining. permissible that a realm of as condition to under its contract and all contracts negotiation Board, extremely The in an brief deci- employer the between sion, affirmed; but, doing, in so refused representatives and other certified ground upon to consider the at units of different and, Trial Examiner based decision his plants expire upon com- other a shall instead, simply that, held because mon date.” bargainable issue, tract duration ais it hand, respondent-Board, practice The is not an unfair labor for unions argues upon specific expiration to that: insist dates for their “ contracts. * * * where, here, or as two simultaneously ne- urges petitioner-employer unions are more that gotiating separate contracts with upon Board’s decision was based an er- employer, unions have same such conception facts, roneous that this just right insist that the much to as case does not involve a union demand expire contracts shall on the same specific expiration for a date of its con- ¡the employer but, date as has to insist tract, instance, in each demand that on different shall its contract and contracts under separate negotiaton dates.” with other unions ¿11. expire on the same common to original complaints issued were against upon labor the unions unfair questions The two identical charges practice employer filed legally actually. Legally or either there to the unions refused to the effect that can be no serious debate that each union good employer faith upon specificexpiration 8(b) (3) of the in violation of Section contract whether or not that is Act, Labor Relations U.S. being same insisted on an- (3). 158(b) The cases were con- C.A. § respect union to another con- hearing. Gen- solidated When the demonstrates, however, tract. This case chief, rested his case in eral Counsel strong legal objections can be raised respondent dis- unions moved to to a union’s demand ground complaint on miss agree with it and with another union or failed a violation of to show evidence unions for date as 8(b) (3). The Trial Examiner Section Actually, to two more contracts. ad- to dismiss under took the motions operation, practical employer might hearing, visement and recessed the com- request specific a union’s accede menting : contract, date for its but then adamantly, perhaps successfully, re- determining me in an aid “As demand sist another union for the grant motions, I should whether date for its contract. grant it; do, I inclined am specific event, In that insistence from all welcome would met, the first would be but its real legal analysis in- of the issue their object purpose and would be defeated. namely here; whether or not volved petitioner- we Because 8(b) (3) of Section a violation it employer that the Board did misconceive require, as the evidence indicates decided, issue to be becomes neces- respondents require, did com- here sary detail the facts and circumstances of dates mon termination length. at some point beyond impasse.” to and supplied.) (Emphasis Petitioner-employer, a manufacturer Subsequently, products, the Trial Examiner a number of including dis- of cast complaints'holding squarely pressure pipe, operates iron owns and missed expired, including and, veloped contract at the old plants, one pipe several commencing Jersey, Bes- the Union called a strike Burlington, New Bir- semer, Alabama, North October 31. and one at

mingham Birmingham, Alabama. *3 meanwhile, Birmingham, North At Dating petitioner issued operating to certifications back under a had been 1940, its and comparatively the Molders1 the Board new contract with represented petitioner’s 256 have Molders, Local went June which into effect on Birmingham employees agreement the North 1, at 1959. not due That was plant, July 31, Steelworkers2 and expire while the 1960, to until con- but compara- represented a “reopening” provision and, pur- 2140 have tained a consisting employees at thereto, ble suant notice served Molders however, excluding, plant, Bessemer November that members desired repre- groups renegotiate are craft which par- several to certain matters. through Acting by other unions. accordingly sented ties at started repre- locals, also plant Steelworkers mid-November, fail- about but petitioner employees various at agreement, sents ed to reach Molders and the including plant establishments, at beginning January 26, called a strike Burlington, Jersey, New where Steel- 1960. in 1942.3 a certification workers obtained carefully We have read and studied 1959, con- had the Steelworkers In negotiations record of at Bessemer be- Burlington and Bessemer at the tracts plants petitioner tween the and Steelworkers days expire were due to Birmingham and those at North between Burlington and apart August 20 at — petitioner and the Molders. It would Burling- Bessemer. At October at unduly prolong opinion out this to set plant, to reach ton failed negotiations length. at those Sufficeit to of new con- terms to agree say that we with Trial Exam- called a strike and the Steelworkers tract his iner on charaterization of the issue. August 20 the old con- when on or about suggest did The Steelworkers contract days that, expired. A few after tract May expiration dates negotiating 1 or June but started the Steelworkers management suggestions representatives adoption at were for of a those Here, impasse again, an de- Bessemer. for all common date three contracts.4 Foundry — you many and Molders 1. International “Nolan I have told times America, bargain plants. North AFL-CIO. Workers I don’t before those only bargain for Local 2140. I cannot America, AFL- 2. Steelworkers United Birmingham for North or Bur- CIO. lington plants. repre- Local Union 2026 3. Steelworkers — you going then “Yates Well are to Burlington employees senting get somebody have to who can. geographic in the area com- is not — only negotiate you “Nolan I can Region prising Tenth of the Board a contract for Local 2140. party named as was not case. and — get your You “Yates all had better together heads then. following meeting B.g., from the February 16, (Representing Steelworkers) 1960: “Morris — — — (Representing Steelworkers) expiration “Yates On common date I am year have like a three knowledge would officials We sure those have the — May 1, expiration being have it tract an im- — (Representing employer) portant “Nolan issue with all unions. I wonder years. you position say more be than three That would are in if what — long get company only As a common trying “Yates we would do. We argue expiration put date we will not too the common date in problems about that. much where we can cut down the — Birming- company You North “Nolan mean exist. Should the Burlington grant ham, all must Bessemer that common date there day? expire any longer problems on the same won’t be — right. years. That “Yates If next do or don’t ceptance suggestion particular of a of that date Molders’ upon ac- all three contracts.5 conditioned was likewise story. What agreement. have ing March tracts a fit of common plant for.” comm'on lington or pany a I can’t see against in ary 16th, purposes, even if it was 30 or 60 have a strike these know North that could be lived apart, company. must be May 62 or 63. swer the this expires Birmingham, trying diation demands. signed. tion date. handled all at the Company says “Nolan: See also “Yates: We think if “Nolan: “Farr good reason for it. We have all “Roberts “Yates “Yates “Roberts “Nolan “Roberts “Yates “Yates “Roberts “Yates “Nolan Birmingham Burlington. it up of ^[*****] negotiate except pretty strikes and and that to avert we will have no Birmingham and to the that would be all concerned if we could I have & Conciliation your thought two expiration date. dime That would purpose. expiration — I — — — — — the same get n — n same time. Birmingham. (Representing A common — Mr. Yates I will We — really — (Commissioner, Yes. the Bessemer Even if was It aint That Yes well followed By years where it them to will Burlington others to I am don’t at Bessemer — they November 1st. — following from It would be for the bene- I have to start these You is what we are nothing date. negotiation, 1960: common, that is n n — put with is go (cid:127) —(cid:127) thinking from the think it gonna say May be a what we have if alright strikes. expiration date. back to it it do Say more trouble. Bessemer. Burlington plants n — n said it we were to reach would get work one union Service) think for union I you give like this. We has caused Steelworkers): and the same that would plant. not a problem you mean the think date for Bur- cost the com- today, do they operate steel. Steel their of Federal only way but part of (sic). somewhere. these date it Bessemer, something the meet- do. 1st. harm the When we my must be utopia. it would we have contract striving I could *4 expira- — Febru- agreed get thing same us a Even been days Me- any our an- we On all a July Murray, Corresponding Representative ing, June for Roberts, that out of the fore, expiration represented timony gain ions whose contracts piration pay but have not could strike about be the there could piration date. We have followed steel common cause have our contracts all a few pretty right, had. back to cede. thinking? down. consider them. We have the Machinists and Boilermakers and working pire difference. expires (sic).” According “A. “Farr: “Yates: Yes and “Nolan: “Farr: Unless “Nolan: Mr. “Nolan: That “Farr: “Nolan: “Farr: We realize that “Nolan: July 1961. Sometimes ^[*****] made a statement you too much attention to other on they 31st in I 1st and strike they he said it, Well, well Burlington was not —days May have no November November 31st date still a June 30th. We would like to expiration November .on that signed. are concerned about I have who was had with no contracts you to the Let’s If I date. The union has asked Yes. All of do effect have no throughout. I Steel you. not be but two months and we same 1st I his desires would plant was disputed: employer, proposed Farr, autliortiy understood Mr. Lawson just testimony way. you — 1st. The signed We do not want to expires occasion, proposed plants. any date. present 1, 1962, major hoping in the summer time expire right. I could shut the your date. you say you make all of them any August don’t. is a common ex- to the authority change expire other union than our your group As we said be- date would 'be with and whose tes- willing welfare. issue? on the same at that meet- January we could Is that strange thing November on which would We have to too Mr. negotiate Mr. date. .effect Horn, in the ex- any November them, 20th three un- the same we have of great to bar- be to con- unions, T.W. plant them craft don’t 26th your who who that get ex- be- go a wages, pay, hours of' em- restate to rates of repetition, we risk At the ployment, practically em- other conditions of presented question ** by pre ployment facts, undisputed whether viz.: arrangement among themselves, 159(b): 29 U.S.C.A. § representatives unions, certified three “The shall decide in each units, bargaining separate three simultaneously whether, case employees assure to order to negotiating separate con the fullest freedom employer, tracts rights guaranteed by exercising the all to its a condition subchapter, appropriate unit negotiation shall contracts under purposes collective bar- date. on some gaining employer unit, shall be the mandatory plant unit, unit, craft or subdivision scope bar of “wages, * * hours, and thereof gaining is limited employ and conditions terms circumstances, varying Under facts scope, the em ment.” Within proposal to has been often held that a representative of the em ployer expand scope of the guilty of an or be ployees must mandatory the area of itself not within *5 8(b) (3) practice. Section unfair labor bargaining.7 the limitation of A further the Act. of of Under the facts ease view this bargaining mandatory im is scope of realistically, a common ed authority Board to of the plicit in the vitally all had a of three contracts im bargaining upon appropriate the decide “wages, portant connection the position the unit, union’s and in each hours, and other terms and of conditions employees representative all of exclusive employees' employment” of the unit: in such plant. a Without 159(a): 29 § U.S.C.A. striking any date, union for a new con “ Representatives 159. § might on have to tract a different (a) representa- Exclusive elections — employer with a sieve” while the “bail adjustment tives; employees’ of production activities to the shifted its directly employer grievances plant plants. or With a common designated date, obvious that each “Representatives might negotiate purposes of a more the collec- be able to selected advantageous by majority bargaining new of contract for em tive by appropriate ployees represented unit union. employees in purposes, shall be ex- such applying provi cases None of representatives of all the em- clusive ployees Act, which limit a union’s of the sions purposes unit for the such in particular unit,8 representation bargaining respect in collective of repre- situation where with the deal provided satisfactory 243; Brother International F.2d 273 Burlington contracts were and Bessemer (Chicago Longshoremen of Steve hood date.” same dated that part doring), 61, 125 N.L.R.B. enf’d in Act, Labor Relations Board v. Local 8(d) National 29 § U.S.C.A. 158 of 6. See Long 19, Brotherhood of International (d); Labor Relations Board v. National (C.A.7), Borg-Warner shoremen, Corp., Com 286 F.2d 661 Division Wooster 1958, Lodge 348, 349, pare, 342, 1424 Machinists v. 78 S.Ct. U.S. 356 (Bryan Relations Board Labor 718, 2 823. L.Ed.2d 1960, 411, 414, Mfg. Co.), 362 U.S. n. Brotherhood Electrical International 822, 832, 3, L.Ed.2d and In 80 S.Ct. 1792, (Texlite), 119 N.L.R.B. Workers Workers’ Ladies’ Garment ternational per National Labor Rela curiam enf’d Board, Labor Relations v. National Union Brotherhood v. International tions 731, 1603, S.Ct. 6 L. U.S. Workers, 266 F.2d 349 of Electrical Ed.2d 762. (Cheatham ; (C.A.5) Union Painters quoted (b), 159(a) 997; Company) Painting U.S.C.A. 8. 29 N.L.R.B. supra, part, Electrical, pertinent and cases cited Union etc. International Cir., 7, supra. n. L. R. v. N. B. Workers employees in several as a condition sentatives tracts of contract between employer. on unit units of the and this making concurrently demand and are This, basically, position petition- negotia- same demand in their several er-employer throughout has maintained any of deal tions. Nor do those cases hearing negotiation, Board, before the proposal with the situation where appeal. quest and on this Its for answer seriously ability each union affects the again has been once without avail. bargain. agree with the Court the Board against petitioner-em- based decision by situation, presented In such a ployer on assumption the erroneous case, of this and circumstances facts the issue simply befox*eit could be met importance us it seems to reaffirming unquestioned but irrele- bargaining questions affect- collective proposition vant that contract duration ing “wages, hours, and other terms and bargainable Indeed, issue. as the employment” conditions of overrides legal Court says, there can be no serious apparent expansion scope of debate that upon each unit bargaining expansion is more unit. That specific expiration date for its own con- very real, real, apparent for the than tract, whether or not it be the same date problem faced each of the three hard upon by insisted another unit. But the acting repre- unions, as the exclusive emphasis supplied to this statement unit, employees sentative of points up disagreement. our basic This that a common all does mean to me that a distinct en- ability vitally affects the tity, deriving here a bargain. separately each union legal being from the enactment of the *6 Concededly, legal there nois obstacle to Taft-Hartley having Act and in 29 U.S. right petitioner-employer of the the to 159(a) plain C.A. scope, § limitation of adamantly inject the three may insist contracts precedent a condition as in the expire on process continue to different negotiation dates. of matters with ref- think, Correspondingly, we there is no involving erence to other units and other why legal reason valid with contracts. unions, of consent the cannot the by Supreme As stated the Court in Na- adamantly just as all insist tional Labor Relations Board v. Wooster on some date. Borg-Warner of Corp., Division 356 U.S. order, opinion, our Board’s In dis- as 342, 78 S.Ct. 2 L.Ed.2d 823: tinguished reasoning, from its is cor- company’s good “The faith, has petition rect. for review there- requirements met of the statute fore subjects mandatory to the as of bar- Denied. gaining. good But that faith does employer not license the to refuse to agreements CARSWELL, Judge (dissent- ground enter into District ing). not pro- do include some posal mandatoxy which not a sub- agree I cannot Because that the action bargaining. ject of We only apparently the Union here was of is, the Board that such conduct scope bargaining beyond of as units substance, a refusal to about 159(a), set forth in U.S.C.A. re- § subjects are within the spectfully I dissent. must mandatory scope bargaining. of negotiations of The course does bargaining between the This not mean that concisely parties, forth in statutory set be confined Court’s is to to the subjects. opinion, unequivocal mean to me at- Each of the two contro- bargaining by tempt compel unit to clauses versial is lawful in itself. agreed date for other would be contract and Each if enforceable bargaining by units distinct on other the unions. But con- to it does not that, company- 159(a). it, As I see this so extends § because the follow causes, separability may law- propose it can of unit these and confuses responsibilities and fully upon a condition duties as to enshroud as them process any agreement.” problems, with additional to might problems which new themselves sought Among salutary purposes just logically justification made Taft-Hartley by of the the enactment expansion. for even more Does not of stated refinement amendments was a mean, example, for that like demand can employee-employer rules delineate to wages industry-wide be made for and was relationships of least by units hours scope of heretofore limited negotiation proc- compulsory make the or that as con- demand subject of some standard ess itself wages dition paid relevancy issues between the vital to other units? by the Su- In the decision ferees. first Wag- progenitor preme under Court Industry-wide bargain- plant-wide or stated: Act it was ner ing may well be desirable for one or the theory party, is that both, of the act or for “The but this deter- negotiation by upon mination opportunity for can be made free application representatives of 159(b) under 29 accredited U.S.C.A. expansion likely promote in- bargaining employees the certified bring unit, peace about and reference to which made dustrial agreements opinion. nego- adjustments problems Court’s and not at- does tiation asserted the act itself which tempt unit compel.” justifica- Labor here are made Court Laughlin expansion authority. tion Jones & for an Board v. Relations Corp., 45, 57 properly U.S. S.Ct. These contentions are more Steel 615, consideration L.Ed. 893. Board under Section plant-wide 159(b), supra, certifica- hours, other forms “Wages, unit, tion to them, remove the all employment” made conditions mandatory subjects inequitable situation, if, indeed, from an negotiation. developedrequire the facts there this re- permis- 158(d). The area U.S.C.A. § *7 holding Court, sult. Under the here the negotiation broad and is much more sive by effect, approving joint negotiation in is expand- parties of the consent parties without consent and with- many things including com- include ed to plenary proceedings out before the Board on other dates mon for determination of the need or de- sought by Union units as with other sirability joint negotiation. of such case. such not this But here. such, date, Moreover, specific which as not Union’s claim It its controversy here, subject but for demand common date was bargaining units, by separate precipitated necessary by and made demand having authority shifting company for each no in op action of the agree- precedent (its to an other, three) plants condition erations between properly finds that The Court here could for all. should and ment more have been “vitally subject complaint af- of a for unfair ability separately practice of each labor under 29 U.S.C.A. fects the stating separate bargain,” (3). (b) See also National Labor Rela problem” “very real, Hopwood Retinning hard face Board v. Co., tions unions regard. preoccupation al., (2nd Its et 1938); this F.2d 97 Inc. Cir. respective (AFL- difficulties of United Steelworkers America concern fashioned, CIO), have Union No. 4264 v. New Park Mining miscroscope legal me, Company, (10th a new 273 F.2d it seems 1959); see that is and which that Cir. Labor detection Relations apparently visible Board v. Alamo White Service, Truck 1959). Congressional language (5th Inc., of 29 F.2d 238 U.S.C.A. Cir. not without clear Thus the Union was directly appropriate to seek recourse bargaining by certifica- joint broadened bringing petitioner-em-

tion a full hear-

ployer before the Board ing complaint that of its on the merits shifting and desist must cease work practice Section under

as 8(b) unfair labor Instead, (3). the .motivation made case has been Union denying opinion

the petitioner-employer basis the Court’s hearing either

proposition despite fact and this petitioner-employer’s query to wheth- bargain er or must not each unit directly itself answered has not been examiner, or the

the trial

Court. great views for foregoing

With deference majority, rea- petitioner-employer sons I would answer by holding bar-

here action good gaining bargain in refusal to respectfully must, therefore, faith.

dissent. America,

UNITED STATES of Appellee,

v. LAWRENSON,

Charles Edward Appellant. 8144, 8354,

Nos. 8465. Appeals

United States Court of

Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov.

Decided Jan.